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 and elevations.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting detailing further comments from the applicant and objections from a local resident and the South Shropshire Green Party; and the additional information circulated in paper form at the meeting and via email prior to the meeting regarding a letter from the applicant’s ecologist and the response from Shropshire Council’s Natural Environment Manager/County Ecologist.

In accordance with his 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 Richard Huffer, 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 his statement, the following points were raised:

·         This application was tariff driven, given the deadline for subsidy next year;

·         Other applications in the area were forthcoming; and

·         The site was in close proximity of the AONB and the gateway to the Clee Hills.

In response to comments, the Principal Planning Officer provided clarification on the number of proposed applications in the area.

Mr D Duijvenvoorde, representing Save South Shropshire Countryside, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         High number of people had raised objections;

·         The proposal would be contrary to the requirements of CS5 and CS6;

·         The proposal did not comply or meet the test of community benefits; and

·         He urged refusal. 

Mr R Cavenagh, 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:

·         Concerns regarding noise from inverter sheds.  He had been assured that the inverter sheds would be relocated;

·         Would disrupt the tranquillity of the area;

·         Concerns regarding toxic substances;

·         Sheep would set off alarm system;

·         Would not provide long-term employment;

·         The narrow lane would be unsuitable for large vehicles;

·         Government policy supports localism;

·         Proposal would have a negative impact on the residential amenity; and

·         Proposal would have a negative impact on tourism and the local economy.

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, during which the following points were raised:

·         Renewable energy must be introduced in a positive way with the support of the community.  The Parish Council and local residents were opposed to this proposal;

·         Contrary to Department of Environment policy which indicates that solar panels should be appropriately sited and provides opportunities for the community;

·         This was an historic landscape which supported and enhanced tourism not just for the local area but for Shropshire;

·         Should be sited on brownfield sites; and

·         This glint and glare, fencing, security etc would be totally alien in the surrounding area and as such would be contrary to the NPPF.

Mr G Maxfield, 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:

·         Core Strategy Policy CS8 encourages infrastructure where there would be no signficant adverse impact;

·         Application had been submitted 13 months ago and no statutory or Council consultees had raised any objections during the statutory period;

·         The site was outside the AONB;

·         Visibility of the site was limited and it would not be visible from any footpaths or dwellings; and

·         There would be no unacceptable impact and would deliver renewable energy.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Maxfield confirmed that the land was categorised as grade 3a; conditions would be attached to control noise; the proposal would bring local economic and community benefits; and the location of the invertors could be controlled by condition and that a unilateral undertaking had already been submitted by the applicant.

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 development site was in close proximity to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would have a detrimental and visual impact upon the environment, character and landscape of the area.  Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS5 and CS17 whereby the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.