Would our council have stood its ground the way Plymouth did?
“A LEADING house builder has lost its appeal against councils chiefs who insisted the firm carry out the work it promised on the Plympton homes five years ago.
A planning inspector told Persimmon Homes it had to carry out the work it was initially agreed to – the installation of solar panels on 12 executive homes it had built in Cundy Close, Woodford.
In March last year the firm narrowly avoided being taken to court by Plymouth City Council after residents and the council complained that only three of the houses received the solar panels.
Residents also pointed out the company never installed footpath lighting as agreed with the planning chiefs.
As the council prepared to take Persimmon Homes to court for breach of conditions the hearing was vacated as on the day of trial the building firm submitted an application to vary the condition.
Persimmon Homes applied to amend the energy strategy for the site, claiming the panels were not needed as the homes were energy efficient.
One angry resident wrote to the council’s planning chiefs saying ““Persimmon should have fulfilled their obligation under the original planning permission when these houses were built.”
At the time the council’s joint planning chairs Cllr Bill Stevens and Cllr Patrick Nicholson refused the application as it “does not with the council’s policy on Renewable Energy or deliver the proposals outlined in the applicant’s own energy strategy, approved as part of the planning permission.
“The development should incorporate enough renewable energy equipment to offset at least 15 percent of predicted carbon emissions for the period up to 2016.”
Rather than carry out the work Persimmon Homes chose to appeal the decision.
After months of deliberation, the planning inspector agreed with the residents and Plymouth City Council, telling Persimmon Homes its new energy saving assessment did not mean it could avoid finishing the work it initially proposed to do.
The inspectors report notes how the photovoltaic PV cells “so far installed achieve 6 percent reductions in predicted carbon emissions through on-site renewable energy production”, which was not disputed by Persimmon Homes.
However, the inspector also noted how the council had “two relevant objectives; to reduce energy consumption and thereby carbon emissions, through the use of insulation and good design, and to require the production of on-site renewable energy”
As such, the firm’s proposed measures “would not comply” with the council’s policies.
The inspector said the firm’s proposal fell “considerably short of the 15 percent target for offsetting predicted carbon emissions through on-site energy production by renewable sources” and it would “unacceptably conflict” with the council’s policy.
The inspector also noted how the firm admitted how retrofitting the PV cells “would be technically feasible” and dismissed their appeal.
Cllr Bill Stevens said the planning inspector “quite rightly” backed the council’s planning decision which showed “the benefit of locally appointed people taking these decisions – we know our area better.”
He said the ball was now in Persimmon Homes’ court and he would be meeting with the council’s enforcement officers be updated on the firm’s response.
He said: “It’s the same for every application. The planning process is there to make sure that you can allow appropriate development and we take a robust stance with every applicant, whether they are a multi-million company or a small local builder.
“Everybody has to comply with the rules and to my mind there’s no exception to that.”
Cllr Patrick Nicholson also urged residents of Cundy Close to consult their solicitors, suggesting Persimmon Homes procrastination over the installing of the solar panels may have caused residents to lose out on cheaper energy bills since 2012.
A spokesman for Persimmon refused to rule out yet further action. Daniel Heathcote, director in charge at Persimmon Homes Cornwall said: “We are reviewing the inspector’s findings before making a decision on what action to take.”
In September 2011 the council’s planning committee granted Persimmon Homes permission to build a 1,684 home development at the former Plymstock Quarry site – now named Saltram Meadows – after a £26m package was agreed. The agreement saw the company promise contributions to the local infrastructure, including £1.5m towards sports provision, of which £420,000 will go towards a swimming pool in Plymstock.”
East Devon Watch 
When are East Devon District Council going to make Wainhomes fulfil their obligations at Feniton. The flood scheme was supposed to go through their site but Wainhomes said they didn’t want to it to, so it had to go through the children’s play area instead. They were supposed to do a landscaping scheme within the first planting season and now 3 years later it still hasn’t been done, although they are collecting money from their residents for a “management scheme”. They were supposed to give the village an area of community land and allotments (all part of the Section 106 agreement) but they decided there was a loophole in the agreement, so they didn’t need to. The latest is the offer of £35,000 to Feniton Parish Council so Wainhomes don’t have to put in the children’s play area they were committed to. And they’d like to put in an entrance through the Parish Council fence presumably to link up with more development they have in the pipeline (and which has already been refused). Although Feniton Parish Council had said no to this latest request, East Devon have already signed the agreement to allow it. Why go over the Parish Council’s head. What have Wainhomes done or given to the village – absolutely nothing
LikeLike