Agenda item

The construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning for a renewable energy scheme of up to a 49.9 megawatt (MW) solar farm and up to a 49.9MW battery storage facility.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager introduced the application and explained that it was split into two main sites which would be connected by an underground cable. He explained the proposal was for a 49.9 megawatts solar development which included battery storage units.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager informed the Committee of the main points of the application which included:

• The solar panels would utilise a tilting mechanism to maximise the amount of power generated.
• The maximum height would be 3m.
• Battery storage units would be spread out across the site.
• NPPF was generally in support of renewable energy.

They further informed the Committee of the key issues to consider which were:

• The landscape impact – The Solar arrays were sited within the existing field patterns and the landscaping proposed provided buffers and an increase to hedge heights to lessen the impact.
• Cumulative impact – The application was divided into 2 parcels to lessen the impact. The closest solar farm to this location was further North from this site.
• Impact to local residents – A glimmer and glare assessment was carried out and found to have a limited impact on a limited number of dwellings for a limited time.
• Noise Impact – Acoustic fencing and planting were in place to mitigate the noise.
• Highways Impact – During the construction site there would be 12 deliveries a day with a proposed management system to minimise vehicle movements along Whitminster Lane.
• Ecology – The scheme proposed would provide enhancements to the current site.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager concluded by highlighting the late pages that were circulated ahead of the meeting.

Councillor John Jones spoke as a Ward Member against the application. He asked the committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

• It would cover 100’s of acres of good productive agricultural land.
• Loss of food production would need to be made elsewhere which would likely be abroad and then imported. This would not be good for carbon footprints or British Farmers.
• Solar Farms should be placed on rooftops or brownfield sites and not covering the vast countryside.
• There were 100’s of square metres of rooftops available in the vicinity which could accommodate this application.
• The size of this application would be a massive intrusion on the countryside.
• It would remove views of wildlife and the countryside from local villages.
• The Whitminster parcel had a number of footpaths crossing the land. These were proposed to be fenced off which would not be a pleasant experience to walk through.
• The development would be visible from the canal which was currently being restored by Stroud District Council.
• The tilting mechanism had not been tested in the UK yet and could provide more noise.
• The proposed construction would involve HGV’s passing through the main part of the village, along the front of the school and through the narrow village lanes.

Councillor John Jones asked the committee if they were to approve this application could they consider requesting the following:

• All construction vehicles to exit left from the site onto the A38 to prevent large vehicles crossing both busy lanes of traffic.
• The use of the stop / go boards towards the village school to ensure the large vehicles do not encounter local traffic along the narrower lanes toward the site entrance.

Councillor Stephen Davies spoke as a Ward Member against the application. He asked the committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

• Solar farms were a good thing however, they should be built on roofs.
• He questioned why all the warehouses at junction 12 were permitted without conditioning solar panels on the roof.
• This application would take up a huge number of fields.
• There were many future solar farms proposed in the area, how many would be too many, this needed to be decided by the Committee tonight.
• SDC’s economic development plan included the need for agricultural land to grow food locally and yet this application would remove acres of agricultural land.
• Highlighted two concerns of the Whitminster Parish Council which included the views from the footpaths and the conditions required to make the construction traffic safer to local residents.

Mr Paynter, Parish Councillor, spoke on behalf of the Whitminster Parish Council. He asked the committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

• The application proposed was too big, it would cover nearly 15% of Whitminster’s green spaces. The solar farm at Slimbridge only covered 1.5% of their green spaces.
• The location was right at the heart of the village.
• It would divide the village houses from the historical parts of the village which included: listed buildings, the church, Whitminster House and the Canal.
• The application directly affected 8 Public Rights of Way (PROW). Residents wouldn’t want to walk a footpath with high fences and CCTV cameras on either side.
• A smaller scale farm proposed in the western end of the village by the M5 would make more sense.
• The last 2 years had affected everyone, the PROW were a lifeline during these times for the villagers The mental health benefits of being outside were widely recognised.
• There were other location options for solar panels such as roof tops, there were no other options for growing crops.
• The war in Ukraine had emphasised the need to be self-sufficient and grow our own food.
• The governments encouraged farmers to grow hedges for carbon capture.
• The area proposed had an abundance of wildlife, especially the local birds one of which the skylarks, was currently on the RSPCA red list.

Mrs Younger, a local resident, spoke in opposition of the application. She asked the committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

• The site for the proposal was on uneven, sloping land which would emphasise its presence and be a huge visual impact.
• The size was disproportionate to the size of the village.
• It would industrialise that stretch of the A38.
• Several properties would be encircled by the development.
• It would impact on the setting of the local listed buildings, the heritage sites and the restoration of the canal. 
• Concerns over the use of the new and untested technology (the tilting mechanism). Impact of the noise and the glare could cover a vast area.
• The construction within the current village infrastructure caused many concerns. The school and playground was along the proposed route to the site and large vehicles would cause distraction and harmful emissions.
• Due to the size and restrictions of large vehicles along narrow lanes, such as the narrow S bend on School lane, the HGV’s would need to occupy the middle of the road or risk damaging the embankment. This would be a danger to local traffic.
• The proposed traffic light system would not be suitable for those joining the road against the flow of the traffic and would be an accident waiting to happen.
• The noise and disruption from the construction traffic would have a detrimental effect on resident’s health and wellbeing.

Mr Withers, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He asked the committee to support the application for the following reasons:

• Moreton Valance solar farm would lead to the equivalent displacement of over 20,000 tonnes of CO2 annually whilst suppling the electricity demand for over 15,000 homes.
• There were currently 102.8 megawatts of operational ground mount solar PV in SDC. This application would increase capacity by 50% which would take the proportion of equivalent houses to 45,000.
• The designs were sympathetic to their surroundings.
• A thorough site finding process was carried out to find the best location which resulted in the 2-parcel approach.
• Resident’s views were taken into careful consideration.
• Panels have been removed, additional mature tree’s planted and further additional traffic calming measures were all in response to residents’ comments.
• Recognised the importance of the landscape which resulted in the largest and most substantial planting scheme to minimise visual impact. This included: 712 new trees 40 acres of wildflower meadow margins and 2.7km native hedgerows. This would significantly increase biodiversity and provide screening for local residents.
• The proposal would include substantial community benefits which included: funding for both Parish Councils, £7.6m of business rates over the life of the project, opportunities for contractors during construction, enhanced footpath corridors and improvements to visibility of school lane through hedgerow setbacks.

The Major and Environment Team Manager gave the following answers in response to questions:

• The nearest solar farm to the proposed application was just to the North of the Morton Valance parcel.
• The community benefit funding sat outside of the planning remit and wasn’t to be considered, this would be separate to the planning decision and for the Parish Councils to discuss with the applicant. The scheme offered other community benefits such as providing renewable energy, ecology and biodiversity enhancements.
• There was a wintering bird survey conducted due to the proximity of the River Severn.
• The wildflower meadow margins would provide enhancements from the low ecological agricultural fields.
• The PROW’s throughout the site would be protected and maintained.
• The land was previously used for crops, the agricultural classification for the site showed that it was not the best quality or the most fertile.
• The reinstatement of the missing mile part of the canal would be 1 field away from the proposed site, approx. 150m.
• Construction would take 6 months.

Councillor Schoemaker questioned whether they could limit the deliveries on a Saturday due to the proximity of the Saul Junction which was a Popular tourist attraction and drew lots of traffic to the area. It was confirmed that this could be possible if it was felt that it was necessary.

The Head of Development Management confirmed that the any separate community funding agreed between the applicant and the local community was not an issue for the committee, such funding would not meet the tests required for S106 agreements and therefore could look to the member of the public like buying a planning application. The Principal Planning Lawyer echoed this.

It was confirmed that:

·        The biodiversity teams suggested conditions were incorporated within the landscape ecological management plan.

·        Condition 8 tied the planning application to a particular assessment, should it have deviated from that in the future, it would need to be investigated by the local planning authority.

·        Condition 4 required the restoration of the scheme to the original condition but differed the details of this to closer to the time.

Councillor Hall proposed and Councillor Brown seconded.

Councillor Brown shared reservations about fields being given over to solar panels and debated the roof alternatives suggested by other Members.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager showed the landscape sensitivity survey which highlighted the highly sensitive AONB areas in red and explained why the solar applications were coming forward in a similar area.

Councillor Schoemaker debated the potential of a traffic amendment on Saturdays.

Councillors Fenton and Ryder expressed support for the potential amendment.

Councillor Schoemaker proposed an amendment for no deliveries on Saturday due to the close proximity to the Saul Junction which was a major tourist attraction that attracted large amounts of tourism on weekend days and was already very busy with traffic, pedestrians and cyclists.

Councillor Ryder seconded the amendment and echoed Councillor Schoemaker’s comments.

Councillor Schoemaker proposed the amendment only be applicable to the Whitminster parcel of the application which Councillor Ryder agreed.

After being put to a vote the Amendment was carried unanimously.

After being put to a vote the Motion was carried with 6 votes for and 1 vote against.