308-panel solar array at Tennis court, Avisford Park Hotel, Yapton Lane, Walberton

What was proposed

The application proposed 308 ground-mounted solar panels, batteries, inverters, a building connection and an extended wire mesh fence.

“Installation and operation of ground mounted solar array with 308 panels, associated batteries and inverters and connection into existing building including extension of wire mesh fence. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan, may affect the setting of a listed building and is in CIL Zone 3 (Zero Rated) as other development.”

Minutes

Site and heritage

The array would occupy the existing tennis court enclosure at the hotel, near a Grade II listed building, with underground cabling through a modern part.

“The officer outlined the submitted plans, confirming that 308 solar panels and associated equipment would be sited within the existing tennis court enclosure, screened by a substantial hedge and car park, with no anticipated impact on hotel gardens or nearby residents. The panels would be low-profile at a maximum height of 35cm. The underground cable route would pass through a modern part of the hotel, avoiding any heritage impact.”

Minutes

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended conditional approval because the screened, low-profile development would have limited visual, residential and heritage impact.

“RESIDENTIAL AMENITY The site is approximately 150m from the nearest neighbouring properties on Yapton Lane and the development would not be visible from the wider area. The development would not appear overbearing extending only 0.35m above the ground.”

“SUMMARY The development complies with relevant development plan policies and is recommended for approval subject to conditions. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT The Council in making a decision should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as Arun District Council to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Officer report

Views received

The parish council objected over recreational amenity, views, heritage, noise and disturbance, while no neighbour comments had been received.

“The Principal Planning Officer introduced the proposal, explaining that the Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds of loss of recreational amenity, impact on views from the golf course and the heritage asset, and potential noise and disturbance from the solar panels. No neighbour comments had been received.”

“It was noted that the tennis court was not open to the public and was used only by hotel guests; therefore, its loss would not reduce local community facilities. The Conservation Officer had concluded that the proposal would cause no harm to the significance of the heritage asset.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The agent spoke about the application, and the principal planning officer introduced and explained the proposal.

Members’ debate

Members generally supported the renewable-energy proposal, while discussing private tennis use, screening, energy output and why a listed-building roof was unsuitable.

“Members expressed general support for the proposal, noting that the solar panels would assist the hotel in reducing energy costs and that alternative public tennis facilities existed within the parish. It was also commented that, as the court was privately owned and for hotel use only, the parish council’s objection on grounds of loss of recreational amenity carried limited weight.”

“Further comments supported this position, noting that fixing panels to a listed roof would require altering tiles and roof structure, and that the proposed scheme included measures ensuring panels would be removed if no longer in use. Members stated that the tennis court option was more appropriate given the heritage constraints.”

Minutes

The vote

The chair put the application to a vote after members finished their discussion and there were no further speakers.

“With no further speakers, the Chair proceeded to the vote.”

Minutes