Continued use of land for agricultural purposes and the installation of up to 6.5 MW of solar photovoltaic panels and ancillary works.

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

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting detailing further objections from a local resident and comments from the applicant and Shropshire Wildlife Trust.

In accordance with her declaration at Minute No. 69 and by virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor Cecilia Motley, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room and took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         Serious concerns that the site fell within the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);

·         This would be a large scale development and would include solar panels, palisade fencing, converter buildings, equipment cabins, security lighting and CCTV all of which would have a detrimental and visual impact upon the traditional and archaeology rich landscape;

·         Concerns regarding the sudden influx of applications for solar panels, given the deadline for subsidy next year; and

·         She questioned the designation of the land after the site had been decommissioned and commented that it would be important that all solar panels should be removed at the end of their design life.

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

·         He supported renewable energy but this development would be in the wrong location;

·         This would constitute major development in an AONB as such it would be contrary to paragraph 116 of the NPPF

·         The Government had indicated that the focus should now be on the placing of solar panels on the roofs of commercial, industrial, Government buildings, hospitals etc; and

·         The proposal would not be appropriate in scale and would impact greatly on the landscape, as such would be contrary to CS6.

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:

·         Support the need to take action to reduce carbon emissions;

·         The overall impact of the proposal would not be severe;

·         Appropriate planting would reduce impact and very few public viewpoints would be affected;

·         No flooding implications;

·         Solar Panels were designed to ensure minimal glint and glare; and

·         This would be a low impact proposal.

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

·         Site would be well screened;

·         This was poor quality agricultural land which would continue to be grazed by sheep;

·         Should encourage diversification;

·         A power line already crossed the site;

·         Would help meet climate change obligations and would be carbon neutral within two years;

·         No noise implications;

·         An on-site viewing area would be provided; and

·         Would provide community benefit package.

In response to comments, the Principal Planning Officer explained that a condition would be attached to any permission which would ensure that all solar panels and other structures would be removed at end of their design life and the site would be reinstated to an agricultural field.  It would be in the interests of the applicant to ensure the site would be secure and twice monthly routine staff visits would ensure that the site would be maintained to an appropriate standard.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.

RESOLVED:

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

·         The proposal would have a detrimental and visual impact upon the environment, character and landscape of the 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 CS5 and CS17 whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.