Agenda item - 24/02455/FP LAND OPPOSITE WYMONDLEY GRID STATION AND TO THE SOUTH OF SPERBERRY HILL, ST IPPOLYTS, HERTFORDSHIRE

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Proposed solar farm measuring 35.5 hectares with associated battery storage and ancillary infrastructure

RESOLVED: That Application 24/02455/FP be GRANTED planning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the amendments to Condition 4, Condition 9, Condition 12, Condition 14, Condition 16, Condition 18, Condition 24, Condition 25 and Condition 27, the removal of Condition 10 and 11 and the addition of Condition 29, as follows:

‘Condition 4

No development approved by this planning permission shall take place (including ground works or vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) should be informed by the 2024 Ecological Assessment and a pre-construction badger survey and include the following.

a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.

b) Identification of "biodiversity protection zones".

c) Practical measures to avoid or reduce impacts during construction.

d) The location and timing of sensitive works to harm to biodiversity features.

e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works.

f) Responsible persons and lines of communication.

g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person.

h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

i) The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the construction process on the biodiversity and ecology of the site, in line with Policy NE2 and NE4 of the Local Plan.

Condition 9

A) No development approved by this permission shall take place/commence until an Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and in accordance with the programme of work as set out in the Archaeological Brief (P01/22/0709/3). The scheme shall include an assessment of archaeological significance and research questions; and:

1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording.

2. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording as required by the evaluation.

3. The programme for post investigation assessment.

4. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording.

5. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation.

6. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation.

7. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.

B) The development shall take place/commence in accordance with the programme of archaeological works set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (A).

C) The development shall not be occupied/used until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition (A) and the provision made for analysis and publication where appropriate.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of an appropriate archaeological investigation, recording, reporting and publication, and the protection and preservation of archaeological features of significance, in accordance with North Hertfordshire Local Plan Policy HE4 and Section 16 of the NPPF 2024.

Condition 12

No development approved by this permission shall take place until a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) for the vehicle access proposals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Thereafter the recommendations, if any, shall only be carried out in accordance with the report.

Reason: To ensure construction of a satisfactory development and in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire's Local Transport Plan 4 (adopted 2018).

Condition 14

All development shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted and approved Flood Risk Assessment (December 2021) and Drainage Strategy (dated 22 October 2024, REF 14855), plus any updates as required by Condition 7 unless otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed and not increased in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Herts Council.

Condition 16

Upon completion of the surface water drainage system, including any SuDS features, and prior to the first use of the development; a survey and verification report from an independent surveyor shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The survey and report shall demonstrate that the surface water drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the details approved pursuant to condition 7. Where necessary, details of corrective works to be carried out along with a timetable for their completion, shall be included for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any corrective works required shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timetable and subsequently re-surveyed with the findings submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the flood risk is adequately addressed, not increased and users remain safe for the lifetime of the development in accordance with NPPF and Policies of North Herts Council.

Condition 18

No development approved by this permission shall take place until a landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The content of the LEMP shall include the following.

a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed.

b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management.

c) Aims and objectives of management.

d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives.

e) Prescriptions for management actions.

f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period).

g) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan.

h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures.

The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To enhance biodiversity including any species and their habitats and in accordance with the NPPF and Policies NE4, NE12 and SP12 in the Local Plan.

Condition 24

No development approved by this permission shall take place until a Soil Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The soil management plan shall include:

a) Measures to protect soils during development with reference to the guidance found in Defra's Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites;

b) A works programme showing how all soil handling and trafficking operations will be undertaken and which makes allowance for poor weather/ ground conditions stoppages;

c) Details of how construction activities will be managed across the site to minimise impact on soils; and

d) Details of appropriate equipment and methods for stockpiling, respreading and ameliorating of soil compaction in accordance with good practice techniques to minimise the risk of soil compaction.

Reason: To protect soil quality and so enable the reinstatement of its agricultural land quality following the cessation of the solar farm use of the land in accordance with the NPPF, Defra Guidance and policy NE12 in the Local Plan.

Condition 25

Within the first planting season following the completion of construction works, the approved landscaping and biodiversity proposals to be approved shall be implemented in full.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenity of the locality in accordance with policies NE4, NE12 and SP12 in the Local Plan.

Condition 27

Prior to the installation of any CCTV cameras, details of measures to restrict the camera movements around the boundary of the application site to prevent viewing towards residential properties shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the CCTV cameras shall be installed and retained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to protect the privacy of adjacent residential properties in accordance with Policy D3 of the Local Plan.

Condition 29

Before commencement of the development, a 'Construction Traffic Management Plan' shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. Thereafter the construction of the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan. The 'Construction Traffic Management Plan' must set out:

o the phasing of construction and proposed construction programme.

o the methods for accessing the site, including wider construction vehicle routing. Page 21

o the numbers of daily construction vehicles including details of their sizes, at each phase of the development.

o the hours of operation and construction vehicle movements.

o details of any highway works necessary to enable construction to take place.

o details of construction vehicle parking, turning and loading/unloading arrangements clear of the public highway.

o details of any hoardings and how visibility splays will be maintained.

o management of traffic to reduce congestion.

o control of dirt and dust on the public highway, including details of the location and methods to wash construction vehicle wheels.

o the provision for addressing any abnormal wear and tear to the highway. waste management proposals.

o Provision of sufficient on-site parking prior to commencement of construction activities;

o Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas and temporary access to the public highway;

o where works cannot be contained wholly within the site a plan should be submitted showing the site layout on the highway including extent of hoarding and remaining road width for vehicle movements.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the construction process on the on local environment and local highway network in accordance with Policies 5, 12, 17 and 22 of Hertfordshire's Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018).’

Audio recording – 3 hours 8 minutes 35 seconds

The Senior Planning Officer provided a verbal update on matters within the Addendum to the report in respect of Application 24/02455/FP, as well as other updated matters relating to the application and advised that:

· The appeal lodged against the decision on the Wandon End Solar Farm application had been allowed following a Public Inquiry and planning permission had been granted.

· Wymondley Parish Council had written a second letter of objection in relation to a grey belt assessment document produced by the Applicant.

· Pre-commencement conditions had been agreed by the Applicant Agent.

· Green Belt Review categorisation of sub-parcel 10a within the report had been changed, however, the overall recommendation had not changed due to this carrying little weight.

· An updated list of conditions had been added to the recommendations, including the addition of a Construction Traffic Management Plan, and were detailed in the supplementary documents.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report in respect of Application 24/02455/FP supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

The following Members asked questions:

· Councillor Caroline McDonnell

· Councillor Mick Debenham

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

· There were similarities between this application and the one at Wandon End and the recent appeal decision could be used as guidance to inform their decision. However, the report for this application had been published before the outcome of the Public Inquiry and each application should be assessed individually on its own merits.

· Cumulative loss of Green Belt within the district had not been directly addressed in the report but it detailed that the impact of the site would be limited against the part 3 consideration due to its scale and benefits.

· There were residential properties within view of the site, however, the impact of the development had been considered and mitigation measures would be put in place, such as enhanced boundary treatment and hedgerow planting.

The Chair invited the first Public Objector, St Ippolyts Parish Councillor Peter Hobson to speak against the application. Councillor Hobson thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· The approval of the application rested on whether the land would be designated as Grey Belt or Green Belt.

· They felt that the developer was taking advantage of the grey belt requirements outlined in the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), particularly paragraph 7.

· In the 2016 Green Belt Review, one of the two fields in the application site was classified as making a strong contribution to the Green Belt purpose, particularly purposes A and B.

· This contribution applied at the granular level of sub-parcel 10a which covered a substantial part of the site and parcel 10 which covered the Langley Valley, a major part of the green belt gap between Stevenage and Hitchin.

· Applying paragraph 7 of the PPG precluded the Grey Belt land classification.

· The site at Wandon End was assessed by the Appeal Inspector as Grey Belt due to its moderate contribution to purpose A of the Green Belt, whereas this site gave a strong contribution to both purposes A and B.

· The Wandon End Appeal Inspector gave some weight to the 2016 Green Belt Review in their assessment of the application.

· This land had an even stronger case for contributing to the Green Belt as another solar farm in Wymondley had recently been granted permission.

· Granting permission for this application would the erode the Green Belt further between Hitchin and Stevenage.

· If the Committee had any doubts about this application, they should defer it and evaluate the Green Belt value between Hitchin and Stevenage.

· The costs of the above would be far less than those of a flawed decision being challenged and the loss of Green Belt that would be felt by generations to come.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Hobson for their presentation and invited the second Public Objector, Wymondley Parish Councillor Paul Harding to speak against the application. Councillor Harding thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· The narrow and strategic gap between Hitchin and Stevenage was under pressure by both housing and renewable infrastructure.

· No mention was made of the land that was safeguarded for development at Stevenage West in the report of the Senior Planning Officer which should be protected by the Green Belt.

· Land west of the A1 (M) had already been granted planning permission for a 1300-dwelling development with access routes into the safeguarded land and consequently, the 1km gap quoted in the report of the Senior Planning Officer would be approximately 100 metres after development had taken place.

· Development on the edge of Hitchin would result in continuous urban influence extending close to the western boundary of the site.

· The site was measured at 1.5km in length and would lead to a perceived narrowing of the gap between Stevenage and Hitchin, adding to their coalescence both physically and functionally and providing a strong case for its designation to the Green Belt.

· The cumulative impact of WY1, North Stevenage developments and solar farm already granted permission in Wymondley would be immense on the strategic gap.

· The area contained open, rolling, arable land with views to the skyline and the panels would produce a hard, reflective grid visible from the Hertfordshire Way.

· If the application was granted permission, nearby residents would be surrounded by an industrial fenced environment resulting from this and the aforementioned developments.

· A reduction in resident wellbeing resulting from the cumulative impacts of these developments should carry significant weight when considering this application.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Parish Councillor Harding for their presentation and invited the third Public Objector, Mr Andy Hammond to speak against the application. Mr Hammond thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· They lived adjacent to the proposed site and operated a vineyard on its southern edge.

· The application presented was mostly the same as the one that the Council overwhelmingly refused eighteen months ago.

· Unacceptable harm to the Green Belt and rural landscape remained valid as a reason to refuse to grant permission for this application.

· The site lay within the Green Belt and was comprised of Grade 2 and 3a agricultural land, which was designated as best and most versatile under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and produced approximately 200 tonnes of wheat each year, contributing to local and national food security.

· Development on such land should only occur in exceptional cases as per the NPPF.

· This application was not in isolation with permission granted for solar farms at Great Wymondley, Wandon End and Bygrave, which together with approved housing developments would cause a dramatic erosion of the countryside.

· Serious objections had been submitted from key consultees such as Natural England, Place Services, the Planning Consultant, Conservation, St Ippolyts Parish Council and Wymondley Parish Council whose input deserved real weight in the considerations of the Committee.

· Construction was expected to last up to a year and operate seven days a week which would cause disruption, noise, dust and traffic to a quiet rural community.

· Local roads were already narrow and pressured and mitigations should be implemented to restrict working days, ensure a robust Construction Traffic Management Plan and have environmental oversight if permission was granted.

· The development also presented a risk to local ecology and adjoining land.

· Flooding, habitat loss and microclimate changes could all affect the viability of the vineyard and they had received no consultation from the Applicant.

· The community gained nothing from the proposal as contractors were from outside the area, there would be no discounted energy schemes, job creation was negligible, and the only benefactors were the landowner, developer and investors.

· They were not in opposition to renewable energy, but in favour of balanced development.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Mr Hammond for his presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor Ralph Muncer to speak against the application. Councillor Muncer thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· Grey Belt was in its infancy and this site was classified under it, but Members of the Committee could be confident that it was part of the Green Belt.

