Agenda item

Installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure (as amended & amplified by information received 8 July 2022 and 21 December 2022).

The committee considered planning application P21/S3915/FUL for the installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure (as amended and amplified by information received 8 July 2022 and 21 December 2022), on land at Dodwells Solar Farm, Land north of the A40 near Milton Common.  

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to the objection of Great Haseley Parish Council.

The planning officer informed the committee that the solar farm site location was to the north of the A40 London Road and about one kilometre from the Milton Common settlement. He also emphasised that it was outside of the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that there were no public rights of way through the site.

The site itself was 112 hectares with the solar panels comprising 61 hectares. In addition, there were heritage assets in the vicinity of the site, but it was noted as having no impact on their significance. The placement of the panels was also noted as avoiding most of the fluvial risk zones 2 and 3, with the minor flood risk proposed to be dealt with in the conditions, and that they would also not be put on any Grade 3a land (Best and Most Versatile land). The application also proposed a 37 per cent biodiversity net gain and that the solar panels would avoid being placed on the gas lines through the site and the water courses through a 10m buffer.

The planning officer informed the committee that over the course of the application, the applicant had removed some solar panels to try to mitigate potential landscape harm.

On visual impact, 22 viewpoints were considered, including a key view from the A40 overpass. However, as the distance to the site was 1.5km away from the A40 overpass and the solar panels were barely visible, and the panels could only be glanced at from the other viewpoints, the visual impact was considered acceptable. The objection from the resident at Heath House to the west of the site about the visual impact was also noted. However, the planning officer clarified that, as the house was set back from property boundary and elevated on a hill meaning that the ground floor would not be able to see the extent of the panels, and that further planting would mitigate any other visual effects of the application, the visual impact was not considered to be grounds for refusal.

On cumulative impact, the planning officer confirmed that, in his opinion, there would be limited cumulative visual effects between the site and other permitted solar farms but that it would be policy compliant.

Overall, the planning officer recommend that, as the application was policy compliant, there were no significant adverse impacts on the landscape, and that the applicant had made significant attempts to mitigate potential harm, it should be approved.

John Gilbert spoke on behalf of Tetsworth Parish Council, objecting to the application. Richie Sheehan spoke on behalf of Great Haseley Parish Council, objecting to the application.

Simon Hale spoke objecting to the application. 

Nick Nixey, the landowner, and Alexander Miejimolle, the agent, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillor Georgina Heritage, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee inquired about potential light pollution caused by the security lighting on the site and the planning officer confirmed that a proposed condition for the design and layout of site could control and mitigate light pollution.

When members asked if there could be a connection for the site closer to the grid, they noted that SSE, the local electricity provider, controlled access to grid and that this was not in the control of the applicant. In addition, the planning officer clarified to members that the cable connection for the site was not a part of the application, and each should be taken on their own merits.

The committee inquired into the potential cumulative impact issue and the planning officer noted that a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was submitted. This assessment looked at intervening features, topography, and key views, and the landscape officer assessed it as having a very minor and moderate impact which was not considered to be significant or adverse and included the potential cumulative effect of the site.

When asked about what would happen at the end of the 40-year permission period and who would be responsible for the removal of solar farm, the planning officer confirmed that a condition for delivery and removal of the equipment would be the responsibility of the applicant and landowner. Therefore, ultimately, the resting responsibility would be with the landowner and at the time and the council could enforce the condition if needed.

Members inquired into the gas pipeline crossing the site and if it would be protected and the planning officer confirmed that National Gas had no objection subject to conditions, such as maintenance access, a buffer, and technical requirements about where the cables can run. He noted that these were secured by condition, and this satisfied the committee.

Members thought that the solar farm would be a significant step towards addressing the climate emergency whist restoring the land for farm use after the 40-year permission period ended, due to the fact that sheep would be grazing on the site throughout that time. In addition, and members believed that impact of the glare on neighbours could be mitigated with planting secured through condition and would be minimal.

Overall, as members were satisfied with the response to their questions from the planning officer, and due to its lack of impact on the landscape, that it was policy compliant, and that there was a need for supporting renewable energy, they agreed that the application should be approved subject to conditions.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P21/S3915/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

Time limits and approved plans:

1. Commencement of development within 3 years

2. Development in accordance with approved plans

3. Temporary permission for a period of 40 years

Pre-commencement conditions:

4. Submission of final details of layout, design, and scale of equipment

5. Protection of gas transmission pipeline measures

6. Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation

7. Programme of archaeological mitigation

8. Sustainable drainage scheme details

9. Construction traffic management plan

10.Landscaping scheme and implementation

11.Landscape and biodiversity management plan

12.Tree protection measures

13.Biodiversity enhancement plan

14.Construction environment management plan for biodiversity

15.Ecology district licence compliance certificate

Compliance conditions:

16.Compliance with ecology district licence

17.Vision splay implementation and protection

18.Construction traffic access implementation

19.Lighting restriction

20.Removal of solar panels in the event not used for 6 months

End of development condition:

21.Decommissioning Method Statement and restoration of the land plans. Works to be submitted prior to 6 months of the expiry of the 40 year permission and returned to agricultural use within 18 months.

Informative:

District licence requirements