Agenda item

1.    The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 24/02810/FULMAJ in respect of the installation of 4860 ground mounted photovoltaic panels, in an equine field, to provide power to the commercial buildings within the grounds and to export to the Local Grid at Hungerford Park.

2.    Ms Cheyanne Kirby 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 if he had any observations relating to the application. He noted the following:

·       It was projected there were going be 20 large vehicles travelling in and out on a daily basis during the course of construction.

·       He noted that there were two haul routes considered. The primary route was via Priory Road to the south with an alternative route via Park Street to the north. These haul routes had been secured by condition and a swept path analysis had been secured by condition for large vehicles using the site.

·       The traffic usage for the site after the construction phase was very low and was not going to cause traffic concerns.

4.    In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Helen Simpson, Town Council representative, and Mr Graham Welchman-Taylor, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

5.    Ms Helen Simpson addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 23 July 2025 (21:34)  

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

6.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Her understanding was that the North Wessex Downs team had not been asked to comment on this application.

·       A caravan at Hungerford Park had been refused planning permission in 2013.

Agent Representation

7.    Mr Graham Welchman-Taylor addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 23 July 2025(27:02)

Member Questions to the Agent

8.    Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The system had been designed with the primary focus of providing energy to the estate during the darker months and as a result there was a significant excess during the summer months that could be sold back to the grid.

·       As part of the Construction Management Plan, reasonable delivery times were to be outlined. Discussions had been held with the applicant and the contractors with regard to this.

·       A third of the energy produced on the site was to be used by the site and two thirds were to be exported back to the grid.

·       Decommissioning of a solar panel site was relatively quick and the site could be returned to its natural state within 3-4 months.

·       An assessment had been carried out to determine whether roof mounted installation was viable however this was only likely to generate a small percentage of the energy required.

Ward Member Representation

9.    Councillor Tony Vickers addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here:

Western Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 23 July 2025 - YouTube (41:25)

Member Questions to the Ward Member

10. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       The quality of the agricultural land was a material factor, but he was not qualified to comment on that fact. The North Wessex Downs tried to look holistically at that.

Member Questions to Officers

11. Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Cheyanne Kirby advised that the site was classed as equestrian use and as a result was not considered agriculture. The balance would be different if the land was an arable field but officers had to base their decision on the site’s usage as it was.

·       Cheyanne Kirby informed Members that the DEFRA map was created in layers and did not specifically select each site. It provided a general census of the whole of the land, meaning that the broader area was seen as 3b but this specific segment of the land was not in agricultural use.

·       Cheyanne Kirby advised that no objection letters had been received.

·       Cheyanne Kirby noted that this was a major development as anything over 0.5 hectares was considered major in planning terms, however the development itself was not necessarily considered major development. A Landscape and Visual Appraisal had been submitted and onsite the proposal was considered to have moderate visual impact whereas the wider views were seen as being subject to low visual impact which was to be further mitigated by the planting of hedgerows and trees.

·       Paul Goddard informed Members that the use of large vehicles on site for the purpose of this application was only ever expected to be temporary in nature during the construction phase and as a result would have created very little traffic impact.

·       Paul Goddard advised that there were no safety mitigation measures put forward and that he did not consider that the number of vehicle movements projected were sufficient for the authority to consider any mitigation.

·       Cheyanne Kirby advised that a specific construction management plan was not listed amongst the conditions, but specific requirements could be included within the conditions.

·       Bob Dray advised that the North Wessex Downs team had been consulted on the application on the 24^th February but had not responded to the consultation.

·       Bob Dray advised there was no preclusion for Solar Farms within the AONB which meant each site was considered on its merits. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) did determine that major development within an AONB was to be avoided unless under exceptional circumstances, however, officers had determined that this proposal did not constitute a major development.

·       Cheyanne Kirby advised that the NPPF historically resisted solar arrays in an AONB and encouraged councils to build these in areas outside of the national landscape. She advised that this had changed in more recent versions of the NPPF with more concern paid to listed buildings and conservation areas. The national policy was to prioritise solar arrays. She highlighted that the West Berkshire local plan contained a climate change policy that stated net zero.

·       Paul Goddard advised that highways officers had looked into concerns about the impact of large vehicles in Park Street. The authority was keen to avoid large vehicles travelling to the site through Kintbury and recommended that it was better that they entered the site through the A338. He noted that they would ideally have liked to have had the swept path analysis in front of them but this had not happened as of yet.

Debate

12. Councillor Adrian Abbs opened the debate by noting that there had been a change to the NPPF which altered the weight afforded to sites such as the one proposed. Ultimately, he felt that officers had weighted things correctly on this application highlighting that the usage was reversible. He could see no policy reason to go against officers’ recommendations.

13. Councillor Tony Vickers highlighted that so few comments on planning applications were received from the North Wessex Downs as they only had one planner who covered 7 local planning authorities which received 600 planning applications every week. He felt it was important for Members to contact them directly if they had concerns about specific applications affecting the North Wessex Downs Natural Landscape.

14. Councillor Paul Dick echoed Councillor Abbs’ comments.

15. Councillor Antony Amirtharaj felt that it was important to look beyond the net zero gain bought about by the proposal, he was concerned about the loss of agricultural land. His view was that the access route was dangerous and felt that there were not satisfactory mitigation plans in place to ensure that the entry point was safe. He felt it was important that additional conditions were put in place to ensure the safety aspect, or at least to monitor the safety of the entry point. Bob Dray advised the additional condition related to the Construction Management Plan which could include details of safety requirements.

16. Councillor Howard Woollaston shared Councillor Amirtharaj’s concerns but noted that there were only to be 20 HGV movements over the course of the construction which allayed his concerns. He found no reason to refuse this proposal as it met all of the Council’s priorities.

17. Councillor Denise Gaines congratulated the Hungerford Town Council representative on an excellent presentation. She was torn on the application as she was not keen on the development from a personal perspective, but from both a local and national policy perspective could see no reason to reject it. As a result she felt there was little choice but to go with officer’s recommendations.

18. Councillor Paul Dick proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report with an additional condition that a Construction Management Statement be submitted including safety measures. This was seconded by Councillor Howard Woollaston.

19. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Dick, seconded by Councillor Woollaston 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 listed in the main report with an additional condition that a Construction Management Statement be submitted including safety measures.