Minutes:
29.1 Item 7A
Application DC/21/06825
Proposal Full Planning Application – Development of a photovoltaic solar array, battery storage and ancillary infrastructure
Site Location Land To The South Of Suggenhall Farm, Church Lane, Rickinghall, IP22 1LL
Applicant RNA Energy Ltd
29.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including the updated consultation response from Place Services Ecology, the site location plan, the proximity of the site to other local solar proposals, the agricultural land classification survey, the amount of best and most versatile (BMV) land on the site, the constraints of the site, the proximity of the site to nearby residential properties, the superseded and amended proposed block plan, the proposed landscaping strategy, the proposed ancillary infrastructure, the proposed elevations, and the Officer recommendation for approval.
29.3 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the Heritage and Historic England consultation response, the cumulative impact of all solar farm proposals in the nearby region, the agricultural value of the land, the landscaping strategy, and the impact of surrounding trees on solar panel productivity.
29.4 Members considered the representation from Mr. Richard Baldwin who spoke as an Objector.
29.5 The Objector responded to questions from Members on issues including: the solar proposals in proximity to the site, the impact of solar panels on nearby properties, and the potential yield of wheat from the area of land used for the site proposal.
29.6 Members considered the representation from Mr. Tom Roseblade who spoke as the Agent.
29.7 The Agent responded to questions from Members on issues including: whether farming operations could still occur on the field if the proposed solar panels were installed, the fire risk on the site and the fire strategy, and the intended use for the southern section of the site.
29.8 The Governance Officer read out a statement from Councillor Jessica Fleming who spoke as the Ward Member.
29.9 Members debated the application on issues including: the validated petition in objection to the application, the use of land for agricultural purposes, how we assess the value of agricultural land, the Ward Member’s request for refusal, food and energy security, industrialisation within the countryside, whether there are more suitable sites for the proposal, the visual impact on the countryside, the potential impact on the heritage assets surrounding the site, the fire risk on the site, and whether the land could be used for both agricultural and energy production purposes.
29.10 Councillor Humphreys proposed that the application be refused.
29.11 Councillor Muller seconded the proposal.
By a vote of 5 For and 3 Against
It was RESOLVED:
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
1) REASON FOR REFUSAL – HERITAGE HARM
The proposed solar array would result in development of agricultural land within the setting of Grade I listed St Marys Church which would impact the views across the open landscape to the south of Grade II listed Suggenhall Farmhouse, obscuring its legibility and understanding as part of the farmstead. In doing so, it is considered to result in less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets by reason of its impact on the setting and significance of the listed buildings. In accordance with the provisions of the NPPF, the public benefits generated by virtue of the proposal’s contribution to climate change and energy security are not considered to outweigh the harm to the aforementioned heritage assets.
The application does not meet the requirements of s.66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, nor the historic environment principles of the NPPF or the heritage policies of the Development Plan.
2) REASON FOR REFUSAL – LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT
The immediate area is a relatively flat, open landscape offering broad views. The proposed development would alter this character and result in a loss of visual amenity and harm to the landscape character.
The long-term visual impact would conflict with Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy and Policy FC1.1 of the Core Strategy Focused Review which seeks to maintain, enhance, and retain the local distinctiveness of the area. The impact is not considered to be acceptable, nor can it be mitigated by provision of additional landscape screening to make it acceptable, as required by the NPPF.
Supporting documents: