Agenda item

DM/20/03722/FPA - Installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure.

 

DM/21/02333/FPA - Construction of underground electricity cables, and associated infrastructure to connect to the proposed Sheraton Hall Solar Farm.

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding applications for the installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure and construction of underground electricity cables, and associated infrastructure to connect to the proposed Sheraton Hall Solar Farm at Sheraton Hall Farm, Sheraton, Hartlepool (for copy see file of Minutes).

 

C Shields, Senior Planning Officer provided a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photograph of the site, site layout of the Solar Farm and cable route and site photographs.

 

Mr Richard Irvine, Chair of Sheraton and Hulam Parish Meeting addressed the Committee to object to the application on behalf of the Parish Meeting.  Mr Irvine informed the Committee he was representing the residents of Sheraton village and the outlying communities.

 

Mr Irvine provided the Committee with an understanding of the problems that the community already faced.

 

In 1964 Durham County Council gave permission for the A19 Trunk road to plough its way straight through the centre of the village, instead of taking the eastern by-pass route, around the outskirts, and across the very fields into which today, this applicant was seeking to place hundreds of solar panels.  This one act alone robbed houses of their front gardens, robbed communities at each side of the new dual carriageway road with the ability to mix and communicate freely, robbed children of their freedom to roam, provided noise levels which had gradually increased to excruciating levels over the intervening years, and provided traffic chaos for its residents on a scale which was hard for anyone to imagine, not to mention the dangerously high toxic levels of lead pollution which the community had to endure no more than a few yards from its front doorsteps.  Added to this was the fact that as the years moved on the local services were severely curtailed. The milkman, who was a regular everyday visitor, stopped his milk deliveries as it became too unsafe to manoeuvre in the village, followed by the newspaper delivery agent, who stopped their deliveries for the same reason, and then on top of that the local bus service through the village was discontinued, as it was considered too dangerous to pick up passengers and then to re-join the A19 traffic.

 

County Council officials visited Mr Irvine a few months ago at his request as Chair of the Parish Meeting to discuss what improvements could be made to the village in the way of general maintenance.  The officials could not commit to sending any of its workforce to the village to undertake any work, on the grounds of it being too dangerous to work at such close proximity to the A19 dual carriageway.

 

Residents only release from the chaos of having three thousand heavy trucks and cars an hour, at peak times, ploughing through the village was to seek refuge away from the village itself in exercise walks down the lane to the west of the village and between the village and the B1280.  This facility had been made more important in the last 24 months during the pandemic.

 

Residents were now faced with the possibility that this tranquil rural setting, which had provided solace and sanity, with unbroken views of stunning countryside, and with wildlife encounters that many in town areas could only dream of, was going to be devastated, by the installation of hundreds upon hundreds of solar panels, turning the entire area into one of an industrial wasteland.

 

It was important that the Committee considered what was happening around Sheraton Village. There was, within a 5-mile radius of the village, no fewer than 41 wind generating turbines and numerous associated power lines and within two miles a recently approved solar farm at Hulam covering 200 acres and costing in excess of £20m.  Within one mile of the village was Hartmoor Power Station with its £24m conversion, Worset Lane Solar Farm a further cost of £20m, and in addition new housing developments on the outskirts of Hartlepool costing £50m.  This was well over a £114m all within a 2–3-mile radius of Sheraton, either under construction or granted permission to proceed.

To now put forward a further scheme for an additional 77 hectares of Solar Panels around the village was more than any small community could reasonably be expected to tolerate.

 

Residents of Sheraton were not anti-solar as many of them understood the need for alternative sources of power and the reduction of carbon footprint, but what they objected to was the choice of a beautiful rural setting, which surrounded a vibrant community like Sheraton, with what at the end of the day could only be adequately described as an industrial invasion when there were many sites within the industrial heartland of Teesside that would be far more suited to this type of activity, and raise far fewer objections than this scheme had.

 

Mr Irvine placed the scheme into perspective.  When completed the proposed scheme would cover all 115 football pitches in the Premier League, the Championship League, and League 1 of the National Leagues. That was some level of saturation and was on top of a scheme covering almost 200 acres already agreed upon, in the Parish of Sheraton with Hulam, at Hulam itself.

 

It was noted that the proposed scheme had a small number of supporters, but many more objectors.  However 95% of supporters resided well outside of the Sheraton community and in some cases 30 miles away.  The overwhelming majority of Sheraton residents did not want to see any part of this scheme developed.

 

Many of the village residents were now retired and chose Sheraton Village as their final dwelling to see out their final years and as such valued their leisure time in retirement, valued their village, valued their community spirit, but most of all valued their countryside and the pleasure derived from their surroundings.  No number of amendments to this scheme by the applicant would placate the worries and fears residents had.

 

Durham County Council in their Durham Landscape Strategy clearly stated when it deals with the subject of understanding and conserving the diversity of the Durham County landscape, that ‘Diversification of the rural economy is critical to the future of rural communities but brings its own challenges in terms of the scale and types of development appropriate to rural landscapes.  The most sustainable forms of diversification are likely to be those which are closely associated with farming and forestry and which do not detract from the rural character of the countryside.  It went on to point out that one of its main objectives was ‘To encourage sustainable forms of farm diversification that respect the character of local landscapes.’

 

This scheme, in its entirety, did not respect the character of the landscape, in fact, just the opposite.  It turned it into an outlook of complete industrial development and showed no respect whatsoever to either individual or wild animals living within its boundaries.  Mr Irvine felt sure that had the applicant put forward a plan to cover the entire area with forestry, there would be very few within the community who would object and, what’s more, look at the benefits that that would create for the climate.

 

The landscape report clearly stated at point 111, that landscape officers had stated that, given the undulating character of parts of the site and its immediate environs, the solar panels, as notable man-made structures with an industrial appearance, would not readily assimilate into the open countryside context and it was considered that there would still be residual landscape harm to the character, quality and distinctiveness of the landscape as a consequence of the fragmented nature of the development and visual prominence of parts of the site, particularly the central section of the site which could not be adequately mitigated.

 

While studies had been carried out in relation to this application on the effects on wildlife habitat, birds, traffic flow, glint and glare and environmental impact, no study had been carried out on the effect that the scheme would have on the residents of Sheraton Village.

 

Mr Irvine then looked at the plight of those families that live on the outskirts of the village.

 

The Rixown Kennels community, which was situated on the corner of the B1280 and Hurworth Burn Lane had until now enjoyed unbroken views in all directions, as had the residents of East Grange Farm and the surrounding properties.  Both dwellings would, if this application was allowed, be faced with solar panels either all around the property in the case of Rixown residents or be faced with looking onto a bankside which was covered from top to bottom with solar panels.  No amount of tree and shrub planting would placate the owners of these properties, as the level of undulation of the land made it impossible to adequately reduce the visual impact on them.

 

With reference to the occupants at Rixown, there was major concern surrounding this application. These properties gained their running water from a deep well which was sunk into the fields where this development was to take place and should there be any damage to these panels then dangerous chemicals stored within the panels could very easily seep into the water course. These risks were enormous and had to be given a high level of priority during the Committee’s deliberations.  Despite the fact that these concerns had been raised with the applicant nothing had been done to placate the concerns of these residents on this issue.

 

Referring to East Grange Farm and the nearby West Grange Farm the applicant had done nothing in the way of amendments to understand or diminish the concerns of these homesteads in the subject of glint and glare from the panels and in the case of East Grange Farm did not even include them in the original visual impact considerations.  Whilst that initial omission had now been rectified there were no amendments or considerations to their plight.

 

The applicant had stated that they had consulted fully with the local community.  Mr Irvine informed the Committee that this was not the way residents saw it.  The communication with residents had been nothing short of woeful, partly due to Covid restrictions, but many of the individual questions which had been asked directly of the applicant remained unanswered.  In the area of the applicants attempt to amend the scheme in order to placate concerns, the amendments that were applied were only to an area known locally as the “Wet Lands” and were, without doubt, sacrificial areas included within the first application.  These fields were always going to be far too wet and unstable to support the infrastructure required to assemble these panels on, and always had been.  To remove them from the second application and then suggest that they had attempted to placate the residents’ concerns was simply misleading.

 

National Planning Practice Guidance notes issued in 2014 stated that when considering ‘Large scale ground mounted Solar PV developments’ that the considerations would include ‘the effective use of land by focusing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non-agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value’. 

 

There was adequate previously developed land that was ‘non agricultural’ in the region that was notof high environmental value and would be far better suited to this type of development than the beautiful rolling countryside surrounding Sheraton village.

 

The applicant had recently pointed out that a major part of their consideration of the land at Sheraton was because of the close proximity of the Hart Moor power station to the scheme, which meant that the costs in linking to the National Grid were significantly reduced. This was not an adequate or acceptable reason for placing this solar scheme in Sheraton Village, and defacing the countryside and there were many alternative sites that would be far more suitable to this type of scheme.