· The value of this land within the Green Belt allocation was quite clear and it had been designated to prevent urban sprawl between Stevenage and Hitchin as detailed in the adopted Local Plans of both North Herts and Stevenage Borough Councils.

· This land helped to preserve the character of North Herts and the nearby villages of Gosmore, St Ippolyts, Little Wymondley and Great Wymondley.

· Approximately 150 hectares in North Herts had been approved for solar farm development in the last year which was already a significant contribution towards generating renewable energy that would help to fight climate change.

· The development would impact on food security as the agricultural quality of this site was in the upper half of the agricultural land classification.

· While access to the site would be minimal once the solar farm had been constructed, there was significant concern over access during the construction phase as this would take place via single track country lanes without providing mitigations such as passing places to prevent the worsening of congestion on Sperberry Hill and Little Almshole Lane.

· Contributions would not be felt by the local community despite the disruption it would cause to them.

· Based on the arguments that had been presented, Members had grounds to reject the application.

· If the application was not rejected, it should be deferred as the report of the Senior Planning Officer was in his opinion, fundamentally flawed and should be revised to include an assessment of the whole site so that Members had accurate information to base their determination on.

There were no points of clarification from Members.

The Chair thanked Councillor Muncer for his presentation and invited the Applicant Representative, Mr Nick Roberts to speak in support of the application. Mr Roberts thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

· The proposed solar farm would generate renewable energy and displace fossil fuel generation, contributing positively towards climate change.

· North Herts Council declared a climate emergency in 2019 and had committed to becoming Net Zero by 2040, which this application would support.

· The previous recommendation to refuse the application in November 2023 was described as ‘very finely balanced’.

· Since its refusal, they had improved the application by reducing its land area and the number of solar panels while retaining the energy generation capacity.

· They had also increased the stand off from existing properties and planted 3,000 square metres of new woodland.

· The balance now rested in favour of supporting the application as not only had it improved, but national policy on the Green Belt had also fundamentally changed in a way that provided greater support to the application.

· Analysis of grey belt policy by the Senior Planning Officer was correct as only the site within its boundaries should be given significant weight, not pre-existing green belt assessments on large parcels of land.

· To deliver Net Zero in North Herts, there would need to be over 750 hectares of new solar developments, invalidating the opinion that the district had already made its contribution towards renewable energy generation.

· The largest hurdle to the delivery of renewable energy was sufficient grid connection points.

· This site benefitted from a committed connection to the national grid through Wymondley Sub-Station and could begin generating renewable energy in advance of the 2030 Net Zero target set by the UK Government.

· The application should be granted permission as the Council would be delivering an improved scheme that helped to ensure environmental targets were met.

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Mick Debenham, the Applicant Representative advised that works would take place seven days a week but with reduced hours on Saturdays and Sundays and no noise generating activities or vehicular deliveries would be carried out on Saturday afternoons or Sundays.

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

· The NPPF defined Grey Belt as any land that did not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes A, B or D in paragraph 143.

· Grey Belt excluded land that possessed areas or assets of particular importance as detailed in Footnote 7 of the NPPF (other than Green Belt) that would provide a strong reason for refusal.

· These assets were listed as important habitat sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, local green space, national landscapes and parks, Heritage Coasts, and designated heritage assets.

· The detailed assessment associated with Grey Belt classification had been carried out on this site.

· Very limited weight was given to the 2016 Green Belt Review as its purpose was to assess Green Belt boundaries that covered a much wider portion of land whereas the Grey Belt assessment focused on the application site, making it more relevant and giving it greater weight.

· The agricultural land within the site was categorised as Grade 3a and Grade 2, however, National Policy Statement EM3 for renewable energy infrastructure stated that ground mounted solar arrays did not need to be prohibited on agricultural land and farming would still take place through sheep grazing.

· After 40 years, the solar farm would be decommissioned and the land returned to its current use.

· Construction traffic and its on-site working hours would be controlled through the Construction Traffic Management Plan.

· Environmental Health could also control working hours through separate legislation.

