Meeting documents

Councillor Sue Steele having declared a personal and prejudicial interest left the meeting prior to the presentation of this application.

 

Councillor Shane Pledger returned to the room and resumed the role of Chairman.

 

Proposal: Proposed solar park comprising the erection of solar arrays, inverters, transformers, equipment housing, security fencing, internal tracks, ancillary equipment and ecological mitigation measure.

 

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda. She informed members that two further letters of objection had been received but they did not raise any new issues. It was explained this was a revised application with a reduced area from the original application. She noted government guidance regarding these types of proposals, and highlighted the Landscape Officer comments regarding the landscape impact. She acknowledged there would be some harm, but on balance, not so great as to outweigh the benefit of the proposal.

 

Mr R Bates, spokesman for Aller Parish Council, Mr B Tyler, spokesman for Burrowbridge Parish Council and Mr C Palmer, spokesman for High Ham Parish Council addressed members in objection to the application. Their comments included:

·         Tourism is important as well as farming and agriculture, need to think of tourists using the Parrett Trail and visiting Burrowbridge

·         Historical significance of Aller Church should not be forgotten

·         Acknowledge site had been selected due to proximity to pylons

·         Considered to be clearly against policy and will impact on the landscape

·         Government policy makes it clear that local communities should be able to influence decision and there had been much objection to the proposal from Aller and neighbouring parishes

·         Burrowbridge Parish Council had not been officially informed of the application although residents of Stathe would overlook the site

·         Site will be very visible from elevated points

·         Not against farm diversification or renewable energy, but 240 objections is a significant number of people saying proposal is not wanted

·         Reference to the Local Plan about diversification proposals should be of a suitable size and site r3elative to the location

·         Many local people have made their feelings known and want to protect the area

 

Members were then addressed by a number of objectors: Ms T Hitchings spoke about landscape and visual impact, Mr A Crutchfield about tourism; Ms A Kennedy about history and archaeology, Mr H Best on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Ms C Sessions about site selection, Mr A Elfick about localism, Mr D Muldoon on behalf of Bridgwater Bay Wildfowlers, Ms G Bentham about ecology, Ms E Major about local impact, and Ms D Dean provided a summary. Their comments included:

·         Inappropriate for this location, will be an industrial installation in an open landscape. The unique landscape must be preserved.

·         It will be visible from many locations and will be seen as a sea of glass on rising ground and will dominate the landscape for miles around.

·         The area is an open landscape with minimal hedging and bounded by rhynes.

·         Local people care for Aller Moor deeply, and communities surrounding the site depended on tourism, with cyclists, walkers and birdwatchers visitng throughout the year.

·         Long term tourism would be served a massive injustice if this proposal is approved.

·         No community benefit from this application

·         Aller’s history is important, and proposals such as this would not be considered near other historical locations.

·         55 acres of glass and steel will destroy the integrity of this historical setting.

·         There is no clear information about the land grading classification

·         Policies say should avoid open countryside and minimal overlooking where panels will be seen in the open landscape.

·         A report supplied by the agents included a number of failures including information about what would, in reality,  be non-achievable ecology mitigation measures

·         Only about five letters of support for the application.

·         Not nimbyism, but the application is inappropriate. Local people recognise the local area is one of the few remaining wetland areas in the UK.

·         The Solar Trade Association (STA) has 10 commitments of good practice and, don’t feel BSR are following, and this site will not be using low grade land.

·         Aller Moor is home to many migrant birds and a nesting site. Quotes from the STA refer to damage to birds when they crash into panels mistakingly thinking them to be a lake –the lake effect.

·         Ecology in the area is continuous with nationally important species, and red-listed species are associated with the site.

·         Habitat and fragmentation will be unavoidable.

·         Mitigation measures show further landscaping of hedges but this is not a natural feature in this landscape.

·         As no post-construction plan, no measures to protect wildlife.

·         Likely to be run-off contamination to water courses during construction.

·         There are anomalies with the construction and transport management plan.

·         Residents will effectively be prisoners in their own homes due to traffic during construction.

·         Don’t need another solar farm in Somerset, there are already around 45. Solar won’t work at a 6pm peak on a winter day.

·         One of the country’s oldest moors with dynamic views is not a suitable localtion fir this installation.

·         Do the comments about landscape and visual impact really follow the NPPF?

