Agenda item

Construction and operation of a renewable energy park comprising ground mounted solar photovoltaics (PV) together with associated infrastructure, access, landscaping and cabling.

Note: A revised version of the Report has been published as Supplement 1 to the agenda. Please disregard the previous version.

Public Participation

Katrina Forrester spoke in objection to the application

Kevin Assinder spoke in objection to the application

Becca Leake (agent) spoke in support of the application

Cllr Ian Kirkpatrick, Christian Malford Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Peter Crozier, Senior Planning Officer, introduced a report which recommended that the application for the construction and operation of a renewable energy park comprising ground mounted solar photovoltaics (PV) together with associated infrastructure, access, landscaping and cabling, be granted subject to conditions. It was noted that a slightly updated report had been published in agenda supplement 1.  

The officer stated that the application was for a 23 MW solar farm, and that revised plans and details had been submitted since the original application to address some of the comments made by officers.  In addition, an archaeological trial trench evaluation had been undertaken on the site by the applicant.

The officer took attendees through the slides for the application, detailing maps, plans and the location of the site. There was a railway line at the southern boundary and a Public Right of Way (PROW) running through the middle of the site which would be protected. The site was fairly flat but rose significantly to the South. The substation the site would connect to was on the right by the man road, and the cable route would be underground following the road. This was not the most direct route however the applicant did not own the land between the application site and the substation, hence it following the road. The site covered 46.4ha of agricultural land with solar panels over 10 fields, with a compound area to the East of the site and access from the North. The solar panels would be 3.1m high, which had been reduced from the initial pre-application height. The application proposed deer fencing around the site and palisade fencing around the compound. The site access was explained, and it was noted that deliveries to the site would be restricted during school drop off and pick up times. Other solar developments in the area were detailed, there was only 1 solar farm within a 5km radius. It might be possible to view both sites from one of the PROW in the area, however there was limited intervisibility between the two sites. Lime Down Solar Park, a large proposed solar farm, was some distance away to the North and West.

The site was predominantly flood zone 1, with small areas of flood zone 2. The proposal itself caused no flood risks, with swales and rural Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) proposed. Network Rail had raised some concerns but had been in dialogue with the Drainage officer, and the applicant had made a commitment to maintain all drainage ditches on their land. So the proposal should not affect the railway line. The Drainage officer had no objection subject to conditions.

There were a few heritage assets in the locality and a number of objections had been received, however the Landscape officer also had no objection. In order to mitigate the effects on Heritage assets, the solar panels proposed for the field next to Great Ridgeway Farm, had been removed from that field in revised proposals. Some of the heritage assets had better screening and therefore it was concluded that they were not adversely impacted.

One field was a dedicated country wildlife site, however it did not currently offer any real ecological benefit so it was being relocated to another area within the site which would give ecological enhancement and was a benefit of the proposal. Slides showing the proposed mitigation with planting and how this would look over time were shown, by year 8 the panels would be very well screened.   

The agricultural land classification of the site was detailed, with all 10 fields classified as grade 3b. So, it was not the best and most versatile agricultural land.

The timeline was explained, as usually once granted permission, work had to commence within 3 years. However, the site would not be able to connect to the grid until 2035, in 10 years time. The Climate officer had confirmed that the delay should not reduce the significant weight given to the benefits of the renewable energy scheme. There were precedents elsewhere for a lead time of 7 years (so works would have to commence within 7 years). Due to this precedent and the Climate officers view, the same would be applied to this application, so works would have to commence within 7 years (3 years ahead of the grid connection).

In the context of the declared climate emergency and the biodiversity enhancements the application was recommended for approval.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer.

In response to questions, it was explained that the agricultural land classification had been undertaken by a company directed by the applicant according to the principles applied to land classifications. The soil in each field had been sampled. There was no internal consultee or officer that the council had to verify these figures. However based on Natural England maps showing land classification, the figures given seemed to fit. However, it was noted that the Natural England maps did not distinguish between grade 3A and 3B, showing those as grade 3.   

Members raised this as a concern and felt that not having an accurate way to check land classifications was a material consideration. A number of solar farm applications, including this one, were detailed where land classifications given by applicants did not seem to match what local and Member knowledge suggested about the land, giving a lower classification than people would expect. Applicants were in effect “marking their own homework”. This was felt to be unacceptable.

In response to further questions the officer explained that it was anticipated that getting the planning permission would speed up the application to the National Grid to get the grid connection. The applicant had been transparent about the grid connection dates. However, due to the precedents elsewhere and the Climate team advice, it was felt a commencement date of up to 7 years was acceptable. 

