Agenda item

Minor material amendment to planning permission W/12/02072/FUL (varying conditions 4 and 10) to facilitate the "as built" plans

Public Participation

Clive Taylor spoke in objection to the application.

William Monk spoke in objection to the application.

Dorothy Treasure spoke in objection to the application.

Peter Maclaren, agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Martin Freeman, Broughton Gifford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.

James Taylor, senior planning officer, introduced the report which recommended approval be granted for minor material amendment to planning permission W/12/02072/FUL (varying conditions 4 and 10) to facilitate the "as built" plans of the solar park.

Matters highlighted included: the scale and visual impact of the as built development on the open countryside, conservation area, including the common, and heritage assets such as the grade II listed Gifford Hall, over and above the consented scheme; how the as built plans compared to the permitted scheme; the information gathered from the site visit including the views of the site in the context of other features in the area including the heritage asset; how planting and fencing had been implemented; the comparison with nearby permitted schemes; the views submitted by the public, including Mr Gerber; that the officer’s report concluded that the proposals addressed previous reasons for refusal on the variation application from 2014, including replacement of metal fencing and omission of CCTV proposals; and that furthermore, that the as built scheme did not cause any substantial harm over the consented scheme.

Mr Wilmott, Head of Development Management, summarised additional issues for note including: how the difference in the scheme impacted, or otherwise, on the ability to appreciate the listed building in its setting; that whilst there was a recognition that whilst retrospective applications are not often welcome, that the application had be assessed as to whether the changes result in additional harm to that permitted, and that the officers view was that it did not and that approval should be sought.

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

The local division member, Councillor Philip Alford, then spoke in objection to the application.

The meeting adjourned to consider the written objections submitted by Mr Gerber during the site visit. There were no additional questions from the committee arising from the additional information.

Councillor Philip Alford proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Ernie Clark, that the application be refused on the basis that the application had a detrimental impact on the setting of the grade ii listed building, did not preserve or enhance the setting of the heritage asset, did not protect the landscape, and due to the cumulative negative affect on the landscape.

Councillor Jonathon Seed spoke in the debate and stated that having read the officers report, and having visited the site, he was satisfied that the amendments to the previously permitted plans did not demonstrated significant additional harm and therefore he could not support refusal. Councillor Peter Fuller similarly spoke against the refusal.

Councillor Ernie Clark spoke in support of refusal citing the impact on the heritage asset.

Councillor Alford was given an opportunity to respond to the issues raised in the debate.

At the conclusion of the debate, the motion was lost.

Admin note: As requested, the votes of Councillors Philip Alford and Ernie Clark were recorded for refusal.

Councillor Jonathon Seed proposed, subsequently seconded by Councillor Andrew Davies, that permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report.

At the conclusion of debate, it was;

Resolved:

To approve planning permissions subject to the following conditions.

1.    The developmentherebyapprovedshallbe discontinuedandtheland restored toits former conditionon orbefore31December2039inaccordancewiththe herebyapprovedDecommissioningPlanapprovedunderW/12/02072/FUL;unlessbeforethatdateplanningpermissionhasbeensoughtandgrantedfor theretentionofthesestructures foranextended periodoftime.

REASON:In theinterestsofamenityandthe circumstancesofthe use;andinthe interestsofconsistency withW/12/02072/FUL.

2.    Inthe eventthatthe developmentceasestobe operationalforthe generationofenergybeforethe endofthe perioddefinedincondition2 thenallassociateddevelopmenton,underorabovetheapplicationsiteshallbe removedfrom thesite andthelandreturnedto itsformerconditioninaccordancewiththe herebyapprovedDecommissioningPlanapprovedunderW/12/02072/FUL,withinsixmonthsofthe cessationofthe generationofenergyfromthe site.

REASON:In theinterestsof  amenityandthe circumstancesofthe use;andintheinterests ofconsistencywithW/12/02072/FUL.

3.    The developmentherebypermittedshallnotbe carriedoutexceptincompleteaccordancewith thedetailsshown on the herebyapproved plans:

·       1295/2575 (Revision V5) - Location Plan by aardvark, dated 20 Feb 14;

·       001-9-5575 SHT 1 of 1 - Substation general arrangement by Ormazabal, dated 23/01/14;

·       B2281200-L-14 Rev 3 - Landscape Mitigation Plan by Jacobs, dated 03/11/2017;

·       HESR FRAME 3 Version 1 by Power Electronics, dated  3/06/2013;

·       Sheet 1 - Track detail 1 by prosolia, dated 04/14;

·       150641- Detail Doors Locks by prosolia, dated 10/12;

·       DXX70 - Detail Fibergate GRP by prosolia, dated 02/14;

·       JG16-350/XSEC2D/01 Rev 0 - Cross Section by Jacobs, dated Nov 16; JG16-350/Topo3D/01 Rev D - As built Plan by Jacobs, dated Nov 17; Proposed fence design V1 by Lightsource, dated 25.07.17;

·       B2281200-JAC-SKT-D-00001   Rev   1.0   by   Jacobs,   dated   Aug   17   (within   Jacobs Memorandum dated 28 November 2017);

·       Drawing: 1295/2576 (Revision V2) - Existing Site Plan;

·       Drawing: 1285/2580 (Revision V1) – Topographic Survey; Drawing: 1295/2559 (Revision V3) – Footpath Site Plan; and

·       Drawing: 1295/2585 (Revision V1) – Indicative interpretation board specification details.

REASON: To definethe termsof thispermission.

4.    ThedevelopmentshallbemaintainedinaccordancewiththeherebyapprovedLandscapeandEcologicalEnhancementPlan– Addendumdated29 August2017;andthe LandscapeandEcologicalEnhancementPlandatedOctober2013approvedunderthe dischargeofconditionsagainstW/12/02072/FUL.

REASON:Toensurea satisfactorylandscapedsettingfor thedevelopment,the protectionofexistingimportantlandscapefeatures;the protectionandenhancementofbiodiversityinterestsand intheinterestsofconsistency with W/12/02072/FUL.

5.    Within4 monthsofthegrantofthisapprovalthe drainageworksidentifiedatparagraph3.6ofthe“AsBuiltSurfaceWaterDrainageSystem”Memorandumby Jacobs,dated28November2017anddetailedondrawingreferenceB2281200-JAC-SKT-D-00001Rev1.0 byJacobs,datedAug17 atAppendixC shallhavebeencarriedoutas herebyapproved.The surfacewaterdrainagesystemshallbe maintainedthroughthe lifetimeofthe developmentas per theprovisionsof thisdocument.

REASON:Tominimisefloodriskbyensuringthesatisfactorymanagementofsurfacewaterfrom the site throughits lifetime;and inthe interestsofconsistencywithW/12/02072/FUL.

Admin note: As requested, the votes of Councillors Philip Alford and Ernie Clark were recorded against permission.