Agenda item

To consider an implications report of the Consultant – Development Management, with regard to this application.

At the meeting of 14 July 2021, the Committee were minded to refuse the application and requested that an *implications report be produced to consider the reasons for refusal.

 

The Consultant for Development Management recapped on the history of the application and the previous reports that the committee had considered and the reasons for deferral.  He requested that members consider the update sheet: the proposed amended reasons for refusal and a further representation.

 

He then supplied responses to questions raised in public question time:

 

·         With regard to the investigation, this was ongoing and expected to be completed by the end of the month

·         With regard to the CPRE offering assistance should an appeal be lodged, he thanked them but advised them as a third party they could apply to the Planning Inspectorate as a rule 6 party.

·         With regard to the site visit – some members did visit the site and that all members had taken account of all the issues raised within the report and were familiarr with the site

·         With regard to the visual impact of the proposal, this had been addressed within the report

·         With regard to sheep grazing – sheep did graze fields with PV arrays

·         With regard to supposed benefits to the local population – the bullet points in the report covered all of the objections, however the officer had looked at the benefits as part of the planning balance

·         With regard to the loss of agricultural land and whether farmland should be used to produce top quality meat and dairy products rather than low grade energy – he referred to the report and the high carbon footprint of meat.

·         With regard to questions from Mr Smith, he stated that the application had been assessed in line with the latest planning policy and guidance and that the report highlighted the benefits of the proposal

·         With regard to a detailed and realistic forecast of what the solar farm would likely generate in different conditions, this was not required in support of this application and for further information the applicant may be able to assist with this

·         He informed the meeting all the other information requested was available within the report.

 

The officer then outlined the contents of the report highlighting by way of presentation the site location and layout of the proposal which included plans of the siting of the panels, and the plant and battery storage.  He provided photographs from various aspects looking towards the site and existing and photomontage views of the site.  He then outlined the 3 reasons for refusal outlined within the implications report and revised in the update sheet.

 

The officer then explained in detail the following:

 

·         The possible adverse impact on the landscape, explaining the contents of the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant and how this had been considered against the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Solar PV Developments in the Landscape (2016).

·         The possible adverse impact on the Grade II* listed property  - Langford Court and the response received from Historic England and the Conservation officer

·         The additional loss of agricultural land, highlighting Paragraph 13 of the NPPG and policies S1, S9 and DM2 of the Local Plan

·         In addition, the report also summarised public benefit of the scheme the planning balance- looking at both the benefits and disadvantages of the scheme.

 

Consideration was given to:

 

·         Concerns with regard to social and economic benefits of the scheme

·         Whether there really were employment opportunities for local people

·         The responses of Cullompton Town Council

·         The lack of analysis of the implications for refusal within the report

·         Page 51 of the report which highlighted the reasons for deferral and the removal of ‘high grade’ from those reasons for deferral

·         The lack of a layout plan for the containers and batteries area

·         Whether there were any financial contributions to the local parishes as stated on page 55 of the pack

·         Whether it was necessary to re-open the discussion on the application when members should be considering the implications report

·         The need to include ‘adverse impact on the landscape’ within reason for refusal 1

·         The lack of analysis with regard to the climate issues

 

It was therefore:

 

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

 

1.    The proposed development due to its scale, location, layout and appearance fails to understand the local visual adverse impact on the landscape and as such is contrary to Policies DM1, DM2 and S9 of the Local Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) –Solar PV Developments in the Landscape (2016) and paragraphs 174, 176 and 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

2.    The proposed development due to its scale, location and appearance would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of the Grade II* Listed Langford Court, contrary to Policies S9 DM2 and DM25 of the local plan and the provisions of paragraph 199, 200 and 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

3.    The proposed development due to it scale and layout would result in the additional loss of agricultural land contrary to Policies S1 and S9 and DM2 of the Local Plan and paragraph 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

(Proposed by Cllr C J Eginton and seconded by Cllr F W Letch)

 

Notes:

(i)            Cllrs G Barnell, E J Berry, S J Clist, Mrs F J Colthorpe, L J Cruwys, Mrs C P Daw, R J Dolley, C J Eginton, P J Heal, F W Letch 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 to the application;

 

(ii)          Cllr R J Dolley declared a personal interest as he knew some of the objectors and others involved in the application;

 

(iii)         Cllr E J Berry declared a personal interest and he also knew people involved in the application and as the local DCC member for the area;

 

(iv)         Cllrs E J Berry, Mrs F J Colthorpe, Mrs C P Daw and P J Heal requested that their vote against the final decision be recorded;

 

(v)          In the event of an appeal, it was agreed that Cllrs G Barnell, C J Eginton and B G J Warren would defend the decision;

 

(vi)         The following late information was reported:

 

That the first reason for refusal suggested by amended as follows

 

1. The proposed development due to its scale, location, layout and

appearance fails to understand the local visual context and as such is contrary to Policies DM1, DM2 and S9 of the Local Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) –Solar PV Developments in the Landscape (2016) and paragraphs 176 and 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

Officers note the contents of Cynthia Chattey’s email below and apologise for any misclassification. However, it is considered that the implications report can be read in this context within its relevant section and it would not have changes the argument put forward in the implications report.

 

Dear Sally and others,

 

Yesterday I received an invitation to the upcoming planning session, frustratingly falling on Wednesday 22 September when I will be on a work visit to Dubai. I will do my best to attend, but considering I would once again be rearranging my schedule, I would like a level of assurance that the discussion of the solar farm at Langford Court will in fact take place. I have yet to receive a response on my previous email as to the technicalities which prohibited the conversation earlier.

 

I am rightfully aggrieved at the flagrant and continued MISCLASSIFICATION of UPDATES to Langford Court as a Grade 2 listing (as stated in your invitation letter and in the Implications Report). Grade 2* buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest. Less than 5.8% of listed buildings are Grade 2*. Considering it is in fact Planning who have oversight of this listing, I am confused as to how this has consistently been quoted wrongly.

It should be reiterated to EVERYONE on the panel and the audience that Langford Court is a Grade 2* (STAR) listing. It is, in fact, the STAR which requires extra sensitivity and consideration in spoiling our outlook and situation. It is that STAR which presents TREMENDOUS COSTS and HURDLES to our family, in our upkeep and maintenance of our HOME in order to meet and comply with council standards as to how it should be maintained. That same STAR should equally protect Langford Court when OTHERS are attempting to encroach on the property.

 

I would expect future references and documentation, particularly the Implications Report, to be updated to reflect the correct listing information and the level of diligence it should require. I would appreciate your help in incorporating this further complaint into my

objection.

 

Any questions, I'm happy to be reached by reply email.

Thank you,

Cynthia Worley Chattey

 

Modifications in red -update

1. The proposed development due to its scale, location, layout and appearance fails to understand the local visual context and as such is contrary to Policies DM1, DM2 and S9 of the Local Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) –Solar PV Developments in the Landscape (2016) and paragraphs 174, 176 and 177 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

2. The proposed development due to its scale, location and appearance would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of the Grade II* Listed Langford Court, contrary to Policies S9 DM2 and DM25 of the local plan and the provisions of paragraph 199, 200 and 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021”.

3. The proposed development due to it scale and layout would result in the additional loss of agricultural land contrary to Policies S1 and S9 and DM2 of the Local Plan and paragraph 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

 

(vii)        *Report previously circulated copy attached to minutes.