Construction of solar park with attendant infrastructure including centre station, inverters, cameras, fencing and associated landscaping.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings and photo montage displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location and layout.  He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning 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 Shropshire Councillor Viv Parry.

Mrs P Smith, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor Mrs N North, representing Ludford Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor R Osborne, representing Bitterley Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr A Arcache, the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.  With the agreement 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 Arcache was afforded up to six minutes to speak.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Arcache provided clarification on future land usage and stock density, life span of the panels, decommissioning and removal arrangements and the proposed community benefits.

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, the following points were raised:

·         He drew attention to the high number of objections to this scheme from residents, Bitterley, Cayman and Ludford Parish Councils and Ludlow Town Council;

·         Would result in the loss of 30+ acres of highly productive land;

·         The nearby field had been classified as being Grade 2; and

·         The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding natural and historic environment.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  The majority of Members expressed the view that the land had been cropped on a regular basis and was good productive land; the proposal would be incongruent in the countryside and would impact on views from Caynham Camp, St Laurence’s church, Whitcliffe Common and others; constituted large scale development; and would be detrimental to the tourism industry and local economic development. 

RESOLVED:

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

·         The proposal constitutes large scale industrial development and is inappropriate in terms of location, fails to protect and enhance the natural and historic environment and the character and high quality of the local countrysideand setting of Ludlow, and would have an adverse impact on leisure and tourism. The renewable energy benefits of the proposal are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts and as such would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS5, CS6, CS13, CS16 and CS17 and paragraphs 14, 17, 28 and 109, of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(At this juncture, the meeting adjourned at 4.00 pm and reconvened at 4.08 pm.)