Agenda item

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.

Councillor Richard Jones said that 25 years was most likely to be the necessary payback period and that sheep would be able to continue grazing on the land, with the land returned to full use after the 25 year period.

The Chairman said it was possible that the solar panels may only be guaranteed for 25 years.

In response to the issues raised, the officer explained that of the 2.5 hectares of Grade 3a land, only 60% had arrays above it, with that land available for grazing and the remaining 40% not developed at all.  No objections had been raised by Welsh Government on this and there was a requirement for a land remediation scheme following the 25 year period to be submitted and approved.  It was also explained that Brownfield and industrial sites had been considered unviable due to commercial reasons.  Concerning reference to a previous application, this application involved different factors, in particular this was not green barrier and only part of the site was of a high agricultural land grade.  There was no need for the completion of a sequential process and it was also not dependent on an end user for the electricity generated.

The Service Manager Strategy referred Members to UDP policy EWP1 on sustainable energy generation as part of their considerations and said that the report presented evidence on the issues which had been raised and concluded no planning harm which was a key consideration.  In respect of end users, he referred to the outcome of another application but said that a different context applied in this case.

In summing up, Councillor Hughes acknowledged the visual impact but was unable to vote against the advice given by officers.  On being put to the vote, the officer recommendation was carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).