·         This unique pocket of farmland on the Somerset Levels and Moors should be protected.

·         25 years is not temporary, it’s a generation.

 

Ms R Merry, supporter, commented that the country was nowhere near targets for renewable energy. She noted that at some time everyone would need to make a sacrifice for the future. Reference was made to international energy and the need to accelerate solar. She noted she was not anti nature and ecology, but supported the application in order to maintain the wider landscape.

 

Mr A Maltby, applicant, noted that farming, especially dairy, was in crisis. Climate change will change weather patterns globally, and he referred to national guidance about ambitions for energy generation. He noted the land underneath the panels would continue to be grazed. He clarified that the lower land on the site could only be farmed to grade 3A, and that the NFU in their consultation documents supported the application.

 

Agents, Mr N Roberts, Mr A MacDonald  and Mr J Perez then addressed members and their comments included:

·         Key changes made in this application compared to the original, and the amended scheme had reduced the visual impact.

·         Situated on the farm where least visual impact, but acknowledge will be visible from footpath and properties at Aller Ridge.

·         Planting would screen the site and English heritage had confirmed it would not adversely affect the setting of Burrow Mump or Aller Church.

·         17MW farm would generate power for 3,500 homes over a year which equated to to local communities as far away as Long Sutton.

·         In light of requests from third parties they had sourced additional highway data and the impact of glare from the panels.

·         Consulted closely with SCC Highways regarding concerns about lorries along Church Path. A trial had been run using 16.5m lorries, and they could manoeuvre with only slightly touching the verge at the bridge corner, but this would be reinstated.after construction Acknowledged cutting back hedges will be necessary.

·         At another site accessed along a single track road, over a greater distance and passing a school, compliments had been received from locals that the construction traffic had been managed professionally.

 

Ward member, Councillor Shane Pledger, expressed strong concerns about the impact of the proposal and commented that the visual impact on the moor made him shudder. He acknowledged solar power was need but this was the wrong location.

 

During the ensuing discussion, comments raised by members included:

·         When visiting the site, the main point of note was the tranquillity of the site.

·         Need tourism, it’s unspoilt landscape that should stay.

·         Sheep can only graze at low density under the panels due to damage.

·         Site is in the middle of open landscape.

·         There aren’t lots of hedges it’s ditched. Ecology and wildlife is precious and cannot be replaced.

·         Never had so many letters and emails about an application in the 12 years as a councillor.

·         Impressed by conduct of the audience and speakers.

·         55 Acres of good arable land for growing food.

·         Difficult to graze beneath panels and will end up spraying.

·         Every sympathy for the farmer, but feel this proposal is too big and in the short term, the planting will make little difference.

·         SSDC  Engineer comments about some elements of the proposal may be submerged is very significant.

·         The proposal is too large and in a very sensitive area.

·         Support renewable energy but in the right place. This will be large built form in open countryside.

·         Concerned that the NFU are supporting the farmer in this way.

 

It was proposed to refuse the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, based primarily upon the visual and landscape impact.

 

On hearing the comments made, the Area Lead noted that clearly visual and landscape issues were a concern. Comments raised by the public about highways and ecology were not support by consultee responses. He suggested that a reason for refusal should be based on the landscape characteristics. He read out the suggested wording for the refusal and this was agreed by members.

 

The proposal to refuse the application with the wording for refusal as suggested by the Area Lead, was put to the vote and carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED:

That planning application 14/04300/FUL be REFUSED, contrary to the officer recommendation, for the following reason:   Notwithstanding the benefits that would stem from renewable, low carbon power generation, the proposed solar park would be sited on the Somerset Moors, a flat, open, wetland landscape characterised by pasture and wetland, divided by rhynes, pollarded willows and occasional withy beds, with virtually no buildings and a general absence of hedges. The introduction of a large scale installation of photovoltaic panels, associated infrastructure and hedgerow planting, covering some 22 hectares, would constitute an alien feature within this highly distinctive landscape that would erode the landscape character and local distinctiveness to the detriment of visual amenity . as such the proposal is contrary to Policies EQ1 and EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan 2006-2028 and the policies contained with the National Planning Policy Framework, specifically Chapter 11 and the Core Planning Principles set out at paragraph 17 (bullet points 5 and 7).

(Voting: Unanimous)