42MW solar farm at Land South Of Knox Lane, Bardwell

What was proposed

A 42MW ground-mounted solar farm was proposed with a substation, control room, CCTV, fencing, landscaping and grid connection infrastructure.

“The application seeks planning permission for a ground mounted solar farm with associated infrastructure such as inverters and transformers, substations, control room, fencing and CCTV. Access to the site will be taken from an existing access point from the A143. Internal access tracks will be created to facilitate construction and the ongoing management of the application site.”

“Solar panels The proposed development comprises a 42MW solar farm with solar arrays arranged in rows spaced approximately 3 metres apart, with a maximum height of 2.4 metres from ground level. The panels will be angled at 25 degrees from ground level. These will be mounted on metal frames and set into the ground by piling. The panels are non-reflective and will be fixed to the ground.”

Officer report

The site

The 55.20-hectare arable field lies south of Knox Lane, beside the A143, within designated countryside and three parishes.

“The application site consists of a large, arable field measuring at 55.20 hectares in area. The field sits towards the south of Knox Lane with A143 at Stanton Road towards the east. The application site is located within three parishes: Bardwell, Ixworth and Stanton. For the purposes of planning, the application site is contained within designated countryside.”

“Within the Suffolk Landscape Character assessment, the site is designated as ancient plateau claylands whereby typical characteristics include flat landscapes of light loams and sandy soils, large scale rectilinear field patterns and a network of tree belts and coverts. West Suffolk Landscape Character Assessment describes the site being within the K1: Stanton Clay Farmlands.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the renewable-energy and biodiversity benefits were considered to outweigh the identified harms.

“The NPPF confirmed that the planning system should support the transition to net zero by 2050 and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. Significant weight should be given to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation and the proposal’s contribution to a net zero future.”

“Having weighed up the benefits and harms, the collective benefits associated with assisting the country in transitioning to a low carbon economy and improving the security of electricity supplies are considered to outweigh the harms in this case and as such the application is recommended for approval.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while Historic England and the conservation officer identified less than substantial heritage harm.

“West Suffolk Council Conservation Officer Photos would suggest the panels will be appreciated from Bardwell Hall looking towards the site, but the appreciation will be that of more distant views separated by an area which is to remain free of panels.”

“Historic England Historic England would not object to the majority of the proposed development but are concerned that the proximity of the development to Bardwell Manor might detract from its agricultural setting and so result in harm to its significance and that of the conservation area.”

Officer report

What local people said

All 70 representations opposed the development, citing agricultural land, landscape, amenity, heritage, traffic, archaeology, fire, flooding and cumulative impacts.

“Four site notices were displayed around the vicinity of the red line boundary and as a result of this and a 21-day consultation, a total of 70 letters of representation have been received, all representations received object to the development. Full details of representations are available to view online and the issues raised are summarised below:”

“Loss of agricultural land • Impact on biodiversity • Impact on rural landscape • Noise/impact on amenity • Impact on property value • Glare and reflection of panels • Impact on heritage assets • Cumulative impacts of development • Highway and traffic impacts • Archaeology • Fire risk • Contamination of land and toxic residue from panels • Flooding • Light pollution • Concerns over definition of temporary • Difficulty in recycling materials • More suitable locations – car…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident objector, a parish council vice chair and the ward member spoke, while the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

What members debated

Members discussed the scheme’s lifespan, archaeology, highways, agricultural land, cumulative effects, glint and glare, noise, landscaping and biodiversity funding.

“Some Members voiced disappointment at the loss of agricultural land in relation to food security and resulting increased air miles in food supply. The Service Manager Planning explained that this was a material planning consideration in so far as the loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.”

“Councillor Rachel Hood proposed that the application be refused, contrary to the Officer recommendation, as she considered the harm to outweigh the benefits of the application. Particular concerns and requests for additional information were voiced in respect of; the glint and glare assessment, noise impacts, the landscaping scheme (including the cumulative impact), the loss of best and most versatile land, the decommissioning of the site, highways, archaeology, S106…”

Minutes

What the committee decided

The committee was minded to refuse because it considered harm from glint and glare, noise, landscaping, cumulative impact and best and most versatile land to outweigh the benefits.

“Therefore, upon being put to the vote and with 8 voting for the motion and 3 against, it was resolved that…”

“Members be MINDED TO REFUSE, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION, as the harm was to considered to outweigh the benefits of the application specifically in relation to; the glint and glare assessment, noise impacts, the landscaping scheme (including the cumulative impact) and the loss of best and most versatile land.”

Minutes

What happens next

The Decision Making Protocol was invoked, requiring a risk assessment and further information for future committee consideration.

“The Service Manager Planning confirmed that the Decision Making Protocol would be invoked, requiring a Risk Assessment to be produced for future consideration by the Committee.”

Minutes