Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

Reference: Site: 15/00877/FUL Petroplus, land part of Area 418. Coryton Refinery, The Manorway, Stanford-le-Hope

Ward: Proposal: Corringham and Full planning permission for the installation and operation of a Fobbing ground mounted solar photovoltaic array to generate electricity of up to 5MW capacity comprising photovoltaic panels, inverters, security fencing and cameras and other associated infrastructure.

Plan Number(s): Reference Name Received 15K62-CV-GS-101 Rev. AB Site Location 21.12.15 15K62-CV-GS-104 Rev. AA Site Plan 21.09.15 15K62-EL-LY-101 Rev. AC Layout 21.12.15 15K62-EL-LY-101 A Rev. AB Layout 21.09.15 15K62-EL-LY-101 B Rev. AB Layout 21.09.15 15K62-EL-LY-101 C Rev. AB Layout 21.09.15 15K62-EL-LY-101 D Rev. AB Layout 21.09.15 15K62-HS-LY-104 Rev. AA CCTV Layout & CCTV Pole Details 21.09.15 15K62-CV-FC-103 Rev. AA Fence & Gate Details 21.09.15 15K62-CV-HS-101 Rev. AA Inverter Housing Elevation 21.09.15 15K06-CV-HS-102 Rev. AA Control Cabin Elevation 21.09.15 15K06-CV-HS-103 Rev. AA Storage Container Elevation 21.09.15 15K62-EL-PA-101 Rev. AA PV Array Elevation 21.09.15 15K62-EL-CR-101 Rev. AA Cable Route & PoC 21.09.15

The application is also accompanied by:  Design and Access Statement  Environmental Statement, including:

- Screening Opinion - Layout of the Development - Landscape and Visual Assessment - Preliminary Ecological Assessment - Botanical Survey - Great Crested Newt Survey - Breeding Bird Survey - Reptile Survey - Water Vole Survey - Invertebrate Survey Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

- Flood Risk Assessment - Non-Technical Assessment

 Planning Statement

Applicant: Validated: Sun4Net Limited 22 September 2015 Date of expiry: 12 January 2016 Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions.

1. Background And Description Of Proposal

1.1 This application proposes the construction and operation of a photovoltaic (PV) solar farm which would produce electricity for export to the National Grid. The proposals would involve development on a parcel of land generally located to the north of the former Petroplus refinery site and to the east of Fobbing Marshes. The basic details of the planning application are summarised in the table below:

Site area Gross site area – 11.8 Ha Area occupied by PV panels – 8.8 Ha Maximum no. of PV rows Approximately 50 rows across 2 parcels of land Power Output 5 MWp (sufficient to supply up to 2,150 homes) Ancillary development  2 x Inverter and MV Stations comprising an inverter (max. 8.75m (l) x max. 2.5m (w) x max. 3.15m (h)), transformer (1.9m (l) x 1.7m (w) x 2.45m (h) and cabinet (max. 3.1m (l) x max. 2.4m (w) x max. 3.5m (h))  1 x control cabinet (max. 7.5m (l) x max. 4.7m (w) x max. 3.1m (h))  1 x storage container (max. 7.2m (l) x max. 3.45m (w) x max. 3m (h))  Perimeter fencing max. 2.5m high  CCTV columns max. 4m high (40 no. in total)  Internal access tracks Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

1.2 The proposed installation would provide up to 5MWp of electricity which is to be supplied to the National Grid electricity network. The application suggests that the solar farm would generate enough electricity for an estimated 2,150 homes. Planning permission is sought for an operational period of 25 years, after which it is proposed to remove the PV installation, with all of its supporting infrastructure, and restore the land to its current state.

1.3 The development involves the installation of PV panels or modules in a series of rows aligned east to west, the rows are referred to as PV arrays. Detailed specifications of the panels proposed at the site have not been provided. However, a typical PV panel measures approximately 1.6m x 1m. The panels would be fixed and stationary and would not track to follow the movement of the sun. The panels would be mounted on an aluminium framework which would be assembled on-site such that the panels are tilted to face south at an angle of approximately 20o from the horizontal. The panels would be positioned between 0.8m-1m above ground level and to a maximum height of 2.3m above ground level. Each row of panels would be separated by a clear corridor measuring between 3.4m and 4.4m. A site layout drawing suggests that a maximum of 40 rows of panels would be provided, split into two separate ‘banks’ of 28 rows and 32 rows. However, the precise number of PV panels and rows on the sites would be determined at the detailed design stage taking into account topography, shading and mitigation measures. Columns supporting the frames which hold the panels will be sunk some 1.5m into the ground to provide stability against wind resistance.

1.4 The illustrative site layout drawing suggests that the PV arrays would be arranged on the site to maintain a clear corridor to the site boundaries. Additional clear corridors would be maintained adjacent to watercourses which bisect the site on land within the control of the applicant, although outside of the application site.

