Case Study Flashcards
How did you ensure that you had clear terms of engagement, given that the client’s objectives changed over time?
In-house employee
- informal, yet clear ToE
- Prioritized understanding client’s needs before task acceptance.
- Via conversation, update meetings, and email
- adapting to evolving client objectives.
Promptly communicated any changes in terms or fees to the client, ensuring transparency.
Made sure the client understood the assumptions and special assumptions to be made in the DCF.
Upheld RICS Rules of Conduct -respect, courtesy, and inclusivity in all interactions.
“Hart v Large” - importance of providing thorough and accurate advice to clients, emphasizing the potential legal consequences and reputational risks of negligence, which is directly relevant to advising on complex projects like a solar farm.
How did you establish the client’s risk appetite?
Client Discussions:
- Explored client’s objectives, constraints, and risk tolerance through focused conversations.
Individual Project Assessment:
- Evaluated client’s experience, cash flow impact, and available reserves for each project.
- How it aligns with the target level of profitability.
Appraisal & Sensitivity Analysis:
- Updated development appraisal and conducted sensitivity analysis to assess various risk scenarios.
How does the AONB board fit into the planning context? What role do they have?
Statutory Consultee:
- Mandatory for planning within the North Wessex Downs AONB.
Conservation Priority:
- Focuses on preserving the AONB’s unique landscape.
Solar Guidance:
- Advises on solar projects to minimize AONB impact.
Planning Influence:
- Recommendations can sway local planning decisions.
Management Plans:
- Outlines renewable energy policies for the AONB.
Collaboration:
- Works with developers for sensitively designed projects.
Public Engagement:
- Raises awareness on solar scheme impacts and benefits.
How did you decide what form of planning advice you needed?
- To determine the necessary planning advice, I evaluated the proposal’s severity within the local context, referencing the TCPA 1990, EIA Regulations 2017, NPPF, and West Berkshire Local Plan.
- Anticipating how the LPA would respond to the proposal and how they would manage it.
- I prioritized Written Advice for LPA feedback, Site Visits to assess AONB impacts, an EIA Screening Opinion for environmental clarity, and Specialist Consultation with the Landscape Officer.
- This was to understand full planning permission requirements and devise strategies to mitigate potential risks.
When you recommended option A, how did you factor in the level of planning risk? Presumably it wouldn’t be recommended on higher financial returns alone.
I believed there was ample policy support and if 18MW got knocked back then a smaller scheme could be proposed.
How did policy support the scheme?
Policy support for the sustainable development and renewable energy evident from both national and local levels:
* National Policy Framework (NPPF) advocates for sustainable development and recognizes renewable energy projects.
* The scheme’s location on lower quality agricultural land follows Planning Practice Guidance.
* West Berkshire Local Plan emphasizes reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable energy.
* West Berkshire’s climate initiatives and Environment Strategy highlight environmental projects.
* The proposal aligns with the North Wessex Downs AONB’s renewable energy position statement.
* Massive BNG
Why was the LPA’s response negative?
The LPA’s negative stance, as posed challenges for the client in securing approval, stemmed from:
* the proposal’s significant landscape impact within the AONB,
* proposed landscaping would diminnish the landscape character area
* its misalignment with NPPF guidelines and local policies,
* potential glint and glare effects on neighboring properties,
* and the overarching assessment that the landscape harm was too severe, even when considering the broader policy support for solar farms.
Do you think the LPA’s position was in line with their own policy?
Yes.
aligning with their policy emphasis on preserving the AONB’s integrity.
The LPA’s concerns centered on
* the AONB’s landscape impact,
* visibility from key viewpoints,
* visual disruptions in a rural setting,
* and potential significant environmental effects
However centred on landscape issues only, appeared to disregard other benefits offered by the scheme
If not, did you consider recommending the appeal route?
No
the Council’s position was robust.
Concerns included:
* time,
* costs,
* potential local scrutiny,
* and the non-essential nature of the SSE JV for a larger scheme.
A smaller scheme, aligning with my client’s needs, would sidestep the appeal process.
However, Membury services solar scheme, a precedent emerged: the national need for renewables can outweigh AONB landscape concerns, especially post the Council’s 2019 Climate Emergency declaration.
Why were you confident that the revised scheme would be better received by the LPA?
I believed the revised scheme would be favorably received by the LPA due to:
* its minimized landscape impact from enhanced landscaping and reduced scale
* alignment with the NPPF and local policies,
* AONB Board’s potential mitigation acknowledgment
* and the precedent set by the Membury solar scheme.
Did the LPA agree that this was not an EIA development?
Unsure currently
The robust evidence presented in the EIA Screening Report, it’s highly likely that the LPA would agree that this development does not require a complete Environmental Impact Assessment.
Given the detailed EIA Screening Report meticulously evaluated and addressed potential environmental impacts across various sectors such as ecology, landscape, heritage, and hydrology, it demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the site’s context and potential implications.
The report’s findings, which highlighted the limited and manageable nature of potential impacts, coupled with the precedent set by R v Environment Agency [2008] and the Membury services solar scheme, provide a strong argument against the necessity of a full EIA.
Please explain the relevance of R v Medway Council (2019).
All forms of renewable energy generation, no matter how small, should be material considerations in decision making by the LPA, as they promote sustainable development, and addressing climate change.
How did you manage the AONB board and LPA as stakeholders with somewhat similar and overlapping remits?
- clarified their purpose (roles, and key objectives, relationship w/ client)
- understood historical context and past application insights,
- Established transparent communication
- held joint meetings, integrated feedback
- respected expertise
- resolved conflicts,
- and fostered collaboration between the AONB board and LPA.
Tell me about the special assumptions in your DCF.
Assumed planning permission is granted and grid connection stays the same. Electricity rates from private wire stable.
Contamination issues non-existant
No incentives applied or BESS as too complex, TC will look into this.
Did you consider the site’s existing use value?
Nominal value.
What was the target level of profitability?
**8% **
* Why: It’s more than what current business makes.
* Use in DCF: Helps decide if the project is worth it.
* Criteria: Project needs to hit 8% or it’s a no-go.
* Goal: Boost overall profits and value for shareholders.
How did you select an appropriate discount rate?
8% discount rate chosen as client’s target profitability level.
* It’s higher than the return from existing business operations.
* Serves as a benchmark in DCF to ensure projects undertaken yield optimal returns.
* Aligns with strategic goals to enhance profitability and shareholder value.
* Ensures resource allocation to financially viable projects.
