Sustainability Draft Supplementary Planning Document

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.