Climate Change Mitigation

I am writing to provide my comments on the draft Sustainability SPD, as requested through the public consultation exercise which opened on 4 January 2024 and closes on 16 February 2024.

I am a qualified actuary (with significant experience of scenario modelling), supportive of sustainable development and pleased to see that NHC has drafted an SPD covering this. I have a particular interest in planning for solar plants, so I have reviewed the draft Sustainability SPD with these developments in mind. Hence my comments are largely, but not exclusively, related to solar plant developments.

Page 5
This slide summarises and paraphrases the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
paragraphs 7 and 8; the source should be referenced.

The definition of the environment pillar should include the requirement of NPPF to make effective use of land. A
summary of the following requirements of NPPF paragraph 9 should be included (I have highlighted the key
requirements in bold): “These objectives should be delivered through the preparation and implementation of plans and the application of the policies in this Framework; they are not criteria against which every decision can or should be judged. Planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area.”

Page 8
The penultimate paragraph refers to the “evidence” needed to comply with Local Plan policies. This is an area which I believe needs far more scrutiny by NHC and requirements need tightening up including:
• all claims made by applicants and their advisers need to be substantiated ie proven; it is simply not adequate
for claims to be taken at face value, especially not if those claims are to be taken into account by Planning
Officers in deciding whether or not to grant approval (through a delegated power) to an application or
recommend its approval to the Planning Control Committee. An example of this is the claims made by
developers with regard to the number of houses that a proposed solar plant would provide electricity for.
These have varied widely (after adjusting for the differing capacities of the developments) for different developments. Another example is the claim that a development will provide local employment. This should
be clearly specified, ie how many people and for how long, and adjusted to reflect any loss of employment.
For example, in the case of a solar plant, it is highly likely that construction work will be undertaken by experienced, established teams who operate nationally and monitoring carried out remotely (sometimes
overseas).
• where there is a conflict of interest and/or subjective views and assumptions are required, it is not appropriate
for NHC to rely on reports prepared by the applicant or parties appointed by them. In such cases, NHC
should take advice from parties appointed by them working to NHC’s (not the applicant’s) brief

Page 15
The first paragraph should be deleted. It doesn’t add anything to the SPD, it is not helpful, and it is potentially
misleading to quote a few modelling results without providing context. For example, what is the reader expected to read into the word “could” with regard to the various projected results? Presumably, the modelling work produced other results which do not show such extreme changes which “could” also be delivered.

Page 16
The information on the modelling work and recommendations of the Tyndall Centre are interesting but further information is required to give any meaning to these. For example:
 What are the current carbon dioxide emissions for North Hertfordshire?
 What are the projected emissions for North Hertfordshire?
 What actions has NHC agreed to take to reduce projected emissions for North Hertfordshire, what will be the impact of these and how much will they cost?
 Has NHC agreed to follow the recommendations of the Tyndall Centre? If so, what actions are to be taken
and what will be the cost of these actions?

I have been unable to find any information on the first three bullet points above either for North Hertfordshire or for NHC.

The words “Zero Waste” at the end of the second bullet point should be deleted.

Page 20
I support the requirement for a WLC emissions assessment to be undertaken. This would encourage developers to use more sustainable building materials and building methods and choose efficient sites for their developments. It would also have the advantage of addressing the issue of applications being made without full details of the build (including materials to be used and where they will be manufactured) being made available. The embodied carbon of a solar plant is highly dependent on the materials used for the solar plant. For example, in the UK, solar panels are usually made from crystalline PV but this has a much higher level of embodied carbon than CdTe which could be used instead. Looking at the whole life of the solar plant would require projections to be made of the carbon savings for each year that the solar plant is in operation. This would mean that account would be taken of the reduced efficiency, year on year, of PV panels, as well as the decarbonisation over time of the National Grid. Both these factors would result in reduced carbon savings year on year. Currently, developers typically quote (unsubstantiated) first year operational carbon savings which give a misleading picture of the savings over the lifetime of the development and provide no information on embodied carbon.

