15MW solar farm at Land At Brook Lane, Brookville

What was proposed

The application proposed a 15MW solar farm with panels, electrical equipment, access tracks, fencing, CCTV, landscaping and associated works for 40 years.

“Construction, operation, maintenance and eventual decommissioning of up to a 15MW Solar Farm comprising the construction of solar panels mounted on metal frames, invertors, spares container, substation, auxiliary transformer, DNO substation, new access tracks, underground cabling, perimeter fencing with CCTV cameras and access gates, temporary construction compound, landscaping, and all ancillary grid infrastructure and associated site works Location:”

“This application is for the construction, operation, maintenance and eventual decommissioning of up to a 15MW Solar Farm comprising of the construction of solar panels mounted on metal frames made up of 445 module racks (300 large racks, 73 medium racks, and 72 small racks) and associated works. The period of the permission sought is 40 years. Upon decommissioning, everything from ground level to 1m below ground level will be removed.”

Officer report

The site

The 25.68-hectare site comprised two agricultural parcels near Brookville, with low-lying farmland around it and access from the B1112.

“The application site is approximately 25.68ha in size, comprising of two parcels of land: a western square parcel of land approximately 11.6ha in size, and the eastern rectangular parcel of land approximately 13.4ha in size, and the access track egressing from B1112 The application site is currently Grade 3a, 3b and 4 classified agricultural land.”

“The hamlet of Brookville lies approximately 300m to the east. The site lies around 1.7km west of Northwold, approximately 1.7km north of both Methwold and 2.5km from Methwold Hythe. Site levels vary between approximately 5.0m and 15.0m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD). The north-eastern corner of the site lies approximately 200m from the B1112. The surrounding area comprises mainly low-lying agricultural land.”

Officer report

Earlier solar development

An existing solar farm surrounds parts of the site and was approved by the planning committee in 2013, with later amendments and condition approvals.

“The proposed solar farm would be connected into the existing 32kV overhead line which crosses land to the west of the eastern site parcel via a new underground cable connection which will extend between the proposed 32kV substation within the northwest of the eastern site parcel and the point of connection on the existing overhead line.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because visual, glint and glare, environmental, highway and other impacts could be addressed, while renewable-energy benefits outweighed the harm.

“The main considerations in determining the impact of solar arrays are visual impact and glint and glare. The application site is not located in an area protected for its landscape, such as the National Landscape or within the setting of a designated heritage asset. In relation to glint and glare, the National Air Traffic Services and Norwich Airport raises no objection. It is…”

“Other key considerations in relation to this specific proposal are impacts on the historic environment, countryside and PROW(s), flood risk and drainage, highway safety and protected species. As outlined above all these impacts can be suitably addressed.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, public rights of way, drainage, airport, air traffic, ecology, heritage, police and other consultees raised no objection, subject to conditions or advice.

“Local Highways Authority: NO OBJECTION Subject to conditions related to full details of a construction management plan, HGV management plan and on-site parking for construction workers.”

“PRoW have no objection in principle to the application. However, would highlight that access to the site will be coincident with the Public Right of Way known as Northwold Restricted Byway 2 which does not offer any means of public vehicular access and it is not maintainable at the public expense to a vehicular standard. It would be expected that any damage caused to the Restricted Byway by the exercise of the private rights remains with the rights holders to repair.”

Officer report

What people said

Five objections cited effects on rural character, nearby solar arrays, food production, wildlife, views, aircraft, traffic, construction disruption and limited local benefit.

“Out of character of the rural farming community • Overbearing as there are other solar arrays nearby • Production of food in the area is very efficient. Food is more important than power. • Solar is inefficient and short lived. • Appears little thought has been given to the dual use of the land, the replacement and recycling of components and hazardous materials. • Concerns with nearby aircraft flight paths. • Impact on wildlife, above and below ground.”

“Protected plants on the site. • Concern with traffic • No benefit to local people • Disruption from construction traffic…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A supporting speaker addressed the committee under the adopted public speaking protocol.

What members debated

Members discussed food security, community contributions, restoration deadlines and biodiversity, while officers explained the agricultural-land assessment and proposed conditions.

“The land was currently being used for agriculture and there was a need for food security. • The applicant should be making a contribution to the community. • There needed to be an expiry date added to the restoration plan. • Biodiversity Net Gain requirements.”

“Loss of agricultural land – the case officer advised that the Planning Inspector had recently allowed a development of a solar farm on good agricultural land. This site comprised grade 3 and 4 (good – poor quality agricultural land), so it was considered that the development would be acceptable.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee approved the recommendation, with condition 2 amended and condition 6 given a restoration timeline, by eight votes to four with one abstention.

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application subject to condition 2 being amended (as detailed in the correspondence received after the publication of the agenda) and condition 6 be amended to include a timeline from commissioning date of the development to completion of restoration works in the decommissioning and restoration plan and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (8 votes for, 4 against and…”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the amended conditions covering the approved plans and the timeline for decommissioning and restoration works.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved as recommended subject to condition 2 being amended (as detailed in the correspondence received after the publication of the agenda) and condition 6 be amended to include a timeline from commissioning date of the development to completion of restoration works in the decommissioning and restoration plan.”

Minutes