Decision details

To approve planning application P/FUL/2021/03942, and the associated listed building consent application P/LBC/2021/03943, subject to conditions.

The applications relate to Symondsbury Primary School, Mill Lane, Symondsbury, DT6 6HD. The applications are 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.

These applications were considered by the Western and Southern Area Planning Committee on 6 January 2022. Following an officer presentation, questions and debate, the committee resolved that it was ‘minded to’ approve both applications, subject to conditions.

The committee’s ‘minded to’ resolution to approve the applications was contrary to the officer recommendation of refusal in both cases. The officer’s report identifies a minor-moderate level of less than substantial harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade II listed school building, less than substantial harm to the heritage significance of other nearby listed buildngs, and less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Symondsbury Conservation Area and the Dorset AONB. In the case officer’s opinion, this harm was not clearly and convincingly outweighed by the associated public benefits of the proposal.

In arriving at its ‘minded to’ resolution to approve the applications, the committee took account of the identified harm to the heritage assets. Cllr Clayton set out the proposed reasons for approving the application on the basis of paragraph 152 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) “the planning system should support a transition to a low carbon future” and paragraph 202 of the NPPF which indicates that less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, with in this case, the public benefits being renewable energy generation.

In reaching my decision, I considered the officer’s report, the officer’s presentation to the Committee, the Committee’s debate and the reasons for the Committee’s ‘minded to’ resolution. I considered the harm to the heritage assets, and I gave this harm great weight. I also acknowledged that the NPPF sets out that, where less than substantial harm is identified to heritage assets, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits.

Having taken all the above into consideration, I confirmed at the meeting on 22 November 2021 that the application would be approved in line with the committee’s ‘minded to’ resolution, subject to agreement of the detailed wording of the conditions.

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, bearing in mind the relatively modest scale of the proposals, I do not consider that there are clear and compelling reasons to differ from the committee’s ‘minded to’ resolution. In my view, 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.