Agenda item

Construction and operation of a grid-connected solar photovoltaic farm, incorporating battery storage, with infrastructure, landscaping and biodiversity enhancements - Land At Ebberley Down, Ebberley, Devon

The following Councillors had attended the virtual and in person site visits:

 

Councillors: R Lock, K Hepple, J Whittaker, D Bushby, P Hames, C Leather, H Thomas, D Smith and C Wheatley 

 

 

 

Application No. 1/1225/2023/FULM

 

Interests:   None

 

Officer recommendation:   Grant

 

 

The planning application had been called into Plans Committee by Ward Member, Councillor Lock.  No reasons were specified – the Council’s Constitution states none are required.

 

Prior to the presentation Members were advised of the following updates:

 

“An additional objection comment was received and is summarised below:

 

·         Nature of development in the countryside

·         End of life of solar panels

·         Battery storage fire risk

·         Impact on tourism, and

·         Number of Solar Farms in Devon

 

Consideration:  The above comments have previously been addressed within the Officer’s report or are not material planning considerations.  No further comment is required.”

 

In the absence of the Principal Planning Officer, the Development Manager presented the report and informed Members of the main planning considerations.

 

Comments/concerns raised during the debate included:

 

Removal of the mechanism after 40 year lifespan of the development.  Removal is covered by conditions 3,4 & 5 set out in the report.

 

Comments/concerns were made in relation to the Reasons given for conditions 3,4 & 5.  The Planning Manager explained that as slight harm had been identified, all relevant documents had been assessed by an Independent Landscape Consultant who confirmed the landscape was capable of absorbing the solar panel development and acknowledged the scheme would cause a small degree of harm.   The key question was whether the landscape could take that harm and the Officers professional view was the benefits outweighed the harm.

 

Officer Report does not refer to the scale of the development - The Council’s Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to Onshore Wind Energy & Field-Scale Photovoltaic Development in Torridge District gives details of scales of development – the proposed development is much bigger than “scale large” in that document.  The Officer explained the Assessment is a supporting document and not a Policy as Members had stated. Policies are as set out in the Local Plan – Policy is ST16 Renewable Energy.

 

Land classification 1(f) – refers to intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, tranquillity and remoteness.   A large scale industrial development in the countryside will affect the tranquillity and remoteness of the land classification. 

 

Cumulative landscape impact – already 2 in the area.   This has been addressed in the Officers report under 3(b).

 

Should be encouraging panels on brown field sites and roofs of buildings and not on decent farmland.  The Officer confirmed that solar panels on buildings, brown field land etc. are encouraged.

 

Site largely screened by hedgerows – concern that in winter hedgerows will be sparse and therefore not well screened.

 

Loss of agricultural land for 40 years.

 

 

In accordance with the Constitution it was proposed by Councillor Lock, seconded by Councillor Hepple and –

 

Resolved:

 

That in view of the fact 3 hours had elapsed since the meeting had commenced, that the meeting should continue.

 

(Vote:  For – Unanimous)

 

 

The consensus from Members was that although supportive of renewable energy, this was not the right location.

 

The detrimental impact on the environment.

 

Ecology – Objections from Devon Wild Life because there is no up to date reptile survey.    An independent Ecologist had no objections.

 

Advice and clarification on planning matters was given by the Planning Manager and Development Manager throughout the debate.

 

It became evident that Members were minded to refuse the application.  The Planning Manager strongly advised Members against refusal and highlighted the implications and risks involved in so doing.  

 

Members were advised that should the application be refused, robust refusal reasons would be required, together with the relevant policies.

 

The material considerations and the reasons for the Officers recommendation of approval were again highlighted to Members.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Leather that the application be refused.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Lock, seconded by Councillor Hames that the application be approved.

 

A vote was taken on the first motion to refuse.

 

Councillor	For	Against	Abstain
Cllr K Hames		X
Cllr K Hepple	X
Cllr C Leather	X
Cllr R Lock		X
Cllr D Bushby	X
Cllr D Smith	X
Cllr H Thomas	X
Cllr C Wheatley	X
Cllr J Whittaker	X

 

(Vote:  For 7, Against 2)

 

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be refused for the reason that the harm outweighed the benefits.

 

 

Mr L Parton addressed the Committee objecting to the application

Mr S Chapman, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application