40MW solar farm at Land Off Poulters Lane, Horringer

What was proposed

The application proposed a 40MW ground-mounted solar farm with access works, security, grid infrastructure, landscaping, biodiversity improvements and temporary construction compounds.

“The application seeks planning permission for a ground mounted solar farm, with associated infrastructure such as inverter stations, grid connection infrastructure, access gates, internal access tracks and security measures. It also includes the provision of an operational vehicular access from Poulters Lane, Horringer and Whepstead Road (B1066), Whepstead. Two construction vehicle access points as well as temporary construction compounds are proposed.”

“Solar panels The proposed development comprises a 40MW solar farm with the solar arrays arranged in rows with 8 metre spacings between rows. The proposed elevations show that the panels will be set on angled at 29 degrees, placed on structure posts, with a maximum height of 3 metres above ground level.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The 56.65-hectare arable site lies between the A143 and B1066 in countryside across Horringer and Whepstead, with nearby heritage assets and no relevant planning history.

“The application site consists of a large, arable field measuring at 56.65 hectares. The field sits between the A143 at Poulters Lane and the B1066 at Whepstead Road, located within two parishes: Horringer and Whepstead. For the purposes of planning, the application site is contained within designated countryside.”

“Access to the site will be taken from the north-western point of the application site from the A143 as well as at the east of the site from the B1066. The eastern access point (B1066) is located within flood zones two and three due to the location of the River Linnet.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because renewable energy and biodiversity benefits were considered to outweigh landscape, heritage, agricultural land and residential amenity harms.

“The submitted land classification report details that 96.1% of the application site is subgrade 3a and 3.9% is non-agricultural. The medium-term loss of the grade 3a agricultural land must weigh against the proposal. However, the installation of the solar farm is reversible. The development would be decommissioned, and the land would revert back to agricultural use with no lasting effects on the agricultural land and productivity.”

“Having weighed up the benefits and harms, the collective benefits are considered outweigh the harms in this case and as such the application is recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Parish councils, ward members, an MP and residents raised concerns including landscape, traffic, flooding, ecology, heritage, noise, agricultural land and decommissioning.

“Nick Timothy MP Objects to the proposed development due to unsuitable location of the panels in terms of visual impact and ecology. Road safety concerns have also been raised in terms of heavy construction traffic. Concerns have also been raised regarding the proposed development resulting in the loss of agricultural land.”

“Wrong location for solar development (add panels to new housing, and existing council owned buildings) • Visual impacts • Ecology impacts • Noise impacts of operation • Impact on property outlook • Traffic impacts • Impacts on heritage assets • Loss of agricultural land • Disruption during cable installation • Utilitarian appearance of CCTV • Flooding issues • Costings of project • Grid capacity • Comprising rural views • Noise impacts during construction period •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Objecting residents, parish and ward representatives spoke against the application, while supporting speakers included a community organisation, the applicant and the agent.

What members debated

Members discussed countryside character, alternative sites, agricultural land, food and energy demands, environmental effects, conditions, grid connection and benefits not given planning weight.

“The loss of agricultural land and the environmental impact of potentially having to source that crop/food source from outside of the UK was also referred to alongside the manufacture/import of the solar panels. Members asked if the environmental impacts of these two elements had been calculated in the balance against the generation of clean energy the scheme would provide.”

“Other Members remarked on the need to balance the land demands in the country in accommodating both food and energy, alongside central government’s policies in relation to renewable energy, which carried weight in the determination.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Members voted 11 to 3 to refuse permission contrary to the officer recommendation because landscape, heritage and agricultural land harms outweighed the benefits.

“Councillor Rachel Hood proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, due to the adverse impact on the landscape, character and visual amenity of the area in a locally valued landscape; the…”

“The proposed development would have an adverse effect on the landscape character and visual amenity within an important local valued landscape contrary to policies SP6 and SP7 of the West Suffolk local Plan and paragraph 187(a) of the NPPF. The development would also result in harm to a number of designated heritage assets contrary to policy LP35 of the West Suffolk local plan and would result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.”

Minutes