Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER.

 

Ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) farm including battery energy storage; continued agricultural use, ancillary infrastructure, security fencing,  landscaping provision, ecological  enhancements and associated works (as amended ). 

RESOLVED: That application 22/00741/FP be DEFERRED planning permission for the following reasons:

 

1.     For officers to advise upon and for Members to consider late submissions relating to biodiversity.

 

2.     For officers to advise upon and Members to consider late submissions relating to the effect of the proposal upon traffic and access.

 

3.     Members would like to visit a comparable and operating solar farm to understand likely noise impacts arising from the proposal.

 

4.     For officers to advise upon and for Members to considerproposed conditions by Bygrave Parish Council.   

 

5.     Members are minded to await the decision of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities as to whether or not will be calling-in the application for his determination before making a decision on the application.

Audio Recording: 22 minute and 8 second

 

N.B Councillor Tom Tyson returned to the Council Chamber at 19:53

 

Councillor Tom Tyson announced to the Chair that he had a Non-Registerable Interest, and an Other Registerable Interest in this item and would not take part in the debate or vote and would leave the Chamber for the duration of the item.

 

N.B Councillor Tom Tyson left the Council Chamber at 19:54

 

The Chair read an email received from the Secretary of State regarding application 22/00741/FP which stated that:

 

·       Under Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Secretary of State hereby directed the Council not to grant permission on thisapplication without specific authorisation.

·       This direction was issued to enable the Secretary of State to consider whether they should direct under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that this application should be referred to the Secretary of State fordetermination.

·       This direction did not, of course, prevent the Committee from considering the application, forming a view as to its merits or, refusing permission.

·       This letter was for proceduralpurposes and should not be taken as any indication of the attitude of the Secretary of State towards this application.

 

The Chair advised that the application could still be considered.

 

The Development and Conservation Manager stated that the email from the Secretary of State prevented the Committee from granting planning permission this evening, the application could still be refused or deferred but could not be granted.

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update regarding the supplementary document which had some amendments and corrections to the report and an update from the Applicant and Bygrave Parish Council, and highlighted that:

 

·       Hertfordshire Fire and Rescue had been consulted but had not responded to the application.

·       The date for achieving zero carbon emission was 2040 and not 2030 as stated at paragraph 4.6.1

·       There was an amendment to paragraph 4.6.14 regarding the anaerobic digestor at Bygrave Lodge.

·       Further information had been received from the applicant regarding their grid connection, which could be delivered as soon as the development was approved and would be constructed in phases.

·       An update from Bygrave Parish Council requesting some amendments to the planning conditions.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 22/00741/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

 

In response to the points of clarification the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       The Knoll would have a direct line of sight to the Solar Farm.

·       The distance to the nearest property from the Solar Farm was approximately 120-130 metres.

 

The Chair invited Mr James Colegrave and Ms Julie Stothard to speak against the application.

 

Mr Colegrave thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

 

·       Bygrave Action Group supported the need to reduce fossil fuels, but such applications needed to be sited in the right locations, Bygrave already had the Biogen anaerobic digester and would support a solar farm or wind turbines in an appropriate location.

·       This application would dominate the North Baldock Chalk Uplands and was too large and too exposed in a sensitive area.

·       The planned site was listed as grade 2 agricultural land and would be lost for the next 40 years.

·       The proposed route for construction traffic was unsafe and the compromise from Highways did little to reduce the risks.

·       There would be additional noise whilst construction occurred and when the solar farm was operational it would produce a resonating humming noise as heard at sites in Royston and Reed, an independent acoustic report should be commissioned.

·       The applicant claimed the grid point is ready to go, but the connection route would need to go around Baldock and under the A1 and the East Coast trainline.

·       They believed this would be the first solar farm for the applicant.

 

Ms Stothard thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

 

·       Too little weight had been attached to the landscape and visual impact issue, this area would be decimated by the development and many properties backed on to the site.

·       The proposed site was in an area designated as rural beyond green belt and local policy SP5 considered the area to contain some of the highest quality countryside in this District.

·       The Planner Officer had used biodiversity net gains to justify the loss of agricultural land for 40 years.

·       There were properties that backed on to the proposed site and they would have a loss of amenities.

·       The noise report commissioned by the applicant was flawed and did not consider 3.1 of the NPPF, to identify and protect tranquil areas, which was exactly what this site was.

·       There would be risks from construction traffic and this should be given significant weight.

·       There would be a risk from fire.

·       There was not an urgent local need for renewable energy, and this should be deleted from the table and should not count towards the weighting of this application.

·       Weight had been given to the availability of the grid connection and the immediate delivery of this site.

·       There were concerns that the biodiversity net gain had been overinflated.

·       There was very little information relating to the economic benefits of the application.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

 

In response to the points of clarification Mr Colegrave advised that:

 

·       The Bygrave Action Group was set up to oppose this application.

·       Originally there were 10 members of the action group, with all members living in Bygrave.

