Solar farm and batteries at Land At Mousewell Farm And Pool Farm, Chipping Sodbury

What was proposed

The application proposed a 22-megawatt solar farm with battery containers, panels, access tracks, fencing, equipment, infrastructure and landscape improvements.

“Planning permission is sought for the construction of a solar farm and battery storage (‘BESS’) containers together with associated works, equipment and infrastructure. The proposed capacity of the solar farm would be 22 megawatts (MW).”

“- Solar PV arrays mounted on metal framework (“tables”) (3m above ground level) - Inverters and transformers (various locations throughout the site) - BESS (battery) storage containers - Customer switchgear container unit - Spares container - Internal access tracks and gates - Perimeter fencing - CCTV cameras and mounting poles - Temporary construction compound - Access improvements (for construction, operation and decommissioning) - No-development zone (NE corner of western…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The approximately 50-hectare site comprised two agricultural parcels in the Green Belt, near residential properties, heritage assets and Wapley Bushes Local Nature Reserve.

“The western parcel sits immediately to the south of the railway line and sits between the railway line and Besom Lane and encloses Pool Farm. The Wapley Bushes Local Nature Reserve (LNR) lies to the east of the western parcel (outside the site boundary).”

“The site lies to the south of Chipping Sodbury and is located within the open countryside and Bristol/Bath Green Belt. The site is approximately 2.5km to the west of the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL). The site typically falls within EA flood zone 1, however, some areas are at risk from surface water flooding, as set out in the flood risk assessment.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier history included an environmental screening opinion that found the development was not EIA development, while other available history was neither recent nor relevant.

“The application is a schedule 2 development under the EIA regulations 1 , as it would represent an installation for the production of electricity on a site exceeding 0.5ha. Accordingly, a screening opinion was requested 2 prior to the submission of this application. The determination of the screening process was that the proposed development is not EIA development.”

“Other history is available that is neither recent nor relevant.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site met the Grey Belt definition and renewable energy benefits outweighed identified landscape and heritage harms.

“The site meets the definition of grey belt as outlined in the NPPF, and all relevant criteria outlined in para.155 are met. This being the case, the development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, under the terms of the NPPF. There is therefore no conflict with Green Belt policy, and the proposals also comply with CS5 and CS34 in respect of Green Belt. The land is currently open and would inevitably be less so once developed.”

“The first strand is the need for renewable energy in a clear national, international and local context and the associated environmental benefits, with this scheme providing sufficient energy to supply 11,280 homes per annum with a Co2 saving of 19,480,700 tonnes per annum.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The parish councils and residents raised concerns about Green Belt impact, landscape, heritage, ecology, flooding, traffic, noise, safety and loss of rural character.

“- Loss of Biodiversity - Impact on Greenbelt Land - Visual Impact - in particular in relation to historical and cultural preservation - Flooding and drainage issues - Economic Concerns - Not clear how the community fund will be managed - and if it is to be index linked. Feel that as it stands at less then £5k / year of operation there is little if any benefit.”

“Members feel that the application is dismissive of this evidence of flooding and that further investigation should be undertaken before a decision taken. As well as flooding at the lower end of Besom Lane - the drains by Pool Farm have been known not to cope with significant rainfall - and often both entrances to Wapley and Allotment site 1 is flooded - with residents in Wapley Rank being very concerned for their properties, again highlighting need for this to be properly…”

Officer report

Public views

There were 312 objections, 293 supporting responses and five general responses, with support focusing on clean energy, climate benefits, biodiversity and community benefits.

“Green Energy and Climate Benefits - Strong support for renewable energy, especially solar and battery storage. - Emphasis on cutting CO2, reducing fossil fuel dependence, and meeting climate targets. - References to large carbon savings and powering around 10,000 homes.”

“General Support for Renewables - Mentions of renewable energy as the future and essential for climate and energy needs. - Supportive comments emphasising long-term benefits of clean energy.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent, a supportive resident, two objecting residents and two ward councillors addressed the committee.

The committee debate

Members debated whether the site was Grey Belt, its contribution to Green Belt purposes, landscape mitigation, noise and harm to listed farmhouses.

“The setting can also contribute to its significance, but it is always a secondary factor. • In terms of the large built-up areas, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the WECA Strategic Green Belt Assessment considers Bristol and Bath to be the large built-up areas that are concerned and that the Green Belt should prevent those two neighbouring towns from merging.”

“It is a matter of Member’s judgement as to whether the development meets the definition of Grey Belt. • The proposed development would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and its openness/permanence. • The Very Special Circumstances put forward do not outweigh the harms to the landscape. • The proposed landscape mitigation will take 10 years to establish itself.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee voted 4:1:0 to refuse permission because it found inappropriate Green Belt development, harm to Mousewell Farmhouse and an unsecured biodiversity monitoring fee.

“The proposed development would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and its openness/permanence. The Very Special Circumstances put forward do not outweigh the harms caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriate development, and any other harms arising from the proposed development.”

“The proposed development, by reason of its scale, siting and amount, would be harmful to the setting of the Grade II listed Mousewell Farmhouse through the erosion of the agricultural and rural setting within which it sits. This would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of this asset, which would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the development.”

Minutes