44MW solar farm at Land East Of Horsley Hall, Wincote Lane, Wootton, Stafford

The site and surroundings

The site comprised about 43 hectares of agricultural land with hedgerows, ponds, woodland, public rights of way and nearby listed buildings.

“Reason for Referral to Committee This application has been referred to the Planning Committee because the development is a large-scale major application which the Council’s Constitution specifies is to be determined by the Planning Committee.”

“Two public rights of way intersect the site, one (Eccleshall 149) adjacent to the northwest boundary of parcel A and one (Eccleshall 118) adjacent to the southeast boundary of parcel B. An overhead line also runs through both parcels of land. There are four listed buildings within the vicinity of the application site: Cash Farmhouse, Hill Crest, and Johnson Hall and the associated lodge building.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because its renewable energy and climate benefits outweighed identified harm, subject to conditions.

“Following the submission of additional supporting information, the local highway authority raise no objection to the proposed development, subject to conditions to avoid and mitigate harm to the local highway network.”

“Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed landscaping approach would achieve sufficient mitigation to the harm. It is considered that further reinstatement of historic hedgerows would be overly onerous, unjustified, and possibly result in implications for the ongoing financial sustainability of the agricultural operations.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and a supporter spoke, while an officer read a prepared statement from the absent ward member.

What members debated

Members discussed heritage, glint and glare, agricultural land, landscape, drainage, flooding, highways and the weight given to the benefits.

“Arising from consideration of the application, Members raised the following points:- • Comments of Conservation Officer • Lack of glint/glare assessment relating to first floor windows of affected dwellings • Loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land • Potential for adverse effect on the landscape and character of the area • Impact on drainage/flooding, siting/depth of attenuation ponds • Highways concerns • Disagreed with weight apportioned by Officers within the…”

Minutes

The committee's decision

The committee voted to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation.

“On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was carried. RESOLVED:- that planning application No 23/37149/FUL be refused, as per the reasons detailed above. CHAIR”

Minutes