Page 24

I can see the attraction of setting a minimum required level of biodiversity net gain (BNG), as this is easy to apply.
However, there are two key drawbacks to this approach. Firstly, it is easy for developers and their advisers to
manipulate/overstate the results, simply by understating the current biodiversity levels for the proposed site. So even if the projected levels for future biodiversity are reasonable, the BNG will be overstated. To help to guard against this, it is essential that NHC appoints its own adviser to assess the BNG and does not rely on the work undertaken by advisers appointed by and paid by the developer. Secondly, using it in isolation is too simplistic. Looking solely at one metric, the BNG score, ignores entirely the impact on existing wildlife on the site. This could result in a tacit agreement to significant numbers of existing animals, birds and insects being killed or displaced, as long as biodiversity is “predicted” to increase overall. Surely this cannot be right? Surely, the first priority must, wherever possible, be to protect what is already there and look to enhance it through the introduction of other fauna and flora?
If this is not possible, the expected impact on existing wildlife should be spelt out.

Page 67
This slide provides very helpful clarification of NHC policy.

I would be interested to know whether NHC would be prepared to consider a policy of non-usage of Grade 1 and
Grade 2 (and possibly Grade 3a) BMV land for these purposes. I understand that some other UK Councils have
adopted such policies. We do need to move to renewable and low carbon energy production but we also need food.
Reducing food production will increase imports. By way of illustration, the UK is already a net importer of milling
grade wheat, so reducing production by taking fields out of agricultural use will increase imports, with the associated
carbon emissions. As an aside, research has shown that the modern cultivation of wheat absorbs more carbon dioxide than it releases.

Page 68
In terms of potential for large scale energy production within Hertfordshire, the Hertfordshire Renewable and Low
Carbon Energy Technical Study referred to on this page of the SPD looked at wind turbines and biomass; it did not
consider solar PV. (Solar PV was only considered at a micro-generational level in the Study.) Page 68 should be
amended to make this clear.

Section 160 (b) of the NPPF states that local authorities should consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure their development. Is the Council intending to do this, perhaps building on and updating the Hertfordshire Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Technical Study (which was produced in 2010)?
As regards Community Consultation (or Engagement), I believe that far greater scrutiny is required here. Some
developers will, undoubtedly, engage with the community in a meaningful and constructive way. Unfortunately,
others do not and regard it as a box-ticking exercise to satisfy the Planning Officers. A developer of a solar plant will become a neighbour of the local communities for c 40 years; they should be required to be a good neighbour.

A Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment should be required rather than simply a Noise Impact Assessment. This would be used by the developer in establishing whether a site is appropriate, designing the construction and finalising proposals but it should not be relied upon by NHC which should take its own, independent advice.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to comment on the draft SPD. I hope my comments will be helpful and I would be pleased to provide more detail or answer any questions. I would be grateful if you could let me know the outcome of the consultation including when the Sustainability SPD is adopted.

Attachment

HCC comments on the North Herts Sustainability SPD consultation February 2024

General comment regarding the HGB missions: The Hertfordshire Growth Board have prepared a series of mission statements covering; World Class Economy,
Digital Access for All, Transport for Hertfordshire, Right Homes, Right Places, Healthy Places for All and Sustainable County. It would be beneficial for the SPD to
refer to the missions as relevant.
General comment regarding references to the NPPF: the SPD may need to be reviewed following the publication of the revised NPPF and NPPG.
Specific comments:
• Pg 6 The last sentence of the opening paragraph currently reads ‘managing the flood risk’. Suggest this be changed to ‘managing the risk of flooding’ or
‘managing flood risk’.

• Pg 11, Table 1 – the NPPF may now be relevant to more sections -energy use/low carbon? Also the table switches between National Planning Policy Framework and the NPPF.

• The document may benefit from referencing the National Planning Practice Guidance. There have also been recent Ministerial Statements that may be relevant – energy efficiency.

• Pg 16 the Tyndall report and the SPD make recommendations regarding ‘shipping and aviation’ however, this may not be relevant to North Herts and
so would benefit from some explanation.

