Agenda item

The following item will be considered at 11am:

1.  24/03894/FUL - Parcel 2882, Water Lane, Paulton, Bristol, Bath And North East Somerset

The Committee considered:

1.  A report by the Head of Planning on the applications under the site visit applications list.

2.  Oral statements by members of the public and representatives.  A copy of the speakers’ list is attached as Appendix 1 to these minutes.

RESOLVED that in accordance with the delegated powers, the applications be determined as set out in the site visit applications decisions list attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes.

1.  24/03894/FUL - Parcel 2882, Water Lane, Paulton, Bristol

The Planning Officer introduced the report which considered an application for the temporary installation of a ground-mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) farm with battery storage along with continued agricultural use, ancillary infrastructure and security fencing, landscaping provision, ecological enhancements and associated works.  The application had been deferred from the previous meeting for a site visit.

The Committee was advised of the following updates:

1.  There had been 2 new objections submitted, and these were sent directly to the Committee and a copy was included in the public file. 

2.  In light of these submissions there was an update to the report to confirm that in terms of the landscape sensitivity assessment, the site was in area 7c and not 3b.  The planning application has been assessed as being in an area of low potential so there was no substantive change.  The amended wording of paragraphs 5 and 6 on page 24 was as follows:

"The Policies Map illustrates the geographically assessed landscape potential for renewable energy development within the district. A landscape led approach, based on the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (LSA) for Renewable Energy Development (LUC, 2021), is set out by the Council. The proposed development is a Band D solar development (which covers 15-30 hectares). The application site is located within area 7C (Peasedown St John Ridge), which has low potential for Band C solar development (10-15 hectares) and low potential for Band D solar development. The proposals are a Band D proposal. The LSA clarifies that the maps within it should always be used alongside the assessment information and guidance prepared. The results are based on a strategic assessment of landscape potential, As such, the information shown does not replace the need for full technical assessments for individual sites as part of the planning process.

Therefore, each application must be assessed on its own merits and there is no reason why applications cannot come forward in areas set out in the LSA which have low potential for solar development of different scales. Impacts to landscape are further assessed within this report.”

3.  The comments received set out that the development was a Nationally

Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) as it would generate more than 50MW of electricity. This was not correct as the solar panels would generate 9.2MW and the battery storage would allow storage capacity of 49.5MW.  The batteries themselves were not generators of electricity

4.  The EIA process had regard to the decommissioning process as

this was part of the project.

5.  The applicant had submitted a briefing note which set out why rooftop/brownfield site solar was not a substitute for ground mounted solar.

The Case Officer confirmed the officers’ recommendation that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the report. 

The following public representations were received:

1.  Richard Slater and Dan Cains, local residents, objecting to the application.

2.  Callum Wright and Luke Shackleton, applicants, supporting the application.

Cllr Liz Hardman was in attendance as adjacent ward Councillor and read a statement on behalf of herself, Cllr Grant Johnson and Paulton Parish Council summarised as below:

1.  The ward Councillors and Paulton Parish Council were in favour of the application. 

2.  The application site was well screened with noise mitigations and traffic management measures would be in place during construction.

3.  The majority oflocal residents were in favour of the applications.

4.  There were concerns about the POC mast, but these were mitigated by it being sited near the electricity pylon.

5.  Low quality agricultural land would be lost but this would be balanced against renewable energy supply.

6.  The applicant had pledged support for the local community, and it was hoped that this could be pursued including a reduction in energy costs for local residents.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed:

1.  The land was graded as agricultural land grade 3a.  Although the NPPF directed development away from grades 1, 2 and 3a, the Council’s placemaking plan policy RE5 only related to from grades 1 and 2.  Policy RE5 was considered to be sound in the context of the NPPF and there had also been an assessment to consider if the sustainability benefits outweighed the loss of agricultural land.  Officers had concluded that there were significant sustainability benefits which would outweigh the loss of agricultural land.

2.  In terms of battery storage and safety measures, there was a condition to secure confirmation of fire safety compliance. 

3.  In relation to why a POC mast would be used rather than underground cables, this was a viability issue in terms of connecting with the national grid.

4.  There would be a major impact on the view of the site from the public right of way during the first year, but this would downgrade to moderate harm as the additional hedgerow planting would grow to screen the development. 

5.  There would be 49 storage containers in total, 36 for Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) covering an area of approximately 2 hectares. 

6.  The application would result in built form, but it was not in the green belt and there would still be a significant gap between Paulton and Midsomer Norton. 

7.  The application was temporary for 45 years, there could be a period of decommissioning, but this would need to be completed within a reasonable timescale.  Any change to the lifetime of the development would need to be agreed by the Council. 

8.  The applicant’s offer to give money to the local community was outside of the planning process and was not a material consideration.  The public benefits considered by officers included the production of renewable energy, significant biodiversity net gains and the creation of new jobs through construction and maintenance of the site.

Cllr Shaun Hughes opened the debate as ward Councillor and reported that he had received representations from local residents both supporting and objecting to the application.  He expressed concerns about the loss of grade 3a agricultural land, which was against NPPF, the visual impact of the POC mast, the safe storage of the batteries and traffic management during the construction phase.  He was further concerned that there would be no direct benefits for local residents in terms of reduced energy costs and confirmed he would not support the application. 

Cllr Ian Halsall expressed the view that there would be benefits in terms of achieving net zero targets and that there would be appropriate mitigations.  He recognised that there were moderate adverse impacts but these were outbalanced by the public benefits in terms of renewable energy production, biodiversity net gain and the creation of jobs.

Cllr Toby Simon concurred with this view and emphasised the importance of retaining good agricultural use alongside the development.  He proposed that officers be delegated to permit the application with an addition to the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan to require details of agricultural /horticultural land uses such as animal grazing that would take place alongside the solar farm operation.  This was seconded by Cllr Ian Halsall.

Cllr Tim Warren spoke against the motion expressing concern about the loss of agricultural land and questioning the long-term benefits of the development. 

Cllr Fiona Gourley spoke in support of the motion and the proposal to ensure an ongoing agricultural use for the land alongside the development.

On voting for the motion, it was CARRIED (7 in favour and 3 against).

RESOLVED that officers be delegated to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report with an addition to the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan condition to require details of agricultural /horticultural land uses such as animal grazing that will take place alongside the solar farm operation.