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.  

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the same reasons for refusal applied to this application as to the previous application on the agenda and as there was no identified end user for the power, the application should be refused. 

            Councillor Ian Dunbar read out comments from the Local Member, Councillor Christine Jones which were summarised as follows:

‘The application was for a site in the open countryside and on green belt land.  It would have a detrimental impact and harm the landscape and even though an expression of interest for the power had been received from the Airfields development at Northern Gateway, that site had not yet been developed and therefore there was no end user for the power.  Solar farms should be on brownfield sites not on grade 2 land which Councillor Jones felt should be used for farming’.

            In referring to the site which would provide renewable energy, Councillor Owen Thomas commented on the grading of the land and suggested that it was possible to transfer the power from the site.  He felt that renewable energy should be considered and that alternative sites had not been put forward by the Council. 

            Councillor Derek Butler spoke of the two landfill sites in Buckley that had been approved for solar farms.  He felt that there was a need for renewable energy and queried whether the policy determined that there had to be an end user for the power.  He commented on an employment land review and indicated that the Deeside Enterprise Zone was the first carbon neutral Enterprise Zone in North Wales, which he felt was a material consideration.  Councillor Richard Jones felt that the use of grade 2 quality land for such a proposal outweighed the issue of economic development.  Councillor David Roney referred to the comments about an end user not being in place and said that this had not been an issue when the Committee was considering the proposal for the incinerator on Deeside Industrial Park which also did not have an end user but was approved.  He felt that this type of proposal was the way forward and indicated that he would vote in favour of the application.   

            In response to the comments made, the officer confirmed that it was not the responsibility of the Council to find sites but that did not mean that there weren’t any alternatives in the county.  In referring to the policy, he added that the suggestion to approve the application for economic benefits was not possible as there was no ‘end user’ for the power.  On the issue of the Deeside Incinerator, the officer advised that that site had not been in the open countryside, was not on best and most versatile land and was not in the green barrier and therefore the decision to approve the application had been in accord with planning policy. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that the fact that there was no end user was not the reason that the application was recommended for refusal, it was because of the unacceptable loss of best and most versatile land and the green barrier impact. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that the site was in open countryside and in the green barrier.  The land where the solar farms that had been approved was not of such good quality and he felt that these panels could be located elsewhere suggesting the roof space of industrial buildings.  On the issue of no end user for the Deeside Incinerator, he said that it was to be used by the other authorities in North Wales, as well as Flintshire, and therefore could not be compared to this application.       

            RESOLVED:

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