Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 21^st March 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and said that he was aware that the applicant had circulated a letter to the Committee Members, which had been summarised in the late observations.  The site was in open countryside, in the green barrier and was on best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV) and that there was therefore no precedent made in granting permission for a solar farm at Weighbridge Road, Shotwick.  

            Mr. J. Owens spoke against the application on behalf of the 11 families in houses which formed ‘The Bowry’ which were the nearest properties to the site.  He felt that there were a number of errors in the original documentation and some misleading photographs of the site which he detailed.  He commented on hand delivered leaflets which none of the residents at The Bowry had received and neither had any residents on Deeside Lane and suggested that there had not been any two-way communications on the application.  He spoke of a property that had been reported to be nearest to the site at over 400 metres away but The Bowry was only 50 metres from the site boundary; on the new diagram the site came right to the boundary of The Bowry.  He said that it was been reported that the site was on land to the east of Deeside Lane but it was to the west.  He added that the main issue was that the area was not an industrial area and residents wanted it to stay that way.              

            Mr. E. Ramsey-Smith spoke in support of the application.  He said that he was optimistic that the Committee would use its privileged position and independent judgement in order to future proof job creation and solve the power shortage problem on Deeside which was currently a barrier for future investors considering relocating to the area.  He trusted that common sense would prevail and that Members would vote positively on the application.  He spoke of the planning officer’s comments on the site being best and most versatile land and the green barrier impacts as a reason to recommend refusal of the application although this contradicted the recent approval on the grounds of economic benefit of the solar farm at Weighbridge Road which was ten times the size of this site.  In the unlikely event of a refusal, the applicant had robust legal opinion that the applications would be allowed on appeal.  The location process was driven by it being sited close to the 11kv grid location in Deeside and the Local Planning Authority officers had offered no alternative sites nor had they conducted a sequential analysis study or a grid network report.  He felt that the only issue for consideration was thediscounted power agreement with the Northern Gateway developer which had not been given the weight it deserved by the Local Planning Authority officers.  The importance of the site had been recognised by Welsh Government who had provided a further £13m towards this infrastructure.  The revenue created by the proposed 5,000 jobs was estimated at £100m per annum.  The power agreement would ensure that future employers would benefit from cheaper electricity when relocating to Flintshire and this was an over-riding economic benefit.   

            The Housing & Planning Solicitor said that Mr. Ramsey-Smith had referred to a legal opinion but he advised that he had not seen the opinion and he was not aware that the Committee had seen it either and therefore asked Members to treat the comments with extreme caution. 

            Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the site visit put the scheme into perspective and allowed Members to see the best and most versatile grade 2 agricultural land.  He summarised the comments from the Local Member, Councillor Christine Jones, as follows:-

‘As the Local Member, she agreed with the officer recommendation for refusal as there was no justification to lose good quality green land in a rural area of open countryside.  To develop a solar farm in this location would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and the site would cause a visual impact and have an adverse effect on the landscape and there was also no need for the solar farm in this area.  The applicant had indicated that there was interest in purchasing the power but the development had not yet commenced on the Airfields site and therefore there was no end user for the power and it would be put into the national grid with no control over where it would be distributed to.  No other firms had shown any commitment and the application should be refused.’

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that the difference between these two sites and the solar farm at UPM was that this was not related to any industry and its purpose was therefore speculative.  The site was on grade 2 agricultural land which was not often found.  The proposal was premature as there was no end user for the power and there was no overriding reason to approve a site on grade 2 valuable land which should be protected.  He supported the recommendation of refusal. 

            Councillor Derek Butler said that he would move approval of the application.  He spoke of the comment by the earlier speaker that The Bowry was not in an industrial area and said that it was in an enterprise zone which required energy.  He spoke of the local infrastructure and added that there was a local user who would take the power generated by the proposal.  He commented of the report on biodiversity and the local grid connector and spoke of the application for UPM.  Councillor Butler said that the Bowry was a redundant farm building and he did not think that there would be any harm if the field became a site for solar panels.  Councillor David Roney said that it had been indicated that there was no end user for the site and commented that the Deeside Incinerator also did not have an end user but that application was approved.  He felt that sheep could be grazed on the land underneath the solar panels and he agreed with Councillor Butler that the application should be approved. 

