Installation and operation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location and layout.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, which detailed further comments from local residents, CPRE and Shropshire Council Highways Development Control.

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

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Kevin Turley, as local Member, participated in the discussion but did not vote. During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         Following his own consultation exercise, 111 residents in Shifnal had expressed support for the development, 30 residents had been against and 22 residents had abstained; and

·         The topography of the land would mean the site would be well screened.

Mr G Tonkinson, 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 concurred with the views of Sheriffhales Parish Council;

·         Sandy Lane was designated as a bridleway and should be protected;

·         Inappropriate use of good crop growing land and would be contrary to the NPPF which stipulated that poorer low grade agricultural land should be used for such developments;

·         There were many industrial buildings in Shropshire that could be used for solar panels; and

·         Would be seen from a wide area.

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

·         He lived closest to the proposed development and, along with 87% of the community, he supported the proposal;

·         The nuclear infrastructure was being decommissioned and solar represented one of a few vital inventions that should be embraced;

·         A missive from Minister of State, Gregory Barker, indicated that there was still a place for larger-scale field-based solar in the UK’s energy mix provided they were appropriately sited and provided opportunities for local communities to influence decisions that affected them;

·         He had suffered from flooding as a result of failed attempts to tame aspects of this poor, badly drained land for arable use;

·         Villagers had been disappointed that the Parish Council had dismissed the Community Benefit Scheme linked to this proposal, given the potential for the parish precept to the doubled in the near future; and

·         The proposal would be appropriately sited on poor quality land and would have limited amenity impact on the surrounding area.

Mr J Mellor, 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 proposal would provide power for up to 6,700 homes;

·         Had undertaken consultation with the local community and had attended Parish Council meetings;

·         Many local residents supported the scheme;

·         Proposals had been amended following consultation;

·         Hedgerow planting, tree planting and a wildflower meadow would provide a rich habitat for birds and bees;

·         The land grazing specifications had been taken into account, the site would not be adjacent or viewable from the Green Belt and/or AONB;

·         The proposal would be in accordance with the NPPF; and

·         Following decommissioning the land would be returned to former use.

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

RESOLVED:

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

·         The proposed development would result in the loss of and use of best and most versatile grade 2 and grade 3a agricultural land for arable food production with the panels and associated equipment in place on the land, contrary to the preference set out in National Planning Practice Guidance that poorer quality agricultural land and brown field land should be used for such developments, and the guidance set out at paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It is considered that the benefits of the scheme in respect of the provision of renewable energy would not outweigh the loss of this land from arable food production.