480-panel solar farm at Land At Aston End

The site and surroundings

The site is in a rural Green Belt location within a wider agricultural holding, with nearby rights of way and the nearest home over 500 metres away.

“The application site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and part of the access track is within an area of archaeological potential. No change is proposed to this area with the existing agricultural track proposed to be facilitated for access and as such there would be no impact on this designation.”

“The site sits within a highly rural location in a gently undulating landscape of mainly mixed farmland with hedgerows, tree belts and small woodland blocks. It is outside of a of defined settlement boundary and is surrounded on all sides by open land in agricultural / equestrian use. The nearest residential dwelling is more than 500m away to the west.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because renewable-energy, economic and biodiversity benefits were judged to outweigh Green Belt, landscape, agricultural-land and construction-traffic harms.

“Some harms have been identified as arising from the proposal. These need to be balanced against the benefits identified above. The proposal would result in harm to landscape character, noting the remote location of the site, the temporary nature of the installation, mitigation from proposed landscaping / planting and the array would be barely visible within the landscape owing to screening. There would be limited harm from the temporary loss of agricultural land.”

“The application site is located within the Green Belt and as concluded above, the proposed development represents inappropriate development and is by definition harmful to the Green Belt.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, flood, conservation, environmental health, landscape and sustainability consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while CPRE objected.

“Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA): No objection subject to the imposition of conditions.”

“EHDC Environmental Health (Noise and light): No objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions.”

Officer report

What local people said

Seven responses included one supporting response, five objections and one neutral response, raising concerns about agricultural land, landscape, ecology, access and wildlife.

“Landowner has not given agreement for parking construction vehicles (Officer comment – this matter was resolved in a revision to the CTMP. The landowner has provided consent). • The proposal would result in the loss of agricultural land • The proposal would have an adverse landscape impact • Detrimental impact on wildlife / ecology • Solar panels should be included in new build properties and use brown field sites…”

“A horse transporter does not use the access as stated in the submission. • The proposed parking area belongs to the equestrian site owner and is kept closed and locked and therefore makes manoeuvring on site difficult (Officer comment – as detailed above, this matter was resolved in a revision to the CTMP. The landowner has provided consent). • There is no sightline from this entrance.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporter addressed the committee and answered questions from members.

What members debated

Members debated renewable-energy policy, Green Belt harm, the realism of the special circumstances, local energy security, landscaping, agricultural land and construction access.

“The committee also debated the matter of green belt policy as the application was in contravention of that policy and was inappropriate. Members also considered the very special circumstances and whether these outweighed the serious green belt policy contradiction.”

“Members considered in particular policies DPS2, DPS4 and GBR1 and they also considered the detailed policy context in respect of the application. Concerns were expressed by Members that some of the special circumstances listed by the applicant were not realistic. A particular concern was expressed that energy security for local business could not be guaranteed as the energy was going into the grid and was not specifically for local businesses.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Councillors proposed and seconded permission, and the motion was carried to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

“583 Councillor Thomas proposed and Councillor Burt seconded, a motion that application 3/25/0950/FUL be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report. After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.”

“RESOLVED – that application 3/25/0950/FUL be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.”

Minutes