Agenda item

Site visit - 11.30am – 12.30pm

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the construction of a solar farm, access and all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure.

A site visit had taken place prior to the commencement of the Planning Committee, for the reason that the proposal was particularly contentious, and the aspects being raised could only be viewed on site.

At this point in the meeting, in accordance with Rule 2.7, the Chairman indicated that the meeting had been ongoing for three hours and a motion was required to be proposed and seconded to extend the meeting for the duration of one hour.

AGREED          (unanimously) that the meeting continue for the duration of one hour.

Members considered the presentation from the Planning Case Officer, 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 following: local residents; Averham, Kelham and Staythorpe Parish Council; Planning Case Officer; and the Agent.

Councillor D Catenach, South Muskham & Little Carlton Parish Council, spoke against the application in accordance with the views of South Muskham & Little Carlton Parish Council as contained within the report.

Members considered the application and commented that this application was a link in a chain that would visually strangle Nottinghamshire.  This was an economical disaster for future generations.  It was questioned who could predict what would happen ten-forty years in the future, and the solar panels had a life span of around forty years.  The impact would be devastating and would be the death of the beautiful landscape in Nottinghamshire that Members wished to protect. This was agricultural land and should remain that. The community was losing a massive area where they could walk and enjoy the countryside and not walk through acres of solar panels.  It was commented that Wheaten House  (to the east of the site) may also suffer from the glint and glare from the solar panels until the trees had grown in significant height and when they had grown, the residents would have lost their view.  It was also questioned whether Caunton Airfield had an interest in the site, as it was considered strange that they had not submitted any comments, given the potential glint and glare to light aircraft and gliders.  The Planning Case Officer confirmed that they had been told that the landowner of the site was also the landowner of the Airfield but that this had not been confirmed in the submission and the operator of the Airfield had been consulted separately on the Application.  A Member suggested that the footpaths be widened to 30 metres and the northern boundary have a biodiversity buffer.  The Planning Case Officer confirmed that this could impact the generating capacity of the scheme which would conflict with the description of the development and therefore could not be imposed by condition.  The scale of the development at 49.9MW was such due to economies of scale where these schemes become viable and most efficient, reducing the capacity of the Solar Farm by removing areas for panels could impact the viability of the scheme.

A debate took place regarding whether the application should be deferred to discuss the possibility of widening the footpaths and adding the biodiversity buffer to the northern boundary.  The Director – Planning & Growth advised the Committee that if they were minded to defer the application in order to discuss the footpaths and biodiversity buffer, if that was to the satisfaction of the applicant, that would indicate that all other matters were acceptable.

A vote was taken and lost for approval, with 1 vote For and 12 votes Against.

Councillor D Moore, having left the meeting during part of the Officer presentation took no part in the vote.

Moved Councillor J Lee and Seconded Councillor L Tift

AGREED     (with 11 votes For and 2 Abstentions) that contrary to Officer recommendation planning permission be Refused for the following reasons:

(i)               Visual impact on landscape;

(ii)             Loss of agricultural land 3B;

(iii)            Loss of agricultural land for forty years.

In accordance with paragraph 13.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.

The time being 9.00pm the Chairm sought Planning Committee approval to continue business for a further one hour.

AGREED:         that the Planning Committee continue for a further hour.