Agenda item

Section 73 Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of Permission S.21/0465/FUL (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). Variation to consist of two point-of-contact masts required to connect solar farm to electricity grid, reconfiguration of solar arrays and addition of spare containers.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that it was a variation from the original S.21/0465/FUL application for a solar farm. The variation was for 2 masts to be erected in order to connect the solar farm to the grid. The original plan to utilise an underground cable had been found to be unviable. The key issues to consider were:

·         Whether the variation would result in any significant adverse effects other than those previously mitigated by the original proposal.

·         The masts would be sited next to an original pylon.

·         The site was situated in proximity to the Industrial Heritage Conservation Area and a grade II* listed building (St Andrews Church). 

·         During the application process the masts were re-positioned in order to address Historic England’s concerns.

·         The applicant had advised that the noise would be no greater than that of the electricity line and pylon.

·         There were no Biodiversity objections received, the proposal would remove existing planting at the location of the compound and this would be offset with additional planting to the west.

·         Condition 5 would be amended to include the additional spare containers.

Councillor John Jones, Ward Member, spoke against the application and asked the Committee to reject the proposal for the following reasons. The application was not showing on the planning portal for Whitminster despite the masts being located within the Parish, it was only showing on the Moreton Valance portal. The applicants should have been aware of these issues at the time of the original application, and this should have been considered all together. The proposal was more than a variation, it was the erection or two significant masts along with the additional containers and redeployment of the solar panels, it should warrant its own separate application. The addition of the masts would create extra lorry movements through the narrow village roads and would cause a greater disruption during the construction period. At the very least he asked the committee to defer the application for further investigation to be completed.

Mr Paynter, Parish Councillor, spoke on behalf of Whitminster Parish Council against the application. He echoed the concerns raised by Councillor John Jones and asked the Committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

·         The original application was approved despite the objections raised by the Parish and its residents.

·         The proposed masts would be located in close proximity to listed buildings, farms and the newly renovated Whitminster Lock.

·         It was not a minor variation but a significant, visually impacting element and should it have been included in the original application the decision to approve may not have been made.

·         English Heritage had been consulted and responded with their objection.

·         The site was situated next to a 14^th century church.

·         The addition of the masts would further diminish the landscape, character and heritage of the village and impact the views from the church and the canal. 

·         The Parish Council was happy to support a more sustainable site closer to the M5.

Ms Younger, a local resident, spoke against the application and asked the Committee to refuse the proposal for the following reasons. Residents wanted to know why the masts were not included within the original application and why the method of connection was not altered during the consultation period. The application was purely for financial gain with no local benefits to the community. It had been reported that at peak times the solar farm would produce approximately one third over the approved megawatts thus producing additional profits. The application was not included on the Whitminster Planning Portal disadvantaging the residents of Whitminster. This variation would result in additional traffic on the country lanes and the added disruption may have had an impact on the determination of the original application. The additional visual impact alone may have influenced the decision taken.  The masts would be visible from residential dwellings, Whitminster Lane, School Lane, Stroud Canal and the listed church. The visual impact could not be mitigated by trees or hedges due to their height. The application would give the rural setting an industrial look for the developer’s profit.

Mr Baker, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application and asked the Committee to approve the proposal for the following reasons:

·         It would support Stroud District Councils (SDC) carbon neutral 2030 strategy.

·         The solar farm would lead to the displacement of 20,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually whilst providing the electricity demand for over 15,000 homes.

·         In order to do that it would need to be connected to the national grid. Since permission was gained, they had carried out further checks and found it would be unlikely for the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) to connect the cable onto the grid utilising the single compound as planned.

·         This was largely due to the type and condition of the existing pylon and would most likely need an additional pylon to be erected by the DNO in order to allow connection.

·         The location of the masts was changed after the initial consultation with consultees at a greater cost to the developer.

·         The variation would not have an effect on the amount of electricity generated by the farm.

·         There would be less HGV movements as it would be two masts instead of a more complicated connection compound.

·         Screening had been introduced to mitigate the visual impact from the canal.

In response to Councillor Green, it was confirmed:

·         After consent for the original application had been granted, the engineer had attended the site and found the underground cable to not be viable.

·         Legislation asked for a public benefit from planning applications not necessarily a local benefit, the renewable energy was seen as a public benefit.

Councillor Schoemaker questioned whether Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments would apply. The Majors & Environment Team Manager explained that as the application would not add pressure to the infrastructure, CIL would not be applicable.

Councillor Prenter questioned whether it would be grounds for refusal for not being advertised on the Whitminster Planning Portal. The Planning Officer confirmed that it was an IT issue from the system developer, and they had asked for it to be addressed. She also highlighted that it had been advertised in the local newspaper and a site notice had been displayed to raise awareness.

In response to Councillor Brown, the Planning Officer confirmed that the approximate distance from the church to the proposed masts was 345m.

Councillor Green questioned the mitigation for the close proximity to the conservation area. The Planning Officer explained that the mitigation had already been considered as part of the original application and this was just a variation.

Councillor Brown proposed the Officer recommendation to permit the application and Councillor Cornell seconded.

Councillors debated the benefit of the application and that it would not be beneficial if it could not be connected to the national grid.

Councillor Green stated that at the site visit her attention was drawn to the existing pylon and personally felt that two additional masts would be more harmful to the nearby listed building and conservation area. 

The Chair clarified that the Officer recommendation included the amendment to condition 5 to include the spare containers and reminded the committee that this was not a permanent change and had a lifespan of 40 years.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried with 6 votes in favour and 2 against. 

RESOLVED To permit the application.