Appeal 3340727

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has granted planning permission for conversion of the guest house to provide a self-contained dwelling with associated annexe including changing the rear ground floor window to French doors. The planning permission was granted subject to condition number 10 requiring the provision of measures to generate 10% (or less if agreed with the local https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/D0121/W/24/3340727 planning authority) of the energy required by the use of the development through the use of micro renewable or low carbon technologies.

The appellant has confirmed that they dispute the imposition of condition 10 due to limited south facing roof slope for photovoltaics, the roof slope being dominated by the bulk of properties to the rear, lack of external space for provision of an air source heat pump, cost of the work required being too high in relation to the proposal, and a similar scheme at [address] being approved without a similar requirement.

On the basis of the above, the main issue is whether or not the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary in the interests of energy efficiency.

Paragraph 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and that renewable and low carbon energy should be supported. This is supported by paragraph 164 that states that ‘In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should give significant weight to the need to support energy efficiency and low carbon heating improvements to existing buildings, both domestic and non-domestic (including through installation of heat pumps and solar panels where these do not already benefit from permitted development rights)’.

Policy CS1 of the [site address] Council Core Strategy (January 2017) (CS) states that the Council is committed to reducing carbon emissions and tackling climate change with a number of principles outlined to achieve this. These principles include that ‘development should demonstrate a commitment to reducing carbon emissions, including reducing energy demand through good design, and utilising renewable energy where feasible and viable in line with standards set out in Policy CS2’.

Policy CS2 of the CS states that when considering proposals for development the council will, amongst other things, ‘require designs that are energy efficient and designed to reduce their energy demands’, and ‘require the use of on-site renewable energy sources or by linking with/contributing to available local off-site renewable energy sources to meet a minimum of 10% of predicted energy use for residential development proposals involving one to nine dwellings’.

There is therefore clear support set out in the Framework and [name] CS1 and CS2 for the use of renewable and low carbon energy.

I have had regard to the [name] within the appellant’s Design and [name] concerning the south facing roof slope being limited in area, dominated by the dormer window and relationship to the properties to the south. Nonetheless, there are other roof slopes available to buildings within the site along with the flat roof above the dormer window. While these may not all face south, I observed at my site visit the presence of some of the solar panels to the east and west facing roof slopes to nearby properties as detailed in Appendix 1 of the Council’s Appeal Statement.

I note that the appellant states that external space within the site is limited by reason of the provision of parking spaces and external bin areas and as https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/D0121/W/24/3340727 such there is a lack of space to provide an air source heat pump (ASHP) without impeding the bin and parking areas. However, given the relatively small size of an ASHP, and lack of details to support the claim that provision would impede the external bin areas and parking spaces that do not take up all of the external space, I am not convinced that all options for provision have been adequately considered and that provision is not possible.

With regard to viability, [name] CS1 and CS2 are supported by the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Revised Version 2021 [name] and Places in [site address] : Guidance for energy efficiency, renewable energy use and the transition towards zero carbon development. Paragraph 10.2 says that ‘where an applicant states that a policy requirement has an impact on viability, the applicant is required to provide a quantified justification to demonstrate this. It is not enough to just assert that the scheme is unviable without evidence’. Paragraph 10.3 states that ‘Assessing viability requires judgements which are informed by the relevant available facts.’

Substantive viability evidence in the form of a quantified justification informed by facts has not been provided to demonstrate that it is not possible to achieve the provision of renewable energy generation. Furthermore, condition 10 allows for the provision of less than 10% of the energy required where agreed with the local planning authority should the appellant be able to demonstrate that 10% is not achievable.

My attention has been drawn to a [name] titled ‘Planning – Local Energy Efficiency Standards Update’. However, as it mainly relates to setting local energy efficient standards for new homes in relation to plan making, it carries limited weight in relation to the consideration of this appeal. Furthermore, it states that policies should be applied flexibly where the applicant can demonstrate that meeting the standards is not technically feasible. [name] have found above, this has not been adequately demonstrated in relation to this appeal.

My attention has also been drawn to the absence of conditions requiring the provision of renewable or low carbon energy sources in another development at [address] in the local authority area1. [name] do not have all of the specific details of the case, I cannot be sure that the proposal is directly comparable to the current appeal. Furthermore, I am required to determine the appeal on its own merits.

The planning policy context is clear that there is an expectation to include low-carbon or renewable energy sources in proposals, which condition 10 achieves. The condition is necessary and reasonable in the context of the support for energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy set out in the Framework and [name] CS1 and CS2. The condition as attached is therefore reasonable and necessary in the interests of energy efficiency.

I have had regard to the notes of the pre-application advice meeting and to the previous refusal of planning permission and associated [name] 1 22/P/2203/FUL https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - Appeal Decision APP/D0121/W/24/3340727 on the site2 being silent in relation to the need for renewable or low carbon technologies. I also note the lack of statement on the Notice of Decision regarding working in a positive and proactive manner.

However, the pre-application advice is non-binding, and these are not matters that go to the heart of the planning issues in the consideration of the necessity of the conditions on the planning permission. As such, they do not alter my findings above.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.