The following Members asked additional questions:

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Clare Billing

· Councillor Steve Jarvis

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

· The agricultural land quality was recognised but as previously detailed, it would not be lost as it would be used for grazing if permission was granted.

· The comments from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer were in relation to the monitoring of CCTV within the site and the inability to prevent crime, but the Applicant had provided measures in response to this.

· There would be three access routes to the site, one via Stevenage Road to the north and two from Little Almshole Lane.

· S106 contributions were not required as part of the application, therefore they could not ask the Applicant for funds to improve nearby roads.

· The Construction Traffic Management Plan would set out delivery routes, delivery management methods, phasing, access methods and vehicle routing to address congestion and other issues during the temporary construction phase.

· After the site had been constructed, traffic should return to normal levels.

· Highways would have to assess whether the delivery vehicles described in the Construction Traffic Management Plan were appropriate for the nearby roads.

· Harm to the site arising from visual impact had been identified, however, they deemed that the benefits resulting from the significant biodiversity net gain and generation of renewable energy would outweigh this.

· The net biodiversity gain from this site was large as its current biodiversity was low due to its current agricultural use for growing crops.

In response to additional questions, the Team Leader Major Sites advised that:

· Even under the most ambitious scenario, solar farms would occupy less than 1% of agricultural land nationally, therefore they were not a threat to food security as evidenced by the Inspector of the Wandon End Appeal.

· The parameters and methodology of the Green Belt assessment were outdated whereas the PPG gave clear instructions on what contributed to each of the Green Belt purposes when undertaking a Grey Belt Assessment.

· The Wandon End site was immediately adjacent to an urban setting whereas this site was not, therefore, different criteria had to be considered when weighing its contribution to urban expansion.

· As stated in the PPG, a strong contribution to an urban setting was defined as an area that contributed strongly to the merging of towns or villages, was likely to be free of existing development, formed a substantial part of a gap between towns, and the development would result in visual separation between towns.

· A moderate contribution was defined as forming a small part of the gap between towns, development was able to take place without loss of visual separation between towns and could be but not limited to the presence and close proximity of structures, natural landscapes, elements or topography that preserved visual separation.

· Weak or no contribution was defined as an area that did not contribute to a gap between towns or formed a very small part of a gap without contributing to visual separation.

· Once an application was approved in a gap between settlements, subsequent proposals were be assessed on much of the remaining gap(s) they would form which was done on a case-by-case basis.

· The developer would have to set out the number of daily construction vehicles including their size at each stage of the development within the Construction Traffic Management Plan.

· If the Highways Authority felt that construction vehicles would cause material harm to nearby roads, they could refuse to approve the details of the plan.

Councillor Caroline McDonnell proposed to defer the application to ensure that the grey belt classification of the land was correct and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.

In response to the proposal to defer, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that this was not a valid reason to defer the application as officers had already confirmed the classification of the site as Grey Belt and that officers could answer more questions on this, but deferring the application to a future meeting would not yield substantially new information to inform their decision.

In response to the proposal to defer, the Team Leader Major Sites clarified that a case report had been provided on the special circumstances upon which land could be considered Green Belt rather than Grey Belt and the Committee could use this to base a recommendation on and agreed that if the application was deferred to a future meeting, information provided to Members would not be materially different.

In response to points raised by Councillor Martin Prescott, the Locum Planning Lawyer advised that:

· Members needed to provide a legal reason to defer the application.

· It had already been detailed that little information other than the reports that had been provided to Members already would be presented to the Committee at a future meeting if the application was deferred.

In response to the advice from the Locum Planning Lawyer, Councillor Martin Prescott noted that:

· Members could challenge the subjective view of the Planning Officer following the public presentations at the meeting, and the discussion between Members on the matter.

· Officers were in a better position to interpret the reasons that Members had given to refuse the application and provide legal justifications to back them.

· He was uncomfortable with accepting the downgrade of the land from Green Belt to Grey Belt considering its high agricultural value.

· There were alternatives to this proposal to achieve net biodiversity gain such as the current owner of the land planting wildflower seeds.