Councillor Marion Bateman sought clarification on the terms green barrier and green belt.  Councillor Owen Thomas also agreed with Councillor Butler and said that proposals for renewal energy should be encouraged.  He added that targets were in place to provide 27% by 2030 and suggested that there was a need to improve on these figures.  He felt that the power could be used by the Northern Gateway site and Airbus and such schemes should be provided before there was a need for it.  Councillor Thomas commented on the need for renewable energy to help tackle climate change and felt that all forms of low energy providers should be supported.  He quoted from guidance from the Assembly Member Carl Sargent to follow guidelines to approve such applications and deliver sustainable developments for future generations.  . 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts said that there was a need for alternative energy sources but did not feel that the site of grade 2 agricultural land was the best place for the solar farm to be located and added that there were more appropriate places to site them.  He felt that land such as this was very important and suggested that solar panels could be placed on buildings or on brownfield land.    

            Councillor Mike Peers referred to paragraph 7.20 and asked whether the objection was from the Land Use Planning Unit or from Welsh Government (WG).  He queried whether there were any alternative sites that could accommodate such a proposal and sought clarification on the current use of the land and whether it was awaiting planting.  Councillor Richard Jones said that he did not disagree with solar energy but felt that it needed to be in the most appropriate location.  WG had objected to the use of the land and he added that grade 2 land needed protecting.  He felt that any advantage to the enterprise zone should not be given more weight than the protection of residential amenity.  Councillor Carol Ellis queried whether a decision of approval would be called in by WG as they had objected to the proposal. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the first point to make was that Mr. Ramsey-Smith had said that common sense should be applied and discount the subjective view of the planning officer; the officer reminded the Committee that they made decisions based on planning policy unless there were material considerations to not do so.  It had been mentioned that the Planning Authority had not put forward any alternative sites; it was not up to the authority to do so and it should be up to the applicant to look at other sites as part of the sequential site selection process.  In response to Councillor Butler’s comments that the site was in an industrial area in the Deeside Enterprise Zone (DEZ); the officer said that it was in the DEZ but that did not make it an industrial area.  He confirmed that green barrier was a designation used in Wales but carried the same weight as green belt which was the term used in England.  He said that approval of the application for the Solar Farm to UPM had not set a precedent and spoke of a number of factors in relation to that site that did not apply to this site.  In commenting on the guidance from the Welsh Minister, the officer said that it did not outweigh the policy.  He confirmed that the objection in paragraph 7.20 was from WG and if the application was approved, it could be called in by WG.  He did not know the intention of the farmer for the field but indicated that it currently appeared to be partly ploughed.  The Development Manager said that what the land was capable of not what the intent for it was that was the key consideration in the determination of the application. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager spoke of the WG definition of grade 2 land which was best and most versatile land.  He quoted from the remainder of the letter from the Welsh Minister, Carl Sargeant, which said that encouragement should be given to making Wales more energy efficient but said that there was a need to balance this against the visual impact and the policies in place to safeguard against it.  Significant weight should be given to the green barrier land policy.  In indicating that the application had taken ten months to progress to this stage, the Planning Strategy Manager referred to the letter from the applicant in which it said that the only outstanding issues related to land quality and economic impact; both of these issues were there at day one.  There was no evidence that there was a legally binding agreement for an end user to take the energy and he reiterated earlier comments that energy could go anywhere if it was sold back to the grid. 

            In summing up, Councillor Dunbar said that WG had objected to the loss of best and most versatile land and he added that there was no end user for the energy and that it could be 18 months to two years before the Northern Gateway development was in place.  The site was also on green barrier land.       

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).