·       They supported renewable energy but had serious concerns about the proposed site.

 

In response to the points of clarification Ms Stothard advised that:

 

·       The biodiversity net gain had been overstated and an independent assessment should be carried out especially as the DEFRA spreadsheet model had come under recent criticism.

·       The biodiversity report listed the solar farm field as poor, the report was supplied by PACE, and an independent report would be preferred.

·       A solar farm at the Old Swan in Liverpool had a battery fire with a special enquiry highlighting a failure in the battery’s thermal runway. The fire took 59 hours to extinguish, and hazmat suits had to be used.

·       The noise assessment was commissioned by PACE and used a statistical model that assumed that the ground was soft, therefore absorbing more sounds. This would not be the reality on this site at the height of summer.

 

In response to the points of clarification the Development and Conservation Manager advised that, the batteries used in the Liverpool site were no longer manufactured.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Colegrove and Ms Stothard for their presentations and invited Councillor Lisa Nash to speak against the application. Councillor Nash thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

 

·       The report of the Planning Officer had misinterpreted the Climate Strategy of the Council and an aspiration of the district to become carbon neutral by 2040.

·       There was no Council policy in favour of building solar farms on private land.

·       The Local Plan stated that applications of this matter should be decided based on national criteria. 

·       The report described an urgent local need for solar energy yet the amount of green energy that North Herts received from nuclear power and offsite wind is greater than the amount this solar farm could ever produce.

·       The proposed solar farm would only make a tiny contribution to carbon savings, the emissions savings of 11300 tonnes a year would equate to 1.7% of the net total carbon emission of North Herts.

·       The urgent need had been overstated and was unjustified with no evidence.

·       In a 2011 landscape study this land was designated as the valuable North Baldock Chalk Uplands with long distance views, a rarity in this district.

·       The proposal would have a significant impact on these views, would not be in keeping with the rural character of the area, and the site would not be concealed by the proposed hedges.

·       The NPPF stated that large scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment.

·       Planning polices and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment as stated at paragraph 174 of the NPPF.

·       The public right of way was significant, two sides of the site were used by walkers, cyclists and horses riders, many coming from outside of the district, and these amenities would be spoilt by the sound of the solar farm.

·       This proposal would destroy a significant local environment in an attempt to protect the global one, when there were other suitable areas nearby.

·       There would be a loss of grade 2 land as stated in the NPPF which should be used for food.

·       The report of the Planning Officer suggested that this grade 2 land was worth sacrificing, but there is a need for both food and green energy.

·       The noise assessment report commissioned by the applicant stated that it was feasible in principle to have acceptable average construction noise levels without specifying how the averages were derived, the consideration of operating noise in the report was derived from modelling, and an independent Council assessment had not occurred.

·       Highways had concerns regarding the Baldock junction which would need to be enlarged to cater for the low loaders, articulated and heavy good vehicles needed for this project. These would then have to negotiate quiet rural lanes, which were inappropriate for heavy trucks even with the imposed condition of 2 articulated vehicles per day.

·       No restriction had been placed on non-articulated vehicles.

·       The site was 4.5 miles from the Letchworth sub station as the crow flies and much greater in reality.

·       The applicant had not been able to show the cabling route despite repeated requests.

·       The Committee should defer the matter until the Great Wymondley inquiry had been completed.

 

The Chair clarified that assumptions could not be made about the outcome of the Public Inquiry. 

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Nash for her presentation and invited Mr Rob Shaw, Mr Edward Wainright-Lee and Mr Stewart Reddaway to speak in support of the application.

 

Mr Shaw thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

 

·       The project would reduce the dependency on fossil fuels with a priority to reverse the loss of biodiversity and assist with the cost of living crisis.

·       The solar farm would produce low-cost energy and contribute to the 2040 net zero target.

·       The project was not subject to any grid connection delays, the benefits could be delivered as soon as the project was completed.

·       PACE had worked closely with the Planning Officer and engaged with the local community and that feedback had been incorporated into this proposal.

·       The topography minimalised the visibility of the site.

·       The footpath, cycleways and bridleways would have hedgerows and trees shielding the solar farm from view.

·       Construction would take into consideration other road users and horses, with an HGV restriction and temporary access.

·       The British Horse Society had been consulted about the fencing and construction of the site.

·       As other solar farms had shown, there would be a biodiversity net gain, important species would be protected, and the habitat used for wildlife.

·       A management plan had been developed for the duration of the project.

·       This site was well located and designed and had attracted local support.

·       This application complied with the Local Plan and all technical matters had been addressed.

 

Mr Wainright-Lee thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

 

·       The land had been owned and farmed by his family for over 400 years.

·       The woods had been planted and tended throughout that time and the family now had sustainability concerns for future generations.

·       Farming was at the core of their business but had been affected by the removal of landowner subsidies.

·       The land had 50 acres set aside for wildlife which had led to an increase in wildlife.

·       There was a need to diversify income streams to continue the longevity of the business.

