Issue - meetings

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & 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 18 July 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The officer advised that the scheme complied with the principles of the UDP and PPW, and that the site comprised 25% Grade 3a land with the remaining 75% as Grade 3b.  The siting of solar panels in arrays across 1.4 hectares of the Grade 3a land was considered acceptable given that this would not result in a permanent loss of agricultural land.  Alternative options had been ruled out due to a number of reasons and the location of the site was considered to be acceptable given the size.  Issues raised during assessments of the site would be mitigated over time through the landscaping proposals and land stability issues had been addressed by amending the layout.

In speaking against the application, Mrs. J. Davies highlighted the need to protect the rural environment and raised concerns about the increase in construction traffic accessing the area and site via a country lane.  Whilst she understood the need for renewable energy, she felt that the scheme should be located in a more suitable area, rather than on unspoilt Greenfield land.  She called upon the Committee to reject the application on that basis and feared that approval would set a precedent for more land to become commercialised.

Councillor Ray Hughes proposed that the application be approved.  Whilst he sympathised with the comments raised on the visual impact, he could find no reason to refuse it and had no issues arising from the site visit.  He went on to say that the Committee was only considering the application due to the size of the site.

In seconding the proposal, Councillor Ian Dunbar acknowledged the concerns raised by the third party speaker but supported the application as most of the issues had been addressed.  He added that following the 25 year period for the solar farm, the land could still be used for grazing purposes and that only the top two fields were Grade 3a land.

Councillor Chris Bithell referred to the proposed conditions in the report and asked if the great crested newts could survive underneath the panels.  In response to the concerns raised about the location, he questioned whether an alternative site, perhaps on Brownfield land, could be identified in order to protect this Grade 3a land which was the most versatile available.  He also questioned why a 25 year period had been set for the scheme and commented that the land may have deteriorated after that time.  He went on to refer to a similar application previously considered by the Committee which had been refused on the grounds of no end user for the electricity and sought clarification on the Council’s policy on this.

Councillor Derek Butler also raised issues on exploring other sites and there being no end user.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39