Agenda item

RESOLVED: That application 22/03231/FP be REFUSED planning permission, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to the following reasons:

 

(1)   The proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt that would be harmful to its openness.  The Council considers that the benefits of the scheme, including the wider environmental benefits associated with the increased production of renewable energy (pursuant to paragraph 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023), would not amount to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. As such the proposal would be contrary to paragraphs 152 and 153 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SP5 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031.

 

(2)   The proposal would result in harm to the rural character and appearance of the application site and the surrounding area with a cumulative impact as a result of other major development in the vicinity. Whilst measures are proposed to mitigate the impact of the proposed development, and the proposal would not be permanent, there would nevertheless be harm over a long period to rural character and appearance of the area, including the visual amenities of users of the local public footpaths. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies NE2 and NE12 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031, which seek to avoid unacceptable harm to landscape character and appearance.

Audio recording – 9 minutes 50 seconds

 

The Senior Planning Officer provided an update that:

 

·       There had been four representations from neighbouring residents and Kings Walden Parish Council.

·       In relation to the map showing major developments in the area, the land associated with Luton airport is actually detailed as being allocated for replacement open space and habitat creation, as detailed in paragraph 4.10.40 of the report.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of application 22/03231/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

 

The following members asked questions:

 

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

 

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

 

·       The solar panels would be visible from a localised context, but not from a distance. 

·       The solar panels, batteries and water tanks would all be between 2-3 metres high.

·       The solar panels beyond the yellow field would not be visible, with Darley Wood in the distance, from footpath 43.

·       There would be security wire fencing with posts 2.2 meters high and a 10cm clearing at the bottom for wildlife.

·       There would be 30-meter-high CCTV poles with restricted movements as detailed in Condition 16 of the report.

·       No lighting would be installed.

·       The electricity produced from the solar panels would go into the National Grid.

·       The right of way between the fencing would be 10 meters wide with open sides where possible as detailed in Condition 13 of the report.

·       Fire safety had been incorporated into Condition 14.

·       The land at present was being used for arable rotation.

 

In response to questions, the Highways Officer advised that:

 

·       Construction vehicles would come from the Luton area, arriving via Darley Road and Wandon End Road and would be kept away from Tea Green.

·       As the construction period was only for 6-9 months any impact to the area would be limited.

·       Deliveries to the site would be regulated throughout the day.

·       Details of the variety of vehicles and number of traffic movements were set out in Table 5 of the report. 

·       A condition could be added if required to limit vehicles entering or leaving the construction site to ensure the safety of children being taken to and collected from school.

 

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

 

·       He had lived in Tea Green for 47 years and was the Director of a family business which employed 53 local people.

·       No consideration had been given to his staff as the construction company entrance was close to his staff car park.

·       There would be 2,300 HGV two-way movements over the 6-9 month construction period. There would also be 242 daily movements from all his vehicles.

·       The width of the road near the construction site would cause problems with the passing of traffic.

·       This application was a conflict with the strategic economic objective of the Council to support the local economy.

·       The solar farm would cause harm to the Green Belt, the local landscape and heritage assets.

·       Soil analysis had shown the area was suitable for agricultural requirements and this went against the drive of the government to produce more food in the UK.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr Humphreys confirmed that:

 

·       The 242 daily movements of vehicles were a mixture of HGVs, staff cars and delivery vehicles and did not account for any public vehicles.

·       There was one entrance and one exit to his business with most of the traffic entering from Wandon End Road.

 

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

 

·       Residents had raised objections to a solar farm at Wandon End since 2022.

·       The solar farm would be in the direct view of at least 38 homes.

·       This was one of three major developments in the area, all of which were within a 2-mile radius.

·       A beautiful landscape with 13 footpaths and which was good agricultural land would become a maze of tunnels and CCTV monitors.

·       The solar farm would have a negative impact on the landscape as it was not discreet and more like an industrial development.

·       There was a fire risk associated with the batteries.

·       This application represented a risk to local communities and went against the government national planning policy framework. 

