Agenda item

Proposal: Submission of details pursuant to Requirement 6 – (Detailed design approval) for Phase 2 Main Construction Works in relation to The Mallard Pass Solar Farm Order 2024 No. 796

Location: Mallard Pass Solar Farm

Recommendation:That the Committee endorse the draft response to Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd and delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning & Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response and determine the Requirement 6 submission

Councillor Max Sawyer declared that he was pre-determined about the application and left the chamber.

Proposal: Submission of details pursuant to Requirement 6 – (Detailed design approval) for Phase 2 Main Construction Works in relation to The Mallard Pass Solar Farm Order 2024 No. 796

Location: Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd

Recommendation: That the Committee endorse the draft response to Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd and delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning & Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response and determine the Requirement 6 submission.

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor               Cllr Vanessa Smith (Statement)

Against                                         Sue Holloway (Mallard Pass Action Group)

Applicant                                      Catherine Martin (Answer questions only)

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

-       Whilst recognising the importance of renewable energy, one speaker argued that proposals caused a flood risk and great disruption by diverting construction traffic along the A15 between Deeping and Bourne during potential works.

-       It was suggested that technological improvements over time should result in a smaller solar footprint on the site.

-       A speaker argued that the detail publicly available about the application plans was insufficient. 

During questions to public speakers, Members commented on the following:

-       It was confirmed that the applicant was reviewing the use of technologically new solar panels and had liaised with the parish council about the concerns of local residents.

During questions to officers and debate, the following comments were made:

-       It was suggested that any proposals should be suitable to allow for wild animals on the site and consideration should be given to sheep grazing on the site.

-       At the request of a member, it was confirmed that comments would be sought from a Lincolnshire Crime Officer about the proposals.

-       Given there were no proposals to include battery storage anywhere on the site the fire risk was deemed to be lower, however, the Planning Officer agreed to consider whether feedback from the Fire & Rescue Service would be necessary.

-       A member reiterated concerns that the proposals would impact local flood risk, drainage, and surface water run-off.

Following discussions, it was proposed, seconded, and AGREED that the Committee endorsed the draft response to Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd

and delegated authority to the Assistant Director of Planning & Growth, in

consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response and determine the Requirement 6 submission, in keeping with the comments expressed during questions to officers and debate:

‘SKDC Planning Committee note that, for the purposes of Requirement 6, the submitted Phase 2 detailed design is considered to accord with the approved design guidance and parameter limits secured through the Mallard Pass Solar Farm DCO. The submitted information provides sufficient detail in relation to layout, scale, levels, materials, access arrangements and associated infrastructure, and acknowledge that the principle, extent and overall generating capacity of the development are matters already established through the DCO process. However, formal approval should remain dependent on ensuring consistency with the related requirement submissions, particularly Requirements 7, 8, 9 and 10 relating to landscape and ecology, fencing, drainage and archaeology, where those details remain outstanding and subject to separate approval.

The Committee further requests that the developer gives careful consideration to the matters raised through consultation, particularly the concerns of MPAG, Greatford Parish Council and Braceborough and Wilsthorpe Parish Council. In particular, the Committee urges the developer to continue to explore options to utilise the best available technology to ensure that the scheme makes an efficient use of land, and to continue to explore opportunities for increased setbacks from affected residential properties where possible.

In relation to the proposed retention of construction passing places on Uffington Lane and other rural lanes, before any final position is reached, the developer should work with the local highway authorities and affected communities to justify whether any passing places need to be retained post-construction, whether their number, size and location can be reduced and whether verges should be reinstated where retention is not necessary. This should have regard to potential effects on rural character, rat-running, HGV use, fly-tipping, cyclists, horse riders and local amenity. The applicant should also provide clarification already requested by Officers on substation screening, cable installation impacts, interpretation boards and opportunities to align ecological and flood mitigation measures.

The Committee further seeks clarification on the type of perimeter fencing proposed, noting that this should strike an appropriate balance between addressing concerns regarding rural crime and wildlife, including the local deer population. Comments should also be sought from the Lincolnshire Designing Out Crime Officer on the proposed fencing. In addition, the applicant should provide details regarding the potential for sheep grazing within the site; further explanation regarding flood risk mitigation, particularly in relation to flood risk in Greatford village; and further details of how fire risk concerns have been considered, including the mitigation measures proposed.’