Agenda item

RESOLVED: That the application 21/03380/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the removal of Condition 7, to be replaced with two further conditions. Therefore the current Condition 9 would become Condition 10, with the other Conditions included within the report changing number accordingly. The additional conditions were:

 

“Condition 7:

No development including ground works and ground preparation works shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme, based on suitable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including 1 in 100-year + climate change critical storm will not exceed run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event.  The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The scheme shall also include:

1.  A detailed response to the Letter from the LLFA dated 15 November 2022 which addresses the points of concern with the proposed surface water drainage scheme and overland flow management scheme.
2. Carry out any necessary amendments to the proposed surface water drainage scheme and hydraulic modelling for the overland management scheme for LLFA approval.  Once the baseline information is agreed the following information should be provided;
3. Demonstrate an overall betterment of the existing pre-development overland flow paths for the 1 in 30-year event, ensuring the flow paths are maintained and not made worse for events above the 1 in 30-year event and up to the 1 in 100 year + climate change event.
4. Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS/flood risk mitigation features including their location, size, volume depth and any inlet and outlet features including any connecting pipe runs and all corresponding calculations/modelling to ensure the scheme caters for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year + 40% allowance for climate change event.
5. Detailed engineered drawings of all proposed discharge locations including headwall details, evidence of land ownership and relevant permissions.  A condition survey of these specific locations should also be provided and any mitigation required should be carried out prior to development taking place.
6. Demonstrate appropriate SuDS management and treatment and inclusion of above ground features.
7. Provision of half drain down times for surface water drainage features within 24 hours.
8. Silt traps for protection of any residual tanked elements where appropriate.
9. Construction phase surface water and flood mitigation management plan.
10. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion including adoption of details.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both n and off site in particularly to Priory Lane and Little Wymondley.

 

Condition 8:

Upon completion of the surface water drainage/flood management works for the site in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements, the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

1. Provision of a verification report (appended with substantiating evidence demonstrating the approved construction details and specifications have been implemented in accordance with the surface water drainage scheme).  The verification report shall include photographs of excavations and soil profiles/horizons, installation of any surface water structure (during construction and final make up) and the control mechanism.
2. Provision of a complete set of built drawings for site drainage.
3. A management and maintenance plan for the SuDS features and drainage network.
4. Arrangements for adoption and any other measures to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site.”

 

Audio recording – 5:33

 

Shaun Greaves presented the report and gave a verbal presentation, which included:

 

·         At 4.1.6 reference made to conduit heat at priory farm should read conduit head

·         At 4.6.24 reference made to appellant and this should read applicant

·         At 4.6.27 the year 2030 should read 2040

·         The North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031 was adopted by full Council on the 8^th November. This report was written before the adoption and therefore there are references to the superseded Local Plan. There are references to this at paragraph 2.6, 4.5.4 and 4.5.42 of the report. References are made to policies of the Emerging Local Plan in the report and significant weight is given to these in the report. As the Local Plan is now adopted, these policies are now attributed full weight. The planning balance is not materially affected and the officer recommendation is unchanged. The previous policies referred to in the report are now replaced by policies of the new Local Plan.

·         The site is located within the green belt and references made to policy 2 of the superseded Local Plan is replaced by policy SP5 of the new Local Plan that refers to green belt. Therefore, where stated at paragraph 4.5.43 that the starting point for consideration of this application is policy 2, this is now policy SP5 of the new Local Plan

·         Councillor Levett has pointed out a page is missing from the glint and glare assessment on the Councils website. This is in a section addressing aviation considerations. The full document was available within our internal system. The document including the missing page is now available on the Councils website.

·         The submitted glint and glare assessment by Pager Power undertakes a high-level assessment. The nearest main airport is Luton Airport and is 11km to the south west of the application site. It is best practice to consider reflections towards pilots in the last two miles of final approach to the airport and the application site is well beyond that. In regards to air traffic control, close proximity to the aerodromes is a consideration. Given the distance involved, officers do not consider that this proposal would have significant impacts on aviation.

·         The glint and glare effects on highway users have been carefully considered by the highway authority who have raised no objections to the proposal.

·         With regards to drainage, we have received a late response from the lead local flood authority and the response and note has been circulated to Members. The LLFA are not raising an in principle objection to the proposal and whilst they have concerns relating to the proposed drainage strategy, these relate to matters that can be addressed and controlled by conditions. Therefore two additional conditions are proposed by the LLFA to replace condition 7 set out in the agenda

·         The officer recommendation remains that permission is resolved to be granted subject to referral to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities and conditions set out in the agenda as amended by the note that has been circulated.

 

·         The location of the site is located to the east and north east of Great Wymondly, to both sides of Gravely Lane which runs down the middle. To the east is the A1 motorway with the village of Gravely beyond.

·         The Hertfordshire way runs along the east and northern boundaries of the northern part of the site.

·         The application site extends to 88 hectares including the route of the cable which extends from the solar farm to Wymondly substation which runs along Gravely Lane and Priory Road.

·         The area the solar panels are proposed to be positions extends to about 85 hectares

·         The panels are to be placed on a frame and post which are placed into the ground

·         There are some areas that have been identified as locations of potential archaeological interest and solar panels on these areas will be placed on rafts so there will be no impact to the ground

·         There are internal roads and tracks within the site and there are inverter and transformer stations and battery storage containers

·         Deer stock fencing will be around the site.

·         There will be hedgerow planting, tree planting and low maintenance pasture around the fencing

·         The areas around the solar panels are to be grazed by sheep and beyond the fencing there will be species rich grassland. The details required would be controlled by suggested conditions

·         There will be attenuation bonds and detention basins to serve the proposed development in terms of drainage.

·         There will be 22 transformer inverters and 22 battery storage containers that will be located alongside the internal tracks

·         There will be 12m between the hedgerow and the stock fencing

·         A cable trench will go along the road. Excavation will be done on a daily basis so there won’t be large spoil areas in line with the Environment Agency concerns

·         Accessors will be designed to accommodate larger vehicles but these will not be needed after construction has finished

·         This is an application for a solar farm in the countryside and on the greenbelt

·         The applicant has a professional representation

·         If you grant permission, it must be referred to the Secretary of State as it is on the green belt

·         The proposal is an inappropriate development on the greenbelt

·         In terms of visual impact and landscape, this has been detailed in the report. The harm is localised, but in terms of the site and are it is significant harm

·         The site is good quality agricultural land, however livestock grazing would still continue on the site

·         The application is only for 40 years and the land will return to complete agricultural land after this time

·         The proposal will provide a g=significant amount of renewable energy. The solar farm will provide energy for around 12,000 homes

·         The Council has declared a climate emergency. The other solar farms in the area are relatively small

·         There will be economic benefits

·         On balance, officers consider that there are very special circumstances that outweigh any harm to the green belt

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor Daniel Allen

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

 

In response Shaun Greaves advised:

 

·         CCTV cameras are on top of 4m high poles. This can be raised with the applicant during the discharge stage

·         A basic landscaping scheme strategy has been submitted, but this can be looked at further in the conditional stage

·         They would need planning permission again after 40 years. There is a condition proposed on the decommission of the solar farm after 40 years so it will have to return to agricultural land. If they wanted to extend this they would have to apply for planning permission again

·         The matter of community grants isn’t something we should consider. This is outside the framework. I am aware an offer has been made to the Parish Council from the applicant.

·         It would be classified as predeveloped land but there is a condition of it requiring decommissioning and returning back to agricultural land. It is still a low form of agricultural use while it is in use as a solar farm. I wouldn’t say 40 years is temporary, but it also isn’t permanent and after 40 years it would return back to agricultural use as stated in the condition. It will have an impact on the green belt for 40 years but it won’t be a permanent impact

·         There are many solar farms around the country and that is a risk with solar farms. This is an asset of the company. The planning permission goes with the land rather than the applicant and the conditions would still apply for the 40 years. Decommissioning could happen sooner if things such as technology changes happen

·         There is no means of us requiring benefits to the community. Unlike housing requirements, there is no justification and any requirement for any contributions would not meet statutory requirements. An applicant may offer contributions to the local community and there has been a letter from the applicant to the Parish Council for a contribution.

·         They could change things under the 40 years but would have to apply for planning permission

·         The applicant proposed 40 years. Previous solar farms have proposed 25 years but that was based on the technology at the time. Now the technology has developed and solar farms can last 40 years. This isn’t unique and many solar farms around the UK are like this

·         We have made the declaration that we will achieve carbon net zero by 2040. To achieve this there will need to be significant renewable energy within the district, along with many other things. Renewable energy generation is around 10% in North Herts. Nationally, 40% of our energy is generated by renewable sources.

 

The Chair invited Paul Harding, Caroline McDonnell, Hugh Chatfield, and Derek Carter to speak against the application.

 

The objectors thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

 

·         After the reluctant vote of the Local Plan to approve green belt loss to housing. One week later we are faced with a vote to remove another 200 acres of green belt.

