Minutes:
88.1 Item 7A
Application DC/20/05895
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 Land to the South of Church Farm, Somersham, IP8 4PN and Land to the East of The Channel, Burstall, IP8 4JL
Applicant Bramford Green Limited
88.2 The Case Officer introduced the application to the Committee outlining the proposal before Members including the location of the site, the site constraints, the agricultural land classification of the site, the special landscape area plan, the cumulative impact assessment of the surrounding schemes, the existing public rights of way and access to the site, the proposed site plan including the battery storage area, the proposed ecology enhancement plan, the elevations and height of the panels, battery storage containers and control room buildings, the equivalent energy usage generated by the site, and highway safety issues including construction traffic.
88.3 The Case Officer and the Chief Planning Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the benefits of the proposal, the context of the decision made by Babergh District Council Planning Committee at their meeting on 08 February 2022 in relation to the decision being made today, the special landscape are and the landscape mitigation plan, the cumulative effect of the surrounding schemes, the reinstatement plan for the land following completion of the contract, the land within Mid Suffolk which is designated as special landscape area, the battery storage units including fire safety, the proposed S106 agreement, and suitable sites in the surrounding area.
88.4 Members considered the representation from Caroline Wolton who spoke on behalf of Bramford Parish Council.
88.5 Members considered the representation from Nicholas Carter who spoke on behalf of Flowton Parish Council.
88.6 Members considered the representation from James Rook who spoke on behalf of Somersham Parish Council.
88.7 The Somersham Parish Council representative responded to questions from Members regarding whether the site could be used for both solar energy generation and livestock farming.
88.8 Members considered the representation from Samantha Main who spoke as an Objector.
88.9 Members considered the representation from John Cousins who spoke as a Supporter.
88.10 The Supporter responded to questions from Members on issues including the viability of solar farms and the future agricultural use of the land.
88.11 Members considered the representation from Simon Chamberlayne who spoke as the Applicant.
88.12 The Applicant responded to questions from Members on issues including the reasons for the change to rotating panels from static panels and how this effects the efficiency of the panels.
88.13 Members considered the representation from Councillor John Field who spoke as the Ward Member.
88.14 A break was taken from 10:56am until 11:07am.
88.15 The Chief Planning Officer provided details to Members of the special landscape areas within the district, and updated Members on contents of the tabled papers and the legal advice obtained.
88.16 Members debated the application on issues including: concerns over tourism and food security, the landscape and visual impact of the proposal, the need for solar energy, the suitability of the site, the ecological benefit of the proposal, the battery storage plans, the assessment of the agricultural land, the cumulative impact of the application, and the loss of agricultural land.
88.17 Councillor Passmore MBE proposed that the application be refused.
88.18 Councillor Humphreys seconded the proposal.
88.19 A break was taken from 11:41am until 11:47am.
88.20 The Chief Planning Officer confirmed the following reasons for refusal which were agreed by the Proposer and Seconder:
1. The presence of the development on Best and Most Versatile agricultural land would unacceptably reduce the availability of this land for the optimum purposes of agriculture. The benefits of the development are not considered to outweigh this impact and the development plan expects that particular protection will be given to such Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. On this basis the proposal would be contrary to policy CL11 of the adopted MSLP and contrary to NPPF paras 158(b) and 174(b).
2. The industrial and utilitarian appearance of the development would result in a significant change in the character of the site and be visually intrusive in appearance for the duration of the development. This change would have unacceptable adverse impacts upon visual character and amenities including for public rights of way users and the community and for the benefit of tourists. The development would neither protect nor enhance this valued landscape forming part of the designated Special Landscape Area here. On this basis the proposal would fail to safeguard the landscape quality of this part of the District contrary to policy CL2 of the adopted MSLP and compromising the landscape character and local distinctiveness of the site contrary to policy CS5 of the adopted CS. The proposal would be contrary to the principles of the NPPF including paragraphs 174(a) and (b) and paragraph 158. The development would for these reasons not represent sustainable development under paragraph 11 of the NPPF for these reasons.
By a vote of 6 votes for and 1 against
It was RESOLVED:
That the application be refused planning permission for the following reasons:
Supporting documents: