Agenda item

Installation of a 30,457 megawatt hours (MWh) per annum solar farm and associated infrastructure on land to the east of Lords Bridge, Barton for an operational lifespan of 40 years

By 8 votes to 1, the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. This was subject to the additional condition detailed by the officer in their presentation and the conditions, with officers delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions, laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, as well as confirmation from the Secretary of State as to whether they wished for the application to be called-in for determination.

Councillor Dr Richard Williams withdrew from the Committee, in line with his Declaration of Interests for Minutes 5 & 6

The Senior Planner presented the report and informed the Committee that two additional conditions had been added to the recommendation, worded as follows:

“The inverters to be used for the development hereby permitted shall follow the specifications in accordance with the details specified within Ingecon Sun Power Dual B Series technical details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt in the context of their appearance in relation to the wider development and the requirements of Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.”

“The substations to be used for the development hereby permitted shall not be installed until details of their appearance have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt in the context of their appearance in relation to the wider development and the requirements of Policy HQ/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018.”

Members asked questions of clarity regarding tree management and how the site would be managed once the permission expired (after 40 years) and were informed that there were conditions regarding landscape management and decommissioning. In response to a question, clarity was provided on how the applicant concluded that the site was the most appropriate available for the proposed development and what the agricultural grading of the land was. Members enquired as to how electricity would be carried off-site, to which they were informed that it was not part of the application and not part of the considered, and what was meant by “26% of the University’s electrical consumption” as stated in paragraph 8.95 of the report.

The Committee was addressed by two supporters, Professor Emily Shuckburgh and Dr Jonathan Guy of the University of Cambridge, and confirmed that a private, buried wire would carry electricity off-site. The speakers responded to a number of questions regarding:

• Type of solar panels used- it was confirmed that the proposed panels were chosen due to a variety of factors including their recyclability

• Energy storage- the speakers stated that they were exploring options available to maximise their ability to store and release energy

• 26% of the University’s electrical consumption- it was confirmed that this was the figure for the University itself and did not include electrical consumption of colleges

• Assessment of sites and consultations (Members commented that it was disappointing to see so little community engagement)- the rationale behind the selection of the site was given and the speakers informed the Committee that Covid had made public consultation challenging     

• Lack of community benefit funds provided- it was clarified that as the application was for private use of energy produced that community benefit funds were not required

In the debate, in response to Member comments, officers informed the Committee that glint and glare affecting neighbouring properties had been assessed and subsequently led to changes in the proposal, with additional landscaping (covered by the landscaping condition) providing further mitigation to issues arising from glint and glare. Officers also detailed the reasons for the lack of objection from the Conservation Officer. A request to amend the decommissioning condition was raised and officers agreed to alter the wording to reference recycling of the solar panels.

The Committee assessed the balance of the application. The harm to the green belt was noted but a number of Members stated that they felt the significant benefits of the proposal outweighed the harms. Concerns were raised over industrialisation of the green belt. Comment was made on the loss of agricultural land and it was suggested that the installation of solar panels did not inherently exclude the land from being used for agricultural purposes.

By 8 (Councillors Dr Martin Cahn, Peter Fane, Ariel Cahn, Bill Handley, Dr Tumi Hawkins, Dr Lisa Redrup and Eileen Wilson) to 1 (Councillor Mark Howell), the Committee approved the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation. This was subject to the additional condition detailed by the officer in their presentation and the conditions, with officers delegated authority to make minor amendments to the conditions, laid out in the report from the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, as well as confirmation from the Secretary of State as to whether they wished for the application to be called-in for determination.