Agenda item

This item and Listed Building Consent application for the same property (item 12 on the agenda) were discussed at the same time however the decisions were taken separately.

The Planning Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report. 

There was an update and the Planning Officer explained that it has been established that the installation of the solar panels on the garage roof does not require Listed Building Consent.  Listed Building Consent is only required for the air source heat pumps and the secondary double glazing to the cottage.  These two elements are not considered to be harmful and provide public benefits by enhancing the sustainability of Churchdale Cottage. The recommendation for the application for Listed Building Consent was therefore amended to approval subject to conditions.

All Members had received a letter from the applicants. The secondary glazing only relates to the Cottage and not the garage as stated in the planning report. Officers do not accept that policy CC2 should be removed from the recommended refusal reason as it is the case that the scheme does partly comply with CC2 in that the use of the solar panels will represent a form of local carbon and energy renewal however this must be achieved without harming cultural heritage assets.

The following spoke under the public participation in meetings scheme:

·         John Mordue – Supporter

·         Simon Daniell – Applicant

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The following points were discussed:

·         The reflectivity of the roof mounted solar panels on the garage roof

·         Whether there would be over-shadowing of the solar panels from Churchdale Cottage and the impact on the electricity which could be generated

·         The impact of the solar panels and whether it enhances or harms the character of the area and the public benefit.

·         How to minimise the carbon footprint and minimize the impact of the array of solar panels.

·         The public benefits of the proposal for the solar panels on the garage roof are not considered to outweigh the significant harm to the setting and significance of the building.

·         Members were sympathetic with the concept of solar generation but were not comfortable with the current garage solar panel proposal.

A motion to DEFER the planning application to allow for further negotiations to take place between the officers and applicant, in order to negotiate a solution which will minimise the visual impact of the solar panels, was proposed and seconded, put to the vote and carried. 

RESOLVED:

To DEFER the application to allow for further negotiations regarding the placement of solar panels.