Decision details

To approve application P/FUL/2021/03944 subject to conditions.

The application relates to Thorners Church of England Primary School, School House Lane, Litton Cheney, DT2 9AU. The application is for installation of roof mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and associated infrastructure.

This decision was taken by myself, in my role as nominated officer, during the Western and Southern Area Planning Committee meeting on 6 January 2022. The decision was taken under arrangements which were put in place following the full Council meeting held on 4 May 2021. At this full Council meeting, it was agreed that all Council meetings that are not executive in nature would continue to be held virtually, with committee members expressing a ‘minded to’ decision, and with specific officers (including service managers) being authorised to exercise delegated powers to make decisions in light of the ‘minded to’ decisions expressed by members. These arrangements were subsequently extended by decision notices issued by the Chief Executive on 22 July 2021 and 4 October 2021.

This application was considered by the Western and Southern Area Planning Committee on 6 January 2022. Following an officer presentation, questions and debate, the committee resolved that is was ‘minded to’ approve the application, subject to conditions. I concur with the committee’s ‘minded to’ resolution, and in my view the application should be approved, for the reasons set out in the officer’s report for the application.

The reasons for this decision can be summarised as follows:

Following receipt of amended plans, the consequent harm to the character and appearance of the Litton Cheney Conservation Area would be so slight as to result in no harm to heritage significance, and such harm is clearly justified and significantly outweighed by the public benefits associated with the proposed development.

The proposed development would be in general accordance with the development plan. With no material considerations warranting or necessitating the determination of the application other than in accordance with the development plan, planning permission can and should be granted.

The alternative option would be to refuse the planning application, contrary to the ‘minded to’ resolution of the Western and Southern Area Planning Committee. The report to full Council on 4 May 2021, which introduced the ‘minded to’ arrangements, sets out that “an officer should only make a decision contrary to the ‘minded to’ view of members for clear and compelling reasons and if the decision cannot reasonably be deferred until a time when it can be made by Councillors”. In this case, I consider that planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and I am not aware of any clear and compelling reasons to differ from the committee’s ‘minded to’ resolution. The alternative option of refusing the application contrary to the committee’s ‘minded-to’ resolution would not be appropriate in this case.

No declarations of interest were made by any of the committee members who took part in the debate.