Agenda item

Installation and operation of a ground mounted photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generation system (solar farm), electrical substation and associated infrastructure

The Committee received a report of the Senior Planning Officer with regards to an application for installation and operation of a ground mounted photovoltaic (PV) solar energy generation system (solar farm), electrical substation and associated infrastructure on Land East of Edge Lane, Maiden Law, DH7 0RY (for copy see file of minutes).

 

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that this application had been considered and approved by the Committee in March 2023.  The decision had been subject to a legal challenge by a local resident and it was subsequently quashed by the High Court. The effect of the decision was that the application had reverted to a pre-determination state and therefore had to be determined as the same application which had been considered in 2023 and not a resubmission.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee of the following updates to the proposed Conditions.

 

·      Condition no. 3 was to be amended to the following;

 

This consent is granted for a period of 40 years from the date of first export of electricity to the Grid (“the date of first export”). Within 1 month of the date of first export, written confirmation of the same shall be given to the Local Planning Authority.

 

·      At condition no. 6 the first bullet point was amended to refer to Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction 2024 V2.2.

 

·      Condition 8 was to to include the requirement for a noise report to be produced at the request of the LPA within 28 days.

 

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, site photographs from various locations and a proposed layout plan.

 

Councillor McGaun was accompanied by Councillor Oliver and addressed the Committee on behalf of Local Members and in objection to the application.  This application had only been slightly amended since March 2023 and had received significant objections.  Burnhope was a village with approximately 700 homes and this application had received 685 objections.

 

It could not be guaranteed that the maximum output of the site would be under 50mw and there was no mechanism to cut off the supply at this limit.  If it was exceeded, which in his opinion was likely, he assumed the Applicant would not cut off the supply.  Similar to the previous application which was rejected under judicial review, the County Durham Plan stated that the environment and wellbeing was fundamental to the quality of life for people who lived in the area.  He quoted extracts from National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which sought to protect and enhance the natural and local environment, enhance and minimise impacts on landscapes, and reduce risks of pollution.  These solar panels would produce considerable glint and glare that would impact the local community and the screening would take a number of years to achieve.  The application would result in the loss of local walking routes which had been established and used for generations.  This was a 40 acre development and panels would have a 20-year lifespan, before being replaced and disposed in landfill.  There would be a significant maintenance bill to keep the panels clean and serviceable which would require vehicular access at unsociable times.

 

Councillor McGaun advised that there was a second application in the immediate area, which fell within the Lanchester part of the ward.  Whilst he understood that each application was to be addressed on its own merits, the cumulative impact should be considered.  In addition, he was aware of a third application in Burnhope for solar panels which would result in the village being boxed in, further impacting residents.  The application had already been rejected by the court process.  He disagreed with the arguments presented regarding benefits of the site - the adverse impact would affect the landscape, heritage and wildlife, and community benefits were spread over a 40 year lifespan which he had calculated as only £8.33 per head of the population, per year.   This fund was also not provided directly to residents, but to the County Durham Foundation.  He acknowledged the work done by residents and the significant amount of money which had been spent to object to this application and asked the Committee to reject the application.

 

Councillor Coates, Chair of Burnhope Parish Council, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. He confirmed that Burnhope had been subject to coal mining for over a century and in 1949 the pit closed and had left derelict buildings with inaccessible surrounding land.  The village had been neglected and left to deteriorate and this had resulted in the village being labelled as a Category D village.  Following this, there had been 25 years of opencast mining where residents were restricted and prevented from accessing walks and wildlife.  The Parish Council had been reassured that following the opencast mining, areas would be restored and much of it had.  This had resulted in agricultural use, public access and wildlife, including ponds which had been in place prior to the opencast works.  It had allowed farmers to graze animals or grow produce and gave local people the opportunity to enjoy areas they had been restricted from using.

 

After the Category D label had been removed, housing development began once again and it was hoped that the village would flourish, however an application to build a solar farm covering the majority of the restored land had been submitted.  This proposal would destroy the land and all of the money and effort to restore it, would have been wasted.  Residents would be left with another restricted area to live with for a minimum of 40 years.  Burnhope Parish Council and local residents were against the application, and Councillor Coates hoped that the Committee would reject it.

 

Councillor S McCormick, Vice-Chair of Burnhope Parish Council addressed the Committee, also in objection to the scheme which did not consider the impact on local residents.  Over 600 representations against the application had been received and only a few comments were in support of the application, and none were from the local people.  Neither Officers or the Applicant had listened to the queries or detailed objections raised by objectors.  A recent housing application had been rejected by the Committee in Consett, with just over 100 objections and the main reason was that the land was used for recreation.  Another solar farm application had been refused with 400 objections from local people, despite being recommended by Officers. 

 

Councillor McCormick read an objection from MP Luke Akehurst who had described the scale and size of the solar farm as more than double the size of Burnhope.  He had spoken to many concerned residents about the impact of the application, on a site used for recreation by residents.  He also queried the topography and suitability of a solar farm in this location.  This land was the only flat area around Burnhope and should be protected in accordance with County Durham Plan policy.  The community benefit from this scheme did not outweigh the impact on the village and wildlife, and as a result he suggested the application should be refused. 

 

Councillor McCormick advised that the Parish Council had requested the Applicant to reduce the scale of the site however they had amended the plans to increase its size.  With little amenity in the, this landscape was the best asset for walking and recreation.  The scheme would provide very little jobs for maintenance, but no skilled employment.  There were plans to develop and improve Burnhope with a small housing scheme about to commence and a new community centre had started to bring people together and care for their most vulnerable residents.

 

The Applicant had recently announced that they would be investing in oil and gas over the next three years and were scrapping targets for renewable energy.  Residents were concerned that the scheme would simply be sold on or abandoned, becoming a blot on the landscape.  She asked Members to listen to the whole community and reject the application.

 

Mr R Davies addressed the Committee as a resident of Lanchester, in objection to the application.  This application would not contribute to net zero and he shared data from the Energy Dashboard which showed that the UK’s generation sources for the previous year had been generally level and composed of variable sources of electricity.  Solar energy production was restricted, the panels took up vast amounts of space and was destructive to land and wildlife.  Panels were toxic and would require disposal in landfill at the end of their life.

 

The grid required electricity at peak times and this could not be delivered by solar which peaked at midday, when demand was at its lowest.  During peak times, the National Grid did not require electricity and would switch off their connection.  Nationally, solar energy provided 16 GW of capacity and Mr Davies advised that during one day in December, the entire UK solar capacity had dropped to 0.2% of this.  The technology was inefficient in winter, yet the scheme would allegedly generate enough power for 16,000 homes and solve energy needs.

 

Furthermore, solar farms presented a fire risk and there had been 66 fires in the first half of 2023.  This application had originally included a battery storage facility, however the Applicant had not consulted the Fire & Rescue Service, which was a requirement.  After being informed of this obligation by objectors in November 2024, the battery storage facility was removed from the scheme.  The site was unsafe with a lack of access, dry grass and no suitable water supply if required.

 

Mr Davies referred to recent increment weather and advised that if the application was approved and subsequently damaged during a storm, the panels could cause significant damage to nearby properties due to its elevation.  This had been experienced at a low-lying solar farm at Stob House, Billingham in 2022.

 

Ms K Palmer, local resident of Burnhope, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  The policy context for development decisions had been set out in the County Durham Plan, and if the application was approved, it would be in direct contradiction.  There was a need to ensure panels were appropriately sited and designed and where possible, wider social, economic and environmental benefits were required.  The NPPF encouraged local planning authorities to identify appropriate sites for renewable energy.  This application did not accord with either.

 

Ms Palmer continued to quote further extracts from the County Durham Plan;

 

·      Policy 10 - new development must not give rise to unacceptable harm to the biodiversity, beauty or tranquillity of the countryside

·      Policy 29 - that proposals should contribute positively to an area’s character, identity, heritage significance and landscape features

·      Policy 32 – that development would not be permitted unless the developer could demonstrate that all investigations and risk assessments had been undertaken by an appropriately qualified person

·      Policy 33 – that renewable and low carbon energy development in appropriate locations would be supported and that insignificant weight would be given to the achievement of wider social, environmental, and economic benefits

·      Policy 39 - any proposal should not cause unacceptable harm to the character, or quality of the landscape, or to important features or views and proposals would be expected to incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate adverse landscape and visual effects

 

The Supplementary Planning Documents advised avoiding sites where panels could dominate the experience of the public rights of way network and where proposals had the potential to impact on the general amenity and health of people nearby.  Schemes would need to demonstrate that there would be no unacceptable impacts.

 

Ms Palmer advised that this development would destroy this area to support technology that was destined for landfill.  In her opinion, there had been an intention from the outset to approve the development and the Applicant had been guided towards justifying approval. If approved the application would be a political decision to tick a green energy box, despite demonstrable local opposition.  Burnhope was in favour of renewable energy, but this was the wrong type of renewable energy in the wrong location.  She asked members to listen to local people and reject the application.

 

Mr I Galloway, Trustee and Treasurer of Burnhope Community Centre, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  From the application and Officer report, it appeared that the Applicant and Officers were working together.  The original plan had been for 89,000 panels with a power output of 48MW.  Objectors met with the Applicant and had requested a smaller scheme, but it had been increased to 110,000 panels with a power output of 76MW.  When the application was considered by the Committee, Officers had failed to advise Members accordingly.   Objectors had provided evidence to both the Applicant and Officers to demonstrate their findings and within weeks they had worked together to pass a non-material amendment, which had resulted in residents spending their own money to take the matter to the High Court.  The Judge concluded that the permission granted had been unlawful.  The non-material amendment had also been unlawful.

 

Mr Galloway stated that in response to this decision, the Applicant had applied again with the same sized scheme, that was again supported by Officers.  There were still many unanswered questions.  One was in relation to days when electricity was produced at the maximum 76MW capacity and how it would be restricted to 49MW.  There were questions regarding unaddressed dangers in the transport plan. This road had been subject to 20 incidents within five years and there had been a fatality.  The Applicant had been afforded four chances to address ecology issues, yet the RSPB remained of the opinion that mitigation would not work.  There was a significant impact on walking amenity and the concerns of the Public Rights of Way (PROW) Officer had been ignored and the footpath was not safeguarded.  The impact of the construction was not minimised and all impacts on the community had been swept aside.  All local candidates from the last General Election had spoken against this scheme, including Councillor Martin. He asked the Committee to listen to the objectors and keep Burnhope green.

 

Mr R Duncan provided a presentation to the Committee, on behalf of the Applicant.  Whilst the previous decision to approve the application in March 2023 had been quashed, this was due to the failure to consider a material planning consideration, namely that of addressing whether they were approving more panels over a larger area than required to produce the stated and lawful electricity generating capacity.  The planning permission was

withdrawn and the application referred back for redetermination.  The Judge had not concluded that the project itself was unlawful.

 

The points raised in the judgement, and since the judgement, had been addressed and responded to.  A detailed technical note had been included to set out how solar energy was determined.  In addition, the proposals included improvements to the habitat in the southern part of the site and a local nature reserve to the north of the site to support ground nesting birds in the area.  The battery from the proposals had been removed following advice from Northern Powergrid, that a connection could be delayed until after 2030.  This was after the connection date for the solar farm itself.

 

The proposals would generate enough renewable energy to help power 16,700 homes which was in accordance with the government’s action plan to secure energy supply, and triple the country's solar energy supply by 2030.  It would directly contribute to lowering the cost of electricity and secure an independent energy supply to protect UK consumers from volatile foreign markets.  It would decarbonise the energy system and contribute to Net Zero.

 

The solar farm would provide specific benefits to the local community with a community benefit fund of £500,000.  This included a direct payment of £50,000 to Burnhope Parish Council, although he acknowledged this was not an element for consideration when determining the application.  It would contribute to the economy, providing significant income for the Council through business rates as well as income from the leases and would support jobs across farms and wider businesses.  There was also the potential for local workforce and contractors during the construction phase.

 

A detailed Economic Impact Assessment had confirmed that the application would provide environmental benefits to the local area in a variety of ways, including drainage, landscaping, and enhanced hedgerows and habitats for wildlife.  The scheme would provide 80% biodiversity net gain as well as enhanced areas for ground nesting birds

 

Mr Duncan advised that consultants had carried out a door-to-door community outreach survey which demonstrated that most residents were either supportive or neutral towards the proposals.  He hoped Members recognised the benefits the solar farm would deliver both locally and nationally support the recommendation.

 

Mr W Gray addressed the Committee to represent the landowner.  He emphasised the importance of these developments for the longevity of local farm businesses.  The development of a solar farm would ensure that the farm business which employed 35 local people remained viable.  Since the previous meeting farming had become more difficult on this land.  With a lack of fixed seasons and more extreme weather, it had led to a situation where the only thing that could be grown was an annual crop of grass and this was gradually depleting the land of nutrients.  The management plan in place for the solar farm would allow the soil to recover and nutrients rebuilt, leaving the ground in a better condition at the end of the lease.  Climate change was not the only challenge to farming the land.  It had been used to graze for a couple of months in the Autumn and more fences and styles had been vandalised and further sheep killed.  The solar farm would create an opportunity to graze the land at a highest stocking level without the risk of sheep worrying, ensuring that food production was maintained or increased.  The sheep would benefit from the shelter and shade provided by the panels.

 

The impact on local footpaths had been a significant talking point but if the application was approved, the local public footpaths would be improved.  They would become wider areas with fencing that would enable the public to walk their dogs off the lead without the risk to livestock or wildlife.

 

Mr Gray urged Members to take an intergenerational perspective on the matter as without taking steps to address climate change there would be no farms left to hand over to future generations.  Climate change was the biggest threat that humans had ever faced and he hoped that Members would support the development of solar farms to show that Durham was up for the climate fight.  By granting permission, Members would support the longevity of the local farm business but also contribute to securing a sustainable future for generations to come.

 

The Planning and Development Lawyer explained that the Judicial Review had challenged the legalities of the decision. It was not a decision on the planning merits of the application and whether permission should or should not be granted.  The Judge had determined that Members as decision taker, had failed to take into account something relevant, namely the quantum scale and size of the development and whether it was excessive for the amount of output produced.  He read a passage from the Judge as to the outcome of the Judicial Review to Members and explained that the Applicant had the ability to make  submissions or amendments to the application to be re-determined.  The application was the same application subject to further information from the Applicant and amendments.  He reminded the Committee that planning decisions had to be made on the basis of development plans and other material considerations and not on the weight of public support or objections.

 

The Planning and Development Lawyer responded to some of the issues raised by Councillor McGaun.  He advised that condition 20. would restrict the output to 49mw therefore controlling mechanisms would be in place. Councillor McGaun had also questioned how the Community Benefit Fund would operate and this had been explained by the Applicant, however as this operated outside of the planning system, he reminded Members that they could not give this any weight, as outlined in paragraph 283 of report.

 

In summary the previous decision had been quashed and the Committee were to consider the application afresh as though the previous grant of planning permission had never happened.

 

The Senior Planning Officer responded to Councillor McGaun’s concerns regarding two other applications near to the site and referred to the aerial photograph.  He identified a site to the east at Wagtail Lane that was currently under consideration and had been addressed in the report.  This was a recent submission and a long way from being determined.  The other site mentioned was to the west of the site.  There was not a planning application and therefore this had not been considered as part of the cumulative impact assessment.

 

In relation to the comments regarding the loss of walking routes, the Senior Planning Officer identified the existing PROW that would be closed and advised that this footpath was inaccessible due to fencing and walls.  There was no evidence that it had been used.  The other route identified was a route that was well trodden yet unregistered and this would be maintained to a satisfactory standard as part of the stopping up order.

 

Mr Davies had questioned the requirement or need for solar energy and the Senior Planning Officer advised that whilst people may object, government policy supported solar farms.  There had been a claim that energy demand was at lowest at midday however he advised that energy demand was static between the hours of 6am and 11pm.  These were industrial hours and hours of peak demand. 

 

In response to the points raised regarding storm damage, he referred to the slide with photographs of both damaged sites and confirmed that all panels had remained within field boundaries.  There was no evidence that they would go beyond the boundaries and damage properties.  He explained that there were contributing factors at Newton Bewley.  Storm Arwen had unusually brought in winds from the north so it was hitting the back of the panels, however the site was also underlain with Roman archaeology which the Applicant had not wanted to disturb.  The panels were therefore supported on concrete blocks and not buried into ground.  The site had been repaired within six months and to mitigate the Applicant installed more concrete blocks to hold the panels down.  This application would have panels secured into the ground.   He continued that the site in Wales had been damaged by Storm Darragh.  Severe weather events would cause damage.  Referring to the aerial photograph, he located the site at Greencroft which was the same altitude as this application site.  There had been no damage or destruction from heavy winds through either of these storms, nor at the Councils Morrison Busty site, and there was no reason to believe that there would be any damage at this site. 

 

Councillor Elmer referred to the impact on biodiversity and queried the reason that the Councils position varied from Durham Wildlife Trust, who had objected.  The Ecology Manager advised that when the application had first been assessed there had been concerns in respect of the curlew which were a landscape bird.  They had engaged with the RSPB to secure a long term strategy to ensure all ground nesting birds would continue to thrive.  He was confident that both on-site and off-site mitigation would maintain the curlew, particularly as there was a long-term management plan in plan in place for a 40 year period and it included monitoring reports and assessments of the habitat.  The Senior Planning Officer added that the objection from Durham Wildlife Trust was received during the initial round of consultation prior to March 2023 and prior to the off-site mitigation proposed.  They had been consulted again but had not responded, therefore the Council had to assume that they maintained the objection.  Changes had been made that would address the issues they had raised.

 

Councillor Elmer asked the Senior Rights of Way Officer for her view regarding the loss of the statutory PROW and whether it was balanced by the new footpath proposed.  She responded that the PROW had not been reinstated after the opencast work therefore the footpath had not been viable.  The footpath used was the one proposed by the stopping up order.  There would be structural improvements which included the installation of fencing and surface improvements that would make it more accessible.

 

Councillor Elmer referred to the power generation capacity and asked if Officers were confident that the output would not exceed 50mw.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that they were not permitted to export more than that and there were mechanisms to limit the release of energy into the grid.  The Council could also check to ensure that the output capacity was not exceeded.

 

Councillor Wilson referred to the low-level agricultural grading of the land.  There had been two appeals lost for similar developments and this was prior to the governments new steer in supporting this type of development.  He queried the likelihood of losing an appeal if the application was refused, based on government policy and caselaw in County Durham.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there had been previous refusals at Murton and Sheraton on landscape grounds and both were lost at appeal.  In his opinion, this application would be no different.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Boyes, the Planning and Development Lawyer advised that Members should afford no weight to the previous decision.

 

Councillor Wilson referred to the alleged loss of amenity however this was private land that could be closed off.  There was no loss of amenity as the public had no right to use the land for recreation.

 

The Chair commented that the landowner had referred to issues with nutrients in the soil and the ability to replace them.  Mr Gray confirmed that this was not possible as it was an organic farm.

 

Councillor Sutton-Lloyd referred to the Community Benefit Fund and questioned its adequacy considering the considerable size and impact on the area.  He was reminded that the Committee could not afford any weight to this fund and must disregard it.

 

Councillor Boyes advised that Easington had suffered the detrimental impact of a fully functioning pit for over 100 years however it had been accepted as what was being produced was for the greater good of the community.   Easington had been successful in designating a nature reserve.  Having listened to the objectors in Burnhope, they suffered a similar fate, with a fully functioning pit, then an opencast mine and they had finally got an area similar to the nature reserve at Easington.  He questioned whether the community had endured enough and whether Members could help them to secure this land for recreational use.  He had never seen such a huge number of objections in 16 years as a Member of the Committee.  This was a scheme for 110,000 panels over 92 hectares and if approved, would double the size of Burnhope.  He could not support it the scheme and moved refusal of the application as it was contrary to Policy 39 of the CDP, due to the impact on the landscape.

 

Councillor Bell thanked the community for attending and speaking on the application.  The community had endured opencast mining for many years.  He had attended the site visit again and his view had not changed.  He referred to the huge scale of the application and although Members could not consider the other applications, they were coming forward.  He was aware of the close proximity of the grid, which was likely to be the reason they had chosen this location.  This was development in open countryside and the biggest he had seen, with the most significant amount of objections.  It was important to note that the CDP had not allocated sites for solar developments.  He seconded the proposal to refuse the application due to landscape harm and impact on PROW.

 

In terms of landscape harm, the Senior Landscape Officer confirmed that the scheme would be transformative and advised that the baseline landscape views comprised of fields with hedgerows and woodland.   The transition was a restored landscape or a sea of panels with other infrastructure and fencing.  There was an extensive landscape mitigation plan, however development was over a duration of 40 years and in the first 7 to 10 years there would be some visual harm whilst the hedgerows and new woodland belts developed.  The structures were approximately 3 meters in height and whilst they would eventually be screened, there would be a period of initial harm.

 

Councillor Bell referred to the landscape value and confirmed that Members had observed a flock of Canadian geese on the site visit as well as the curlews and it was clear why Durham Wildlife Trust would have concerns.

 

Councillor Wilson confirmed that he was familiar with Burnhope having previous connections to the Cricket Club and spent a lot of time in the village.  He acknowledged the concerns raised by objectors, however he likened the application to the TV mast in Burnhope which had marked a transformative era and was fondly looked upon, featuring in the logo of the Cricket Club and local Primary School.  This was a similar situation.  He appreciated that there would be a period of initial harm but over time it would be mitigated by screening.  He was content with condition 20 which would limit the output, and also with the improvements to the only PROW on site.  He referred to the claim regarding amenity, but this was private land which farmers could fence off at any point. 

 

Councillor Wilson was conscious of previous appeal decisions which had been prior to the new steer from government to move towards net zero.  He was also conscious of the issues in getting energy into the grid and the Councils issues with energy which had been due to the lack of future thinking.  He appreciated that for 7-10 years there would be an impact whilst the site was transforming, however if this reduced energy bills and ensured energy security, he was inclined to support the scheme.  On balance, it would provide a firm footing towards a better climate and energy security.  The Ukraine were being held to ransom for their own minerals and that could be something that could happen in the UK.  There was no better way of progressing County Durham which had been done previously with coal mining.  He moved a motion to approve the scheme as per the recommendations outlined by the Senior Planning Officer.

 

Councillor Shaw acknowledged that this was an emotive application and referred to the heckling and interruption from members of the public, which was making it difficult for Members to express their views.  He asked for legal clarification that the weight of public opinion was not a reason to refuse an application.  The Planning and Development Lawyer confirmed that objecting to a scheme alone was not a material reason to refuse it, however if the public raised a legitimate material planning reason, this could be considered.

 

Councillor Shaw advised that there had been an increase in solar farm applications and this was due to the governments agenda to reach Net Zero.  He sympathised with members of the public as it would impact their local environment, however the Council had a responsibility to determine applications on material planning reasons.  Councillor Shaw could not find any reasons to refuse the application.  The Committee had listened to public sentiment in the past, which had resulted in applications being overturned at appeal.

 

Councillor Savory advised that she represented Weardale which was a similar rural area and had listened to all of the speeches from the elected member, Parish Council and most of all the residents.  The total size of the site was 220 acres which equated to 12 fields and therefore she could not support it because of its size and impact on the community.

 

Councillor Elmer stated that this application had concluded that a development plan must identify suitable areas for this type of development.   He was satisfied with the response from the Ecology Manager and that the impact on biodiversity was not an issue.  There was a suitable and well used footpath that would be improved as part of the scheme and the footpath that would be lost was not used.  He referred to the quantity of energy and advised that factors in relation to climate change was having an on farming with unstable weather changes and this had been the case on this site.  This application did not exclude farming, but enabled livestock farming between the panels.  Therefore the last factor to consider was the aesthetic issue which Members had to balance with the benefit of reducing carbon.  If this was not addressed there would be a very different landscape anyway and therefore, he supported the recommendation.

 

Councillor Atkinson confirmed that if the application was in his locality, he may have objected and he sympathised with public concerns, however a win for them would result in a loss somewhere else, with appeal costs.  Planning Inspectors would only consider the policy element and he queried whether there was a legal basis to reject the application.  The Planning and Development Lawyer confirmed that any proposed reasons for refusal must come from Members.  He advised that Councillors Boyes and Bell had set out reasons for refusal due to adverse landscape impact and the impact on amenity and the PROW.  There was a balance to determine the harm identified against the benefits, if the Committee progressed to a vote.

 

Councillor Boyes reiterated that there were valid planning reasons to reject the application.  Without a supplementary planning document to identify other suitable areas that were not in close proximity to residents, he queried whether there was a basis to defer the item until they had a plan.

 

The Planning and Development Lawyer summarised Councillor Boyes’ view that the benefits were not substantial or sufficient to outweigh the harm and that was a balancing judgement.  He advised that he did not consider that if refused, his reasons would be substantiated at appeal and he agreed with Councillor Wilson’s comments in terms of previous solar farm appeal decisions as they were refused for similar reasons and the clear message from the Planning Inspector was that significant weight was to be afforded to renewable energy and these decisions had been made prior to the latest version of NPPF which strengthened that policy position.  His view was that the Council would not win at appeal with the reasons outlined for refusing the application, however adverse costs he thought were unlikely.

 

The Planning Development Manager added that the Members had been made aware previously that if on planning assessment, Officers were unable to find valid planning reason for refusal, there was a significant risk of the award of costs.  He also agreed that there was an overriding strong presumption in favour of renewable energy unless there was significant harm.  Reference had been made to previous refusals at Sheraton and Murton which had been considered under the old NPPF and the most recent update had only strengthened the support of renewable energy.  Members had identified positive and negative considerations during the debate.  Councillor Boyes had given his views in terms of the landscape impact, but in response to the query regarding deferral of the application he advised that this was not something that could be done legally.  The Council were about to commence work on a new development plan and there would be an opportunity for sites to be assessed as part of this review.  It would not be appropriate to defer the application to await new planning policy.

 

Councillor Higgins agreed with Councillor Boyes and considered the scheme was far too big.  These schemes destroyed local communities and he referred to the landscaping work undertaken in Easington after the pit closed.  Similar work which had been undertaken in his own ward Wingate, providing a protected recreational space which he would be devastated to lose.  In his opinion there were valid reasons to refuse the application, and he would be supporting them.

 

Councillor Bell emphasised the enormous size of this site, which he suggested was the size of Lanchester and Burnhope combined.  If approved, would set a precedent for any future applications and the Committee had heard that there was another application under consideration.

 

Resolved

 

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons;

 

1.    The Local Planning Authority considered that due to its location, size and form of development the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character, quality and distinctiveness of the landscape in conflict with County Durham Plan Policies 10 and 39 and Part 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework and is therefore in an inappropriate location with the benefits not outweighing the harm contrary to County Durham Plan Policy 33.

 

2.    The development would result in a significant deterioration on the recreational value of the site, which would not be outweighed by any benefits, in conflict with County Durham Plan Policies 26 and 31 and Parts 8 and 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Councillor Wilson left the meeting at this point and did not return.