 

Guidance notes for Local Planning Authorities stated that when dealing with solar applications, the authority should approve small scale renewable developments, provided their impact could be made acceptable.

 

Local residents would argue that this was most certainly not a small-scale development.  In fact it would appear to be one of the largest developments of its kind in the country, and when the cumulative effect of the already approved Hulam scheme was taken into consideration, its impact on the visual enjoyment of the area could never be made acceptable.

 

The entire proposed scheme was to be surrounded by 3 metre high post and wire fencing, with CCTV cameras positioned at various points, very similar to that around prisons.  Couple this to the fact that there would be hundreds of 3 metre high panels within the fields, no fewer than 7 substations, 14 transformers with 14 invertors alongside, a substation alongside the B1280 with a monitoring building, a spare parts building and adjoined toilets this would appear industrial.

 

This scheme was described as a temporary structure with a total life of 40 years, and the applicant went to great lengths to explain how the entire system would be de-commissioned in years to come.  95% of the residents of Sheraton would never see this scheme de-commissioned and would have to live with the inconvenience of this visual blot on the landscape, not to mention the impact that it would have in de-valuing their property, for the rest of their lives.

 

On a further point, it was highly likely that technological developments would leave solar PV systems way behind in terms of energy production in future years, as further developments in renewable energy came to the fore, and there was great concern that the decommissioning process could very easily leave this land in an unusable state for years to come.  The panels were constructed with some of the most dangerous materials known to man, and as already mentioned, residents were extremely concerned that if these panels were to break down and leak, these dangerous chemicals would make their way into the watercourse.

 

Last week it was announced that a further hydrogen power production plant was to be built on the redundant Redcar steel works site, and Rolls Royce were shortly to develop mini nuclear power stations which would be capable of producing infinitely more power from a small station than this proposal ever would and produce it 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  This would be the future of power development in the country in the not-too-distant future, and not solar farms, which spoiled the landscape and were at best only partly efficient and not particularly cost effective.

 

Mr Irvine urged the Committee to strongly consider the devastating effect this scheme would have on rural life and to reject the application.

 

Councillor Rob Crute, local Member, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

 

Councillor Crute informed the Committee he wished to make it clear thT he was not opposed to solar generated power.  However he was opposed to any form of development in the wrong location or where it had an unacceptable impact on local residents and the settled community, which was the case in this particular application.

 

Councillor Crute informed the Committee he would refer to a number of general points raised by residents from Sheraton, and then link them to the relevant material planning policies.  Following his comments some of the residents themselves would like make further representations in more detail on the location and visual impact of the development,  focussing specifically on problems associated with glint and glare coming from the development:

 

The first point related to energy generation.  The applicant stated in their application that the proposed solar installation would generate enough electricity to power 9,444 typical homes and save approximately 9,771 tonnes in CO₂ emissions per annum.  However there was no evidence to back this up.  Theloss of so much agricultural land or the disposal of the panels had not been taken into account to balance this assessment.  The fields at the proposed site already provided vital energy in the form of food.  The DCC Local Plan referred to sustainability of food production and losing another 160 acres to solar went against this commitment.  

 

There were a couple of unanswered questions arising from this point, would each panel be in place for 40 years or would they be replaced and has this been taken into consideration, and would the solar installation provide this electricity 365 days per year, or was the applicant relying on the diesel generated back-up engines at Hart? What was the real source of the energy in this context?

 

In the past couple of months over 20 energy companies had gone out of business.  Given this, how could there be any certainty that the applicant would exist in 20 or 40 years time.  The scrap market was volatile and these panels may become worthless.  Government strategy was already moving to smaller scale nuclear facilities, making this type of electricity provision potentially redundant, thus the company, even if it still existed, would not be in a position to fund the decommissioning.  Councillor Crute requested that as a condition an assessment of the cost of decommissioning should be made prior to any construction and funds supplied by the applicant in the form of a bond to cover the full costs of decommissioning to protect DCC and the landowner/s from liability should the panels be left to rust in the fields.

 

If the panels did not produce energy for a set period of time Councillor Crute asked whether it would be stipulated that that they were removed.

