Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer regarding an application for 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, DH6 5LJ (for copy see file of minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the application was a resubmission of an application previously refused in June 2022 and subsequently approved by Members subject to a 39 Legal Agreement on 8 May 2024.  Since the previous meeting, a letter had been received from a law firm acting on behalf of one of the objectors.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that he would present the report as it had been presented on 8 May 2024 following which he would address other matters received since.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photograph, site photographs from various locations, and proposed site layout and landscape strategy plan.  He then outlined further representations received since the application had been approved on 8 May 2024 which included three from local residents and one from a law firm representing a resident from Burnhope.  This letter had alleged that the solar farm application had been incorrectly presented to Members at the previous meeting and criticised the report for not specifically stating that the provision of a community benefit fund was not a material planning consideration.

The Senior Planning Officer provided details of the issues raised by the Objector and calculations in relation to the output capacity of the project  He also provided details of the calculations provided by the Applicant and confirmed that there was a condition which required the final design of the scheme to be approved before construction, including panel specifications.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the Community Benefit Fund formed no part of the Officers assessment and was afforded no weight in the planning balance as it was acknowledged that it was not a material planning consideration.  It had been mentioned in the report under public representations and in the Applicant’s Statement, however during the meeting on 8 May 2024 the Planning and Highways Lawyer had reminded Members that it could not be afforded any weight as it was an agreement outside of the planning system.

The Senior Planning Officer provided details in relation to a recent Judicial Review of a solar farm in Burnhope.  The decision had been quashed as the Council had failed to take into account whether it was approving more panels to produce the electricity generating capacity, over a larger area than required.  The Judge had dismissed the assertion that the development exceeded a capacity level that could be determined by the Planning Authority.  The Committee were advised that it was important to consider whether the scheme could be delivered with less panels, however the information provided by the Applicant confirmed that to deliver a stable and consistent output of 49.9MW, it required a peak generating capacity of 77MW to account for weather and light conditions.

Councillor Blakey addressed the Committee as Local Member and in objection to the proposal.  She supported residents’ concerns and objected due to the scale of the scheme as it would have a significant impact on the surrounding area.  Councillor Blakey criticised the consultation process, suggesting that an exercise be undertaken to enable members and residents to contribute to planning applications in a quicker and more simplified way.

Ms Marinan addressed the Committee as local resident, in objection to the proposals which would result in the loss of agricultural land used for food production and impact food security.  She shared personal experience of domestic solar panels that were inefficient due to weather conditions and suggested that the scheme would not be efficient enough to warrant the destruction of arable land.  The application was contrary to policies within the County Durham Plan (CDP) and she noted that construction materials would be imported.  Furthermore, residents from Hett had not been consulted about whether the project should go ahead and they would receive very little from the community benefit fund as it would cover a wide area.

Mr Galloway addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal.  Solar farms changed rural land to industrial land and impacted on the ability to use land for recreational purposes.  The reason for a 50MW limit was to protect communities from the devastating impact of overdevelopment.  The drawings submitted by the Applicant had incorrectly calculated the maximum output capacity.  It had been agreed by both the Government and solar industry that the average panel was 225W per square metre and therefore using the agreed standard the scheme would equate to 95MW, which was nearly double the threshold.  The Applicant would argue that the scheme would produce less and when it was dark it would produce nothing, however it was important to consider the output produced at the scheme’s theoretical maximum.  The Applicant had not explained how 95MW became 49.9MW at maximum capacity and Mr Galloway considered that the scheme was likely to be unlawful.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application or at least defer it to investigate further.

On behalf of the Applicant, Mr Duncan confirmed that the project would provide significant benefits.  It would reduce energy bills, meet the energy needs of 14k homes and provide environmental benefits.  The site was graded as low quality agricultural land.  The Applicant had responded to submissions and provided clarity on the design of the scheme and the way that capacity was measured.  The report concluded that no new matters had been raised.

The Chair added that grade 3 agricultural land was able to grow a good crop.

The Senior Planning Officer took the opportunity to respond to some of the issues raised.  He confirmed that during the consultation process neighbour letters had been issued twice, to 1128 properties and the application had been advertised in the local press and with numerous site notices.  Responses had been received and therefore he assumed that people had read them.

Referring to the output capacity, he confirmed that the 50 MW limit only restricted the output of the site, however there was no limit on its generating capacity.  Whilst the Planning Authority had to be mindful of the scale of the site, whatever the maximum generating capacity, the output was under 50MW.  He advised Members that the calculation by Mr Galloway used a limited range of panels and there were more than 1200 on the market.  There was nothing contained in the application which stated which panel would be used.  Furthermore, the Judge had determined that the Burnhope application had not approved a specific panel type and there had been no concerns regarding capacity.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the impact on landscape ecology had previously been deemed acceptable and nothing had changed since the previous application.

Councillor Wilson reiterated comments he had made at the previous meeting in May regarding similar developments refused by the Council and overturned on appeal, highlighting the potential costs associated.  The Senior Planning Officer reminded Members that there had been two applications overturned on Appeal, however the Council had been fortunate not to have incurred costs.

In response to a question from Councillor Currah, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the decision on Burnhope had been quashed in February 2024 and the application would be redetermined by the Planning Committee.

In response to further questions from Councillor Currah, the Senior Planning Officer advised that there had been no changes to the application since the decision in May and reiterated the reasons for the JR decision.  It had not been due to the scale or output of the scheme, but the Committee had not addressed whether they were approving more panels than required, which was a material consideration. 

Councillor Currah was concerned that there seemed to a free market for this type of development and asked whether there would be a limit on the number of developments within the county.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there were no plans to have a set limit or target, however the supplementary planning document could be revised.

Councillor Currah queried the capacity output suggested by the objector and the Senior Planning Officer explained that this had been calculated using the highest powered panels and had not taken into account inefficiencies of the system.

Mr Kriss was in attendance on behalf of the Applicant and in response to further questions from Councillor Currah, he confirmed that 135,000 panels had been proposed with an indicative panel of 570W as these had been recently been installed elsewhere and the overall scheme equated to 77MW.  He was unable to confirm the exact type of panel to be used as the procurement exercise would only begin following planning consent and depended on availability.  There was a range of panels on the market, with panels available up to 700W however these were larger.  The exact type of installation could not be confirmed until planning consent was granted, which was normal practice.  He added that most panels were visually identical and therefore there would be no impact on the overall development.

Councillor Currah stressed that less panels would be required if higher powered panels were used which would have less impact on the environment.  Mr Duncan advised that the project had been developed around various environmental constraints and other technical factors.  The layout presented made the most efficient use of the grid export capacity.  He reiterated that the assumption of 570W had been based due to a recent installation and confirmed that market conditions would be considered at the construction and procurement stage.  In addition, the final layout required approval which was conditioned.  Whilst there may have been some potential to use less panels, based on various simulations on other projects, the difference would be negligible.  Visually the 570W panels were almost identical to 680W and therefore make little difference.  He confirmed that the Officer had found the policy context and environmental impacts of the scheme to be acceptable.

Councillor Hutchinson was familiar with the area as it was within his ward.  This was a large scheme and he queried the location of the villages consulted as it would impact on a large area with a significant number of properties.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that letters had been issued to at least two rows of properties that would potentially be able to view the site.  He confirmed that this was over and above the consultation that would normally be carried out. 

In response to a further question from Councillor Hutchinson the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that as with any electric device, there would electromagnetic radiation but it was harmless.

Councillor Boyes suggested that the Committee could not object to the proposal without a material difference from the application approved in May.  If it were rejected, the Council would lose at Appeal and incur costs to the tax payer.  He moved a motion to approve the application as per the recommendations in the report.

Councillor Shaw agreed that there were no material reasons to refuse the application having heard the advice given by Officers and he seconded the motion to approve the application.

Councillor Wilson noted that there was no difference to the application than that previously approved and the Council had a duty to consider previous decisions of the Planning Inspector which had been overturned when applying weight to similar developments.

Councillor Elmer supported the application.  The issue of landscape harm was subjective, it would change the landscape, but only temporary.  The appearance and ability to farm would fundamentally change as a consequence of climate challenges and large scale solar farms were by far the most effective way of meeting carbon targets.  The application had considerable BNG and would not result in the entire loss of farming as it would still be possible for animals to graze under the panels.  He therefore supported the recommendation.

The Planning and Highways Lawyer reminded Members that they were being asked to reconsider the application in its entirety.  The Senior Planning Officer had explained that the recommendation remained the same as before.  The Objector had suggested that any level of overplanting would make the scheme unlawful, however this had not been the view of the Planning Officers or the Judge in the Burnhope case who had agreed that it was permissible to make an allowance for overplanting.  The Council had assessed the level of overplanting and associated impacts and considered it to be acceptable and not unlawful as had been alleged.

Resolved

That the 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.

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