Erection of ground mounted solar farm along with associated infrastructure, landscaping and ancillary structures on agricultural land.

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

Members had undertaken a site visit on a previous occasion and had viewed the site 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 which detailed comments from Caynham Parish Council, Save South Shropshire Countryside, the Case Officer, applicant and objectors.

Mrs S Turner, representing Save South Shropshire, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr R Cavenagh, representing local residents, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor Mrs B Ashford, representing Caynham Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr L Adams, on behalf of the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.   With the permission of the Chairman, and, in view of the number of persons speaking against, which was contrary to the Policy for Speaking at Regulatory Committees, Mr Adams was afforded up to six minutes to speak.  Following which, he responded to questions from Members and provided clarification on the proposed use of the site following construction and decommisioning; confirmed that there was no intention to submit a further planning application in the future and, if this application was permitted, the impending appeal would be withdrawn; and confirmed his agreement to commit to a unilateral undertaking to deliver the appropriate local community benefits.

In response to questions and the concerns of Members, the Principal Planner explained that a legal agreement and not a condition would be the way forward to prevent the submission of a further planning application within the current application site boundary in the future.  The delivery of community benefits, whilst not technically relevant to a planning application, was supported via the overall National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ethos of facilitating social sustainability.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Richard Huffer, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement he drew Members’ attention to the report and the comments of consultees.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers and Officers.  Some Members suggested that serious consideration should be given to placing solar panels elsewhere, eg factory/office rooftops, council properties etc.  A Member circulated and referred to a copy of a press release issued by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, which made reference to new rules regarding the withdrawal of the right for farmers to claim subsidies for fields filled with solar panels under new plans to ensure more agricultural land was dedicated to growing crops and food.

In response to further questions from Members, the Principal Planner explained that his recommendation followed an exercise of consultation with the applicant and a review of the information/evidence submitted by technical consultees.  In the ethos of the NPPF and as set out in his job description, he had worked with the applicant in a positive and pro-active manner prior to submitting his recommendation.  The Solicitor He advised caution when citing the loss of agricultural land as a reason for refusal. and drew Members’ attention to paragraph 6.2.5 of the report and a recent appeal decision which found no evidence of a loss of best and most versatile land in similar circumstances.

RESOLVED:

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

·         The development site is in close proximity to the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would have a detrimental and visual impact upon the environment, character and landscape of the area and would result in the loss of best and most versatile land.  Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS5, CS6 and CS17 and paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

(At this juncture, the meeting convened at 3.22 pm and reconvened at 3.31 pm.)