Fwd: Planning application 22/04026/FUL

——– Forwarded Message ——–

Subject:	Planning application 22/04026/FUL
Date:	Fri, 18 Nov 2022 14:32:10 +0000
From:	Philip Edwards <clerk@westharptreeparishcouncil.co.uk&gt;
To:	development_management@bathnes.gov.uk

Dear Angus,

Re: Planning Application Reference: 22/04026/FUL

 

West Harptree Parish Council was formally consulted and commented on the previous planning application 18/00505/FUL and continues to take a great interest in this site because of its close proximity to the Parish and importance in relation to the Mendip Hills AONB. 

 

The Parish Council  objected to planning applications 18/00505/FUL and 20/04585/FUL and is grateful to the planning team for refusing consent. The council also strongly objects to the current application 22/04026/FUL for the following reasons:

 

The applicant has attempted to miss-apply local policy, suggesting that policy RE4  applies only to developments in “open countryside”. In fact, policy RE4 applies to all residential development outside the housing boundary, stating a presumption against any dwellings in open countryside and in those areas that are not open countryside, limiting development to modest accommodation essential for local agricultural workers. 

 

The applicant has suggested that the proposed development is innovative and that the innovation is, of itself, sufficient to override local and national planning policy. Here the applicant is attempting to miss-apply NPPF para 134. This argument does not stand scrutiny for several reasons:

 

1. The applicant cites only a small part of NPPF para 134(b) and ignores the opening sentence of  the paragraph, which states; “ Development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents such as design guides and codes.” Since the proposed development fails to reflect policy RE4 and others (see below), para 134 of NPPF requires that it must be refused.
2. NPPF Para 134 continues: “Conversely, significant weight should be given to:

a) development which reflects local design policies and government guidance on design, taking into account any local design guidance and supplementary planning documents such as design guides and codes; and/or

b) outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.”  

Pursuant to limb a) the proposed development does not reflect local  policies and guidance and pursuant to limb b), the proposed development quite evidently does not “fit in with the overall form and layout of (its) surroundings”. As such, the applicant’s argument for the development fails.

3. The design of the building may well be modern but it is very far from innovative and indeed is inherently inefficient  (For example: Extensive glazing to South will lead to excessive solar gain and the need for cooling. Extensive glazing together with deep overhangs at first floor result in avoidable thermal losses.) In further evidence it is noted that applicant’s statements on energy efficiency make it clear that the building is designed only to meet (NB not to exceed) current Building Regulations. 
4. The claim of innovation is not inherent in the architectural design of the proposed development but instead relates solely to the equipment the applicant proposes for electricity generation, storage and re-use. However:
1. Neither solar PV nor solar thermal are innovative technologies.
2. No manufacturers are currently offering “hydrogen only” boilers on the market, although some have early prototypes. The applicant is not in a position to offer this technology.
3. No manufacturers are developing (let alone offering) “battolysers” on the market. This technology has at best reached the stage of very small scale laboratory experimental rigs, leaving significant uncertainties about whether the concepts even work, let alone are commercially viable. Again, the applicant is not in a position to offer the technology.
5. No calculations have been submitted and no HVAC engineer appears to have been appointed. This creates significant doubts as to the reality of the various claims being made by the applicant and in particular the claim that the development will be a net generator (i.e. not using power from the grid but instead feeding power to the grid).
6. The applicant has stated that a wood pellet boiler will be installed, because the proposed “battolyser” and hydrogen boiler technologies may not be deliverable and / or are likely to fail to achieve the claimed outcomes. 
7. Clearly, no structural or HVAC design has yet been undertaken, creating doubts as to many other aspects of deliverability.  For example, on first inspection it appears there is inadequate roof space for the stated 12kWp of solar PV (approx 80m2) and the solar thermal arrays (perhaps a further 20 to 30m2. Similarly, the suggested wall construction looks to be inappropriate.

 

In addition to failure to meet the requirements of policy RE4 and, as was noted in WHPC’s comments on application 20/04595/FUL, the proposed development; 

1. Adversely affects the integrity and value of strategic GI corridor and fails to makes a positive contribution to the GI network, so fails to meet the requirements of CS&PP Policy NE1.
2. Fails to conserve or enhances local landscape character, landscape features and local distinctiveness, will not contribute positively to the local area and does not conserve or enhances important views, so fails to meet the requirements of CS&PP Policy NE2.
3. Makes no contribution to the ecological networks, so fails to meet the requirements of CS&PP Policy NE5.
4. Fails to meet the requirements of the NPPF in that it;

a. Does not add to the overall quality of the area;

b. Is not visually attractive and appropriate;

c. Is not sympathetic to the local character and history;

d. Does not fit with the form and layout of the surroundings; and

e. Fails to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the Mendip Hills AONB.

Fails to meet any of the requirements of CVNP Policies HDE1 & HDE2.

Yours sincerely,

West Harptree Parish Council