Agenda item

1.      The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 23/01361/FULMAJ in respect of the proposed installation and operation of a solar farm with ancillary equipment including inverter and substation house, security cameras, deer fence, new highway access and landscaping scheme.

2.      Mr Jake Brown, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main report.

3.      The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Highways Development Control Team Leader, if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard reported that Highways Officers were satisfied with the proposed access to the site. He confirmed the additional traffic movements that were anticipated both during the construction phase and post construction.

4.      In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Sam Dibas, Parish Council representative, Mr John Lynes, Mr Tom Jones and Mr Stuart Gregory, objectors, and Ms Jane Grindy, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation

5.      Mr Dibas addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=1839

Member Questions to the Parish Council

6.      Members asked questions of clarification of the Parish Councillor and received the following responses:

·       There would be the opportunity for the local community to invest in solar energy.

·       The current usage of the land was for allotments and some grazing. Residents had not raised any concern with regards to the proposed loss of allotment land.

·       The Parish Council had engaged with the local community on this proposal. Positive responses had been received to the resident survey. Residents were invited to public meetings and given the opportunity to ask questions.

·       Some of the Members of Enborne Parish Council were Trustees of the land and a potential conflict of interest was queried. Mr Dibas advised that the process had been fully transparent with public meetings and publicly available documentation. Mr Dibas had personally declared an interest as both a Trustee and Member of the Parish Council.

Objector Representation

7.      Mr Lynes, Mr Jones and Mr Gregory addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=2367

Member Questions to the Objector

8.      Members asked questions of clarification of the objectors and received the following responses:

·       The land had been used for allotments, but this had not been the case for some time.

·       The potentially high cost of decommissioning the site when the time came was of concern. It had not been made clear whether this cost would be met by the developer.

·       The proposal could be more palatable if flood alleviation conditions could be secured, but this would depend on the wording of the conditions.

·       It was confirmed that flooding continued on some areas of the site. For example, the ditch between Spring Gardens and the field was not maintained and resulted in flooding. This was a worsening situation.

·       Drainage to the rear of Spring Gardens did not serve to alleviate the flooding.

·       Residents wanted clarity on the flood mitigation measures that would be implemented. There was currently uncertainty.

Applicant/Agent Representation

9.      Ms Grindy addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=3473

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

10.   Members asked questions of clarification of the applicant/agent and received the following responses:

·       Surplus funds generated from the site would be invested into the local area. The specifics of this investment would be determined by the Charitable Trust formed by the Parish Council.

·       The power generated from the site would be significant. The figures provided in the report had been rounded up, but Ms Grindy clarified that in excess of three million megawatts and over 600 tonnes of carbon would be generated, benefiting over 1000 homes.

·       The aim, in relation to drainage and flooding concerns, was to greatly improve the situation. The application included infiltration measures.

·       Maintenance of the site was a condition of approval, and a contract had been drafted for this purpose. This would include sowing of wild flowers to help water retention, annual grass cutting and sheep grazing.

Ward Member Representation

11.   Councillors Tony Vickers and Dennis Benneyworth addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed on the meeting recording: https://youtu.be/OsOxHdwIxBU?t=4119

Member Questions to the Ward Members

12.   Members asked questions of clarification of the Ward Members and received the following responses:

·       Councillor Vickers called-in the application. He was pleased to see the proposal come forward, but it was important to ensure that the necessary steps were being followed throughout the process.

·       He clarified that the proposed development was being promoted by the Parish Council with its partners.

·       Flooding and drainage issues within the red line of the site were the responsibility of David Wilson Homes and not individual residents. Beyond the red line, it would be necessary for multiple partners, including the Charitable Trust, to work together to resolve these concerns. The Ward Members had suggested that this be taken forward in liaison with residents.

Member Questions to Officers

13.   Members asked questions of clarification and received the following responses:

·       Greater clarity was sought on the comments made in the report from the Council as Lead Local Flood Authority. Mr Paul Bacchus, Principal Engineer, reported that areas of uncertainty had been raised, but he gave an assurance that officers were satisfied with the drainage measures proposed, which would manage flood risk on the site. Conditions would also ensure that any outstanding drainage matters would be addressed. Further confirmation on these points would be provided as part of the Member questions to Officers.

·       Mr Brown clarified that drainage measures were subject to conditions and that it was common practice that full details would not be provided for drainage prior to the granting of planning permission as this was a costly and time consuming burden for applicants. This was therefore a matter for conditions, and applicants would provide further details once they had some certainty that their proposal would be developed. However, Mr Brown added that the applicant had submitted extensive drainage information and officers had been assured that surface water could be adequately managed on site and would not result in flooding external to the site.

·       However, if the results from the infiltration testing were not acceptable then the site would not be developed at that stage. Similarly, the generation of electricity would be prevented until the drainage measures had been completed. Conditions gave controls over the development.

·       A Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Plan had been produced subsequent to the previous application for the site being withdrawn and sought to address existing drainage concerns, both inside and outside the red line. The information on flood risk external to the red line was provided as context.

·       Mr Brown agreed that the wording of condition 4 (drainage measures) could be amended to make clear that the development would not start generating electricity until the drainage measures were implemented in full.

·       Mr Bacchus explained that there was no distinct national guidance on flood risk and drainage for solar farms. However, the nature of these developments meant that any additional surface water run off was minimal. Greater concentration was given to the drainage for access roads for this type of application and measures would be in place for this. The applicant had submitted sufficient information which evidenced that there would not be an increase in surface water run off, with further details secured by conditions. Officers considered that the proposals were acceptable and were satisfied that the proposed drainage measures, which would be fully tested, would manage the surface water run off.

·       There was also some assurance that existing areas of flood risk would not be exacerbated by the development. Discussion would however continue on existing drainage issues external to this meeting.

·       Mr Bacchus clarified that the maintenance strip referred to in the proposal would have its own dedicated drainage.

·       In response to the suggestion that a S106 legal agreement be a consideration for this site to help manage drainage issues, Mr Brown confirmed that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) set an expectation that conditions be secured for a planning application ahead of formulating a S106 legal agreement. Conditions had been secured in relation to drainage matters and for the decommissioning of the site, should planning permission be granted.

·       A deer proof fence was part of the proposal and this would ensure that the grazing sheep would be contained within the site.

Debate

14.   Councillor Adrian Abbs opened the debate. He firstly made the point that the Committee was restricted to considering what was within the red line of the site. He noted that work had already been undertaken to mitigate the impact of the development and conditions would ensure that controls would remain in place, i.e. in terms of drainage and flood risk.

15.   Action needed to be taken on climate change and Councillor Abbs was supportive, on balance, of the application.

16.   Councillor Tony Vickers stated he would, with his fellow Ward Members, take forward the concerns of the Spring Gardens’ residents and seek to resolve the pre-existing issues that had been highlighted.

17.   Councillor Vickers proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and subject to the amendment raised to condition number four. This was seconded by Councillor Antony Amirtharaj who was hopeful that community benefits could be achieved.

18.   Debra Inston, Development Control Team Manager, sought clarification on the amended wording for condition four. The amended paragraph was agreed as ‘The installation of solar panels shall not commence until the drainage measures have been completed in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter, the development shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.’

19.   The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Tony Vickers, seconded by Councillor Antony Amirtharaj to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the report. Condition number four was amended as follows:

4. Drainage Measures

No development shall take place until details of sustainable drainage measures to manage surface water within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  These details shall:

a)       Incorporate the implementation of Sustainable Drainage methods (SuDS) in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS (March 2015), the SuDS Manual C753 (2015) and the WBC SuDS Supplementary Planning Document December 2018 with particular emphasis on Green SuDS and water re-use;

b)       Include attenuation measures to retain rainfall run-off within the site and allow discharge from the site to an existing watercourse or piped system at no greater than 1 in 1 year Greenfield run-off rates;

c)       Include and be informed by a ground investigation survey which establishes the soil characteristics, infiltration rate and groundwater levels. Soakage testing shall be undertaken in accordance with BRE365 methodology;

d)       Include run-off calculations based on current rainfall data models (FEH 2013 preferred), discharge rates (based on 1 in 1 year greenfield run-off rates), and infiltration and storage capacity calculations for the proposed SuDS measures based on a 1 in 100 year storm +40% for climate change;

e)       Include construction drawings, cross-sections and specifications of all proposed SuDS measures within the site;

f)        Ensure permeable paved areas are designed and constructed in accordance with manufacturers guidelines if using a proprietary porous paved block system; otherwise ensure any permeable areas are constructed on a permeable sub-base material, such as MoT/DoT Type 3;

g)       Include a management and maintenance plan showing how the SuDS measures will be maintained and managed after completion for the lifetime of the development.  This plan shall incorporate arrangements for Maintenance or Management Company (private company or Trust) or individual property owners, or any other arrangements, including maintenance responsibilities resting with individual property owners, to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. These details shall be provided as part of a handover pack for subsequent purchasers and owners of the property/premises;

h)       Include measures with reference to Environmental issues which protect or enhance the ground water quality and provide new habitats where possible;

i)        Include details of how surface water will be managed and contained within the site during construction works to prevent silt migration and pollution of watercourses, highway drainage and land either on or adjacent to the site;

j)        Include an Application for an Ordinary Watercourse Consent in case of surface water discharge into a watercourse (i.e stream, ditch etc);

The installation of solar panels shall not commence until the drainage measures have been completed in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter, the development shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner; to prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system can be, and is carried out in an appropriate and efficient manner.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006) and the Sustainable Drainage Supplementary Planning Document (December 2018).  A pre-condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; sustainable drainage measures may require work to be undertaken throughout the construction phase and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.