Agenda item

Site Visit: 1.40pm

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the proposed ground mounted photo voltaic solar farm and battery energy storage system with associated equipment, infrastructure, grid connection and ancillary work.

A site visit had taken place prior to commencement of the Planning Committee, on the grounds that there were particular site factors which were significant in terms of the weight attached to them relative to other factors if they would be difficult to assess in the absence of a site inspection.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A Schedule of Communication was circulated prior to the meeting which detailed correspondence received following publication of the agenda from the local residents and the applicant.

Mrs K Green, local resident, spoke against the application.

Mr  J Cooke, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application, and it was commented that the site visit showed the dangerous position of the access onto the site as the road speed was 50mph. The road had bends which prevented good visibility splays, which would be problematic with traffic turning into the site.  It was reported that there had recently been a fatal accident on that stretch of road.  Reference was made to a similar application in Derbyshire, which had been refused due to 55% of BEST and most versatile land.  The application affected 92% on this land.  It was considered that the cumulative impact from two other approved applications at Staythorpe and Averham, which were not yet in situ. It was considered that these three sites taken together represented a large area of land for industrial use in a rural area and change of landscape for the area.

It was further commented that the application sacrificed Grade 2 agricultural land, 92% BMV land which was significant, andwhich currently had the potential for food production, which was considered as important as green energy production.  It was felt that the loss was not outweighed by the benefit and the Planning Committee was seeing an increase in 49.9 megawatts applications.

A Member commented that given the current climate with not much sun or wind questioned whether this form of green energy was adequate given that the main source of energy was from gas.  The impact on Kelham bridge through the increase in construction vehicles was raised.  Flooding was also raised regarding Averham which was believed to have been caused by removal of soil on the Southern Relief Road, it was questioned whether the change of use may cause further problems. The loss of this green field site for dog walkers was also raised, the only place to walk was along the heavily used A617.  A Member commented on the cumulative impact and the industrialisation of the landscape in the area.The impact on heritage assets was also raised and the impact on the listed Kelham Hall and church and two areas of natural beauty.

A Member commented on the large scale of the application and of this being concerning and that applicant hasn’t been more measured in the application. The biggest concerns related to the visual impact for residents and the impact on conservation areas and local listed buildings.

Clarification was sought regarding where the cabling would go and the duration for that work to take place.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the cabling would be laid under the public road, which would cause disruption for worst case scenario six months.

The Business Manager – planning Development informed Members that this was an archaeological site and on google earth strip trenches could be seen.  It was confirmed that archaeology was still prominent and there was potential to find further settlements which would tell the continued story of Kelham. It was confirmed that detailed conditions would need to be attached regarding this.  The heritage point was explained to the Committee and the dilemma with the NPPF which stated the need to way up the harm against the potential benefit.

In answer to a Members concern regarding glare from the panels, the Senior Planner confirmed that a glare assessment was not required as the panels would face south away from residential receptors and given that the location of the panels would be set in from the roadside boundary it was considered that the impact on road users would be visible.  It was advised that the highway authority nor the Environmental Health Officer did not object to the proposals on that basis.  The hedgerows were also taken into consideration and the road was therefore considered far enough away from the site for any potential glare.

A Member commented that whilst digging the road up to lay the cables was better than digging residents’ gardens, the cumulative impact from the three sites could have an impact on that area through construction for over eighteen months.  It was considered that cumulative impact was a material consideration.

A vote to approve the application was taken and lost unanimously.

AGREED          Proposer Chair and Seconded Councillor M Shakeshaft

                        (unanimously) that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning                         Permission be refused for the following reasons:

(i)               Loss of BEST and most versatile land;

(ii)             Cumulative impact of the development; and

(iii)            Impact on heritage assets.

The wording for the reason of refusal to be delegated to the Business Manager - Planning Development.

In accordance with paragraph 18.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.

Councillor P Harris having declared an other registrable interest, left the meeting at this point.

Councillor A Amer entered the meeting at this point.