S/079/01078/22: View the Plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note: If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

 

Applicant:                      Hatton Solar Farms Limited

 

Location:                       Land adjacent Sotby Woods, Sturton Road, Hatton

 

Recommendation:           Approval with Conditions

 

Officer:                          Jane Baker

 

N.B. The Meeting adjourned at 10:45am to give Members the opportunity

to read the Supplementary Agenda that had been tabled.   The Meeting

reconvened at 10:50am.

 

Application Type:         Full Planning Permission

 

Proposal:                     Planning Permission - Installation of a temporary ground mounted 49.9MW solar farm with associated infrastructure, construction of vehicular accesses, CCTV cameras on 2.5m high

poles a 15m high communications tower and security fencing to a maximum height of 2.2m.

 

Location:                      LAND ADJACENT SOTBY WOODS, STURTON ROAD, HATTON

 

Applicant:                    Hatton Solar Farms Limited

 

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission – Installation

of a temporary ground mounted 49.9MW solar farm with associated

infrastructure, construction of vehicular accesses, CCTV cameras on 2.5m

high poles a 15m high communications tower and security fencing to a

maximum height of 2.2m at land adjacent Sotby Woods, Sturton Road,

Hatton.

 

The application was referred to Planning Committee following a previous

committee decision approving the development.  The decision was

challenged via Judicial Review by a local resident on three grounds.  One

of these grounds was that the Council and applicant had failed to address

the requirements of a Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) from 2015

which required applicants to submit the “most compelling evidence” for

why the Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land should be used

over land of lesser quality.  The challenge did not proceed to a full Judicial

Review as the Council agreed to concede on this point and the decision

was subsequently quashed by the Courts.  The application was now before

the Committee again for re-determination based on additional information submitted by the applicant to address this previous omission.

 

The main planning issues were considered to be:

 

• Principle
• Impact on landscape
• Residential amenity
• Impact on heritage assets
• Impact on biodiversity
• Loss of agricultural land
• Site selection and whether the most compelling evidence has been

         demonstrated

• Glint and glare
• Highway safety
• Flood risk and drainage
• Gas main and fire risk
• Local finance considerations

 

Members were referred to the additional information contained on pages 1 to 8 of the Supplementary Agenda.

 

Jane Baker, Senior Planning Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 9 to 11 of the report refer.

 

Mr Philip Kratz (on behalf of the Applicant) and Mr Antony Strawson (Landowner) spoke in support of the application.

 

Ms Emma MacPherson (Resident) spoke in objection to the application.

 

Councillors Daniel Simpson, William Gray and Ru Yarsley spoke as Ward Members.

 

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

 

-      A Member queried whether Hatton Solar Farms Limited had looked at alternative grid connections in other parts of Lincolnshire.  Mr Kratz confirmed that they had and explained that the grid connection was normally the starting point and not the driving part of the proposal as there were many matters to consider.  He further explained that it was possible for the connection to be remote by underground cabling or cabling on wooden poles.  Mr Kratz highlighted that it was not feasible for a proposal of that size to use rooftops for the solar panels.  He also advised that in the future, as solar technology progressed most residents in the district would find themselves living close to a renewable energy site.

 

-      When requested to show evidence of the quality of the land which had been mentioned earlier, Councillor Ru Yarsley referred Members to Paragraphs 7.85 and 7.86 on page 36 of the report.

 

-      When queried whether Hatton Solar Farms Limited had considered wind farms which were capable of generating energy for 1500 homes, Mr Kratz advised that his company only dealt with solar energy.  He also pointed out that the visual impact of a wind turbine was greater than a 2.9m solar panel. 

 

-      A Member queried whether Mr Kratz had considered a solar farm on the coast, in particular the saltmarshes.  Mr Kratz responded that he had not, as it was extremely unlikely that consent would be obtained on the other parts of the process due to environmental concerns.

        

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-      When clarification was requested on how strong a precedent the application would set if approved, the Development Management Lead Officer advised Members that each application was judged on its’ own merit.

 

Following which, the application was Proposed and Seconded for refusal against officer recommendation.

 

The Legal Representative and Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure advised Members that to refuse the application, they were required to quote relevant policies and provide the actual context behind those policies.  Members were referred to the Conclusion section of the report, Paragraph 8.5 on page 49 of the report refers.

 

-      Members offered their reasons for refusal including the impact on a listed building and valued landscape and also the overwhelming effect it would have on the surrounding parishes and countryside.

 

-      A Member once again queried the quality of the land and commented that he believed there was a requirement for a solar farm.

 

Following which, the application was Proposed for approval in line with officer recommendation.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for refusal against officer recommendation, subject to conditions, was carried.

 

Vote:           7 In favour            1 Against              1 Abstention

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be refused subject to the following reasons:

 

N.B. The Committee broke for a comfort break at 11:50am and reconvened at 12.03pm.