Agenda item

Proposal Description: Item 6: Installation of a solar farm and associated development (AMENDMENTS RECEIVED): Additional Information including; changes to application red line; revised plans; photomontages; additional assessments and supporting information (Revised Description & Revised Details)

It was noted that the majority of the committee, had visited the application site on 6 February 2024 to enable members to observe the site in context and to gain a better appreciation of the proposals.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full the following:

1.    Following changes to landscaping proposals as set out in the report, the applicant’s ecological consultant had reviewed if changes had affected the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) calculation. The conclusion of this review noted the main points as follows:

·       Used Biodiversity Metric 4.0.

·       Change to create scrub belt of 5,806m2 instead of proposed neutral grassland.

·       New scrub buffer zone (565m2) to be created adjacent entrance instead of modified grassland.

·       Increase in width of hedgerow (southern and eastern boundaries of PV panel main site) from 1m to 5m in width, instead of neutral grassland.

·       Change to type of seed mix to be used.

·       Changes result in slight uplift of BNG figure from an increase of +79.25% habitat units to a new figure of +81.51%.  No change to hedgerow unit figure which remains at +63.28%.

2.    The applicant had circulated a three-page briefing note to members of the committee which provided an outline of the key considerations of the application and an overview of the biodiversity enhancements integral to the project. The planning officer’s comments in response were set out in full within the update sheet, stating that there was no change to the recommendation.

In addition, a verbal update was provided by the case officer at the meeting with suggested amendments to the planning conditions to reflect the updated information received that: conditions 14 and 27 ( Landscape Enhancement &  Landscape and Ecological Management  Plan) to refer to revision plan M instead of revision plan L; and in condition 27 (relating to the BNG figure within criteria A) be amended from 79.27% to 81.51% habitat units. 

During public participation, Samantha Culhane, Rachel Waldron and Councillor Sue Wood (on behalf of Sparsholt Parish Council) spoke in objection to the application and Councillor Eleanor Bell (on behalf of Hursley Parish Council), Nicola Jones and Chris Field spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Horrill spoke as contiguous Ward Member. In summary, Councillor Horrill, raised the following points:

·       Does the committee agree with the development of solar energy in the council’s climate emergency efforts, but do we agree that solar farms should be placed anywhere within the district?

·       The clear issue with the application is the landscape within which the site is located. The case officer, the council’s landscape team and CPRE Hampshire all agree that the site is within a valued landscape, demonstrating attributes beyond the ordinary.

·       The area was used extensively during Covid for walking cycling and horse-riding with The Clarendon Way linking the two cities running alongside and Crabwood, both adjacent to the site.

·       Stated that a perfectly suitable alternative location for the solar farm exists elsewhere within the site nearer to a pylon.

·       Contrary to policies CP20, DM23 and MTRA4.

·       Considered the planning balance should favour refusal, following the council’s planning policies for the protection of the countryside and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance.

·       Solar farm proposed on elevated and open part of the landscape which officers agree would change the area from agriculture, to one with industrial type and function.

·       Screening of the solar panels would not mitigate the impact of the development on the landscape and would block the public enjoyment of this area.

·       Considered that there was detrimental impact on the livelihood of the family at Beechcroft and the economic harm that may follow.

·       Urged the committee to refuse the application as currently proposed and not ignore planning policies and national guidance.

During their representation, the applicant confirmed that only one of the substations would be retained. 

In response to questions, the council’s Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer  and the Planning Case Officer clarified that the assessment did take into account the planning policies of MTRA4 and CP12 and made reference to the conclusions that had been drawn upon these points as to whether it required a countryside location or otherwise, as set out in the factors of the planning considerations detailed within the report.

In addition, following questions in relation to the change of use of the land, the Senior Planning and Litigation Lawyer clarified that the application was time limited to a condition with the need to restore the land back to its previous condition. Therefore, after the 40-year time period had expired, it would be expected that the land would return to agricultural use and would be subject to the determination of any subsequent application submitted at that time.

Members asked if there was any way that the establishment of the new planting could be improved. The Senior Planning Officer indicated that the availability of water was considered the most important factor. This could be secured through an addition to conditions 14 and 27.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED:

The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Report, the Update Sheet and the verbal update set out above, subject to adjustments to conditions as set out in (i) and (ii) below. The precise wording to be delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee in consultation with the Corporate Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.  

:

(i)             That conditions 4 and 5 be amended to reflect that only the distribution network substation would remain on site; and

(ii)            That reference be added to conditions 14 and 27 regarding a watering schedule requirement.