·       No land where an existing infrastructure had been in place for 40 years had been returned to agricultural production.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Elizabeth Dennis, Mr Cross advised that the footpaths were well used by a variety of local people for recreational use, by dog walkers and by visitors to the area.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Cross for his presentation and invited Parish Councillor Owen Connolly to speak against the application. Parish Councillor Connolly thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       As the number of panels for the solar farm had now been reduced, the amount of energy that would be produced as stated in the report could not be relied upon.

·       This was not to fulfil a local need, as any energy produced would go to the national grid.

·       The fields had a history of fire and solar batteries would increase the risk of any future fire.

·       Extra solar panels had been added to fields 8 and 9 which were closest to the residents of Mill Way, Breachwood Green.

·       Although solar panels could contribute to society, they must be located in suitable places. 

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Connolly for his presentation and invited Councillor Joe Graziano to speak against the application. Councillor Graziano thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       He had lived in Kings Walden for more than 16 years.

·       This proposed solar farm was next to an area of outstanding natural beauty.

·       This part of the district had seen three major proposed sites all within a 2-mile radius of each other.

·       The Green Belt provided a buffer which shielded areas from urban sprawl.

·       This proposed solar farm was for 106 hectares.

·       402 people had raised concerns about the solar farm.

·       To build this solar farm on the Green Belt was not a reflection of the Planning Policy.

·       Any electricity generated would be transferred to the national grid and not directly to the homes in North Hertfordshire.

·       More solar panels should be built on existing industrial areas and not on the Green Belt.

·       It was important to be mindful of the impact on the public and wider environmental impacts as technology evolved.

·       Offshore wind turbines would produce enough energy for every home by 2030.

 

There were no points of clarification from Members.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Graziano for his presentation and invited Mr Conor McNally, as agent to the applicant, to speak in support of the application. Mr McNally thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, including that:

 

·       There was an urgent need for renewable energy and this should outweigh any residual impacts, including impact on the Green Belt.

·       The Council had declared a climate emergency and would require 12-13 projects of this size to meet the objective of zero carbon emissions by 2040.

·       No objections to the solar farm had been received from any statutory body.

·       The project had been designed to minimise any impact on the area.

·       The land quality was lower than the average in North Hertfordshire and half of the site would be designated for biodiversity use.

·       The significant benefits of this application were clearly outweighed by any harm to the Green Belt.

·       He would be happy to respond to any questions from Members regarding lighting and fencing and public rights of way.

·       The project had been designed to limit any environmental effects to the landscape, heritage assets and the agricultural land.

·       The Council would require five times increase in solar energy, equivalent to 1,000 projects of this size, to achieve decarbonisation of the grid by 2030.

 

The following Members asked points of clarification:

 

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

 

In response to points of clarification, Mr McNally stated that:

 

·       The project complied with the national guidance provided to Fire Chiefs for projects in the UK.

·       There was only emergency lighting proposed for the site.

·       CCTV poles were 3 meters high and were inward facing to reduce any impact on the local community.

·       The application was for a temporary 40-year structure and there was a planning obligation for dismantle and removal at the end of the 40 years.

·       A public consultation event had been held which had resulted in a redesign of the scheme and the removal of some solar panels.

·       The green areas in the diagrams showed areas that would be used for biodiversity purposes and would remain a wild green space as agreed as part of the landscaping ecological management plan as detailed in Condition 8.

·       The applicant was happy to comply with the request of no HGV movements at school times.

·       Footpaths were a minimum of 8 meters wide.

·       Deer fencing on one side and hedgerow on the other side would be used where possible to reduce a corridor effect.

 

In response to points raised, the Senior Planning Officer advised that:

 

·       There had been a reduction of energy from 49.9MW to 48MW as a result of the reduction of the number of solar panels on site as detailed in point 4 of the report.

·       There had been neutral weighting on the soil survey and versatile land as highlighted in paragraph 4.12.1.

·       The different elements of fire and emergency response plans were detailed in paragraph 4.8.16 of the report.

·       The cumulative development impact, mainly the landscaping element, was set out in paragraph 4.10.40 of the report.

 

N.B. There was a short break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 21.11.