 

The land proposed for development was privately owned.  DCC’s own policy was that priority for solar developments should be given to brown field sites and land that was Council owned.  There were currently another three similar applications within County Durham, all of which were on privately owned land.  Provision already existed within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to compulsorily purchase land for the public good.  Given the scale and momentum of these applications, the position of any further applications should balance the needs of developers, landowners and the general public.  Schemes such as this, if done fairly, on Council owned, on brown field sites could generate substantial sums to level up deprived areas within County Durham. 

 

The proposal must be seen within the wider context of over 400 acres of agricultural land already lost to solar generation at nearby Hulam and Hart.  There would undoubtedly be a substantial cumulative effect when development was completed.  The Council for the Protection of Rural England did not object to the solar installations at Hulam or Hart but had submitted objections to this scheme because the landscape was different and the countryside would be damaged.  The network was surrounded by miles of 3 metre fencing and all the infrastructure that went with it.  Taken as a whole, this development would completely industrialise this beautiful, unspoilt countryside.  The community at large must be protected from this and all future thoughtless developments.  Therefore, in terms of the applicant’s application for cabling, Councillor Crute asked that if any of the proposal was granted, strict stipulations regarding the size and capacity of the cabling infrastructure were considered.

 

Residents in Sheraton felt that the applicant had not properly engaged with the community.  Councillor Crute had been informed by residents that they had ignored emails and basically run roughshod over people’s genuine concerns.  To make matters worse, residents felt that the proposal offered no benefit to the community whatsoever.  Sheraton was a small community of mostly older people who entered into discussion willingly and with open minds.  Demographically the community was vulnerable because of the age of residents, most of whom would not live to see the projected end of the scheme in 40 years’ time.  They were vulnerable because they did not enjoy equitable access to amenities such as broadband, shops or even streetlights and they were mostly on their own when it came to crime.  For the people living here, the countryside was the only amenity and to effectively consign residents to living in the middle of a solar power station was grossly unfair.  The applicant was doing this at this location simply because they could.

 

County Hall was currently positioned on land that was flat and well screened.  If a scheme like this would not be good enough in the centre of Durham City then it was not good enough in this location either. 

 

 

Councillor Crute referenced the points raised to planning policies, namely NPPF 15 – conserving and enhancing the natural environment, Policy 14 – the best and most versatile agricultural land and soil resources, Policy 31 – amenity and pollution and Policy 39 – landscape.  Councillor Crute drew attention to County Durham Plan Policy 39 which stated that proposals for new development will be permitted where they would not cause unacceptable harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of the landscape or to important features or views.  Proposals will be expected to incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate adverse landscape and visual effects.  Development affecting areas of high landscape value will only be permitted where it conserves and where appropriate enhances the special qualities of the landscape unless the benefits of the development in that location clearly outweigh the harm.

 

Finally Councillor Crute drew the attention of members to the statutory sesponses in the report.  Sheraton with Hulam Parish raised concerns with regard to the proposed solar farm, classification of the proposed land, landscape and visual impact, glare, effects on wildlife, security, land drainage and flooding.

 

As for the public responses, 19 letters of objection had been received raising the issues of landscape harm, loss of open countryside, visual impacts, health risks associated with panels and contamination, nearby heritage assets, flood risk and water quality.

 

The Council for the Protection of Rural England objected to the application noting that the site would be highly visible from a number of locations and views are available into the parts of the site within the Area of High Landscape Value.

 

Concern had also been raised regarding the proximity to the Hulam solar farm site and it was considered that the sequential cumulative impact was an important factor.  The application was not in an appropriate location, from a visual point of view, and CPRE consider that it would have a detrimental environmental impact, whatever the social or economic impacts may be.

 

In closing his representation, Councillor Crute drew the Committee’s attention to the images he had circulated last week which illustrated the devastating impact that natural elements could have on developments of this nature.  For comparative purposes the proposed solar farm at Sheraton was in a more exposed and elevated location and the potential consequences of constructing a solar farm at this location were there for all to see.  Councillor Crute urged Committee members to take these comments into consideration before they came to a decision on the application.  He hoped he had provided sufficient evidence, both in planning policy terms and on behalf of residents in Sheraton, to guide the Committee towards refusing the application on the grounds set out here and elsewhere by other organisations and members of the local community.

 

Richard McCabe addressed the Committee to object to the application.

 

Residents of Sheraton were shocked to learn of the proposal to house nearly 200 acres of solar panels on neighbouring fields in Sheraton.

 

The aggressive scale of the presentation would have a hugely damaging effect on the countryside for years to come and would blight the prime gateway route into Hartlepool in a serious way.  While cheap and green energy generation and new investment was welcomed it should not be at the cost of a valued amenity, the countryside.

 

It was not fair that Sheraton should be shouldering the load of so many major developments close by, with this one alone being close to £20m, when there were plenty of more suitable locations elsewhere on backland, scrub, disused industrial quarries and airfields.  Prime five star rural amenity land of great scenic value should be the very last choice.

 

Mr McCabe asked whether this scheme was a proper use of rural land, was it well suited, was it correct, was it apt and was it right for this location.

 

Developments close to Sheraton Village in recent months, to which residents had not made objection included Hulam Solar, Worset Lane Solar, Hartmore housing and Hart Power Station at a total value circa £100m, plus 4 giant wind turbines, all within 1 mile of Sheraton.

 

This application failed on the applicants own stipulations, namely that sites should be flat, this site was undulating, concealed behind trees and hedges, this site required much screening, away from historic monuments.

 

In conclusion residents of Sheraton Village refused to be collateral damage in this misplaced and badly conceived planning application. This scheme in its present form was wildly excessive and badly located and Mr McCabe asked the Committee to refuse the application.

 

Judith Booth, resident of Sheraton Grange Farm which was one of the homes adversely affected by the proposed development addressed the Committee to object to the application.

 

Ms Booth agreed with all that had been presented by other speakers and believed the application was contrary to policy.  The development would result in the loss of 150 acres of food production and this went against the county’s commitment to sustainability in food production.

 

The land was not flat.  PV3 was on the side of a hill and screening would be impossible.  The development would industrialise the landscape and would not conserve or enhance.   This was a valued landscape which must be protected and enhanced in accordance with NPPF. The Council’s own landscape report recognised this harm.

 

There would be cumulative, sequential damage to the whole area.  The Independent Newspaper raised this cumulative harm in August 2021 under the heading “Sun City”.  CPRE did not object to Hulam but they did object here.

 

The countryside at this location was the only amenity.  Local people would be further harmed in their own homes and gardens through unacceptable glint and glare impact.

 

Health and safety concerns had not been addressed.  The applicant had ignored residents about water, ignored emails and no health and safety impact assessment had been done.

 

There were no benefits to the residents, or the wider community and Ms Booth urged the Committee to reject the application.

 

Nicol Perryman addressed the Committee to object to the application.  Ms Perryman informed the Committee that she grew up at Sheraton West Grange Farm was representing her family and nearest neighbours.  She was a Chartered Planner and had spent around half of her career as a renewable energy consultant.

 

As such, it pained her to have to object to this application because she supported the principle of solar development, but the landscape and amenity harm arising from the Hurworth Burn Road field in particular, which was 12 hectares of the 77 proposed, lead to valid material considerations that could not be outweighed by any benefits.

 

Due to the topography of this hillside, with a height differential of 17 metres, the landscape officer had identified landscape harm that she had stated could not be adequately mitigated for.  Photographs demonstrating this field’s visual prominence were displayed for the Committee.

 

It was important to consider that at no point had the Council’s landscape officer stated that she has no objection.  She had identified that the proposals would be prominent and visually intrusive from the areas in the photographs displayed and would lead to significant alterations and residual landscape harm.  The inability to screen this significant harm, alongside part of the site being within the Area of Higher Landscape Value, meant that not only could the proposals notpreserve and enhance, there were no appropriate measures to mitigate the basic adverse effects on this valued landscape, all of which was contrary to Policy 39 and Section 15 of the NPPF.

 

Ms Perryman had provided the Case Officer with her professional view on the shortcomings in the glint and glare assessment throughout and the report was now at version three, but it remained unsatisfactory.  Members of the Committee needed to be aware of the following matters of fact:

·        A highly impacted receptor, which required mitigation, receives 30 hours per year of solar reflections.  The assessment confirmed that Sheraton Grange Farm breached this threefold and could receive over 93 hours of “yellow glare” per year.  This had the potential to cause a temporary after image. Whilst the Environmental Health Team had no objection to the first version of the assessment, this was because the report completely overlooked the properties at Sheraton Grange Farm and excluded them from the assessment, whilst also downplaying other effects.  As such, no properties received a high impact in this report. The Environmental Health Team had provided no follow-up comments.

·        The council’s independent reviewer was not provided with the entire assessment and therefore made factually incorrect statements, such as, “It is likely that the Landscape Plan sufficiently closes out the impacts, but this was not received for review”

·        The mounting systems had not been taken into consideration, which was contrary to the new Draft National Policy Statement EN-3.

·        The applicant would say that panels were designed to absorb and not reflect, and that an anti-reflective coating was sufficient mitigation in the absence of screening, but it was not. The assessment had already factored this in.  The company whose modelling software was used in the assessment cautioned users that “The oft-repeated claim that PV panels reflect less than 5% of sunlight only holds true when the panels directly face the sun. For fixed-mount panels, this claim only applies during a few minutes of the day, at most."

·        The most recent version of the report claimed that all of the properties receiving a high impact could tolerate this effect because it was no more distracting than the sun when it sat low in the sky.  This was contrary to their own methodology and entirely unevidenced given the times of day these effects would actually occur, not to mention that this response was insulting to the environmental protections that this Council’s residential amenity policies sought to respect.

 

Glint and glare was a material planning consideration by virtue of national planning policy and Members had a legal obligation to consider this seriously.  The applicant had failed to appreciate the topography of this part of the site and therefore had not recognised that the high impacts identified cannot be mitigated through screening or any other method. This would therefore lead to an unacceptable impact on living conditions, which was contrary to Policy 31.

 

In summary, the proposals were contrary to Policies 39 and 31 of the County Durham Plan and Section 15 of the NPPF and Ms Perryman requested that Members endorse the material planning issues and policy conflicts raised today and refuse the application.

 

Richard Turner of Lightsourcebp addressed the Committee in support of the application.  Mr Turner informed the Committee that he was an Environmental Planner at Lightsourcebp.

 

Mr Turner asked the Committee to support the planning application for a solar farm at Sheraton Hall Farm which would produce competitively priced dependable clean energy for businesses and communities.

 

Lighsourcebp was a global market leader in the development, identification and long-term management of solar projects and smart energy solutions.  The site, which had been carefully selected, was not positioned within or adjacent to any designated landscapes or areas designated for ecological sensitivity nor was it an area at a high risk of flooding.  It had good connection to the grid network which was essential for any renewable energy project and was entirely comprised of lower grade agricultural land.

 

Council officers had provided a comprehensive assessment of the application, which was recommended for approval.  Mr Turner highlighted key benefits:

·        The project would help the Council achieve its vitally important renewable energy targets.  These were supported by Policy 33 of the Development Plan and the Council’s Climate Emergency Response Action Plan.

·        The development would avoid 9,700 tonnes of carbon emissions every year which was a substantial reduction, the equivalent of taking over 5,300 family sized cars off the roads.

·        Contributing towards the government’s net zero commitments and obligations in the recently published Net Zero Strategy which brought forwards key targets so that by 2035 all electricity would need to come from low carbon sources.

·         The development would provide over 2,510 linear metres of new hedgerow and 6,571 square metres of woodland planting.  In addition to this biodiversity benefits across the site would secure at least a 22% biodiversity net gain.

 

The proposal represented a substantial investment into the area, supporting the important ambition to level up the region.  The solar installation design would allow livestock to graze, retaining the lands agricultural use.

 

The Todd family who farmed the land at Sheraton Hall had said that farming faced an uncertain and challenging future.  For them, diversifying with Lightsourcebp would provide the business with the security it desperately needed.  The family was also very pleased the land would retain its agricultural link with the grazing of sheep and at the end of the term the land would return to its original agricultural use.

 

There were no statutory objections and the Council’s landscape and ecology officers had not objected to the proposal.  Lightsourcebp believed it had engaged extensively and had invited key elected stakeholders, all households and businesses within a 1-kilometre radius to an engagement event which was also advertised in the local media.  Due to Covid 19 the event was held online and 13 people attended.  A site meeting was then held in person to discuss the project in more detail and listen to the feedback.  Eleven residents attended, as well as the Ward Councillors.  Following the feedback from the community and the Council Lightsourcebp learned that the walk from Sheraton Village along West Lane had become very important for the local community, particularly during Covid 19.  Lightsourcebp therefore removed approximately 50 acres from the project, including all of the land to the north of the lane.  This would not have been included in the planning application had it not originally been intended to be developed, it was a genuine removal of the land to address the feedback.

 

Lightsourcebp had also listened to the feedback from those who travelled the local roads.  The project had been set back to retain the original agricultural use on its road frontage and a landscape buffer between the road and the solar farm would reduce the visibility of the project.

 

Lightsourcebp was mindful that the Council had received representations, some of which were in opposition and some of which were in support.

 

In preparing the application Lightsourcebp had worked proactively with the Council’s officers.  This included extensive pre-application work to identify key issues and seek to avoid areas of high landscape sensitivity.

 

In February 2019 Durham County Council declared a Climate Emergency and when David Attenborough addressed COP26 last month he said ‘Ultimately the Climate Emergency comes down to a single number, the concentration of carbon in our atmosphere.  We now have to stop the number from rising and put it in reverse.  We must fix our sights on keeping one and a half degrees within reach.  A new industrial revolution powered by millions of sustainable innovations is essential and is indeed already beginning’.

 

Lightsourcebp firmly believed that the delivery of solar, alongside other smart energy solutions, was one such innovation that would play a future role in the delivery of global energy and the green revolution.

 

Before summing up Mr Turner responded to some of the points which had been raised.  In terms of decommissioning, there was a proposed condition for the plant to be removed after 40 years and a decommissioning plan.  As planning permission ran with the land Lightsourcebp also had a bond in place with the landowner so there were sufficient funds should Lightsourcebp no longer exist at the end of this period.  While the site area was of a size of the number of football pitches which had been quoted, this was the site area, the panels themselves were only 2-3% of the site area, the vast majority of which was open grassland with additional planting.  Referring to the proposed fencing this would be 2 metres high and would be traditional timber post and wire fencing which bore no similarity to prison fencing.

 

Proximity of the substation was an important part of any energy project to make it viable.

 

The application represented a real opportunity to help significantly reduce carbon emissions and to help tackle climate change on lower grade agricultural land.  There were no statutory objections and there was much support.  The project had been tailored to reflect community feedback and was in accordance with the Local Plan and current government policy on how to achieve net zero.

 

Councillor Jopling asked whether the Council was in agreement with the estimation of glint and glare which had been mentioned by an objector.  Councillor Jopling also expressed concern about the natural watercourse and possible seepage of toxins into it.  The Senior Planning Officer replied that the objectors had a view on the glint and glare assessment to which the applicant had a contrary view.  AECOM had assessed glint and glare and found no deficiencies in the conclusion to this.  Although they found some points in the methodology which could have been done differently they did not disagree with the conclusion that it would be acceptable.  Referring to the watercourse, no advice had been received from Environmental Health or Contaminated Land that this would be an issue.  Solar panels were on land throughout the country and there was no government advice they should not be built.

 

Councillor Boyes noted that the application was a small part of a bigger scheme and asked how what the Committee decided would determine what would happen in Hartlepool Borough Council, whether their Planning Committee had considered the application and whether there was any consultation between the two Council’s.  The Senior Planning Officer replied that the solar farm was entirely within County Durham and only part of the cable route was within Hartlepool Borough Council who had not yet made a decision on the application.

 

Councillor Kellett referred to Paragraph 180 in the report which stated that while it was accepted the solar farm would have an impact on the landscape and the area of higher landscape value, it was considered that the harm would not be unacceptable.  This was a subjective judgement and most local residents considered this damage to be unacceptable.  There was an area of higher landscape value which should be protected.  While solar energy production was needed, this was the wrong location for the proposed solar farm.  Councillor Kellett asked how unacceptable was defined.  The Senior Planning Officer replied that the advice had been received from the Council’s Landscape Team who had stated there would be harm but added this would not be unacceptable.

 

As a farmer, Councillor Richardson challenged the issue that this was low grade agricultural land as well as the statistics referred to by the applicant.  Glint and glare was another area which was subjective.

 

Councillor Boyes referred to Paragraph 158 of the NPPF which stated that when determining planning applications for renewable and low carbon development, local planning authorities should not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy, and recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.  Councillor Boyes asked what weight the landscape value carried when compared to the NPPF.  The Senior Planning Officer replied that there was a lot of weight attributed to renewable energy projects and the advice received was that the harm to the countryside was not unacceptable. 

 

Councillor Hunt informed the Committee that she was not against solar power, but following the Committee’s site visit yesterday she moved to refuse the application which she considered would have a detrimental effect on the landscape.

 

Councillor Martin did not doubt that there would be losses to visual amenity and impact on the countryside but he believed the Planning Officers had reached the correct decision in recommending the application for approval.  He noted the point made regarding Paragraph 158 of the NPPF and considered what made the application acceptable was the renewable energy aspect of it.  Councillor Martin moved that the application should be approved.

 

Councillor Molloy seconded Councillor Hunt’s motion to refuse the application.  He believed the environmental issue needed to be considered as well as the impact on agricultural land.  While he was not against solar power he believed legislation should be introduced by government to mandate solar panels on new build properties.  Councillor Molloy had sympathy with local residents regarding the size of the proposed development.  The loss of agricultural land for food production could lead to increased imports of food which would increase the carbon footprint.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor sought clarity on Councillor Hunt’s reasons for refusing the application.  He understood Councillor Hunt had concerns about the landscape and visual impact of the scheme and assumed that her position was that the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the landscape and visual harm.  Councillor Hunt confirmed this was her position, adding that the land was agricultural land as well.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

That application DM/20/03722/FPA be refused on the grounds of visual impact and amenity.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor explained that there were two applications to be considered, one for the solar farm and infrastructure and a separate application for the underground power cabling. Having made a decision on the first application, Members would now need to reach a decision upon this second application.

 

Councillor Boyes considered that the Committee had only discussed the solar farm application and had not discussed the application for underground cabling.  The Planning and Development Solicitor explained the way in which the officer’s report was written was that both applications were dealt with together but with two separate recommendations and there were potentially different impacts from the two different applications.  The Planning and Development Solicitor sought the views of Councillor Hunt on the cabling application.

 

Councillor Jopling found it difficult that the Committee was being asked to determine an application for cabling which would be redundant following the refusal of the solar farm application and asked whether this application should be deferred.  The Planning and Development Solicitor advised this was a live application which needed to be determined.

 

Councillor Martin reminded the Committee it would need credible planning reasons for refusal of the application and encouraged the Committee to vote to approve the cabling application to avoid further appeals costs should the applicant appeal the solar farm decision.

 

Councillor Hunt moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the site was not suitable for a solar farm.  This was seconded by Councillor Molloy.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor expressed concern at the reason for refusal.  The application was for cabling which would be entirely underground and he was struggling to understand what would be a sustainable reason for refusal.

 

Councillor Molloy assumed the cable would be for no other use except for that associated with the solar farm.  The Committee had refused the application for the solar farm and therefore common sense dictated that there was no requirement for the cable.

 

Councillor Jopling agreed with Councillors Hunt and Molloy and asked whether the Council would lose the solar farm refusal decision at appeal should the applicant appeal the decision.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor advised the Committee it needed to be clear there were two separate applications to be determined.  The Committee had already taken a vote on the solar farm application.  In order to operate the solar farm permission on both applications was required, however the Committee needed to make a decision on the application for the cabling and the reasons stated for refusal of the solar farm application did not relate to the cable application, which would be underground and have no visual impact.  The Planning and Development Solicitor advised the Committee he could see no planning reason for refusal of the cable application but as it was for the Committee to determine the application any reason for rejection needed to come from the Committee.  The Planning and Development Solicitor informed the Committee he could only advise on how sustainable any reason was and the Committee was able to reject this advice if it was so minded.

 

Councillor Molloy asked whether a decision on the cable application could be deferred until it was known whether the applicant was appealing the solar farm decision.  The Planning and Development Solicitor advised that deferral was usually to allow further information to be provided but if it wished the Committee could defer making a decision.  Councillor Boyes asked whether a reason for deferral would be needed.  While the situation was anomalous, the Committee could not reject the cable application without valid planning reasons.

 

Councillor Crute referred to Paragraph 19 of the Committee report which stated that the two applications were intrinsically linked and suggested that if the solar farm had been refused then the cable application could not be sustained and could be refused on the grounds of sustainability.

 

The Planning and Development Solicitor informed the Committee it was for reasons of pragmatics that the two applications were being dealt with under the same report and this was the reason for Paragraph 19 stating what it did.  The Senior Planning Officer further advised that the cable application had not been called to Committee but had been included as part of the development.

 

Councillor Boyes considered the application could not be rejected on planning grounds, adding that if the Committee rejected the application it would be against the advice given by the Planning and Development Solicitor.

 

The Chair summed up that there was a motion from Councillor Hunt to refuse the application, seconded by Councillor Molloy.  Councillor Martin sought advice whether the Committee could refuse an application without having any grounds for refusal.  The Planning and Development Solicitor advised the Committee it would need grounds for refusal before the motion was put to the vote.  He advised the Committee could put forward need as a reason for refusal but did not consider this would be sustainable on appeal.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was

 

Resolved:

That application DM/21/02333/FPA be refused on the grounds of need.

 

Councillors Martin and Simpson left the meeting.