Agenda item

Proposal: Installation of a solar farm comprising ground mounted solar photovoltaic panels, including mounting systems, inverters, underground cabling, stock proof fencing, CCTV, internal access tracks, electrical substation and associated infrastructure for a temporary period of 40 years.

Location: Land west of Church Lane, Welby

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Proposal: Installation of a solar farm comprising ground mounted solar photovoltaic panels, including mounting systems, inverters, underground cabling, stock proof fencing, CCTV, internal access tracks, electrical substation and associated infrastructure for a temporary period of 40 years.

Location: Land west of Church Lane, Welby

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillor                                                      Cllr Sarah Trotter

Londonthorpe and Harrowby Without Parish Council        Cllr Alan Bowling

Against                                                                               John Ingle

Applicant                                                                             Charlotte Peacock       

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary, National Planning Policy Framework, National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1) and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy (EN3).

·       No comments received from Association of Gardens Trust.

·       No comments received from Civil Aviation Authority.

·       No comments received from Defence Infrastructure Organisation.

·       No comments received from Environment Agency.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       No comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways &SuDS).

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Planning Policy).

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Public Rights of Way & Access).

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       No comments received from National Grid.

·       No comments received from National Highways.

·       Comments received from National Trust.

·       No comments received from Natural England.

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

·       Comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection Officer.

·       Comments received from Welby Parish Council.

 

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

 

·       Whether the land proposed was used as farming land for crops.

 

The Ward Councillor noted that the land was used to grow good quality cereal crops.

 

·       Further information was requested on the cumulative impact of solar farms.

 

The Ward Councillor had concerns regarding the number of applications coming forward for solar farms. It was noted that there were two other solar sites within the vicinity of Londonthorpe and Welby.

 

·       The biodiversity of the area was queried.

 

The Applicant had completed a biodiversity survey, where birds of prey and other species were identified. There had been a herd of deer seen nearby the site.

 

·       Why the farmer/owner of the proposed land was willing to change from farming land to a solar farm.

 

It was noted that the landowner may feel that there is a better guaranteed income with a solar farm rather than agricultural production. The importance of food production and food security was emphasised.

 

·       Whether there was land within the vicinity that would be better suited for a solar farm.

 

The Public Speaker highlighted the risk of farming land becoming waterlogged during Autumn, whereby food production could not take place. The proposed land was high quality for farmers due to it being free-draining.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning clarified that the Environmental Statement within the report outlined the grading and quality of the agricultural land, which the Committee needed to assess.

 

·       Whether the Applicant or a tenant farmer was currently farming the proposed land.

 

The Agent clarified there was an owner of the land, a tenant farmer and themselves as the Applicant. There were other pressures other than land quality on the success of farming, such as the increase in fuel prices, weed spraying fertiliser and pesticides.  The income from the proposed site would support the ongoing business elsewhere.

 

·       If the Applicant was successful, who decided and completed early decommissioning and the timeframe

 

The intention of the Applicant was to build sites, no sites had been decommissioned at present, however, the company had the skillset to complete decommissioning after 40 years. There would be no intention from the Applicant for an early decommissioning of the site.

 

·       Concern was raised on the value of farming land. A campaign to protect Rural England had expressed severe concerns that valuable farmland was a location of choice for solar farms. It was queried whether the solar panels would have a higher benefit than agricultural food production land.

 

The DEFRA food security report was produced in 2021 which outlined different factors that affected UK food security in terms of global imports and exports.  There was no risk factor from renewable energy, the report identified climate change alongside other factors in terms of land degradation from intensive farming.

 

·       Clarification was sought around the lifespan of a solar panel. The solar panels had an expectancy of 20 years, meaning at least 60,000 panels would need to be changed at least once and disposed of.

 

It was clarified that solar panels were electrical equipment and would reduce in efficiency over time. Previously, solar panels would reduce in efficiency at 25 years and the panels would then be removed or an application be submitted to replace them. Nowadays, the solar panels would be expected to still be efficient at 40 years and no large-scale replacement should take place.

 

·       It was queried whether other renewable energy provisions would take place, for example, wind turbines.

 

The Applicant was a company that predominantly provided solar energy in the UK. All renewable energy sources had their own constraints in terms of noise and visual impacts and the loss of land.

 

·       The efficiency of PV cells being proposed was queried. It was further queried whether efficiency was between 17-19%, if they were sourced in Europe, they tended to be more efficient.

 

The Applicant clarified that the efficiency of panels would depend on temperature.

 

·       Whereabouts the solar panels were manufactured.

 

As the application had not yet been approved, equipment had not been ordered, therefore, it was unknown if the panels were manufactured in our outside of Europe.

 

·       Whether livestock would be retained on site for grazing purposes.

 

The site would be used to graze livestock, and therefore the solar panels were proposed to sit a distance above the ground for sheep to graze below them.

 

·       Whether the grazing of sheep would determine the seed mix that would be laid on the ground, and whether the Applicant would be open to changing the seed mix in line with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust’s comments.

 

The Agent confirmed that the Applicant’s were happy to negotiate the seed mix in line with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust’s comments.

 

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

 

·       What grade of land was surrounding the proposed site.

 

The DM Manager confirmed that the land surrounding the proposed site was majority Grade 3, as provided by Natural England’s land classification maps. 

 

·       What provisions would be put in place to stop runoff drainage from this land causing contamination on better quality surrounding land.

 

The majority of the land underneath the panels and around the site would be left as it was prior to the development taking place, rain would hit the panels and then runs onto the land and drains in the same way as the current land situation.

 

·       Whether any safeguarding was included to protect the land being decommissioned after 40 years.

 

The decommissioning of the scheme was secured by planning condition which would be enforceable if breached. 

 

·       Concern was raised regarding solar power energy replacing farming land. It was felt that the retention of farming land had a higher importance.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning reminded the Committee that the Council had declared a climate change emergency, whereby the reduction of energy consumption and decarbonising the energy grid was a priority.

 

·       Members discussed planning balance, benefits and harm in the event of an appeal decision, if the application was refused.

 

The DM Manager noted that key issues around drainage of the site were covered in the report (7.1.3), which referred to the flood risk assessment carried out. It was proposed to implement a sustainable drainage system by installing a series of swales along the field boundaries to intercept any additional runoff before discharging into existing watercourses.

 

It was noted that the Ministerial Statement underlined current rules regarding the best use of most versatile land. It was highlighted that less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land would be utilised.

 

·       Clarification was received on comments received from Lincolnshire County Council on rights of way.

·       Further clarification was sought on the height of boundary fencing in terms of protecting livestock.

 

The site would be fenced to an extent whereby deer would be unable to access the site, but it would allow movement of other small mammals.

 

·       Further concern was raised regarding wild birds.

·       Whether the panels would be mounted in a way to attract sunlight but avoid glint and glare.

·       During pre-application, whether an alternative of wind power had been discussed.

 

The glint and glare of the panels had been assessed as part of the application with the relevant consultees.

                         

·       The structures of the proposed site were requested, in terms of the panels, cabins and customer sub-station having a visual impact.

 

Section 2 of the report outlined proposed heights and dimensions of the panels.

 

It was clarified that the solar panels would have a height of 3.5 metres and the remaining infrastructure around the site would not exceed 4.2 metres. The site was set back from public vantage points which provided mitigation.

 

·       Whether any hedging or boundary treatment was proposed for the western side of the site.

·       It was queried whether a condition could be included to include livestock to offset the arable land.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning informed the Committee that a condition could not be included to ensure livestock be grazed on the proposed land. Moreover, the solar farm would not prohibit grazing from taking place.

 

The western boundary of the site included dense vegetation to protect any visual impacts.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning clarified that the Council’s policies were supportive of protecting agricultural land where possible and renewable energies. Inspectors would look at an application based on the energy consumption that the panels and solar farm were generating.

 

At a previous appeal on a solar panel scheme in Folkingham, the Inspector came to the following conclusions:

 

-       14 hectares of agricultural land being put out of arable use for 40 years, it would not be permanently lost and could still be used for grazing. Although issues would be that the site would be unlikely to be as productive as a site not primarily in solar use.

-       Having regard to the amount of best and most versatile land under consideration, its continued for potential agricultural use and the period of the project. The inspector deemed the proposeal to lead to a significant loss of agricultural land and found no conflict with National Policy in the Framework.

-       On the balance that any harms and a temporary loss from arable production is minimal and limited weight to be given to it.

-       The Inspector gave more weight to achieving a sustainable development through the generation of 27megawatts of renewable source.

 

Condition 7 required submission of a landscape and ecological management plan which would include securing details of wildflower mix.

 

The DM Manager drew the Committee’s attention to the NPPF (paragraph 163), where it stated that local planning authorities should not require Applicant’s to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy, they should recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Lincolnshire County Council had made a request to make a restricted by-way, on the site, which did not exist at present, however, may exist in the future. It was not within the District Council’s remit to consider the right of way, as part of the application.

 

It was proposed and seconded to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

 

·       The importance of protecting best and most versatile was raised to protect food security in line with global impacts.

·       Members discussed impacts in accordance with the Council’s Local Plan and NPPF.

·       The loss of good quality agricultural land was reiterated.

·       Members raised concern of cumulative impact and other applications for solar farms within the vicinity.

 

This proposal fell.

 

It was proposed and seconded to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to REFUSE planning permission, for the following reasons:

 

1.    The loss of best and most versatile agricultural land as a result of the development is harmful and contrary to Development Plan Policies, National Guidance and the Written Ministerial Statement.

 

2.    The Applicant’s had not demonstrated that the scheme could not be delivered in a more beneficial or less harmful location.

 

3.    The benefits arising from the scheme do not outweigh the harm in terms of the loss of best and most versatile land. 

 

(Councillors Paul Fellows, Patsy Ellis and Vanessa Smith voted against the proposal to refuse the application).

 

(Councillors Harrish Bisnauthsing, Tim Harrison, Pam Byrd, Paul Wood, Gloria Johnson, Charmaine Morgan and Penny Milnes voted in favour of the proposal to refuse the application).

 

(The Committee had a break from 15:35 – 15:45).