Agenda item

Installation of ground mounted photovoltaic farm with associated infrastructure, engineering works, access, and landscaping

The Committee considered a report of the Senior Planning Officer with regards to the Installation of ground mounted photovoltaic farm with associated infrastructure, engineering works, access, and landscaping on Land West of Units 1-3, Admiralty Way, Seaham (for copy see file of minutes).

The Senior Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, site photographs, a proposed site layout plan and Illustrative Elevations.

Mr Adams addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant and confirmed that they were not just a developer, but they also constructed and operated their projects for the full term which ensured all planning and social obligations were met. They also monitored local resource and jobs where appropriate.  They had worked closely with all local stakeholders and he advised that the site had been chosen due to its size and location for connection to the grid.  The Applicant had worked closely with neighbouring developments for the eco drive thru' coffee outlet and EV charging hub to ensure they complemented each other.  Whilst Seaham Town Council had not responded with any comments on the application, the Applicant had attended a number of meetings with them to allocate community benefits.

There was urgent need for renewable energy projects in the UK which had been identified in the Governments National Energy Security Policy.  Whilst the site was modest in scale it would power clean renewable energy to approximately 3169 homes.  The Applicant had worked hard to minimise the impact and agreed with the conclusions outlined in the report which confirmed that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the limited change to the landscape.   The scheme included significant additional landscape with over new native species and hedgerow, woodland and new meadow grassland habitat, which exceeded biodiversity net gain requirements.  He confirmed that the soil was not the best and most versatile and would therefore be a great site for a solar development.  The scheme would assist to meet decarbonisation goals and as sustainable development, he requested it be approved by the Committee.

Councillor Elmer queried whether management of the meadow habitat secured for skylarks had been factored into the condition.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the original scheme had been altered slightly to secure this habitat, following which it had been approved by the Ecology Officer.

In response to a question from the Chair, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed the land was graded at 3b, which was not best and most versatile as defined by the NPPF.  In response to a question from Councillor Oliver, the Senior Planning Officer noted Mr Adam’s submission within his speech that there had been discussions between the applicant and with Seaham Town Council regarding the allocation of a community benefit fund, however the Senior Planning officer noted this was outside of the planning process as it was not deemed necessary to outweigh harm of this particular application.

Councillor Shaw confirmed that as Local Member he considered the development to be in the right place.  He asked for further clarification in relation to the limited screening described in the report and was advised by the Senior Planning Officer that dark green areas on the indicative site plan represented tree planting however it was problematic due to site gradients and unlikely to hide the site entirely.  However combined with the existing screening the harm was not deemed unacceptable.

Councillor Shaw advised that this type of development tended to stir up a lot of public interest by nature, however there had been none from the local community and the Town Council had not raised any specific issues.  The site was located at edge of an industrial estate and its location was appropriate for this type of location and he moved the recommendation to approve the application.

Councillor Elmer noted that the landscape impact was temporary and structures removable however he wanted to make the point that the consideration of landscape impact was a subjective matter and varied from person to person.  The impact was over balanced by the urgent need to reduce carbon associated with energy generation and tackle the biodiversity emergency and this development done both therefore he seconded the recommendation to approve the application.

Councillor Bell reiterated that some solar farms were met with a lot of objections yet this had not been the case however the public did not see the amount of applications coming forward and the loss of arable land.  Although these were deemed temporary structures, their lifespan ranged from 30-40 years.  He referred to the need to review the County Durham Plan to include a policy to deal with the number of solar farms coming forward.  Whilst he had no specific objections, he was concerned about the number of applications coming forward.  The Planning Development Manager confirmed that there were a number of schemes at pre-application stage and this was an area of work to be considered as part of the County Plan review.  The government and NPPF were supportive of solar energy schemes as they were an important part of the plan to reduce carbon emissions.

Councillor Oliver confirmed that when compared a scheme he was familiar with in Burnhope, this was much smaller with less visual impact.  This site was not a view accessed in the same way and so whilst there may be slight visual concern, when balanced with the carbon emergency and need for green energy, he was supportive.

Councillor Shaw advised that the land had formally been subject to 100 years of coal mining with huge impacts on the environment.  The impact of solar farms were negligible in comparison and he moved a motion to approve the application which was seconded by Councillor Elmer.

Resolved

That this application be APPROVED subject to an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure fees of £4,224 toward biodiversity monitoring for a 30 year period and the conditions outlined in the report.