Members highlighted the fast-paced evolution of technology in this arena, which by the time of commencement of the build in up to 7 years might render the proposal obsolete due to newer more efficient ways to generate power, and whether the applicant would need to submit a new application to change to using emerging technologies on the site. In addition, they wondered whether it might be better to wait until closer to the grid connection date to consider the application, and to keep using the site as agricultural land until that time. Members noted that due to the timelines of implementation, this application would not help to meet the 2030 target for carbon neutrality. 

The officer acknowledged that changes to technology did move quickly, but likely the main change would be the nature of the solar panels and the power they could generate. So, it would not necessarily lead to the proposal being redundant, and it was felt that it would still be used as a solar site. There was a national drive for net zero by 2050. Whilst the site might not help towards the 2030 target it would help towards the 2050 target. There was not much that could be done about changes to technology possibly rendering the site unviable. Considering the site was a balancing act of harms and benefits. Whether changes to technology would mean the applicant had to submit another application would depend on what the changes were. It was possible that they could use the S73 process to make changes to the application. However, this was all hypothetical, so it was difficult for the officer to comment.

Questions were also asked about heritage assets not mentioned such as Dauntsey Lock and the Bradenstoke priory and whether these had been considered, particularly as the entire site would be visible from the priory. It was explained that the canal had been considered but was not very accessible at the moment as it was on the other side of the railway line. Officers had not consulted Historic England regarding the priory as it did not meet the standard matrices for consultation based on Conservation and Landscape officer views.

There was a detailed discussion on the relevant planning policies in relation to the application and the varying categories of harm. Whilst there might be some conflict with local polices, the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) took priority, and the application was in accordance with the NPPF. It was explained that in terms of heritage assets, case law identified significant harm as something like knocking a building down, which was not the case here.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above.

The unitary division member, Cllr Howard Greenman (Kington Division) then spoke to the application. It was stated that he had called this application in due to his concerns about it, however he had supported solar farms in the past, so had considered the application with an open mind. Cllr Greenman was however sceptical about the land classification and requested that this situation was resolved by the council, as there needed to be a way for Members and officers to accurately verify agricultural land classifications. Some local authorities had a mechanism for this whereby officers could independently verify agricultural land classifications, and it was felt that Wiltshire Council should have this too. He felt that a lot of the land was grade 3A, but there was no way to verify this. Furthermore, Cllr Greenman stated that he did not see how waiting 7 or 10 years to commence the build and connect the solar farm to the grid amounted to public benefit. In terms of heritage assets Cllr Greenman understood that they would not be knocking buildings down, however he felt that the cumulative effect on heritage assets should be considered, as should the effect on the priory, as the whole site could be seen from the priory.

The Chairman then proposed a motion to refuse the application, for the reasons stated above and as it was contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Core Policies (CP’s):

·       CP41, Sustainable construction and low-carbon energy

·       CP42, Standalone renewable energy installations

·       CP48, Supporting rural life

·       CP51, Landscape and

·       CP57, Ensuring high quality design and place shaping and

·       CP58, Ensuring the conservation of the historic environment

Planning officer advice was sought on the proposal. Officers advised that they did not feel that using CP41, all of CP42 or CP48 was wise. The other CPs all related to the setting of listed buildings, landscape harms and heritage assets, so would hopefully be more defensible at appeal.

The Chairman highlighted that he wanted to weave in the delay in connection into the reason for refusal as there was no public benefit. Officers felt focusing on the timelines for the connection or any impact of technology developments in the future would also be unwise, the Committee needed to look at what was in front of them and focus on its impact.

The Chairman amended his proposal, so he proposed to refuse the application, for reasons related to the setting of listed buildings, landscape harms and heritage assets and as it was contrary to CP51, CP57 and CP58, with the wording of the final reasons for refusal being delegated to officers. This was seconded by Cllr Elizabeth Threlfall.

Cllr Chirstopher Newbury proposed an amendment to add, CP42i, v and vii as reasons for refusal as well, which he also felt were relevant. The Chairman and the seconder accepted this as a friendly amendment.

Following this the motion to refuse what put to the vote and it was,

Resolved

That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons.

REASONS:

1. The site is visible from the public highway and a number of public rights of way in the locality.  The introduction of solar panels onto the site will result in landscape harm as well as harm to visual amenity, and as such the application proposal conflicts with Core Policy 51 and Core Policy 42(i) and (vii).

2. There are a number of designated heritage assets within vicinity of the site, some of which are adjacent and / or within close proximity of the site.  The proposal does not conserve or enhance the setting of these assets and as such the application conflicts with Core Policy 58, Core Policy 42(v) and Core Policy 57(iv). 

Cllr Newbury requested that his vote be recorded:

Cllr Newbury voted for the motion to refuse the application.