·       The solar farm would provide the family business with a certain long-term income.

·       The land was reasonable, grade two and grew good crops, and sheep would still graze in the area.

·       The land would eventually be returned to cropping.

·       This project would enhance the sustainability objectives of the area.

 

Mr Reddaway thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation including that:

 

·       On balance the application was supported but acknowledged that no solar farm site was perfect.

·       The site was north facing and would generate less kilowatts.

·       The impact of construction vehicles to the site would last months, not years, and would be tolerable.

·       The solar farm would have limited visibility from Arbury banks and the solar panels would be positioned on ground that falls away, which would limit any spoiling of views. This would also limit any noise impact from the site.

·       Generating renewable electricity would reduce climate change and therefore it was not only PACE and the landowner who would profit.

·       Solar panels should ideally be located on warehouse roofs but this was not always easy or practical, this solar farm was an alternative.

·       The land would be reinstated to farmland after the term of the project.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Louise Peace

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Shaw advised that:

 

·       On a day-to-day basis the solar farm would be remotely operated, with periodic attendance by employees for cleaning and maintenance.

·       The landowner would undertake land management.

·       The energy produced on this solar farm could go anywhere in the country but generally it tends to go to the closest point.

·       An extensive site search was undertaken, 90% of the land was green belt. PACE then identified and investigated suitable sites, this site was suitable, and the landowner was willing.

·       A management plan would be in place to ensure that traffic restriction did not affect the proposed duration of the project, especially with a redistribution of deliveries.

 

In response to a point of clarification, Mr Wainright-Lee stated that there were 950 sheep that ran across this land and other farms.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Shaw, Mr Wainright-Lee and Mr Reddaway for their presentations.

 

Councillor David Levett requested for a recorded vote on this item .

 

The following Members took park in debate:

 

·       Councillor David Levett

·       Councillor Sean Nolan

·       Councillor Mick Debenham

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Dave Winstanley

 

The following points were raised during the debate:

 

·       Whether the email received from the Secretary of State had an impact on the decision included in the report of the Planning Officer.

·       Whether weighting should be applied to the email in consideration of this item.

·       A lot of questions remained of the application, including noise impact of the installation.

·       The applicant claimed to have a grid connection, but the details of the proposed route had not been disclosed.

·       How could the amendments suggested by the Bygrave Parish Council be incorporated into the decision conditions.

 

In response to points raised in the debate the Development and Conservation Manager advised that:

 

·       The email from the Secretary of State arrived 40 minutes before this meeting.

·       A resolution could be passed to grant planning permission, but the a decision notice could not be issued, until the called in matter was resolved.

·       The application could be deferred, subject to substantiated reasons, however the email from the Secretary of State was not a substantive reason for deferral.

·       It took the Secretary of State five and a half months to call in the Great Wymondley solar farm.

 

In response to points raised in the debate the Legal Regulatory Team Leader advised that:

 

·       A reason for deferral was required to be provided to the applicant.

·       The impact of the Secretary of State’s email would only come into effect if the Committee followed the recommendations of the Planning Officer to grant approval of this application.

·       Applications were required to be called in within 21 days.

·       If the item was deferred, the impact of the email from the Secretary of State was unknown, but the applicant would have guidelines.

 

Councillor Sean Nolan proposed to defer the application to allow Members of the Committee to consider the late submissions relating to biodiversity and the proposed effect upon traffic and access and the Officers advise on these, visit a solar farm of comparable size, consider the proposals of the Bygrave Action Group and the impact of the email from the Secretary of State. This was seconded by Councillor David Levett and following a vote, it was:

 

The results of the recorded vote were as follows:

 

YES                 :  10

ABSTAIN        :   0

NO                  :   0

TOTAL            :  10

 

The individual votes were as follows:

 

Cllr Val Bryant                                    

Cllr Dave Winstanley                                      YES

Cllr David Levett                                             YES

Cllr Ian Moody                                                 YES

Cllr Louise Peace                                           YES

Cllr Michael Muir                                             YES

Cllr Mick Debenham                                       YES

Cllr Nigel Mason                                             YES

Cllr Philip Weeder                                           YES

Cllr Sean Nolan                                               YES

Cllr Terry Tyler                                                YES

Cllr Tom Tyson                                     

                                               

RESOLVED: That application 22/00741/FP be DEFERRED planning permission for the following reasons:

 

1.     For officers to advise upon and for Members to consider late submissions relating to biodiversity.

 

2.     For officers to advise upon and Members to consider late submissions relating to the effect of the proposal upon traffic and access.

 

3.     Members would like to visit a comparable and operating solar farm to understand likely noise impacts arising from the proposal.

 

4.     For officers to advise upon and for Members to considerproposed conditions by Bygrave Parish Council.   

 

5.     Members are minded to await the decision of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities as to whether or not they will be calling-in the application for his determination before making a decision on the application.

 

N.B Following the conclusion of this item there was a short break in proceedings until 21:34