Agenda item

Proposal Description: Item 6: Installation of a solar farm and associated development (AMENDMENTS RECEIVED October 2023): Additional Information including, changes to application red line; revised plans; photomontages; additional assessments and supporting information (Revised Description & Revised Details) (FURTHER DETAILS RECEIVED July 2024)

It was noted that the majority of the committee had visited the application site on 24 September 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 matters:

(i)             Three emails circulated to members since the publication the report, the contents of which did not alter the officer’s recommendation.

(ii)            Further correspondence received from an objector, together with the associated planning officer response, the contents which did not alter the officer’s recommendation.

At the conclusion of the officers presentation, the case officer drew the committee’s attention to item 3 in the update sheet which set out several minor amendments proposed following discussion between the officers and the applicant, setting out in full the revisions to Condition 4 (temporary permission and decommissioning), Condition 5 (cessation before fortieth anniversary), Condition 20 (colour of structures) and Condition 21 (details of capacity and equipment).

Furthermore, the case officer provided a verbal update at the meeting proposing a further additional condition to protect archaeological assets in situ within the site.

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

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

·       Keen that solar was one of the options in the drive for the council to achieve its green energy plans, but considered that the location of this solar farm was inappropriate. Despite many options being brought forward, no progress had been made on the alternative sites.

·       The proposed site 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.

·       The proposal did not fully comply with the policies of the development plan currently in place regarding the setting and the landscape, as indicated by MTRA4, DM23 and CP20 and its impact on heritage assets.

·       Considered that the commercial aspects of the application had outweighed some of the serious policies the council had worked hard to develop and had agreed which had been ignored in this instance.

·       Asked the committee to carefully consider the message it was giving not only for the current plan, but also for future plans.

·       Questioned the faith residents would have in the administration and the consultation process for Regulation 19 if policies were easily overturned in the current plan.

·       Queried why a solar farm would be built away from the electricity source that was located in a different part of the site and questioned why the panels were not connected closer to the electricity supply.

·       Have officers paid sufficient attention to the commercial aspects of the Beechcroft operation and why have the impacts on this commercial operation been overridden?

·       Does the committee agree the application has been of poor accuracy, with much challenge to the quality of the information provided?

·       Councillor Horrill urged the committee to uphold the policies committed to by the council in the current local plan and asked for the solar farm to be moved to a different location close to the power supply and away from notable landscapes to reduce the impact on residents and Beechcroft.

·       If minded to approve, an additional condition was sought that the application has sufficient mitigation around the site with the appropriate planting and vegetation to screen the industrial development.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

RESOLVED:

(i)             The committee agreed to grant permission for the reasons and subject to the legal agreement, conditions and informatives set out in the Report, the Update Sheet and the verbal update referred to above, subject to an amendment to Condition 14 to include some more mature planting to the eastern and southern boundary. The precise wording to be delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee in consultation with the Corporate Head of Planning and Regulatory Services.