According to NewEnergyFocus, Bristol City Council have refused planning permission for a biomass plant in Avonmouth which would burn up to 90,000 tonnes of vegetable oil per annum, based on concerns relating to the sustainability of the oils to be used, including palm oil and Jatropha oil, and the impact on the people of countries such as Tanzania and Ghana through deforestation to produce those oils. Local sustainability policies require the Council to “Think Globally, Act Locally” in ensuring sustainable development.
Is sustainable development a relevant factor for decisions on planning applications? The law requires all “material considerations” to be taken into account, but the law does not define those “material considerations”, except through court decisions on individual sets of circumstances.
The new Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) contains the guidance on sustainable development for planning authorities to take account of when preparing their development plans, which is a new statutory requirement. Inevitably that guidance will be quoted in development management decisions too – indeed, the guidance rather ambiguously refers to “decision making” and “decisions” without making it clear whether those decisions are limited to development plan drafting.
The guidance refers to factors well-known to the planning system such as protecting and enhancing the cultural heritage, and promoting regeneration and the re-use of previously developed land. There is reference to sustainable water resource management, and the lifecycle of the development, but nothing specific about the sorts of factors that Bristol City Council appear to have been influenced by.
The SPP states that decisions are to “support healthier living”, which is a new objective for the planning system. Although this is to be achieved by familiar actions such as increasing access to amenities, services and active travel opportunities, is this a small step towards evolving a new material consideration? Will planning applications for hot food takeaways eventually have to include a health impact assessment? Will chip shops be required to use local potatoes to minimise “food miles”?
_subscribe to email alerts
_subscribe to our RSS feed
There is a similar debate to that on the NewEnergyFocus application – the Forth Ports proposed new biomass plant in Leith (see the Evening News http://news.scotsman.com/environment/39Green39-biomass-plant-to-ship.6092418.jp). The application is for section 36 consent under the Electricity Act, so it’s the Scottish Ministers who will be taking the decision. It will be interesting to see how they treat their own planning policy in that decision.
This is an interesting development in the interpretation of sustainable development as a material consideration. It perhaps already exists to some extent in some Scottish Planning Authorities whose policy approach requires that materials in the construction of a development proposal should be from sustainable sources.
I attended a seminar this week entitled “Future Performance and Innovation in Low Carbon Construction” organised by Fife Construction Form (I would recommend registering – enquiries@fifeconstructionforum.com). In light of the Bristol City policy apporoach, I wonder if Councils will be seeking to establish whether the manufacturing process itself of low carbon technologies in the construction of buildings will be included in their overall assessment of sustainable development. I fear a global “material planning consideration” coming on in terms of sustainable development.
Just for information, Fife Council are in the process of preparing a draft version of a Sustainability Checklist to be produced as Supplementary Guidance which (I think) would make theirs the second following Edinburgh’s Standards for Sustainable Buildings Checklist. The advice is that Fife Council will be consulting internally but hadn’t thought about consulting with the wider public/development industry.
New open and accountable planning era?!
Very interesting post, Neil. Planning has a huge potential role in promoting sustainable development – but has dragged its feet for years in actually using the powers that it has its disposal. Although I know no more about Bristol’s approach than you mention in your blog, I welcome it.
Of course there will be difficulties in defining and testing this potential “new material consideriation”. But that shouldn’t stop us moving down this line.
Nick