Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and with the aid of a powerpoint presentation showed the site and proposed plans.  He updated members that no further objection had been received from Milborne Port Parish Council on the amended scheme, although there is concern regarding the potential visual impact on the local surroundings.

He confirmed that the key considerations included:

·         Principle of Development

·         Landscape Character and Visual Appearance

·         Impact on Heritage Assets

·         Highway Safety

·         Residential Amenity

The Planning Officer told members that the original scheme had now been amended to reduce the area covered by the solar array and therefore made for a more compact site.  His recommendation was therefore to approve the application as detailed in the agenda report. 

Pamela Alexander, Representative of Milborne Port Parish Council, addressed the committee.  She confirmed that the Parish Council had no further objections to the amended scheme, however she requested that concerns be noted including:

·         The proposed development is adjacent to a relatively new housing estate.

·         Proposed access is located on a sharp bend in the road.

·         Considerable visual impact on the millennium view point.

·         If application approved requested that direct financial community benefit is guaranteed and that the adjacent site is not used for future development.

Sally Phipps spoke in objection to the application. She voiced her concerns regarding the visual impact the scheme would have on the surrounding countryside including tarnishing the beautiful views from many view points in the area.

Lilian Elsa also spoke in objection to the application.  She expressed her concern regarding the use of what is excellent agricultural land and the wildlife benefits of the current land use.  She felt that covering farmland with Solar Parks was not acceptable and should simply be kept to brownfield sites.

Mr Wai-Kit Chung, the applicant addressed the committee.  He reported that they were offering local people the chance to invest in the scheme and that this would financially support local projects.  He also explained that a suitable landscape scheme would be undertaken and that the land would continue to be used for agricultural use including the grazing of sheep on the land.  He said there would be direct feed to the nearby sub-station therefore reducing the need for lengthy cabling and concluded that all statutory consultees had raised no objections to the application.

Mr Gregory Evans the agent, explained that the scheme would produce electricity for over 900 local homes each year and that this was a small scheme offering financial community benefit to the local area.  He explained the scheme was temporary and therefore the land would return to normal use after the solar term had ended.  He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) where clear advice states that renewable energy projects be supported where possible.  He concluded that no other viable land is available for this area.

Councillor Tim Inglefield spoke on behalf of Councillor Sarah Dyke-Bracher (Ward member) in her absence to express her concerns on the application.  These included the severe impact the development would have on the views from the Millennium View Point and the severe impact the solar array would have on the character and appearance of the countryside.  It was suggested a site visit by members be taken for members to truly appreciate the outstanding area of countryside.

Councillor Tim Inglefield said he agreed with these comments and also felt the application would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside.  He understood that currently there were several other Photovoltaic (PV) Arrays within the area and was concerned at the cumulative impact they would have on the local area.

During members’ discussion, several concerns regarding the application were made including the following:

·         Need to safeguard the outstanding views of the area.

·         Scheme would be extremely intrusive of the countryside.

·         Loss of good agricultural land.

·         Concern regarding the Cumulative impact of PV Arrays in the area.

·         Priority should be given to Brownfield sites.

·         Completely ruin the views for the Millennium viewpoint.

·         Little weight should be given from appeal decisions relating to comparable schemes.

Members also raised comments in support of the application which included:

·         NPPF suggests authorities should look to positively promote renewable energy.

·         Financial benefit to local community.

·         Appreciate the views and natural beauty of the area however development taking place continually.

·         Noted the support of the Parish Council.

·         Any cumulative impact would not be a reason to reject the scheme.

·         Consideration should be given to appeal decision relating to comparable schemes.

Members then discussed and proposed that the application be deferred for a members site visit to take place.  This was lost by 3 votes in favour and 5 against.

During a short debate, members led by the Area Leads North/East discussed and suggested reasons for refusal.  It was then proposed and subsequently seconded that planning permission be refused, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons as read out by the Area Leads North/East.

‘Notwithstanding the benefits that would stem from renewable, low carbon power generation, the proposed solar park would be sited in close proximity to an overlooking ridge from which there are publicly accessible viewing points, including the purpose built millennium viewing area. The introduction of a large scale installation of photovoltaic panels, and associated infrastructure would constitute an alien feature within this highly distinctive and publicly viewable 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)’.

On being put to the vote this was carried by 5 votes in favour, 4 against and 0 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That application 15/02187/FUL be refused for the following reason:

‘Notwithstanding the benefits that would stem from renewable, low carbon power generation, the proposed solar park would be sited in close proximity to an overlooking ridge from which there are publicly accessible viewing points, including the purpose built millennium viewing area. The introduction of a large scale installation of photovoltaic panels, and associated infrastructure would constitute an alien feature within this highly distinctive and publicly viewable 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: 5 in favour, 4 against. 0 abstentions)