Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Senior Planning Officer and the Principal Planner (Implementation) introduced this item and took the Panel through a presentation which set out the Draft Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the Panel’s consideration and onward recommendation for approval to consult by Cabinet.

Members commented as follows:

• A member noted that climate change caused excess rain which could result in flooding given existing infrastructure issues, and building more developments was likely to make flooding worse. Officers responded that the role of the SPD was to try and provide tools to address such issues; the section in the report on flood and drainage had been contributed to by Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) as the local flood authority which would have the final say on drainage matters in planning applications. The SPD sought to direct developers to look towards best practice. The member asked when a Welwyn Hatfield planning application had been refused due to HCC saying it was a flood risk or due to infrastructure issues. Officers said they negotiated on applications and if a proposed scheme was unacceptable in terms of flood risk, then the role of the planning officer was to negotiate in conjunction with specialists to the point that the scheme could be supported. The SPD was not a panacea but sought to engender change in the quality of applications that came forward.
• A member felt it would be helpful to reference onsite electricity storage at 3.4 of the SPD and that the ‘Energy Efficiency and Carbon’ section should reference post-occupancy evaluations on buildings to evaluate predicted energy consumption as a ‘could.’ She also proposed moving some of the ‘could’ items such as onsite renewables requiring solar panels and low carbon heat generation to ‘should.’ Additionally with respect to EV charging, it was proposed that the charge rate be matched to the dwell time so that charges in shopping centres would have a higher charge rate than overnight charges. Officers confirmed they would consider this as part of the consultation process.  
• The Chair asked whether the SPD was likely to be superseded by forthcoming legislation given there was a new government and a potential new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Officers advised the document was a consultation draft which would come back to the Panel for adoption in the new year and which would be amended if the situation changed in the interim. When it was being considered for adoption, officers would seek delegated authority for minor updates should legislation change. 
• Referencing whether proposals ‘must, could or should,’ the Chair asked how much material weight a ‘should’ would have in determining an application. Officers advised this depended on the application and would be considered on a case by case basis although generally more ambitious proposals would be looked on more positively.
• The Chair asked whether there could be a summary document when the SPD went out to consultation and officers agreed that each chapter would be summarised on the website. Consultation responses would be summarised in the SPD that came to the Panel for adoption.

RESOLVED:

The Panel recommended to Cabinet that:

(A)  The Draft Sustainability SPD (Appendix A) be subject to public consultation for a period of six weeks;

(B)  The associated SEA/HRA Screening Report is consulted upon with the consultation bodies/nature conservation body for a period of six weeks; and

(C)  That any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes, arising from this meeting or engagement with Climate Change Panel, that do not materially affect the content prior to consultation be delegated to Assistant Director (Planning) in consultation with the Executive Member for Planning.