Agenda item

This was an application for the installation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure, enlargement of the existing car park and creation of a viewing area on land west of New Works Lane, Telford, Shropshire.

Councillor J Seymour, Ward Member, had requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee.

Councillor J Seymour, Ward Member, spoke in favour of the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application and reiterated the principle of the objections which were the inappropriate location with the Wrekin and Ercall being a strategic landscape, panels would be a blight on the scenery and could be viewed from the Wrekin and would not be hidden during the winter months, proposed rights of way were not enhancements as these currently existed and had already been restored, the generator adjacent to a picnic area and the flood risk.

Councillor A McClements, adjoining Ward Member, spoke in favour of the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application and although this was in the adjacent ward boundary the solar farm would impact on the lives of residents who use and walk that area, particularly through Steeraway and the New Works and which led to flora and fauna and was used for recreation purposes by walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders.  Since the covid 19 restrictions this glorious green space had been enjoyed for both physical and mental health and wellbeing and was part of the Telford T50 route.  The application was not in keeping with the rural open fields, farming and woodland as specified in the NPPF and would impact the visual topography as the size of the panels and the site would not blend or be hidden and mitigation would take some 10 years to implement.  The site was close to a Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and would be a detriment to the strategic landscape around the Shropshire Hills and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Mr J Jenkinson, Applicants Agent spoke in favour of the application and against the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.  Solar farms made good use of agricultural land and were safe and reliable and promoted high levels of biodiversity and the hedgerow would improve the poor headland and improve and enrich the habitat.  The objections with regard to the RSPB and the effect on the Barn Owls were inconsistent with evidence and solar farm construction could take place without damage to nature.  There would be an extended public car park and an expansion to the public rights of way network, together with the changes to the hedgerow which would be pleasant to walk along and these improvements would bring tourists to the area. The land had previously been disturbed and had consequently changed.  Short Wood had been used by quad bikes and low open structures would be used on the expanded car park together with screen planting to prevent this use. A modest amount of noise would be generated and this would be mitigated by the biodiversity gain and would put public access front and centre.

The Planning Officer informed Members that the site was 40 hectares of restored open cast coalmining within the Wrekin Forest Strategic Landscape adjacent to the Shropshire Hills AONB.  The reasons for refusal were the impact on the Character in relation to Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW) 2000, which requires decision makers to have regard to conserving and enhancing natural beauty and this application would impact on the land within the setting of an AONB and would be against the NPPF and local policies.   The landscaping and visual assessment had been independently assessed as having limited visual impact.  However, officers felt it was not about the visual impact but the impact on the character of the area and the experience by users of the Public Rights of Way and the perception of an open site.  The application would notably detract from the scenic quality and the wooded hills within the ancient woodland and the patchwork of irregular fields and the sense of tranquillity and it was felt that the biodiversity net gain did not outweigh the harm on this site.   Following additional information submitted by the applicant it was asked, if Members were minded to agree, that delegated authority be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to carry out a consultation with technical consultees to refuse the application.  Based on the outcome of the consultation, reasons for refusal numbers 2 or 3 may have been addressed adequately but refusal reason 1 would remain.

The Chair confirmed that reason 1 be the main reason for refusal and that reasons 2 and 3 would be re-assessed.

During the debate some Members felt conflicted and could see the application from both sides and that if reasons 2 or 3 may be resolved and it was asked if the Council would be in a strong enough position if Members were minded to refuse the application.  Other Members felt that the additional information should not be taken into consideration but supported the refusal on the grounds that this area was an asset to the local community as a recreational space which had been a lifeline for families and children during the covid pandemic and this was enough to support a refusal regardless of the other two reasons for refusal.  Some Members considered that this was a difficult decision and needed to weigh up the open green space which was well used by the community against the green energy and reduction of carbon emissions and it was asked for clarity on the offer of a new car park and the picnic and viewing area.  Other Members felt that from the photos the panels looked a distance away but when viewing from the location the panels would be too high to be seen over and would impact the open landscape and would obscure the view of the Shropshire Way and the strategic landscape.  The Council had previously supported solar farms, but this was about the location of the site which was roamed by deer and other wildlife and had been a haven for thousands of residents and it would be many years before this area could be reinstated.  Policies were in place to protect the strategic landscape and flooding was an issue and this raised concerns.  It was also asked how the panels would be cleaned and maintained, if there were any details of the local wildlife and badger setts and what impact the vibration and humming would have on the picnic area.  It was agreed that green energy was acceptable but that there needed to be a balance and this area was one that needed protection.  The Wrekin was a local icon in the County and the natural environment needed to be protected.  The application was acceptable but in the wrong location.

The Planning Officer confirmed that reason 1 would be used for the refusal of the application but with regards to refusal reasons 2 in relation to biodiversity additional information had been submitted and this would need to be verified as some of the information related to work undertaken following the coalmining together with the new public rights of way programme and the new car park.  The flood risks also needed to be verified and this would be consulted upon and it was asked that delegated authority be given to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to carry out the consultation.  It was considered that refusal reason 1 would be sufficient on its own.  With regard to landscaping and the reinstatement of the site, this was part of the restoration management plan which was in force until 2030.  It was suggested that this was raised with the enforcement team in order to ensure that landscaping had been undertaken or if this needed to be replaced.  The cleaning and maintenance of the panels would be undertaken in accordance with legislation and best practice but this was not a material planning consideration.  Deer were not a protected species.  Bats, Barn Owls and skylarks had been mentioned, badgers had been considered but not published.  The humming and vibration from the panels would be low level and not enough to become a planning consideration as it was not considered to cause a nuisance and could not be used as a reason for refusal.

The Development Management Service Delivery Manager confirmed that officers would not put a refusal before Members if it was considered it would not be successful.  Late information had been received and it could not be processed prior to the meeting.  It was asked that if Members were minded that they grant delegated authority to refuse the application subject to carrying out a statutory consultation and amend reasons for refusal accordingly.

On being put to the vote it was, unanimously:

RESOLVED – that full planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposals would result in a detrimental change to the quality of the strategic landscape, failing to conserve and enhance the character of the landscape around the Shropshire Hills Area of Natural Beauty. This would result in significant harm to the character of the area and thus impact on the enjoyment of the area by receptors using the local public rights of way. The proposed mitigation is insufficient to overcome these harms. As such the proposals are contrary to Policies ER1 and NE7 of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan (2011-2031), paragraph 174 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies P1 and WF1 of the Shropshire Hills AONB Management Plan (2019-2024).

2.    The application lacks detail with regards to the impacts of the proposals on designated sites, or the potential for Short Wood to impact on the operation of the solar farm due to shading. In addition, there is insufficient information contained within the application in respect of great crested newts, badgers, red list birds (notably Skylarks) and Barn Owls. As such, it is not possible to conclude that the proposals would not cause an offence under The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Therefore, the proposals fail to comply with Policies ER1, NE1 and NE2.

3.    The proposals have failed to demonstrate that they would not result in increased flooding risk either on-site or off-site. As such the proposals fail to comply with Policy ER12

with delegated authority being granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to amend or remove reasons for refusal 2 and/or 3 should she consider it appropriate to do so after consideration of further information being provided by technical consultees in respect of reasons 2 and 3.