·         In the Wymondly Neighbourhood Plan it states the Parish view of retaining the green belt. It has been stated the solar development is not permanent as it will decommissioned however planning officers have provided case law that confirms that land use for development for 25 years must be accepted as lost to the green belt.

·         There will be arable land lost to grain production. The AGR commission report states “This site comprises gently undulating land and fundamentally offers no restrictions to agricultural use and cropping potential”. The site is grain producing grad 2 and 3A agricultural land and should be used for food production when food security is paramount in the nations lives.

·         The developers put forward establishing flower rich field margins around the perimeter to increase biodiversity but is already good management and is widely practices with food crops

·         There is a strong presumption in the national framework against developing solar on grade 2 and 3A land. There is no evidence that alternatives have been considered.

·         There are better places to produce energy than using grade 2 and 3A land that should be kept in arable production

·         The plans are of disproportionate scale. There will be landscape harm and it will be 4x the village size with 4m fencing and CCTV. It will damage the rural character and views from the village and local footpaths. There will also be notable glint and glare for some residents.

·         There should be more work done on the plans fire and noise risks. Solar array fires are increasing frequent yet the plan has no input from the fire and rescue service. A fire engine can’t easily manoeuvre on site. Plans do include a fire suppressant in the battery containers we saw earlier, however this is deceptive. A fire safety engineer spoke with the manufacturer of the gas suppressant who confirmed their suppressant would be ineffective in batteries overheating. Vents release the suppressants to the atmosphere which is also polluting and potentially toxic.

·         No consideration has been given to panels amplifying motorway noise to nearby residents.

·         Access roads to the site suffer traffic in excess of their capacity already up to 160 HBD trips a day as proposed for almost a year would be crippling as minor roads are dug up for extensive cabling.

·         The proposed site is a site of natural beauty with lots of wildlife and joins an important conservation area. The footpaths are frequented by many people. Site construction will result in destruction of wildlife. The CCTV, transformers and infrastructure will negatively impact the view from the footpath

·         Solar power is targeted to be 8% of England’s carbon neutral energy policy by 2050. If the latest technology panels were used in this case the 150,000 would produce over 70 megawatts and that is over 30% more than the applicant would be allowed. Is the scheme 30% larger than it needs to be or are the panels inefficient. We have reviewed other sites and this is the biggest land take to produce 50 megawatts.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·         Councillor Daniel Allen

 

In response to points of clarification it was advised:

 

·         I can follow up the name of the company that was spoken to regarding the fire suppressant. The chemical does stop fire but isn’t designed to stop the fire that would be caused by a battery overheating and thermal discharge in those instances

 

The Chair invited Councillor Richard Thake to speak against the application as a Member advocate

 

Councillor Thake thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave a presentation which included:

 

·         The Council has declared a climate emergency and we would like to contribute to non-carbon fuels

·         The planning process is in place to protect and control but limit any damage that might be caused for the communities in which they live.

·         Over a number of years I have been involved in the Local Plan process and professional officers have given advice on the weights that must be applied of the Government. The current administration has said that grad 2 and good quality grade 3A land are not where these should be built.

·         The removal of agricultural land for the possibility of grazing isn’t good enough

·         I have serious doubts of the industry in terms of being honest about the true environmental impact of providing these arrays, running them and decommissioning them

·         In 40 years time we have no control over the finances of the person running this to decommission this.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members

 

The Chair invited Phil Roden and Tim Lee to speak in favour of the application.

 

The supporters thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee and gave presentation which included:

 

·         North Herts declared a climate emergency in 2019 and have committed to becoming a net zero district by 2040.

·         In response to national renewable energy targets, AGR have developed Priory farm solar array with the aim of supplying clean renewable energy.

·         The key location criteria for any social solar farm is the availability of a grid connection point with sufficient capacity. Existing connection capacity in the UK and North Herts is limited.

·         Recently National Grid have stated that they will need to build 7x as much infrastructure in the next 7-8 years than they’ve built in the last 32. This is to support the move to a net zero electricity system by 2035.

·         This is a major investment programme and renewable energy developers are now having to wait 6-10 years to connect new developments. In contrast, Priory farm solar array can connect in 2024 and help decarbonise electricity network well in advance of the 2035 national target.

·         The main planning constraint is the sites green belt location. 38% of the total area of North Hertfordshire is allocated as green belt and the proposed site represents just over 0.6% of this green belt land

·         The lack of available grid connection points and the extensive nature of the green belt combined with areas of high landscape quality outside the green belt has led to renewable energy developments coming forward near the available grid connection points which are in the green belt.

