Agenda item

Mixed use of agricultural and solar farm.

By 9 votes to 2, the Planning Committee refused the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and noted the written submissions received from the Agent and the Architect. The Committee was addressed by the Agent who fielded questions from Members. When questioned on the water usage of the solar farm, specifically for cooling of the panels, the Agent could not provide estimates. The Agent, in response to a question, also stated that there would be no obstacle to returning the land to full agricultural use but did note that this potential had been there for many years and it was unlikely that the current owner would take steps to return to land to active cultivation. It was clarified by the Agent that the dual usage of the site by grazing sheep on the land was an attempt to bring some agricultural usage back to the land, the example of a similar scheme in Norfolk was cited, but Members expressed doubts over the practicality of this. Concerns were raised over the challenges posed by livestock licensing requirements, the need for rotation and to rest the land, as well as the availability of sheep to graze the land as the area was not known for significant livestock cultivation. Members also questioned the limited exploration of alternative sites, to which the Agent responded by informing the Committee that there was a lack of other suitable sites in the area, notably the brownfield sites assessed were not appropriate due to their proximity to residential areas. Concerns were raised over the vehicular access for construction, with Members noting that the site was inappropriate for HGV usage. The Agent clarified that smaller vehicles would be used in construction, in particular vans would be utilised, and stated that there would be little to no need for vehicular access once the site was completed and operational.

In the debate, Members reiterated the concerns conveyed to the Agent and explored further issues. A significant issue was the loss of viable agricultural land, with Members highlighting the fact that the site was Grade 2 agricultural land and that food supply and security was an important consideration. However, it was noted that the land had been disused for many years and that the proposed development would rectify this. The Committee also expressed disappointment over the lack of consideration for other appropriate sites for solar panels, particularly those that would not require development on greenfield/ agricultural sites. The issue of water usage was revisited, but it was concluded that, if the Committee was minded to approve the application, conditions could be put in place to mitigate this. Opinion was split over the impact on the landscape; some Members felt that the site would be at odds with the open countryside that surrounded it, whereas others felt that the site would not be overly visible. Councillor Dr Matin Cahn informed the Committee that he had visited the site and that he felt that the hangers in the vicinity were more at odds with the landscape and stated that, in his opinion, landscape concerns were not a material reason for refusal. The Committee expressed support for applications that sought to introduce renewable energy sources to the region, but the balance between the development of renewables and the preservation of agricultural and rural land was the issue at hand for the application in question.

By 9 votes to 2 (Councillors Dr Tumi Hawkins and Dr Martin Cahn), the Planning Committee refused the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and reasons for refusal set out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.