Agenda item

James Wallwork spoke in support of the application. Nicola Dow and Pete Sladdon spoke in objection to the application.

The planning officer, Mathew Pearson, introduced the application for the proposed construction of a solar farm; comprising solar arrays, inverters, transformers, equipment housing, security fencing, CCTV cameras, internal tracks and ancillary equipment. He highlighted that the application had previously been to Committee and had been deferred by Members and, at this point, Members had identified 6 areas where further information was required before a final decision could be made. These 6 areas included the following: flooding, detailed access drawings, a full construction management transport plan, detailed potential cabling routes, ground levels and the public right of way (PROW). Attention was drawn to the late list of observations, provided under ‘Agenda Supplement 1’. Maps, plans and photographs of the site were shown.

Mr Pearson relayed that Wiltshire Council’s Drainage Officer had commented that there was a recognised flooding issue in the area. However, it was concluded by the officer that this was not caused by run-off from the moor on which the site was located. Potential flooding was in fact caused by flood water running ‘uphill’ from the River Thames. The meeting was informed that the solar panels would not raise flood risk in the area. The Council’s drainage officer had also highlighted that the use of the site for pasture would make any historic land drainage system ineffective, the proposed solar farm would have no direct effect on flooding in the area.

In terms of detailed access drawings, a full construction management transport plan and detailed potential cabling routes, the meeting was informed that highways officers were largely satisfied with the proposals put forward for the site. Some minor further details were conditioned in regards to wheel washing facilities. It was stressed that while it was recognised that there would be an impact on local people during the construction period, this could be seen as severe over the 30 year life span of the site. As such the NPPF stated that permission should be granted and the impact was deemed to be acceptable.

It was explained that the proposed development would not materially raise the ground level of the site and that, at the end of the 30 year life span of the site, the Council’s standard reinstatement condition had been applied to the proposed application. Mr Pearson also noted that the PROW would remain in situ and would be fenced off during the construction phase, in order to ensure that members of the public were still able to use the pathway.

It was highlighted that due to a recent high court case, the planning officer should make it clear that as stated in the report, the proposed development was in conflict with Core Policy 58. However, planning officers believed that: as the proposed construction was deemed to cause less than substantial harm; because the development would be well screened; as the site was not versatile in terms of agricultural use; there was a large public benefit to renewable energy and as the scheme complied with sustainability criteria and the NPPF, that the scheme could be recommended for approval.

Members were then invited to ask technical questions and the planning officer confirmed that under the proposed solar panels the site would be retained as a meadow.

Members of the public were then invited to speak, as detailed above.

Cllr Hilliar, Minety Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

Cllr Berry spoke in his capacity as the local member and detailed that as the grass on the proposed site would be shaded by the solar panels, then there could be difficulties in terms of drainage and the grass underfoot would not flourish. He also commented that the PROW could become very degraded and would require continual upkeep to remain usable.

In response to questions, the planning officer responded that the proposed two cable routes would be unlikely to cause any issues during the implementation phase and that it was not uncommon for the cable route to be confirmed at a later date. It was stressed that officers felt that the cable routing was suitably conditioned. In addition, it was confirmed that deliveries to the site and construction vehicles leaving the site had been conditioned to take place only during the day and outside of school hours.

In the debate that followed several points were raised, which included the following: the listed building adjacent to the site would have full view of the solar panels and this would degrade the view of the building and impinge the amenity; Wiltshire had already installed a large amount of renewable energy sources in comparison with other Counties, of which 96% accounted for solar power; more optimum sites existed in Wiltshire for the creation of a solar farm; there were concerns over flooding on the proposed site; there were concerns over the amount of traffic confined to narrow routes associated with the proposed construction.

Cllr Berry proposed, seconded by Cllr Sturgis, to refuse the application on the basis of Core Policy 58 and NPPF paragraphs 132 and 134. The reason for this refusal was because the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the adjacent listed building and there were no particular public benefits that would overcome this harm. Wiltshire had already installed a vast amount of renewable energy sites and there were seen to be more adequate sites in Wiltshire for the installation of a solar farm, which would not cause harm to the setting of listed buildings. The proposed development was considered to conflict with Core Policy 58 and Paragraph 134 of the NPPF

The motion was put to the vote and passed.

Resolved:

To refuse the application as it conflicts with Core Policy 58 and paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

REASON:

The location and quantity of solar panels’ fencing, associated structures and infrastructure would be harmful to the setting and integrity of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building. The proposals are thereby contrary to the NPPF paragraph 132 as the proposed development would not conserve the heritage asset due to the harm caused within its setting; paragraph 134 as the development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets and although there is some public benefit by building renewable energy, this does not outweigh the harm caused to the heritage assets. The proposal would also therefore be contrary to Core Policy 58 in the Wiltshire Core Strategy Adopted 2015.