Solar farm at Land At Epney, Framilode, Gloucester

A large solar farm

The application is for a solar farm of up to 49.5 megawatts, with a substation, grid connection compound and a 40-year temporary permission.

“The Senior Planning Officer (Majors) introduced the report and highlighted the following: • The proposed development consisted of a solar farm with an output of up to 49.5MW. • The solar arrays faced south and had a maximum height of 3m with inverters in between them. • The substation and distribution network operator (DNO) building were enclosed with fencing and the grid connection compound.”

Minutes

Officers set out several reasons to refuse

Officers said the biodiversity baseline had not been agreed, only one year of required bird surveys had been submitted, and highways had objected to the single access route, each forming a reason for refusal.

“Two years’ worth of overwintering bird surveys were requested for a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), however, only one years’ worth was received resulting in another reason for refusal. • A shadow HRA wasn’t provided and therefore Natural England could not be consulted.”

“Another reason for refusal was due to highway safety, GCC highways had objected to the applicant’s proposal as it was via a single access route which hadn’t been addressed. • The site access route conflicted with footpaths within the area. The applicant had addressed some of the issues, however, in some areas the drawings were incorrect, or the impact of construction vehicles wasn’t assessed.”

Minutes

The Ward Member presses for refusal

The Ward Member said the development would harm a canal heritage site, that the access roads and a weight-limited bridge could not take construction traffic, and that the area already had enough solar development.

Parish councils and a resident object

Parish councillors and a resident raised flood risk, harm to wildlife habitats, unsuitable country lanes for construction vehicles, and loss of productive farmland, while a petition showed strong local opposition.

“The parish was overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal, an informal community ballot held in June showed 99% opposed the development and asked the parish council to fight it. • The parish supported renewable energy however it could not support an industrial scale development in the wrong location.”

“The narrow country lanes were used daily by a wide mix of farm vehicles and vulnerable users and the lanes were not intended for heavy construction vehicles. • There was a flood risk, and the fields were vital as a natural floodplain. The Local Plan and NPPF required new developments to not increase flood risk elsewhere.”

Minutes

The landowner and applicant's agent respond

The landowner said solar income would secure the family farm's future, while the applicant's representative said most objections were procedural and based on evidence not accepted during determination.

Officers answer members' questions

Officers confirmed the council's lawyer advised against approving without the required habitat assessment, and that flooding, highways and construction traffic issues remained unresolved.

“In response to Councillor Luff’s question, the Lawyer advised it would not be wise to approve the application due to the lack of HRA and there would be a strong likelihood of challenge if the application were approved without appropriate assessment.”

“In response to Councillor Callinan, the Senior Planning Officer (Majors) explained the construction traffic management plan showed there would be one non-standard delivery vehicle of a flatbed truck which was assumed to be for the transformer. There were no details given on the type or dimensions of the transformer transport; these details were normally left to the design stage.”

Minutes

Refused unanimously

Members agreed flooding, transport and insufficient evidence meant the application could not be supported, and the motion to refuse was carried unanimously.

“Councillor Shannon advised she would be voting for refusal due to the issues with flooding and transport elements.”

“After being put to the vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.”

Minutes