 

Councillor Amy Allen proposed to approve planning permission and Councillor Elizabeth Dennis seconded.

 

The following Members took part in debate:

 

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Caroline McDonnell

·       Councillor Emma Fernandes

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·       The proposed solar farm was too large and too intrusive.

·       Concern that the visual impact had not been adequately addressed.

·       Renewable energy was a benefit but needed to be in the right place.

·       The biodiversity net gain was very substantial on this site.

·       Concerns about the location and the cumulative impact of the three projects being proposed for this area for the residents.  

·       Fields 8 and 9 should be removed from the application to ensure safety and to have an appropriate distance from the residential areas to the solar farm.

·       There would need to be legal grounds for refusing this application.

·       Details of the impact on the Green Belt and landscape could be found on pages 48 and 49 of the report.

·       Details of renewable energy benefits were highlighted on page 88 of the report.

·       This was a finally balanced application and any decision must be made having taken all relevant matters into consideration.

·       There should be a condition included for the restriction of traffic movements around school times.

·       Concerns about the length of this temporary period as 40 years was a significant period in a lifetime.

 

In response to points raised the Development and Conservations Manager advised that:

 

·       If Members thought that the harm to the Green Belt and landscape outweighed the benefits of the solar farm, they could refuse to grant this application, but his recommendation was to approve.

·       The application had been awarded limited weight due to the temporary nature of 40 years.

·       The number of solar farms within North Hertfordshire was appropriate with other areas of the country.

 

The Locum Planning Lawyer advised that there was no legal definition of the word ‘temporary’. This application was temporary as it was for 40 years. The Chair also clarified that the Committee should work with the ordinary and everyday meaning of the word ‘temporary’.

 

Having been proposed and seconded to grant permission, following at vote, it was lost.

Councillor Michael Muir proposed to refuse planning permission and Councillor Ruth Brown seconded.

 

The following Members took part in a debate:

 

·       Councillor Michael Muir

·       Councillor Ian Mantle

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·       Councillor Amy Allen

·       Councillor Tom Tyson

·       Councillor Sadie Billing

 

Points raised in the debate included:

 

·       This was an inappropriate development within the Green Belt and special circumstances had not been demonstrated in this application. There was also concern regarding the visual impact to the fields having considered the plans.

·       The temporary aspect had only been awarded limited weight and this was not sufficient to outweigh any visual impact.

·       There were potential issues with amenities for the local community.

·       The two fields 8 and 9 were too close to residential areas.

·       There would be a loss of public amenity with public rights of way being enclosed by fencing. 

·       Concerns over the safety of the local community and particularly women and girls using the enclosed rights of way.

·       There should have been more interaction with the public concerning this application.

·       There was not an urgent local need for this solar farm as energy produced would be put into the national grid.

 

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

 

·       Members were not convinced that special circumstances had been demonstrated in the benefits of the application with regard to harm of the Green Belt and this was in conflict with SP5 of the Local Plan.

·       Members were not convinced that this application would not cause harm to the landscape character which conflicted with Policy NE2 in the Local Plan.

·       Members had shown concerns that the requirements of Policy NE12 had not been complied with regarding renewable energy proposals.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 22/03231/FP be REFUSED planning permission, contrary to the officer recommendation, subject to the following reasons:

 

(1)   The proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt that would be harmful to its openness.  The Council considers that the benefits of the scheme, including the wider environmental benefits associated with the increased production of renewable energy (pursuant to paragraph 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2023), would not amount to very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. As such the proposal would be contrary to paragraphs 152 and 153 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SP5 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031.

 

(2)   The proposal would result in harm to the rural character and appearance of the application site and the surrounding area with a cumulative impact as a result of other major development in the vicinity. Whilst measures are proposed to mitigate the impact of the proposed development, and the proposal would not be permanent, there would nevertheless be harm over a long period to rural character and appearance of the area, including the visual amenities of users of the local public footpaths. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies NE2 and NE12 of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011-2031, which seek to avoid unacceptable harm to landscape character and appearance.

 

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item there was a short break in proceedings and the meeting reconvened at 22.04.