Minutes:
Application DC/21/00060
Proposal Full Planning Application – Installation of renewable energy generating station, comprising ground-mounted photovoltaic solar arrays and battery-based electricity storage containers together with substation, inverter/transformer stations, site accesses, internal access tracks, security measures, access gates, other ancillary infrastructure, landscaping and biodiversity enhancements including nature areas.
Site Location BURSTALL – Land to the East of The Channel, Burstall, IP8 4JL
Applicant Bramford Green Limited
99.2 Councillor Busby confirmed that he would remain on the Committee for the duration of the application and not speak as the Ward Member.
99.3 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the cross boundary location of the site, the site constraints, the existing public rights of way and permissive routes, the agricultural land classification of the site, the landscape setting of the site, the cumulative impact and location of the surrounding schemes, the proposed layout of the site including internal roadways, the proposed battery storage containers and control room buildings and the proposed elevations of the photo voltaic arrays including mitigations for noise and glare.
99.4 Following questions from Members the Case Officer provided clarification of the location of the application site and the length of the photo voltaic panels.
99.5 The Case Officer presented further details of the proposal to Members including: the proposed access to the site, the equivalent energy usage generated by the site, the current use of the site, the potential impact on ecology, traffic and residential and public amenity, and the officer recommendation of approval.
99.6 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the size of the battery storage containers, the energy output generated by the site, the size and volume levels of the batteries, the impact of accumulative noise from adjacent sites, the previous use of the land, the concerns from objectors regarding hazardous substances, the agricultural classification of the land, how the impact on highways was assessed and classified, alternative appropriate sites in the area, and whether a target amount of energy generation has been set for the site.
99.7 Members considered the representation from Stephen Fordham who spoke on behalf of Burstall Parish Council.
99.8 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members regarding the issues which arose during the development of adjacent sites.
99.9 Members considered the representation from Samantha Main who spoke as an Objector.
99.10 Members considered the representation from John Cousins who spoke as a Supporter.
99.11 The Supporter responded to questions from Members on issues including: the current agricultural use of the land, and provisions for reinstatement of the land included in the legal agreement with the applicant.
99.12 Members considered the representation from Simon Chamberlayne who spoke as the Applicant.
99.13 The Applicant, the Chief Planning Officer and the Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the provisions for reinstatement of the land included in the legal agreement with the landowner, and whether a new lease could be agreed in the future.
99.14 The Applicant responded to further questions from Members on issues including: the size and noise level of the batteries to be used, the expected Heavy Goods Vehicle movements during the build phase, the length of the construction period, the orientation of the panels, the increased power output in comparison to the original application, the suitability of the location, the proposed number of panels to be installed, the expected lifespan of the batteries, the plans for control of lighting on site, the skylark mitigation strategy, and the field margin schemes.
99.15 Members considered the representation from Suffolk County Councillor Christopher Hudson who spoke against the application.
99.16 A break was taken from 11:16am until 11:25am.
99.17 Members debated the application on issues including: the loss of agricultural land, the use of land for energy, the future removal of the equipment from the site, the reliance on fossil fuels and the need to move to renewable energy, and highways issues.
99.18 The Chief Planning Officer provided clarification to Members regarding the proposed condition for reinstatement of the site, and the response from Suffolk County Council Highways.
99.19 Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the wider benefits of the application, the landscape impact, and the suitability of the current infrastructure and location of existing sub-stations.
99.20 The Chief Planning Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including the planning balance and condition 15.2 of the National Planning Policy Framework concerning conservation of the natural environment.
99.21 Members debated the application further on issues including: the battery storage arrangements, the potential upheaval caused by the installation of cables, and the highways impact.
99.22 Councillor Jamieson proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the report.
99.23 Councillor McLaren seconded the proposal.
By a vote of 6 votes for and 5 against
It was RESOLVED:
A. That authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:
· Time limit
· Approved plans
· Temporary PP, removal, reinstatement, and retention of biodiversity enhancements
· Access details to be agreed
· Arb method statement
· Archaeology – WSI, PEX and recording
· CEMP
· Control of lighting
· CTMP
· Final details of permissive bridleway
· Infor board details
· Landscaping – details
· Landscaping – implementation
· Method for glare complaints mitigation
· No burning
· Operational noise assessment
· Skylark Mitigation Strategy
· Surface water drainage strategy
· Vis splays
· Working hours
B. In the event that an appeal is received Members agree the above position and authority be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer to respond to the submitted appeal on this basis.
Supporting documents: