Minutes:
89.1 Item 7C
Application DC/22/01530
Proposal Full Planning Application - Installation of a solar array, associated infrastructure and construction of new vehicular access
Site Location Land at Woodlands Farm, Stowmarket Road, Badley, Suffolk
Applicant Elgin Energy EsCo Ltd
89.2 A break was taken from 12.17pm until 12.25pm, after application number DC/22/02971 and before the commencement of application number DC/22/01530.
89.3 The case officer introduced the application to the committee outlining the proposal before Members including: the location of the site, the site constraints, the location of the surrounding heritage assets, the agricultural land classification of the site, the indicative site layout, the proposed landscaping plans and the landscaping character assessment, the design and dimensions of the various solar farm equipment, the location of the existing public rights of way, and the officer recommendation of refusal as detailed in the report.
89.4 It was noted that the application site was partly in Onehouse Ward. As Ward Member for Onehouse, Councillor Matthissen advised he would take no further part in the debate and vote on the application, and did not participate in the rest of the meeting as a Member.
89.5 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members on issues including: the ancient monument, the proposed landscape mitigations plans, the public benefit of the application, the heritage harm, any guidance received from central government regarding the use of agricultural land for food and energy, and the lack of a noise assessment and whether this could be conditioned.
89.6 Members considered the representation from Fenella Blyth who spoke as a Supporter.
89.7 The Supporter responded to questions from Members on issues including: the area of land remaining as agricultural use, the proposed plans for screening of the panels, and the potential heritage harm.
89.8 Members considered the representation from Michelle Howley who spoke as the Applicant.
89.9 The Applicant responded to questions from Members on issues including: the advice received from Place Services and whether there was any scope to further reduce the distance between the panels and the heritage assets and the conservation area, the proposed landscaping plans, and the lack of a noise assessment.
89.10 The Case Officer provided clarification to Members that a completed noise assessment would be required to prior to determination of the application to enable noise mitigation conditions to be applied.
89.11 Members debated the application on issues including: the lack of a noise assessment, the potential harm to the heritage assets and local landscape, the visual impact of the solar panels on the heritage assets, the number of objections from local residents and the Parish Council, the agricultural classification of the land, and the proposed plans for mitigation of potential heritage harm.
89.12 The Planning Lawyer and the Case Officer provided confirmation to Members of the determination of assessment of heritage harm.
89.13 Councillor Davies proposed the application be refused as detailed in the Officer recommendation.
89.14 Councillor Hardingham seconded the proposal.
By a vote of 6 votes for and 1 against
It was RESOLVED:
That the application is REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons: -
REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL – AMENITY
The proposal is contrary to Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (2023) policies LP24 andLP25 and paragraph 130 of the NPPF as insufficient information has been submitted in respect of noise impacts.
The Local Planning Authority adopt a precautionary approach as insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that there would not be an unacceptable noise impact on residential amenity arising from ancillary equipment associated with solar PV panels. No noise assessment has been submitted to evidence and demonstrate that there would not be an unacceptable impact. In the absence of such noise assessment, it cannot be demonstrated that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the current residential amenity of neighbouring properties. Moreover, this matter cannot be dealt with via condition as the results of such assessment could result in an unimplementable permission.
REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL - HERITAGE HARM
The proposal is contrary to Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (2023) policies LP19 andLP25 and paragraph 202 of the NPPF as the proposal would cause a medium to high level of less than substantial harm to the nearby designated heritage assets, notably those contained with the Badley Hall complex. This harm is not considered to be outweighed by sufficient public benefit. The proposed solar array would result in development of agricultural land within the setting of Grade I listed Church of St Mary’s, Grade II* listed Badley Hall, Grade II listed Woodland Farmhouse and the Badley Conservation Area which contains Grade I Listed Church of St Mary, the Grade II* Listed Dovecote, Grade II* Listed barn, Grade II Listed Bakehouse, and the site of the Chantry, a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The proposal would detrimentally alter the undeveloped agrarian landscape which contributes to the significance of the aforementioned designated heritage assets. The proposal would harm the significance of the assets arising from development within their setting, and would alter the way they are experienced from the Public Rights of Way network. In accordance with paragraph 202 of the NPPF, the proposal offers significant public benefits when viewed in the wider context of the district. The Council has permitted other solar schemes which generate substantially more solar power and are less harmful to fewer designated heritage assets than this proposal. The proposal's contribution to reducing carbon emissions, mitigating climatechange and improving energy security is not considered to be substantial enough to outweigh the medium to high level of less than substantial harm to the numerous aforementioned designated heritage assets.
Note (20.12.2023): The reason noted above was as presented to Members but was later confirmed to include an inaccuracy. The Council cannot determine solar schemes larger than 49.9mW. The reason was amended, in agreement with the Chief Planning Officer, prior to issue as follows:
In accordance with paragraph 202 of the NPPF, the proposal offers significant public benefits when viewed in the wider context of the district. The Council has permitted other solar schemes which are less harmful to fewer designated heritage assets than this proposal. The proposal’s contribution to reducing carbon emissions, mitigating climate change, and improving energy security is not considered to be substantial enough to outweigh the medium to high level of less than substantial harm to the numerous aforementioned designated heritage assets.
Supporting documents: