Agenda item

Installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure (Resubmission)

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer

regarding an application for the installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure (Resubmission) at Croxdale Farms, Hett Moor Farm, Hett, Durham (for copy see file of minutes).

C Sheilds, Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which

included a site location plan, aerial photographs, site photographs and a proposed site plan.  He confirmed that a site visit had taken place on the previous afternoon.

Ms Hodgson addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal due to flooding, use of the road and construction.  The drainage system flowed into the water course excess water from the existing site had caused damage to the land, which she considered would not be sufficiently mitigated.  There was a width restriction on the road to the construction site which caused frequent problems, it was poorly maintained and operated by all agencies involved.

With regards to the flooding, Ms Hodgson had received multi-agency denial for the problems relating to the quantity and quality of the water.  She believed that letters in support of the application were biased, some had been prepopulated and signed.  Ms Hodgson was disappointed to find that the MP for Durham City had supported the project as she had contacted her to discuss various issues and alternative schemes but received no response.

The scheme would be in use for forty years and Ms Hodgson was not aware of any facilities in the UK to dispose of the panels, doubtful of the community benefit to the Hett and Croxdale area and raised concerns about the consumer survey due to its reach. 

In summary, there had been a failure to maintain road or drainage networks and a number of excuses had been provided by multiple agencies with no recognition of responsibility.

Ms Wood addressed the Committee to object to the development, noting that solar energy was weather permitting and the impacts associated with the removal of agricultural land.  She lived extremely close to the development yet had not been mentioned or considered.  There had been poor community engagement and she questioned the survey and some of the responses, who she alleged were from residents that would not benefit from the development.  She questioned the integrity of the process.

Ms McGuinness addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant, who had carefully considered feedback and revised proposals to address concerns raised.  Amendments had included the removal of panels from the south west of the site to reduce the overall development footprint, increased landscaping and proposed planting to provide additional screening to break up the appearance.  The site was well located for solar, close to the substation for connection to the grid, not within national or local landscape designation and was on low grade agricultural land with low levels of biodiversity, which could only be improved by the planting which had been proposed.

Community engagement had been carried out and surveys carried out in the surrounding areas, demonstrated significant support in the local area, with local residents recognising the benefits the scheme would provide. 

She referred to the need and benefits of energy security and government targets and confirmed that the proposal would provide a significant contribution to renewable energy generation and meet the needs of over 14000 homes.  There was an ongoing climate crisis and extreme weather events in the UK would only become more extreme and frequent without responding to them.  The climate crisis was the main threat to biodiversity and food security and the proposals would assist in decarbonising the energy system and provide significant levels of biodiversity net gain.  In terms of community benefit, a fund of £500,000 for local projects  would be available in addition to £3m generated by business rates.

Mr Hutchinson addressed the Committee in support of the proposal, as a farmer and landowner.  He gave a detailed description and definition of the land, confirming that it had historically been used to support a small dairy herd.  It had also been used to grow cereals, however there were various issues with the land and it had a lower yield average per acre compared other more productive farmland.  If he did not have other land to rely upon, he would not be in business.  It was not economically viable to grow crops and climate changes had made this land more difficult to establish cereal crops.

The approval of the scheme would support four individual farming businesses and enable them to focus food production on other land.  In addition, they would be able to graze sheep alongside the equipment and the security fence would reduce the risk from dogs or trespass.

In summary, landowners fully supported the application and they had been encouraged by local and national government to diversify to support long term viability of businesses as well as food production.  This application would assist to achieve in the governments agricultural goals, environmental goals, enhance biodiversity, reduce carbon emissions and help secure jobs in the rural economy.

In response to a question from the Chair, Mr Hutchinson confirmed that they had been unable to work the land in the previous Autumn and there had also been a delay to ploughing.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the construction accesses were in the southern area of the site, located away from properties to north and the construction traffic would be focused off the A688 and a construction management plan would control that.

Councillor Elmer noted one the lack of confidence regarding the community benefits and Ms McGuinness confirmed that some of the money would be directed to the Parish Council and the rest would be managed by County Durham Community Foundation for investment into local projects within close proximity to the site.

The Chair added that the money would be divided over a forty year period and the Planning & Development Lawyer confirmed that this was an agreement which was outside of the planning system and therefore could not be afforded any weight.

Councillor Currah noted a change in the Councils policy towards solar farms and an increase in the number of applications.  He wondered if there was any reason solar farms could be opposed and whether the Council had a policy to determine the amount of energy required in County Durham.  He was concerned that with government grants, the County could be inundated with applications.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the policy had not changed since the application was first determined, however the interpretation and advice from appeal decisions had established that weight ought to be afforded to renewable energy was significant.  This site was not subject to any constraints and had no significant impact on amenity or landscape.  Developers avoided areas with constraints and were aware of suitable land so would seek to avoid areas where they could have difficulties. 

The Council were working towards adopting a supplementary planning document for solar which would designate areas but there would not be a limit.  There were no grants available for solar but it had to be fully funded.

In response to a question from Councillor Wilson regarding previous decisions which had been appealed, the Senior Planning Officer described the reasons for the decisions and confirmed that significant weight had been afforded to renewable energy.  He also confirmed that the Council had incurred costs.

In response to a question from the Chair, Ms McGuinness confirmed that the Applicant had chosen not to appeal the previous refusal and instead taken on board comments and returned with an improved scheme.  In addition, the appeal process was lengthy and costly.

Councillor Wilson confirmed that whilst there was harm associated with the application, it had been confirmed that this was still less than the decisions that were overturned on appeal which compelled the Council into applying more weight.  There were benefits to the scheme which would put Durham at the centre of the green agenda and create energy for the country.  It also provided economical benefits and he therefore moved approval of the application.

Councillor Elmer had been reassured to hear that there was a mechanism to secure benefits and profits to the community affected.   The landscape issue was subjective and the development would benefit ecology.  The Committee had to give significant weight to renewable energy to assist in reducing carbon emissions.  He referred to the impact of unrestrained climate change and changes this would make to the landscape in future and advised that the Council had to do everything they could to tackle this global emergency.  He seconded the recommendation.

Councillor Shaw confirmed that he supported the motion and that it had huge benefits.  He acknowledged that the Applicant had been responsible in the way they had dealt with the application - they had taken on board concerns and amended the application.

Councillor Currah expressed the need for a policy in the county to determine the number of solar farms required as he was concerned at the precedent which had been set.  The Planning & Development Manager confirmed that a draft policy was expected in the following year.

The Chair was concerned about taking agricultural land out of production, questioning the balance of renewable energy against food production.

Resolved

That application be APPROVED subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 39 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to secure biodiversity management for the life of the development and the conditions outlined in the report.