Agenda item

Construction of a solar project together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure to include batteries alongside an Electric Vehicle Charging Station, parking, means of access, landscaping and associated development.

Earlier on in the meeting Members of the Committee had declared that they had received “lobbying” material in writing and by email from the Applicant in relation to this Planning Application.

Members were aware that this application was before the Planning Committee following Member Referral Scheme requests from Councillor Paul Clifton (in support) and Councillor Anne Davis (in objection).

It was reported that the whole application site extended to approximately 23 hectares in size which was comprised of two agricultural land parcels. The larger parcel of land (circa 22 hectares) lay to the eastern side of Halstead Road and would contain the proposed solar farm. That parcel of land was situated wholly within a Strategic Green Gap as indicated in the Local Plan policies map. The smaller parcel of land (circa 1 hectare) lay to the western side of Halstead Road and would contain the proposed Eco Hub, which would include the electric vehicle charging station (including café area), battery storage, substation and grid connection point.

The Committee was informed that the supporting information outlined that the delivered capacity of the Solar Farm and the associated storage batteries would be up to 29MW, producing electricity equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of about 6,370 homes. Whereas, the Eco-Hub would include a covered forecourt and canopy with sufficient capacity to simultaneously charge up to 12 rapid and ultra-rapid EVs with a capacity of 43-350kW.

In this case, subject to conditions, it was considered by Officers that there were no adverse impacts upon ecology, residential amenity, highway safety or flood risk. There was also the opportunity to improve biodiversity. The landscape impact was considered by Officers to be relatively local, contained mainly to the Public Right of Way, which crossed, or passed alongside the sites, and limited views from Halstead Road. The same could be said of the Eco-Hub element of the proposals. The landscape impact was therefore considered by Officers to be of moderate harm. In addition, the heritage harm identified was considered to be at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’. Therefore, the localised impact on the area in terms of landscape and heritage was not considered by Officers to be sufficient to recommend refusal especially given the lack of adverse harm in other respects. The development was considered to comply with the Strategic Green Gap policy in respect of not causing the overriding coalescence of Kirby-le-Soken and Kirby Cross. The benefits in respect of biodiversity and the long term benefits to the landscape (when the site was decommissioned) by the planting mitigation to be retained were positive, and the proposal would also deliver net gains in biodiversity which added moderate weight in favour of approval. There would be economic benefits during construction and during the installation's operation, including those associated with the use of the Eco-Hub, namely: the provision of jobs; the creation a community benefits fund; and additional parking provision for users of the nearby school and adjacent recreation land to alleviate congestion concerns along Halstead Road.

Members were reminded that Policy PPL10 advocated for new proposals for renewable energy developments in the District. In this respect the energy generated by the proposed development would contribute to supporting growth in the region, and the carbon emissions saved as a result of generating electricity from a renewable source, would help to tackle climate change and minimise resource use. Significant weight had been given to those considerable benefits. Consequently, the principle of the development was supported at a national level in policy and legal commitments to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions. Overall, the generation of renewable energy was a significant material consideration which weighed substantially in the applications favour and therefore, on balance, the application had been recommended by Officers for approval.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (Matt Lang) in respect of the application. An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting comprising:-

1)     Additional Representations Received - Objections

“- TDC Local Plan has given up on the Green Gap protection to the west of Halstead Road, where an EV charging station is now proposed, to include a shop and other amenities. This will create a severe threat to the viability of the existing post office shop in Walton Road, Kirby le Soken, and if that village post office and shop becomes economically unviable, that will have a severe detrimental effect on village sustainability.

- The creation of swales is said to assist in dispersing the rainwater, at the northern lowest end of the solar farm site. It must be noted that the Finches Park development of 240+ dwellings will also be dispersing rainwater into swales on that Linden Homes (Vistry) site, thus creating a dual flow of surface water to the north of the site, directly adjacent to established housing in Dugmore Avenue.

- Loss of field for parking associated with the village fete. Concerns are the blind bend access dangers, losing the open space, traffic concerns in what was once our beautiful unspoilt quiet little village, the views across the land and looking down the hill to the backwaters, noise, fire risk, emissions from the equipment, business loss to local shops because of the hub, us becoming a town rather than a rural village now. Parking offer for school is ridiculous as don’t walk from current parking on Linden Homes site. Loss of nature habitat too.”

2)     Additional Representations Received - Support

(i)     32 identical signed letters outlining the following:

“- The site is suitable for this type of development as it is located closer to a viable grid connection.

-  This scheme prevents the coalescence of Kirby Cross and Kirby-le-Soken and blocks new house building.

- The temporary planning permission preserves the status of the site as Strategic Green Gap after the site is decommissioned.

- It provides 47 parking spaces, reducing nuisance parking outside the local primary school.

- It provides additional parking to support sport clubs that use Kirby Playing Fields.

- It provides accessible EV Charging for those households without off-street parking.

- It delivers EV Charging locally, ensuring that Kirby doesn’t become a charging ‘blackspot’.

- It brings a net bio-diversity gain with new planting and the preservation of existing footpaths.

- It contributes to a national goal of meeting net-zero climate targets by 2050.

- It generates electricity that is stable and low-cost at a time of record high energy prices.

- It helps secure Britain’s energy supply, reducing energy imports, at a time of global crisis.”

(ii)    Two further letters of support from Kirby Lawn Tennis Club and Thorpe Athletic Football Club stating the following:

“- During many evenings and weekends, the car park at the Kirby Playing Fields fills up with the “over-flow” parking along the land leading to the playing fields becoming congested and causing a problem.

- We are aware that the application includes the provision of 47 parking spaces many of which would be available for use by members of the public, including our members.

- We have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the applicant which seeks to encourage our members to use this additional car parking, helping to reduce the parking problems while providing a convenient place for members with electric and plug-in hybrid cars to charge while they are using our facilities.

- The provision of a café within the development is an economic and social benefit for our organisation and the wider community, something that our members are likely to make use of.

- We support any initiative that generates clean, green renewable energy, such as this proposal to build a solar farm in Kirby.

- The applicant is going to deliver a Community Benefit Fund over its proposed 40-year operating life. Our organisation would be one of the recipients of the proposed funding, allowing us to invest in the long-term provision of sports and leisure facilities locally.”

Matt Partridge, representing the applicant Naturalis Energy Developments Limited, spoke in support of the application.

With the permission of the Chairman, Mr. Partridge read out a written statement from Yuli Power, a member of the public who had been unable to attend the meeting on medical grounds and who was in support of the application.

Roger Parker, a member of the public, spoke against the application.

Town Councillor Nick Turner, acting on behalf of Frinton and Walton Town Council spoke against the application.

Councillor Anne Davis, who had “called-in” this application under the Member Referral Scheme, spoke against the application.

Councillor Paul Clifton, who had also “called-in” this application under the Member Referral Scheme and who was the Ward Member for Kirby Cross, spoke in support of the application.

With the permission of the Chairman, Councillor Clifton read out a written statement on behalf of Councillor Fiona Knowles, the Ward Member for Kirby-le-Soken and Hamford.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Baker and:-

RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officer recommendation of approval, the Planning Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission on the following grounds:-

“The development of solar panels, if approved, would result in development of land within the Policy PPL 6 designation of Strategic Green Gap.  By reason of the development’s form, scale, siting and location it would result in detrimental impact to the open and undeveloped character of the land, and reduce, interrupt and remove a visual break for a significant time between settlements.  The proposal would result in the coalescence of settlements and fail to protect their separate identity.  On this basis, the development is contrary to Local Plan Policies PPL6, PPL3, SPL3 and Paragraph 158 of the NPPF as the impacts of the proposal to the area are not considered to be, or able to be, made acceptable.”