Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Ground  mounted  solar  photovoltaic  (PV)  farm  including  battery  energystorage; continued agriculturaluse, ancillaryinfrastructure, securityfencing, landscaping provision, ecologicalenhancements andassociated works(as amended). 

 

RESOLVED: That application 22/00741/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

Audio recording: 2 hours 21 minutes and 35 seconds

 

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 Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

 

In response to the questions, the Senior Planning Officer stated that:

 

·       The construction traffic to the site would be limited to two articulated lorries per day and this would be enforced by a condition. If the traffic was thought to be more, the application would be referred to the Enforcement team.

·       The nearest grid connection point was 5k from the site.

·       There was minimal hedge removal proposed for access to the site.

 

The Chair invited Mr James Colegrave to speak against the application. Mr Colegrave thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The Bygrave action group was set up by the Parish Council and would support a solar farm in Bygrave, as long as it was in the correct location.

·       This site would dominate the area, which was too large and exposed. The field is grade 2 arable farmland which would be lost.

·       The adjacent roads were not safe for construction traffic, with heavy traffic on the nearby A507 and blind bends on smaller roads.

·       There would also be a constant humming noise from the site, with no grid connection plan.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Colegrave for his presentation and invited Ms Julie Stothard to speak against the application. Ms Stothard thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       Last year was commented that too little weight had been given to the impact on the landscape, together with the residential amenities and risk from construction traffic and fire.

·       Biodiversity net gain had been overstated.

·       The harms of this development clearly outweigh the benefits.

·       This type of use of the best and most versatile land should be avoided as much as possible and high-grade agricultural land is required to ensure future food security.

·       In December 2023, Council approved for consultation a draft Supplementary Planning Document on sustainability. This development fails on all the counts in the document.

·       This proposed development does not comply with published health and safety guidance.

·       In November 2023, the Council refused an application for a solar farm at Sperberry Hill. There can be no reason to refuse Sperberry Hill and approve the Bygrave application.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Stothard for her presentation and invited Mr Mark Goddard to speak against the application. Mr Goddard thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       Bygrave was a small quiet village with beautiful views, dog walkers, cyclist and horse riders. Their enjoyment would be destroyed by loss of views and the noise from the solar farm.

·       In 2017 an application for a microbrewery was rejected in the same area. The design and scale were deemed inappropriate to visual amenities. The solar farm planned would be 400 times bigger than that application.

·       The junction to the site would be moved to centimetres of busy roads in North Hertfordshire.

·       There was no reliable information on traffic speeds or volumes.

·       Bygrave village would be ruined for its residents, should this development go ahead.

·       93% of residents objected to this proposal.

·       The development had nothing to do with renewable energy.

·       The development does not comply with planning rules and regulations.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Goddard for his presentation 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:

 

·       This application was strongly objected to as it was felt it was a vandalism of the landscape, a threat to food security and included a reckless traffic management scheme.

·       This area had been designated North Baldock chalk uplands with valued openness and long-distance views from local vantage points. This was a rare landscape deserving protection.

·       Solar farms can have a negative impact on the environment, particularly in undulating landscapes.

·       These developments should be sited where they have the least impact.

·       They should also protect the amenity of residents, with public rights of way bordering the site, which would be lost.

·       Since the Covid Pandemic the benefit of open spaces on mental health has been recognised.

·       Good agricultural land should continue to be farmed for food production, including crops and cereals. We are living in uncertain times with current hostilities as they are and need to protect food growing land.

·       This is an appalling use of this land, particularly when all new build homes are asked to provide solar panels.

·       The officers report rules out nuclear power and offshore wind data.

·       The traffic management plan endangers the lives of other road users. The applicants 407 trucks will need to negotiate small roads and bends to enter the construction site.

·       The Highways officer noted that these roads are inappropriate for large trucks. There is a 7.5-ton weight limit. A condition has been imposed that only two articulated trucks would visit the site per day.

·       The application should not be approved until details can show how construction traffic will move to and from the site.

 

The following members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Louise Peace

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

 

In response to points of clarification, objectors stated that:

 

·       The site search was misleading, and it was felt there were more suitable sites which could be used, rather than this one with Grade 2 best and most versatile agricultural land.

·       The traffic survey carried out was deemed to be nonsense. There were issues with the number of vehicles recorded and measurements submitted.

·       It was a vulnerable area for horse riders and pedestrians.

·       A similar application in Sperberry Hill was rejected, yet this application is being recommended, when Sperberry Hill was in the green belt and listed agricultural land.

·       Pedestrian paths were being reduced in width, with only just enough access for a wheelchair. A stopping point was being moved nearer to the A507, around 1 metre from the main road.

