Ground-mounted solar panels at Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital, Calow

What was proposed

The application proposed ground-mounted solar panels, associated infrastructure, security fencing, GRP units and access points from the hospital site.

“The proposed works seek the installation and operation of ground mounted solar panels with associated infrastructure, engineering operations, and ancillary works. The additional works include security fencing and GRP units. Two access points are proposed on the southern boundary of the applciation site, direct from the main hospital site, with a pedestrian access on the northern boundary.”

“Widened the landscape buffer along eastern boundary (includes double width hedge of circa 4.5m width and removal of some solar panels to accommodate this) • Removal of most of the lighting and cctv columns. These are now only proposed adjacent to access gates and transformer housings. • Security fencing reduced in height to 2m.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The site is grassed land north of the hospital, beside a car park, with hedges, trees, a temporary car park and nearby listed buildings.

“The application site is located to the north of the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital. The site is outside of the Hospital grounds yet immediately adjacent to car park 7A close to the Macmillan building at the rear of the hospital grounds.”

“The land is largely laid to grass, surrounded by hedging. Two mature trees are located within the site, with a large number of recently planted saplings located close to the site’s northern boundary. The…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, subject to satisfactory drainage responses and conditions, because the renewable energy benefits outweighed identified heritage and landscape harm.

“The proposed development would therefore result in harm to the designated heritage assets. In accordance with the NPPF, the harm identified would amount to less than substantial harm, towards the lower end of the spectrum. In accordance with paragraph 212 of the NPPF great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.”

“Paragraph 215 of the NPPF requires the harm identified to be balanced against any public benefits associated with the proposal. The public benefits include the contribution of the scheme to the annual energy requirements for the hospital, resulting in environmental benefits and cost savings, and help towards the provision of a net zero health service, for the applicant, an NHS Trust which provides a public service.”

Officer report

Consultees and drainage

Several consultees raised no objections, while the Lead Local Flood Authority and Yorkshire Water sought further drainage information before approval.

“Strategic Planning No objections DCC Highway Authority No objections DCC Archaeology No objections CBC Conservation Officer No comments received CBC Urban Design Officer Objects to the proposal CBC Environmental Health No objections CBC Design Services Drainage No objections Yorkshire Water Objects to the proposal, due to the lack of proposed drainage information Lead Local Flood Authority Raised a holding objection Derbyshire Wildlife Trust No objections, recommends…”

Officer report

Public concerns

Eighteen representations raised concerns about drainage, landscape, heritage, wildlife, privacy, lighting, access, traffic, fencing and alternative sites.

“Concerned about height of 9ft fence and cameras and lighting to this area, which could impact bats and owls. Concerns about our privacy.”

“Damage to local landscape and ecology. Trees are the annual home to a significant rookery. Industrial fencing, glare and night-time lighting would disturb this long established habitat. Lighting will disrupt bats and other nocturnal wildlife…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors and a representative of the applicant addressed the committee.

The committee’s discussion

Members considered renewable energy, hospital cost savings and resilience, and whether drainage, boundary treatment and lighting posts could be dealt with by conditions.

“The Committee considered the report and considered the balance required for the Hospital to improve its renewable energy benefits which would help to assist with cost reductions and energy resilience and the requirements for local planning authorities to support renewable and low carbon energy helping to achieve a net zero future.”

“Each Councillor had been asked whether to go ahead today and make a decision or whether it should be deferred until the drainage information, boundary treatment and type of poles had been received. The majority was for a decision to be made today.”

Minutes

The vote

The majority supported making a decision at the meeting, and the motion to uphold the officer recommendation was moved and seconded.

“It was moved by Councillor Stone and seconded by Councillor Miles that the officer recommendation be upheld.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was granted, subject to the reported conditions, corrected numbering and further agreement of drainage, boundary and lighting-post details.

“That the officer recommendation be upheld, and the application be GRANTED, subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report and the renumbering of the conditions as explained above. The drainage information when submitted to be agreed by the Development Management and Conservation Manager following assessment by the consultees; the LLFA and Yorkshire Water, and information on boundary treatment and lighting posts be obtained and that appropriate drainage…”

Minutes