To receive any questions relating to items on the Agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Minutes:
All the questions for the meeting referred to Item 7 (the construction of Ground Mounted Solar PV Panels at land at NGR 303437 103555 East of Langford Mill and Tye Farm, Langford).
Mrs Jan Jones asked if the committee if they had carried out a site visit and secondly why has the description of the proposed development missed the most important aspect of the proposal, namely the sheer size of the development plus 4 miles of security fences and CCTVs going against the Council’s supplementary planning document which states that this area has a high sensitivity to solar development to over 37 acres. The panels will come from China, hardly carbon neutral and there will be a considerable amount of infrastructure contained in unsightly containers and a battery substation occupying over 1 acre of land. Is there an agenda to keep this industrial nature of this proposed solar installation from the members of the committee? Do the committee realise that part of the site is in flood zones 2 and 3 which has a medium to high probability of flooding. Do they believe that all of this infrastructure and new drainage ditches and swales will not affect downstream flooding. Photos have been submitted to show the effect of the flooding on the Plymtree Road and the weak bridge over the River Weaver, why are these not mentioned in the officer’s report? Finally, can I ask, if this application is approved, can you honestly tell me if this huge solar installation is worth the destruction of 152 acres (60 ha) of our beautiful Devonshire countryside, for the sake of a minute 0.01% of electricity in the UK.
Mr Mike Jones asked are the members of the committee aware that there will be considerable cumulative impact with adjacent solar farms and that the landscape of this part of Devon will become an industrialised grey solar farm landscape. Are you also aware that there are proposals for another solar farm a Clyst Hydon which at its nearest point would only be 1.2 km from this one, no doubt they will end up connected at some time in the future? Page 21 of the officer report states that there were 136 letters of representation and that only 36 were objections, this is wrong. There were 126 objections letters, one of which was subsequently withdrawn, in fact there were 125 objection letters, there was also a petition submitted with around 70 signatures which conveniently wasn’t mentioned. The objection that was withdrawn was done so following a payoff to the person involved which I reported to the Planning officer. Given that the 125 objection letters contained a lot of detailed evidence, why in a 36 page report has their content be diminished to half a page of bullet points which has ignored much of the valid evidence, why has all this evidence been conveniently ignored by the officer.
Mrs Mandy Willis stated that she and her husband lived at 5 Langford Green Cottages and asked whether members of the committee were aware that the proposal is directly adjacent to the boundaries of residential properties including hers. This is severely detrimental to the value of these properties and to the enjoyment of our back gardens and what is currently beautiful rural views, notwithstanding the glare and noise affecting the same residents some of whom are night shift workers, we would question the strength in boundary hedges to 3 metres in height to even be sufficient. Why have some residents properties in Langford Green namely numbers 6-8 been considered and therefore have no panels in the fields bordering their gardens and yet the next field along is deemed acceptable to have panels directly against our property boundaries. Considerable mention is also made in the agenda document with regard to the Grade II listed property at Langford Court by both Historic England and the Conservation officer. During the planning process for the renovations to our cottage, at Number 5, during 2017 the Conservation Officer rejected our plans stating that these properties were considered important unlisted assets as a group. We would ask that on this basis there are clearly grounds that and I quote the proposal would result in registrable harm to the significance and setting of these 8 cottages as well as Langford Court previously considered to be important unlisted assets as a group. We would strongly urge members of the committee to consider that this field should be removed from the proposal entirely should it be accepted.
Mr Martin Willis asked if the members of the committee were aware of the flooding experienced by the residents of Langford Green at the end of their gardens directly adjacent to the field proposed to contain these panels. I ask you to refer to the photos and video evidence previously submitted for your view and consideration. For our concerns that further development in the adjacent field to our property will further exacerbate this issue, we strongly urge the members of the committee to consider that this field should be removed from the proposal entirely.
Mr Smith asked is the committee are aware of the detrimental proposal on the landscape and neighbours residential amenity and other factors remain constant for the lifetime of the solar farm for at least 2 generations whilst the insignificant benefit of electricity generation to the grid is an inverse proportion to the demand. For example the highest output will only happen at midday in high summer at a time of lowest demand, conversely, there will be no output whatsoever at night and extremely low output on cold winter days when demand is at its greatest. To make it clear, are you aware of any perceived benefit that is far outweighed by the detriment of the project. Given that the proposed solar farm would be located in an area deemed to be unsuitable for large solar farms and on a flood plain, are the members of the committee aware that if this proposal is permitted, a precedent would have been set, that the rest of Mid Devon will be considered by developers to be suitable for a range solar farms and it will be open season for developers.
Mr Matthews stated that we are told that the capacity of the solar farm will be limited to exactly 49.9 megawatts which raises suspicions from myself. We are told that the battery storage facility will consist of battery units housed in shipping containers plus storage containers and a inverter cabin. What I am unable to find in this information is the capacity of battery storage facility, can someone tell me what the total storage capacity of the batteries will be limited to in megawatt hours and if not why has this crucial detail been omitted from the documents. As we should all know by now, this is not a typical solar installation, it is one of the largest in Devon, if not in the UK, it covers over 150 acres of farmland and has 4 miles of boundaries and is 1 mile in length. This land as we know is sensitive to wildlife habitats and will be seen from miles around, not to mention the key point that it is already prone to flooding. Given that such an installation will be in place for the next 40 years, who or what body will be responsible to ensure that all these unique points around boundary management and wildlife protection, flood mitigation etc will adhered to and who exactly will be responsible to deliver on these unique commitments over the next 40 years and what would be the consequences be should any of these commitments not be adhered to, especially with regard to flooding control, wildlife habitat, preservation and boundary management. I would also like to know who would be responsible in 40 years’ time for the deconstruction and safe disposal of 110,000 panels, what assurances would be in place.
David Withstanley, asked how is the Council going to guarantee that if you grant planning permission for the solar farm, all the equipment will be removed after 40 years and the land will be cleaned up and restored to full agricultural use, what would happen if the owner goes bust?
Mr Harwood raised concerns with regard to the size of the proposed site about 150 acres and 17 fields, over a mile long. Are the committee not concerned about the super size of the proposed site and if approved will it just set a precedent or indeed a further precedent, gradually turning the whole area into one gigantic solar farm stretching for miles and is that not more of a strategic question, not just the adding of one after the other fairly close to each other.
Claire Fry asked whether the committee were aware that solar panels contain many toxic substances such as cadmium. With over 110,000 panels many of them will inevitably degrade or become damaged over a period of 40 years, how will these toxic substances be prevented from escaping and contaminating the soil and water courses?
Cora Winterson stated that I believe the plan was to graze sheep under the solar panels, the flora would inevitably change over the time due to the lack of sunlight and the change of use of the land, how feasible would this be in the long term? How would weed control be managed, as this is a very large area to be managed and the spraying of the weeds would enter the watercourse? Have the developers revised a detailed and realistic forecast of what the solar farm is likely to generate under the different conditions and if so what model has this been based on and if the solar farm was to be approved, what would its ongoing energy contribution and efficiency be, and would that be public knowledge?
Sally Matthews stated that it is reported that the Environment Agency’s consideration is that a solar installation should be considered as essential infrastructure, however the Environment Agency has no expertise or authority in this area; whereas the relevant authority, the National Infrastructure Commission has not declared solar installations to be essential infrastructure. Why therefore has the report taken the position that the solar installation is essential infrastructure?
Heather Wheeler stated that the applicant has made biodiversity enhancement a major selling point, why then is it not a formal condition of approval that the biodiversity management plan includes for example the following: fire ground preparation by means of deep digging, avoidance or minimal use of herbicides and most importantly the prior appointment of involvement throughout of an experienced habitat restoration ecologist as recommended by Devon Wildlife Trust?
Mr Gill stated that East Devon District Council will shortly be considering planning for another 158 acre site within 1.2 km of the proposed site at Langford, I am not sure how joined up you are with East Devon but it seems now that the 2 wards are going to be surrounded by solar panels, so if you are not aware, I would like to make you aware of that. Do any members of the committee live in sight of the area and I would ask them what their position would be if it were to be in their back garden. What value land has this been assessed as, as it is being cultivated at the present time, there is nature, deer, munch jacks and roe, as well as rabbits etc, so there is going to be a direct rural impact to our countryside in what is going to be a 4 mile by 1 mile swath of solar panels, there is also another solar farm just at Westcott. What guarantees can you give, for when they reverse this process? If this is granted, you should not underestimate the impact on the local community of having what would eventually be 4 miles of fencing and look like HM prison, with a load of containers inside it. Why are we even considering putting this into greenbelt land and not into brown belt land.
Mr Sykes stated that we have almost a perfect storm as residents in this area of the fablink at Broadclyst and the surge in capacity of the grid, the ever falling solar costs and that these were not aware of at the time when the main plans were put together for East and Mid Devon and in fact these are constantly evolving. My concern is that the greenfield sites are those that are the most profitable for the developers to install solar installations and with the increase in capacity and the decrease in solar costs, the profitability is only going to increase as is the temptation to build on land to make the most of opportunities that are available to them. We need to step back and take a look at this at a more macro level rather than an individual swath of 49.9 megawatt applications that will completely change the nature of Mid and East Devon and I think that this needs to be considered at a high level. There will be ongoing disruption to the community and the small roads and lanes that make their way through it with regard to the erection of these schemes one by one, after another. There will also be a loss of jobs, there will be construction jobs, but these will be people coming from outside the area who just travel around working on solar installations, there will be a loss of permanent farming jobs replaced by solar panels. The sites will sit here for 40 years, there will be a loss of farming expertise, generations will be taken out from farming and when the panels are restored to their pre-agricultural use, who will farm this land?