• Pg23 Hertfordshire Ecology is now known as ‘Hertfordshire LEADS’. The link provided is also broken. Here is the current link: Wildlife (Ecology) |
Hertfordshire County Council

• Pg25 ‘bat boxes, bird feeders, insect hotels, insect hibernation houses’ cannot be accounted for in the BNG metric and therefore have no impact on a BNG
unit score of a site. So while they may be best practice for enhancing the biodiversity of a site generally they are not best practice for achieving high quality BNG according to the metric. Admittedly a minor point.

• Pg25 Local Nature Recovery Strategy section doesn’t mention the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and references Nature Recovery Networks which is
not a term that sees a lot of usage. I suggest changing:

‘…which includes provision for a Nature Recovery Network (NRN) states that recovering wildlife will require more habitat, in better condition and in bigger patches that are more closely connected. As well as helping wildlife thrive, the NRN should be designed to bring a wide range of additional benefits such as:’ to '…which includes the provision of Local Nature Recovery Strategies
(LNRSs)across England. The Hertfordshire Nature Recovery Partnership will lead on the creation of Hertfordshire’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy which
will enable the delivery of more habitat, in better condition and in bigger patches that are more closely connected. As well as helping wildlife thrive, the LNRS will be designed to bring a wide range of additional benefits such as:’

• Pg25 The bottom of the page references ‘the Local Nature Partnership’. This partnership is now defunct. The reference should be changed to the Hertfordshire Nature Recovery Partnership - Hertfordshire Nature Recovery
Partnership | Hertfordshire County Council

• Pg26 This process map is now out of date. It has now been confirmed that a Biodiversity Gain Plan needs to include confirmation of a site being legally secured and added to the national register and does not need to be submitted prior to determination of a planning application. As such, it should come after these steps in the process. I don’t have a link to a decent process map. I would avoid including a process map at all as the process is so complicated any simple map like this may just mislead those unfamiliar.

• The SPD does not define how North Herts will determine Strategic Significance areas for BNG calculations until the LNRS is in place. There is no requirement to do this but it will be of interest to developers and a clear policy
will speed up the assessment of applications. Is this listed elsewhere? If not, Hertfordshire LEADS recommend using the Hertfordshire Ecological Network Map provided by HERC. If you need support with this, one of the ecologists in the LEADS team would be happy to advise.

• Pg 44 Dry biomass ‘The most common source of dry biomass is wood ‘form’ forests’. Should this sentence read ‘from’ rather than form?

Pg 54 Air Quality
The inclusion of the paragraph stating “Children are more vulnerable to the effects of air pollution therefore play/ recreation spaces should be located such as to minimize
exposure to air pollution” is a well thought out addition focussing on more at risk individuals and whole life course health impact. As noted in HCC’s Air Quality JSNA
those living in more deprived areas, which highlights those who may have limited personal funds available, are also more at risk to air pollutants. As such it is suggested that this paragraph could be expanded to follow the evidence in this area and extend to affordable housing contribution locations on any site, care/residential homes, and health sites (e.g. position these in areas likely to receive best air quality within the development site).

The paragraph which states “Development design should prioritise sustainable and active travel modes to help reduce reliance on private cars (see transport section)” is
welcomed. HCC Public Health wider determinants service area advocates using a Healthy Streets Approach to promote sustainable travel mode. Referencing this and
expressing a desire for developers to present development which has taken on board a Healthy Streets approach is required. There is the potential for the SPD to go further and request all developments/ that which is over a certain size to score the streets proposed using a Healthy Streets Design Check available at: Healthy Streets | Making streets healthy places for everyone. A minimum score threshold for new streets could be proposed. In addition requiring development to contribute to the network of streets the proposed development will feed into to uplift the existing locality street score is suggested for inclusion. This is to ensure that the wider area has relevant improvements required to reduce barriers to sustainable travel in the proposal area to encourage these modes to occur both on and off the development land parcel. This approach supports the travel plan aspect of the SPD by promoting confidence that sustainable mode share is likely to be adopted widely.