Decision details

This application was for the construction of a solar farm comprising ground mounted solar photovoltaic arrays together with battery energy storage facility and associated infrastructure, including WPD and client substations, inverters, perimeter security fencing, access tracks, CCTV and landscaping on the site of Cheswell Grange Farm, Cheswell Drive, Cheswell, Newport, Shropshire.

Councillor A Eade, Ward Member, had requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee.

An update report was tabled at the meeting reporting additional comments received in relation to the amended Landscaping Plan and the Landscaping Scheme.  It also included additional conditions from the Council’s Highway Engineers which were omitted from the Committee Report, together with one additional letter of objection.

The Planning Officer informed Members that the sub-station and battery transformers would be housed in the existing farmyard buildings at Cheswell Grange with access via Kynnersley Drive.  Highway widening was proposed to facilitate vehicles.  The site was within the rural area but the site did not have any special landscape designation.

Councillor D Shaw, spoke in favour of the application on behalf of both Lilleshall Parish and local residents as there was a need for alternative energy and the protection of future generations and has been highlighted by the recent fuel and energy supplies and there were no adequate alternatives to offset this.  The fields were currently used for grazing and this could continue whilst the solar farm was in place.  The landscape mitigation measure should alleviate concerns.  He felt that this site could be used for scientific studies to assess and resolve the negative aspects of the site and enhance the positives increasing the effectiveness of this site and future sites.  Lilleshall Parish Council aimed to be a carbon neutral Parish and supported the solar farm application.

Councillor A Eade, Ward Councillor, spoke against the application due to its size and it was located next to the Weald Moors Strategic Landscape Site.  He accepted the need for green energy but felt that building on agricultural land endangered food production and you had to weigh up the benefit from energy against the cost to the environment and the importing of food.  It went against policies ER1, BE1, BE4 paragraphs 1 and 6 and NE7 together with 174 of the NPPF.  Little weight should be given to the visual impact assessment and the security fencing would have a significant impact.  Sheep grazing could not take place on the solar farm and this contravened policy NE1.  It was asked that semi mature planting took place prior to the commencement of the work if Members were minded to approve and that the security fencing be green to blend in with the surroundings.

Mr R Hogben, a member of the public, spoke against the application who felt that there was a need to be self-sufficient in food production and that agricultural land should be used for food production.  The application site could be used to produce barley wheat and rape and brownfield sites should be used for the production of energy.  The primary consideration should be the effect of the Weald Moors, Lilleshall Monument and Lilleshall Hill which was adjacent to the site.  He felt the impact assessment had serious shortcomings and that little weight should be given to this.  The application failed to satisfy policy BR1 and he felt that this application should be rejected but alternatively deferred until a suitable application came forward.

Mr N Harley, Applicant and Mr P Cookson, Applicant’s Agent spoke in favour of the application who wished to bring in diversity to the currently unsustainable farm.  The application contributed hugely to the biodiversity gain and contributed to the issue of climate change.  Planning balance was required under the NPPF and they felt the benefit outweighed the harm to the strategic landscape.  They had worked with the Council’s Heritage Officers in relation to the lake and the peat land geotechnical aspects of the application.  The application complied with policy ER1 and the design guide.  There was a 46% biodiversity net gain on habitats and a 210% biodiversity net gain on hedges and was compliant with policy NE1 and NE2.  Semi mature trees would be planted in the autumn.

The Planning Officer informed Members that within the Local Plan the relevant policies balanced protecting the land and local residential amenity against the need for renewable energy and lowering carbon emissions.  A balanced judgment look at the application holistically and any harm associated with it.  The site was an untouched agricultural landscape and any change would be harmful but on balance it was assessed that the benefit outweighed the harm.  Consultees raised not objections to the application subject to conditions.  In relation to the Weald Moors, the short, medium and long term impact had been assessed and it was felt that this was acceptable.  Semi-mature trees would be planted as soon as possible to those residences in close proximity to the site with planting taking place prior to construction.  The application met the climate change agenda and there was a biodiversity net gain on habitats, hedgerows and grassland.   On balance it was assessed that the benefits of the application outweighed the harm.

During the debate some Members understood the loss of the agricultural land but felt that on this occasion that the benefits of this site outweighed the harm and the planting of semi-mature trees would enhance the visual appearance but very few people would be directly affected.  They applauded the additional hedges, trees and flowers which would be an enhancement.  Grazing could continue and the application was supported by the Parish Council.  It was agreed that the fencing needed to be green and that the application could be approved.  Other Members raised concerns regarding the impact on the Weald Moors, the LVIA assessment and the visual impact.  It was felt that sheep grazing could not take place and raised concerns regarding the proximity, size and scale, impact on residents and the impact on the unique flat views to the horizon and that it was contrary to policy.  Further concerns were raised regarding the run off of rain water and the potential impact in relation to the bore hole and water contamination.

The Planning Officer confirmed that there were examples of sheep grazing around the country, but if sheep grazing was not suitable there were other biodiversity gains. The land would be returned back to farming following the 40 year term and the land needed to be rested in order to make good use of it in the future.  In relation to the LVIA the land was the lower end of the spectrum and there would be less than substantial harm and it had all been independently assessed.  With regard to the Weal Moors, there would be a noticeable change but that would be mitigated against as far as possible.  The semi-mature planting would be phased but where necessary planting would take place prior to construction and fencing would be green where it was visible with details of materials being conditioned as part of the recommendation.

On being put to the vote it was, by a majority:

RESOLVED – delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant planning permission (with the authority to finalise any matter including Condition(s), legal agreement terms, or any later variations) subject to the conditions contained in the report and the update report.