Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Jocelyn Ingham addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Philip Kratz spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that in respect of application 3/14/1058/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor J Ranger, as the local ward Member, referred to the extreme rural nature of the area.  He questioned the logic of installing an industrial style plant in such a location.  He commented that the proposed development would be seen from a long way despite the proposed screening.

Councillor Ranger expressed concerns that construction traffic would struggle to negotiate the narrow roads and this was not the best place to locate a solar farm.  He referred to the suitability of rooftop locations or industrial sites as opposed to rural areas.

Councillor Ranger further commented on what could happen to the site once the solar farm was decommissioned.  He concluded that if the Committee was not minded to refuse permission, a much more detailed screening plan should be submitted and a deferral would allow this issue to be explored along with a Section 106 agreement.

The Director advised that the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had advised that a request from a local resident for the application to be called-in by the Secretary of State had been received.  If Members were minded to grant planning permission then the decision notice would not be issued until the decision of the Secretary of State in respect of any ‘call-in’ had been received.

The Director stated that this was a very significant scheme that was by far the largest photovoltaic application in East Herts with 38,864 proposed panels on a 17 hectare site, which would provide 10MW of energy for 2000 homes.  The NPPF gave in principle support to renewable energy applications and further guidance stated that sites should be carefully selected in respect of the likely visual impact of such applications, as well as optional alternative sites and the value of agricultural land.

The Director stated that the site was relatively inaccessible to public view and the landscape and visual impacts of the scheme were moderate.  There were no footpaths within 400 metres of the site and the site was not overlooked by any residential properties.

Members were advised that only occasional views of the panels would be possible due to the established hedgerow boundaries and the proposed orchard to the south-east corner of the site, as well as the proposed additional planting for the west side boundary.

The Director advised that no heritage assets would be harmed and the applicant had shown that there were no alternative brownfield or Greenfield sites for a solar farm in East Herts.  Members were advised that whilst arable farming of the site would not be possible, animals could continue to graze the land underneath the panels.  Officers were of the view that the case had been made for approval of this application.

In response to a query from the Chairman, the Director stated that it was anticipated that there would 1 or 2 large vehicle movements per day over a 16 week period.  Members were advised that Hertfordshire Highways were concerned regarding the use of 16.5 metre vehicles and discussions were being held with the applicant on alternative means of access for the site.

In reply to a further query from the Chairman, the Director advised Members that there would be a dedicated route for vehicles accessing the site. 

Councillor P Moore stated that the Landscape Officer considered that the proposals would have a relatively high magnitude of impact on the landscape character of the local area as perceived by residents in Nasty but not necessarily in the wider area.

She emphasised that the Officer had reviewed the Sequential Analysis Study subsequently submitted by the applicant and he had maintained that the siting of such development on brownfield land was the preferred option.

Councillor P Ruffles commented that he was concerned regarding the logic behind the recommendation for approval.  He stated that he was minded to refuse the application.  He stressed that a sub-standard scheme should not be approved on the basis that the site was not visible to public view.  He referred to the point made by Councillor Ranger that once approved the simple basic fact was that the photovoltaic panels would be on the site.

In response to a query from Councillor G Williamson, the Director stated that it was not possible to judge what planning policy might be in respect of previously developed land 25 years hence.  However, he considered that, using the current definition, it would be unlikely that the site could be viewed as previously developed land and it was unlikely that the site would be developed further.  The most likely outcome would be that the site would return to the previous agricultural use.

Councillor S Bull stated that he was not convinced that the application should be approved and this was the wrong place for a solar farm, which would be visually obtrusive from all angles.  Councillor M Newman stated that the ethical issue was that everyone was happy to use electricity so long as this was generated elsewhere.  He stressed that this site had been chosen for its isolation and at some point there would have to be some sacrifice of land in East Herts for clean energy.

Councillor J Jones stated that he did not feel enough had been done to explore alternative brownfield locations.  He referred to the visual impact and his sceptical view of the benefits of solar energy farms.

In response to a query from Councillor M Alexander in respect of paragraph 6.10 of the report, the Director confirmed that Officers had carefully considered the application and were satisfied that it met the provisions of the UK Solar PV Strategy.  Members were reminded that all of the agricultural land in Hertfordshire was grade 2 or grade 3 and this site was grade 3a.

In response to a number of other Members’ comments, the Director confirmed that Officers and Members would have control over the landscaping implications of the development via a detailed landscaping scheme.  Members were reminded that any use of a brownfield site for a solar farm could have implications in terms of the District’s housing land supply.

Councillor D Andrews proposed and Councillor P Moore seconded, a motion that application 3/14/1058/FP be refused on the grounds that the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the visual character of the landscape and the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the resulting harm and the proposal was therefore contrary to policies SD3 and GBC14 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/14/1058/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.        The proposed development would have a harmful impact on the visual character of the landscape in which it is proposed to be sited which could not be satisfactorily mitigated by additional landscaping.  The benefits of the proposal would not outweigh this resulting harm and the proposal is thereby contrary to policies SD3 and GBC14 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2012 (as amended).  East Herts Council has considered, in a positive and proactive manner, whether the planning objections to this proposal could be satisfactorily resolved . However, for the reason set out in this decision notice, the proposal is not considered to result in an acceptable form of development and is not in accordance with the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.