To consider a report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding this application.
Minutes:
The Committee had before it a * report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration regarding the above application.
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location, access to the site, an aerial photograph identifying the site, the proposed layout of the panels, the panel arrangement, the location and design of the substations and proposed landscaping. She also explained the amendments from the previous application.
Photographs from various locations were presented and she explained that she felt there was no cumulative impact with regard to other sites in the neighbourhood.
Addressing the issue raised at public question time with regard to visual impact, she stated that screening could be conditioned and that the landscape plan could be enhanced.
Consideration was given to:
· The need for renewable energy and effective solar energy
· The visible impact of the proposal in open countryside
· The cumulative impact of the proposal
· The number of solar PV farms in the area
· The quality of the agricultural land
RESOLVED that members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the decision to allow for a report to be received setting out the implications for the proposed reasons for refusal based on landscape and visual impact and cumulative impact.
(Proposed by Cllr R L Stanley and seconded by Cllr Mrs C A Collis)
Notes:
(i) Cllrs K I Busch, Mrs C Collis, R J Dolley, J M Downes, S G Flaws, P J Heal, D J Knowles, R F Radford, J L Smith, J D Squire and R L Stanley made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors dealing in planning matters as they had received correspondence regarding the application;
(ii) Mr Munday (Agent) spoke;
(iii) Mrs Worner spoke on behalf of the objectors;
(iv) A statement by Cllr Mrs Bainbridge (Ward Member) was considered;
(v) Cllr Mrs C A Collis spoke as one of the Ward Members;
(vi) The following late information was reported: 16th October 2015
Burlescombe Parish Council 13th October 2015 – No further comments to make beyond their original objections (contained within the Committee report under the consultations section).
Two additional letters of objection received:
· The application will have a negative effect on the local area due to the loss of agricultural land, cumulative impact and the impact on views from historic buildings;
· Feel the committee report undervalues the special landscape;
· The wrong scheme in the wrong place.
1 further objection summarised as follows:
· The applicant has shown scant regard for screening the site – the planting already carried out is unsuitable due to species and size: trees would need to be 20m+ to screen
· Screening on the boundary of Wiseburrow Farm and Whipcott would alleviate screening issues for residents of the Whipcott area: trees would need to be 4-5m to screen
· The previous application was partly refused on landscaping grounds – the current proposal is no better and should be addressed using the whole of Wiseburrow Farm, not just the site.
Holcombe Rogus Parish Council had the following comments:-
1. It does not seem to us that the additional information provided by the applicants makes the proposed development acceptable. In particular, it is apparent from the additional photomontages that the application site will be visible from more parts of the Holcombe Court than originally envisaged.
2. In our view, the impact on Holcombe Court and the parish generally is under-estimated by the applicants and the officer report. Moreover, the impact on Holcombe Court will become even greater because of the precariousness of major trees at the front of the Court that are dying and that will need to be cut back in the near future.
3. The officer report (paragraph 5) refers to the issue of the photographs submitted with the LVIA and also photographs submitted by our Council. The photographs submitted by our Council are dismissed on the basis that their accuracy is not proven. Your Council does not appear to have taken steps to verify what we asserted namely that the photographs taken on behalf of the applicants are not a faithful and accurate representation of the landscape. If the applicant’s photographs are viewed at the points at which the photographs were taken, it should be clear that the application site appears at a greater distance than when seen with the naked eye. This does not appear to have been done.
4. The officer report summaries Planning Policy Guidance. In particular, it states ‘Where a proposal involves greenfield land the proposed use of any agricultural land needs to be shown to be necessary…’ It does not seem to us that the use of this land is necessary. We cannot see that this issue has been addressed.
5. It is a pity that the officer report does not refer specifically to the CPRE response to the planning application – copy sent with this letter.
6. We note that MDDC’s Corporate Plan set out the following long term vision – ‘Caring for our environment to promote and protect our outstanding environment and beautiful countryside’. The proposed development of the application site is at variance with this.
In the circumstances, our Council still feels that planning permission should be refused.
(vii) *Report previously circulated, copy attached to minutes.
Supporting documents: