Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 20/01564/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional condition:

“Prior to first  occupation of the development hereby permitted, a feasibility study shall be undertaken to fully ascertain the installation of solar panels on the approved dwellings. The study shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the development.  If the feasibility study determines that solar panels are appropriate in certain locations, such panels shall be fitted onto the dwellings prior to their occupation and thereafter retained and maintained for their intended purpose.

Reason: In the interests of reducing potential carbon emissions and mitigating climate change.”

Audio Recording – 1 hour 53 minutes and 8 seconds.

Erection of one detached 4-bed and two detached 5-bed dwellings including garages and creation of vehicular access off Back Lane (as amended by plan received 19.11.2020).

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 20/01564/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

The Chair invited Margaret Trinder to address the Committee.

Margaret Trinder thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation including:

·                Ms Trinder was Chair of Preston Parish Council and was speaking in objection to this application;

·                The Preston Neighbourhood Plan (PNP) was formally made on 3 April 2020 and forms part of the statutory development plan for North Herts; this was the first application assessed against the PNP;

·                The report concerning this item did not appear to consider the policies of the PNP and in this applications previous appearance before the Committee it failed to meet policies HD3 and HD4 but was nevertheless recommended for approval;

·                The policies of the PNP were described at that meeting as ‘aims,’ or ‘objectives,’ where they should have been regarded as policies as required by law;

·                The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was clear that every development site should be utilised to maximise the number of dwellings to meet local needs while confirming with the local character of a site;

·                This application should be refused because it fails to do this; Paragraphs 77, 117, 123, 127 are particularly relevant; P117 emphasises the need for decision makers to make the best maximum use of development sites;

·                Paragraph 77 advises that in rural areas planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support developments that support local needs;

·                The revised site plan was welcome but did not clearly demonstrate how landscaping and biodiversity needs were addressed;

·                The Parish Council was of the view that the landscape and ecological management plan should have been part of the planning application to allow for scrutiny of the plans;

·                The changes to the energy statement were welcome but it was disappointing to discover that the report included a public transport plan which appeared to have been cut and pasted from another application.

·                The application should be refused because it is contrary to policies HD3 and HD4, the NPPF paragraphs mentioned, the energy statement was unreliable, and because there had been no pre-decision ecological survey, and it did not meet the needs of residents of Preston.

The Chair thanked Margaret Trinder for her presentation.

In response to the issues raised the Senior Planning Officer advised:

·                The focus of the decision tonight should be on whether the revised application conforms with the requirements of policy HD5 as this was the reason for deferral given by the previous Committee;

·                The landscape and ecological management plan was a recommendation of Hertfordshire Ecology and it was typical for that information to be required by planning condition rather than form part of an application;

·                The report documents did relate to the application site and while there were small errors in a previous draft those had been corrected and the energy strategy statement was sufficient.

The following Members asked questions and took part in the debate:

·                Cllr Daniel Allen

·                Cllr Mike Rice

·                Cllr Tom Tyson

·                Cllr David Levett

·                Cllr Val Bryant

In response to questions the Senior Planning Officer advised that in his view the energy saving measures included in the application were sufficient and would have resulted in a reduction of expected carbon emissions by over 50% and that solar panels were not necessary.

In response to the issues raised the Development and Conservation Manager advised that a condition requiring a feasibility study on solar panels could be included.

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed, Councillor Mike Rice seconded and it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/01564/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the following additional condition:

“Prior to first  occupation of the development hereby permitted, a feasibility study shall be undertaken to fully ascertain the installation of solar panels on the approved dwellings. The study shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the development.  If the feasibility study determines that solar panels are appropriate in certain locations, such panels shall be fitted onto the dwellings prior to their occupation and thereafter retained and maintained for their intended purpose.

Reason: In the interests of reducing potential carbon emissions and mitigating climate change.”