·       It was thought to be unsafe for HGV to turn onto Bygrave Road.

·       The visibility on Bygrave Road was good to see oncoming traffic, but in some sections of the road it was impossible for lorries and large cars to pass.

 

The Chair invited Mr Edward Wainwright-Lee to speak in support of the application. Mr Wainwright-Lee thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       His family had been farming the fields for years and it was noted that local farming was important to the area. Sustainability of enterprise was the core of their business and securing financial sustainability for future generations.

·       Food security and climate change was high on all agendas.

·       They now had 50 acres set aside for wildlife schemes, resulting in larger numbers of insects and butterflies.

·       Recently huge changes in agriculture, mean that some animal crops can grow.

·       The need to diversify the business to ensure longevity and the agreement with PACE for this site would provide an ongoing income and address the sustainable energy needs.

·       Grade 2 land would still be used for sheep farming and at some point return to cropping.

·       The development provided a sustainable action towards carbon neutral.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Wainwright-Lee for his presentation and invited Mr Stewart Reddaway to speak in support of the application. Mr Reddaway thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The biggest issue facing humankind was climate change, mostly caused by greenhouse gases and fossil fuels to generate electricity. This can be reduced by the use of solar panels. Rooftop panels are good, but the more, the better.

·       All costs on this development are being paid by PACE, so there is no cost to the public. PACE will redeem their money by selling the electricity generated back to the national grid.

·       Objectors claim the views will be spoilt, but this is reduced as the land falls away down the hill the farm is on and the impact would be on only a few houses.

·       The view from Bygrave Road may distract or annoy motorists.

·       Objectors maintain agricultural land will be lost. However, land is already lost to golf courses and a lot of land is devoted to cattle.

·       The solar farm will occasionally omit some noise from the cooling fans, but this is a tiny amount.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Reddaway for his presentation and invited Ms Gill Eaton to speak in support of the application. Ms Eaton thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       The team from PACE had been working on the site for several years and last spoke to the Committee in September 2023.

·       The vision was to help to avoid the worst effects of the climate emergency, whilst reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

·       The benefits of the solar farm through the adopted Local Plan are clear and explicit, providing reliable, sustainable and affordable energy.

·       It had been recently seen the adverse weather patterns on declining crop yields. Over the UK farmers have been using their land to provide them with a sustainable income, together with a reliable and clean source of energy.

·       Solar power was one of the cheapest sources of power and the solar farm will make a crucial contribution to the Councils target of net zero by 2040.

·       Extensive work had been carried out, resulting in no objections from consultees.

·       Consultation had taken place in the form of a site visit with Bygrave Parish Council to understand their concerns.

·       Consultation with the public had benefitted details on construction traffic, landscape biodiversity and the inclusion of two paths to the south and east of the site.

·       The commitment to the community through the proposed community benefit fund of £200,000 over the lifetime of the project.

·       There was a plan to set up a two-way liaison group, to allow two-way dialogue with villagers following the construction.

·       The impact on heritage had been investigated with officers from Historic England and deemed acceptable.

 

The following members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Jon Clayden

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

 

In response to points of clarification, Ms Eaton stated that:

 

·       The construction period would not take place on Bank Holidays or weekends. There would be two lorries per day to the site and this would be fully assessed.

·       The connection to the grid and cabling was a statutory undertaking and not part of this application.

·       With the 5km distance to the nearest grid connection, it was confirmed there would be very limited energy loss.

·       The CCTV on site would be visible from all angles, which is part of a condition. There would be no impact on residential amenities.

·       The energy generated from the site would go back into the National grid as a whole. It would provide no direct benefit to the local area.

·       The site would provide a local employment opportunity for approximately 35 weeks.

 

In response to points raised, the Development and Conservation Manager stated that officers had considered the issues objectively and weighed the benefits and negative impacts in the panning balance and the overall view was that planning permission should be granted.

 

Councillor Mick Debenham proposed to approve planning permission, and this was seconded by Councillor Ian Mantle.

 

The following members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Michael Muir

 

Points raised during the debate included:

 

·       The site was located in a huge field, destroying the local view and farmland.  With Ashwell to the higher ground, this would destroy the valley and visual aspect.

·       Merits of the solar farm were discussed, with views of the farms themselves to be located in the correct places.

·       This site would not help locally with renewable energy and the net zero target, as any energy would be put back into the National grid.

·       Minded of the locally situated chalk uplands, use of NPPF grade 2 land, the visual impact and construction traffic on the site, some members were to refuse this application.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, the motion to approve the application was put to a vote following which the vote was tied.

 

Therefore, the Chair was required to cast the deciding vote and it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 22/00741/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item there was a short break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 23:35.