Councillor Ian Mantle highlighted that the Committee had enough information before them not to defer the application and that they would not receive any meaningful information to help inform their decision at a future meeting if it was deferred.

In response to a question from Councillor Caroline McDonnell, the Team Leader Major Sites advised that refusal could not be made on the categorisation of sub-parcel 10a or the Green Belt Review as they were not relevant to the site itself and could be open to cost award at an appeal.

Councillor Martin Prescott noted that given the lack of reasons to defer the application, they should refuse the application.

Councillor Caroline McDonnell withdrew her motion to defer the application and this was accepted by Councillor Martin Prescott as seconder.

Councillor Caroline McDonnell proposed to refuse permission and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott.

The following Members took part in the debate:

· Councillor Steve Jarvis

· Councillor Mick Debenham

· Councillor Dave Winstanley

· Councillor Clare Billing

· Councillor Martin Prescott

· Councillor Bryony May

The following points were made as part of the debate:

· The report identified that there would be a significant visual impact from the solar farm that would not arise from other sites that were capable of meeting renewable energy needs, therefore the application should be refused.

· The site was adjacent to the sub-station which was described as an eyesore.

· The current farmer of the land did not want to grow crops.

· It had good connection to the national grid via the sub-station with minimal amounts of nearby housing, showing its appropriateness for a solar farm.

· There would be a large biodiversity net gain and fewer pesticides would be used if the land no longer produced crops.

· The downgrade of the land classification from Green Belt to Grey Belt was concerning.

· The site would be plugging the gap between Hitchin and Stevenage.

· Biodiversity net gain could be achieved in a way that did not involve solar panels.

· Crops were shown in multiple pictures of the visual presentation given by the Senior Planning Officer, therefore, the argument that the farmer did not want to grow crops was not necessarily true.

· The land was classified under the Green Belt in the Local Plan but had been defined under the Grey Belt in this application.

· While this land was relatively appropriate for a solar farm, they might be in a weaker position to defend against inappropriate areas of development on Green Belt land in the Local Plan if permission was granted for this application.

In response to points raised in the debate, the Chair asked the proposer to clarify the grounds for refusing the application.

As her right of reply, Councillor Caroline McDonnell made the following points:

· There were issues with the land categorisation as Grey Belt and it should be kept as Green Belt land.

· The buffer between Hitchin and Stevenage should be maintained.

· Hitchin, Gosmore and St Ippolyts were all close together.

· The solar farm would border a housing development on Sperberry Hill that had already been approved by the Council and the proposal to mitigate this through the planting of trees would close off the area completely.

· The visual impact on landscape and openness would be massive as it would be visible from numerous miles around.

· There would be other sites in North Herts more suitable than this one for a solar farm.

· The proposed solar farm at Priory Farm in Great Wymondley was located several miles from the nearest sub-station which meant that putting the solar farm on an alternative site to this one, further away from the sub-station was possible.

In response to points made by Councillor Caroline McDonnell, the Team Leader Major Sites summarised the material reasons for refusal as the contribution of the site to the restriction of urban sprawl and merging of settlements and as such, the site was considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Furthermore, the development would have an impact on the landscape. These were accepted by Councillor McDonnell.

Having been proposed and seconded and following a vote, the motion to refuse permission was LOST.

Councillor Dave Winstanley proposed to grant permission and this was seconded by Councillor Ian Mantle.

The following Members took part in the debate:

· Councillor Steve Jarvis

· Councillor Clare Billing

· Councillor Mick Debenham

· Councillor Nigel Mason

The following points were made as part of the debate:

· There was difficulty in granting permission as the implications of the Grey Belt assessment might go beyond this application.

· Members of the Committee should interpret the policy on Grey Belt rather than define it.

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

RESOLVED: That Application 24/02455/FP be GRANTEDplanning permission subject to the reasons and conditions set out in the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, with the amendments to Condition 4, Condition 9, Condition 12, Condition 14, Condition 16, Condition 18, Condition 24, Condition 25 and Condition 27, the removal of Condition 10 and 11 and the addition of Condition 29, as follows: