Agenda item

To consider a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration with regard to the above application.

The Committee  had before it a report of the head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration regarding the above.

 

The Development Management Manager outlined the contents of the report by way of a presentation which highlighted the site boundary, site layout, photographs of the approximate site extent, current viewpoints and photomontage views.

 

The officer stated that the site would consist of 91k solar panels and described the orientation of the panels. She informed Members that there were 3 access points and that during construction of the site there would be 6 daily deliveries to the site which would unload at Tye Farm and the materials taken over the weight restricted bridge by smaller vehicles.

 

She explained that an area in the middle of the site would not have any solar panels after discussions with the Environment Agency regarding the risk of flooding. The application stated that sheep would continue to graze on the site and that screening of up to 3 metres in height would be provided at the south west of the site to shield neighbouring properties.

 

The officer then provided the following responses to questions from members of the public:

 

·         No site visit had taken place due to the pandemic restrictions

·         The flood zoning had been mentioned in the report

·         The Environmental Agency were statutory consultees

·         Advice had been sought with regard to the flood risk from the Environment Agency and the LFA

·         The farmland would not be destroyed and the land would still be used for farming in some form

·         Council policy was to summarise objections in reports but the full submissions were available to view on the website

·         Property values were not a material consideration

·         Glare from the panels would be dealt with by landscaping

·         There had been no discussion about other properties or sites

·         It was not within the remit of the Planning Authority to remove parts of the site from the application

·         Developments in technology had seen solar farm lifespans increase to 40 years

·         The application included battery storage so that power could be released into the network at peak times

·         The total storage capacity of the battery units were not known to planning officers

·         The developer and operator were responsible for the biodiversity plan

·         The developer was responsible for the removal of the equipment after 40 years

·         Conditions had been included to enforce the removal of the equipment after 40 years

·         There was no precedent, each application had to be determined on its own merits

·         Solar panels were predominately glass and silica and if they failed would be replaced by the operator

·         The Grazing of sheep under the panels was feasible and a biodiversity plan had been submitted by the applicant with regard to the control of weeds on the site

·         The National Infrastructure Group had not been involved in the application

·         The biodiversity plan stated there would be an ecologist on site during construction

·         Minimal use of pesticides could be conditioned

·         Loss of agricultural land was mentioned in the report however the site was not prime agricultural land

·         At the end of 40 years all equipment must be removed and the land returned for agricultural use

·         There were not sufficient brownfield sites to accommodate the size of the development proposed

·         Officers had acknowledged that the proposed solar panels would change the view of the landscape and the Local Planning Authority would need to determine if this was acceptable

·         The owners would continue to farm the land

 

The officer then provided responses to questions asked by Members:

 

·         Officers felt the conditions were feasible and could be enforced

·         Bradninch and Cullompton Town Council’s had objected to the application in their latest submissions

·         The impact of solar glare would be mitigated by landscaping

·         The applicant could lodge an application to extend the lifetime of the site beyond 40 years and this would need to be determined on it’s merits at the time

·         It was possible that as technology developed that there would be an increase in applications to extend the lifespan of solar developments

·         There was no evidence that solar panels caused any additional harm to human health than domestic appliances

·         There was a biodiversity management plan and the applicant was developing a skylark habitat

·         Screening had been completed and the Environmental Agency’s response had been provided

·         No Environmental Impact Assessment had been completed

·         The applicant had considered habitat regulations in biodiversity in the application

·         The agricultural land on the site was predominately a mixture of Grades 3b, 4 and 5 which ranged from moderate to poor quality

·         Officers had considered the noise generated from the operation of the panels and not the effect of heavy rain falling on them

·         The Highways Authority advice that the access should be in sound bound material for the first 20 metres had been noted

·         The collection of business rates was not relevant to the application

·         The development would bring jobs into the District and would allow the Council to support carbon neutrality

·         The Conservation Officer and Historic England’s comments that the development would result in considerable harm were still valid and the report offered a balanced view but it was down to Members to decide what weight to attribute to them

 

Consideration was then given to:

 

·         The views of the objector who stated that this would be the largest solar farm in Devon and possibly the country. The proposed capacity of 49.4MW was a ploy by the developer to avoid scrutiny and a decision by the Secretary of State for installations over 50MW. Solar panels were not essential infrastructure and that the development offered no benefit to the people of district and there would be no emission reductions

·         The views of the agent who stated that they had a proven track record in capital investments and that the development would provide substantial benefits. They had secured an agreement to export all power to the national grid and the UK was legally obliged to be carbon neutral by 2050. The development would meet the demands of 30k homes across Mid Devon and provide a reduction of 20k tonnes of carbon annually. The development was using the lowest grade of agricultural land and they had addressed the concerns of the local community and businesses

·         Members views that they were not in a position to make a decision because there were many questions that had not been answered

·         The amount of conditions proposed and whether these could be enforced

·         The negative visual impact of the development

·         Sheep could graze under the panels but native deer could not

·         Members concerns with making a strategic decision without being able to further question the evidence provided

·         The unknown impact of deconstruction of the site in 40 years time and the impact on ancient trees

·         Concerns that there was no clear idea of the green credentials of solar panels and that new technologies were being developed which could make them redundant in a relatively short time

·         Further information was required on the biodiversity plan, impact on ancient trees and the tree management plan

·         The Management Plan did not give confidence to Members and the ability of the Council to enforce it

·         Members views that the application had already been going on for 16 months and could not be determined without a physical site visit by Committee

 

 

RESOLVED that the application be deferred for a Full Committee site visit to be undertaken and returned to committee accordingly with further information to come forward within a report to include the environmental impact of the application, details of the biodiversity plan, land management, mitigation of flood risk and the shielding of the site.  Members were also requested to inform the Development Management Manager of any further information they would like included in the additional report by Friday 9th April 2021.

 

(Proposed by Cllr C J Eginton and seconded by Cllr L J Cruwys)

 

Reason for the decision – For Members to be comfortable that they had enough information to be able to make an informed decision on the application

 

Notes:

 

    i.)        Cllrs Mrs F J Colthorpe, G Barnell, E J Berry, Mrs C P Daw, L J Cruwys, C J Eginon, S J Clist, F W Letch, D J Knowles and B G J Warren made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing with planning matters as they had received correspondence from objectors, applicant and developer

   ii.)        Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as one of the objectors was known to her

  iii.)        Cllr B G J Warren declared a personal interest as one of the objectors was known to him

 iv.)        Dr Bratby spoke as the objector

  v.)        James Walker spoke as the agent

 vi.)        The following late information was reported:

 

The first comment from Cullompton Town Council is dated 25th October 2019

 

Proposed amendments to Conditions if approved:

 

Condition 4 – First line to read

 

Within 3 months of the solar array permanently ceasing to be used ……..

 

Condition 10 to read

 

No development shall take place until off site highway condition surveys have been undertaken and the details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in liaison with the Local Highway Authority.

 

Condition 20 – First line to read

 

Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Environmental Plan ……..