Continued use of land for agricultural purposes and the installation of up to 5 MW of solar photovoltaic panels and ancillary works.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings and photomontage displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location.

Members had undertaken a site visit on a previous occasion and had viewed the area and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting and which detailed further comments from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Partnership, the applicant’s Landscape Consultant, Case Officer and objection comments.

Mr J Phillips, representing local residents, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Would have a detrimental impact on the landscape and AONB;

·         The local community was opposed to the proposal;

·         Renewable energy should not be used to justify putting these solar panels in the wrong place;

·         The NPPF stated that the AONB should be afforded the highest state of protection; and

·         Would be contrary to the NPPF.

Mr J Wrench, representing Stretton Climate Care, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Supporting the principal of renewable energy was not sufficient – suitable schemes must  be approved;

·         The proposal had significantly reduced in size but would still generate sufficient local energy to meet the needs of householders in Church Stretton, reduce reliance on fossil fuels and would provide scope for a community benefits package to be applied;

·         If carbon emissions did not reduce the impact on the environment would not decrease;

·         Scheme would not generally be visible from the surrounding area and viewpoints, sheep would still be able to graze, and the impact on the landscape would be low and reversible;

·         Would not have a detrimental impact on tourism; and

·         This was a low impact proposal and would be sustainable.

Mr A Bower, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The site would be well screened;

·         The soil on this field was poor quality Grade 3 pasture and would continue to be grazed by sheep;

·         There was an existing power line across the site so no new power lines would be needed;

·         Would be in accordance with the Development Plan and would not set a precedent; and

·         Would avert climate change.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Cecilia Motley, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         She acknowledged the reduced operational area but continued to express concerns regarding the impact on the surrounding area given that converter buildings, equipment cabins, CCTV etc would be introduced onto ancient pastureland;

·         Would be major development on an unspoilt area of the AONB;

·         Would impact on the tourism and visitor economy within a protected area;

·         Would be contrary to paragraphs 115 and 116 of the NPPF; and

·         There were many industrial and business parks where solar panels should be encouraged.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members continued to express concerns regarding the impact on the surrounding area, environmental assets and the AONB.

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

The proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the environment, character, landscape and visual quality of the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Paragraphs 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Core Strategy Policies CS6 and CS17 whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.