Solar farm at Valley Farm, Hessett, Bury St Edmunds

What was proposed

The application proposed a 42-megawatt solar farm with panels, substations, control facilities, fencing, access works and related infrastructure operating for 40 years.

“This planning application submission seeks full planning permission for the erection of a solar farm, together with associated works, equipment and infrastructure on a site identified as ‘Valley Solar Farm’ – land located to the south of Drinkstone Green, Hessett. The proposed development would have an electricity generating capacity of up to 42 megawatts, which would be supplied to users via the UK Power Networks distribution network.”

“The main element of the proposed development would be the provision of solar arrays, comprising fixed photovoltaic panels mounted on metal frames that would have a piled foundation. These panels would be in an east-west position (in order to obtain maximum solar gain) and tilted at an angle of 25 degrees from the horizontal. The maximum height of the panels above ground level would be approximately 2.5 metres.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site comprised three arable fields outside a settlement boundary, with hedgerows, woodland, a public right of way and nearby heritage assets.

“The application site comprises agricultural land having a given area of 38 hectares, located to the south west of Drinkstone Green, Hessett. It comprises three fields used for arable farming purposes. The site itself is located outside of any defined settlement boundary; the hamlet of Gedding being the nearest settlement to the site – located to the south - and Drinkstone Green to the northeast.”

“The site contains part of the route of Public Right of Way ref. W-224/004/0. There are no designated heritage assets contained within the site. Gedding Hall Farm, a Grade II* building is located away to the south east of the site –approximately 748 metres, measured as a straight line distance. Other listed buildings nearest the site are located in West Suffolk district – the boundary between districts being located to the west of the application site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier submissions covered pre-application advice and environmental impact screening, with the screening application finding that the proposal was not EIA development.

“A pre-application submission was made to the Local Planning Authority under application reference DC/24/05579.”

“In addition, the applicant submitted a request for an Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion was submitted under application ref. DC/25/01157, and which screened the application as not EIA.”

Officer report

Objections and concerns

Ten public representations comprised nine objections and one neutral comment, citing farmland loss, landscape, traffic, footpath closure, ecology, heritage, consultation and construction impacts.

“At the time of writing this report 10no. letters/emails/online comments have been received. It is the officer opinion that this represents 9no. objections, 1no. neutral comment and no support comments. An update shall be provided as necessary either via Tabled Papers or verbally at the meeting.”

“- The development would use toxic materials, are not recyclable and storage batteries are prone to fires - The development would be detrimental to the landscape, ecology and harmful to the environment - Proposed HGV routes are not appropriate, and inadequate survey work has been undertaken - The construction period will cause disruption - The development would result in the loss of valuable agricultural land while food imports are increasing - The development would have a…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector addressed Members, followed by the agent, with officers and the agent answering questions about access, conditions, biodiversity, maintenance and community liaison.

Members debated the proposal

Members debated the footpath, agricultural land, construction access, nearby homes, fencing, grazing, biodiversity, energy, food supply and construction lighting.

“Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the weight to be given to energy and food supply, and the proposed lighting during the construction phase.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members unanimously approved the application with the recommended conditions and additional requirements for working hours, lighting, biodiversity fencing, parish liaison and an information board.

“Councillor Hadingham proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation and with additional conditions relating to working hours, the lighting during the construction phase, biodiversity friendly fencing, community liaison with the Parish Councils, and the provision of an information board.”

Minutes