·         The applicants initial site search prioritised identifying land outside the green belt to minimise planning risk. However no other unconstrained viable sites could be secured and no alternative unconstrained connection points were available

·         National planning policy does not preclude energy development in the green belt and there are numerous examples where renewable energy developments have been approved in the green belt based on special circumstances associated with national need and the climate change emergency.

·         The key green belt consideration is the need to balance the very special circumstances against the harm. This planning balance is set out in section 4.7 of the Committee report and concludes that the special circumstances put forward outweigh the harms of the green belt in this instance.

·         The UK government is committed to net zero by 2050 with the interim target of a net zero electricity system by 2035

·         The British energy security strategy sets out that a five-fold increase in solar energy is required from where we are today.

·         In advance of the recent COP27 conference Rishi Sunak said “we need to move further and faster to transition to renewable energy and I will ensure the UK is at the forefront of this global movement as a clean energy superpower”

·         These are aligned with the Council climate change strategy. A key pillar of this is the Council committing to supporting both businesses and residents to switch to renewable energy.

·         Only 10.4% of energy generation within the authority were from renewable sources in 2019 when the climate change emergency was announced. The authority hasn’t consented any new commercial scale renewable energy projects since declaring the climate change emergency

·         The solar farm would only occupy 0.2% of the district yet it would be able to supply almost 32% of the households in North Hertfordshire. This is a very significant contribution to the energy needs of the district and would move the authority a considerable way to becoming a net zero carbon district by 2040.

·         This is given significant weight in the planning balance set out on pages 70-72 of the report.

·         We are all experiencing spiralling energy costs as part of the current energy crisis and this is the main driver for the current high inflation levels and cost of living crisis.

·         The solar farm electricity generation will be delivered at a lower levelized cost than any other generation technology and this will contribute significantly to reducing energy costs to consumers as renewables displace more expensive fossil fuel generation in the energy mix

·         The applicant is also in discussion with energy supply partners to offer reduced tariffs to local communities when the solar farm is operational. These discussions are at an early stage but is something that is currently being piloted with communities in proximity to wind farms.

·         The applicant presented the project proposals at an open meeting arranged by the Parish Council via zoom in January. In combination with statutory consultee responses this resulted in refinements to the proposals including removal of areas of solar panels, provisions of additional woodland and hedgerow planting to enhance screening, increase buffers to hedgerows and neighbouring footpaths with increased wildflower areas for greater biodiversity gains, identification of ‘no dig’ areas to preserve archaeology in situ, and provision of permissive footpaths to provide circular routes and enhanced public access to the area.

·         Whilst it isn’t a material planning consideration, the applicant has offered community benefit funds of £20,000 per year for the full 40-year life of the project totalling £800,000 to be used on local community environmental initiatives in recognition of the localised effects of the development.

·         The applicant proposes to have further dialogue with the Parish Council and local community should planning permission be granted and this would inform the construction phase an additional mitigation measure that may come out of those discussions.

·         We recognise that there has been flooding events to south of the site in recent years and this has been linked to water catchments which include the application site. Research has shown solar farms do not increase significantly surface water runoff, particularly if the areas below the solar panels are well vegetated with grassland.

·         However a robust drainage strategy is being prepared. The overall effect would reduce peak runoff in the 1 in 30-year flood event by 30% compared to the current situation before development. This is a betterment over the current situation and reduces the likelihood of future flood events

·         The details of the surface water management can be secured though a suitable worded condition and development would not proceed until this has been agreed with the LLFA.

·         The applicant is committed to continuing agricultural activities within the solar farm through sheep grazing and the site would be restored to full agricultural use following decommissioning

·         The UK is a food secure country and the biggest threat to food production and farm viability is the current energy crisis and climate change impacts. The proposed development would address both of these key pressures while supporting the existing farm business through diversification.

·         The planning committee report sets out a clear and balanced consideration of the key planning and environmental issues. Your experienced planning officer has undertaken a very careful and considered balancing exercise and has concluded that there are material considerations that weigh heavily in favour of the application. These represent very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harms to the green belt. The proposal is considered a sustainable development.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·         Councillor Tom Tyson

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Tony Hunter

·         Councillor Daniel Allen

 

In response to points of clarification it was advised:

 

·         There is a 50-megawatt maximum

·         12,000 households is based on the maximum energy consumption of all households and is the average households use. This solar farm would provide renewable energy for 36% of all North Herts houses annually.

·         There is a 40-year lifespan for all panels. They may need to replace some of the battery cells as they have a shorter lifespan but the solar panels last for 40 years.

·         Sheep grazing is a tried and tested method. AGR has a solar farm in Cambridge that have sheep grazing. Whilst growing crops underneath the solar panels is feasible it would require a much bigger area

·         An offer has been made in writing from AGR to Parish Councils

·         Technology has moved on. 25-year lifespans were linked to wind turbines. All solar farms have been 40-year lifespans due to the investment required. Manufacturers guarantee 40-year lifespans now, whereas before it was shorter

·         The carbon payback is 6-10 years for the solar panels

·         The 20,000 tonnes is comparing solar generation to gas generation

·         The DCO threshold is over 50 megawatts. The inverter capacity limits how much it exports to 50 megawatts. The panels generation is limited to the grid connection

·         The biggest threat to agriculture is energy

·         There would have been a period of legal discussion with Parish Councils to ensure that there would be funding

 

Shaun Greaves reminded Members that although there has been mention of financial contributions to Parish Councils, no weight should be given to these in their decision making.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·         Councillor David Levett

·         Councillor Daniel Allen

·         Councillor Tony Hunter

·         Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·         Councillor Michael Muir

·         Councillor Nigel Mason

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·         This is a subjective decision between the green belt and renewable energy. It is an inappropriate development on the greenbelt. It is also turning it into predeveloped land. This should be going to the Secretary of State dur to the size of the development and the capacity potentially being greater.

·         There were disagreements with the Local Plan for taking away the green belt, however the Local Plan says that there will be more green belt created. So taking away 0.6% isn’t that big of an amount considering the amount of solar power created

·         There are no special circumstances that warrant removal of the green belt as it is so important

·         It is a difficult decision as it is environment vs environment. Unfortunately, we will have to make choices to remove some green belt to save the green belt in the future

·         2% more green belt is being created in the Local Plan, so losing this but won’t have much difference. There is a solar farm on each side of a local runway and there has never been any reflection from solar farms while flying and it doesn’t produce any glare 

·         We have an opportunity to do something about the climate emergency but it is at a cost

 

Councillor David Levett proposed to refuse permission for the reason that there has not been adequate demonstration of exceptional circumstances due to the harm it will create to the landscape. Councillor Terry Tyler seconded and, following a vote, the proposal was LOST

 

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed and Councillor Alistair Willoughby seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the application 21/03380/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager and the removal of Condition 7, to be replaced with two further conditions. Therefore the current Condition 9 would become Condition 10, with the other Conditions included within the report changing number accordingly. The additional conditions were:

 

“Condition 7:

No development including ground works and ground preparation works shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme, based on suitable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including 1 in 100-year + climate change critical storm will not exceed run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event.  The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The scheme shall also include:

1.  A detailed response to the Letter from the LLFA dated 15 November 2022 which addresses the points of concern with the proposed surface water drainage scheme and overland flow management scheme.
2. Carry out any necessary amendments to the proposed surface water drainage scheme and hydraulic modelling for the overland management scheme for LLFA approval.  Once the baseline information is agreed the following information should be provided;
3. Demonstrate an overall betterment of the existing pre-development overland flow paths for the 1 in 30-year event, ensuring the flow paths are maintained and not made worse for events above the 1 in 30-year event and up to the 1 in 100 year + climate change event.
4. Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS/flood risk mitigation features including their location, size, volume depth and any inlet and outlet features including any connecting pipe runs and all corresponding calculations/modelling to ensure the scheme caters for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year + 40% allowance for climate change event.
5. Detailed engineered drawings of all proposed discharge locations including headwall details, evidence of land ownership and relevant permissions.  A condition survey of these specific locations should also be provided and any mitigation required should be carried out prior to development taking place.
6. Demonstrate appropriate SuDS management and treatment and inclusion of above ground features.
7. Provision of half drain down times for surface water drainage features within 24 hours.
8. Silt traps for protection of any residual tanked elements where appropriate.
9. Construction phase surface water and flood mitigation management plan.
10. Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion including adoption of details.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both n and off site in particularly to Priory Lane and Little Wymondley.

 

Condition 8:

Upon completion of the surface water drainage/flood management works for the site in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements, the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

1. Provision of a verification report (appended with substantiating evidence demonstrating the approved construction details and specifications have been implemented in accordance with the surface water drainage scheme).  The verification report shall include photographs of excavations and soil profiles/horizons, installation of any surface water structure (during construction and final make up) and the control mechanism.
2. Provision of a complete set of built drawings for site drainage.
3. A management and maintenance plan for the SuDS features and drainage network.
4. Arrangements for adoption and any other measures to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site.”