1.5 Rows of PV panels would be connected to an inverter which would convert DC output from the panels to AC. A total of 2 inverters are proposed and each would be housed in an enclosure with a transformer. A grid connection control cabin would be provided together with a distribution network operator sub-station, located at the south-western corner of the site in order to export power from the development to the national grid. The applicant states that connection to the National Grid will be via an underground cable linking to an existing UK Power Networks’ sub-station located close to the A1014 roundabout junction south-west of the site. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

1.6 The boundaries of the site would be secured by maximum 2.5m high galvanised steel mesh deer fencing. The fencing would incorporate mammal access points and at locations where the internal access track bisects the boundary fence a welded mesh steel gate (coloured moss green) would be provided. At intervals around the site perimeter CCTV cameras would be mounted on top of poles, with each pole a maximum of 4m in height. A total of 40 cameras would provide surveillance for the site.

1.7 Access into the site would be taken from an existing private road serving Thames Oilport which forms the north-eastern arm of the A1014 roundabout. Gravel access tracks would be constructed within the site to be used during construction, operation and de-commissioning of the solar farm. The construction phase of development would last for approximately 12 weeks. During operation, there would be occasional visits to the site for security and maintenance purposes.

1.8 Process

The application proposes development subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, therefore, the application has been accompanied by an EIA. The EIA considers the environmental effects of the proposed development during construction and also when operational and includes measures either to prevent, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. The findings of the EIA are presented in an Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with the application. The ES is accompanied by a number of technical appendices. The contents of the EA are listed in the supporting documents section of this report.

1.9 The Council has a statutory duty to consider environmental matters and an EIA is an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development are fully understood and taken into account before development proceeds. EIA is, therefore, an integral component of the planning process for significant developments. EIA leads to improved decision making by providing the development control process with better information. EIA not only helps to determine whether development should be permitted but also facilitates the drafting of planning conditions and legal agreements in order to control development, avoid or mitigate adverse effects and enhance beneficial effects. It is vital that the environmental issues raised by the application are assessed in a robust and transparent manner.

1.10 In order to fulfil the requirements of the EIA Regulations it is necessary to ensure (a) that the Council has taken into account the environmental Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

information submitted, and (b) that any planning permission granted is consistent with the development which has been assessed. To achieve this second objective the Council has the ability to impose conditions and secure mitigation measures by Section 106 obligations.

2. Site Description

2.1 The application site generally comprises an area of open land located to the north of the Thames Oilport / Thames Enterprise Park (former Coryton refinery) site. The site is irregular in shape and consists of an unused area dense scrub, scattered scrub and poor semi-improved grassland. Small areas of standing water are located with the site and drainage ditches and watercourses principally form the northern and western site boundaries. The site is not used for agricultural purposes and appears to have naturally developed a scrub habitat after former uses on the site ceased.

2.2 Historically, the site formed part of Corringham and Fobbing grazing marshes. From the 1890’s the site formed part of the Kynoch munitions manufacturing and storage factory complex. Ordnance Survey maps from the 1920’s show the site bisected by a network of tramways connecting detached factory / storage buildings, many of which are contained within bunded blast-pens. By the late 1930’s the munitions factory buildings had been largely removed and maps from the 1960’s show the site cleared of former structures.

2.3 To the north of the site is the tidal flood defence, with Holehaven Creek SSSI beyond. To the west of the site is open grazing marshland forming part of the non-statutory Corringham / Fobbing Marsh local nature reserve. Land further west forms the Fobbing and Vange Marshes SSSI. To the south of the site is operational land within Thames Oilport.

2.4 The site is allocated as ‘Oil Refinery Land’ on the adopted interim proposals map accompanying the LDF Core Strategy. Land to the west of the site is allocated as ‘Oil Refinery Expansion Area’ whilst land to the north and east is within the Green Belt. The site is located within the high risk flood zone (Zone 3a) but benefits from flood defenced nearby. Underground LPG and gas pipelines pass east to west through the central part of the site. According to Environment Agency records the site is located on an old landfill, which received a range of waste materials including bitumen, refinery waste and asbestos from 1978 until 1993 when the Waste Management Licence was surrendered. As a result of the historic landfilling ground levels across the site are slightly higher (1-2m) than levels on the adjoining grazing marsh. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

3. Relevant History

Reference Description Decision

81/00618/FUL Vehicle parking area Approved 91/00678/OUT Outline application for new administrative Approved buildings, control building, research and test laboratory building , truck maintenance building car parking contractors compound and access road 06/00640/TTGFUL Construction of 12.73 kilometre Approved underground natural gas pipeline between Canvey and Stanford le Hope and Above Ground Installation at Stanford Le Hope terminal 15/00648/SCR Request for Screening Opinion of the local EIA Required planning authority pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations - Proposed solar farm

3.1 Planning permission ref. 81/00618/FUL principally involved land adjoining the site but did include the southern extremity of the current site. The works approved by did not affect the current application site. Planning permission ref. 91/00678/OUT included the majority of the current application site, however this permission was not implemented. Planning permission ref. 06/00640/TTGFUL involved a corridor of land within the current application site.

4. Consultations And Representations

4.1 Detailed below is a summary of the consultation responses received. Full text versions are available on the Council’s website at: www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/14/01278/FUL

PUBLICITY:

4.2 The application has been publicised by the display of a site notice, a newspaper advertisement and consultation with relevant consultees and landowners. The proposals have been advertised as being accompanied by an Environmental Statement and as a major development.

4.3 One letter of objection has been received from the tenant farmer of adjoining grazing land raising the following concerns: Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

 access to the site;  environmental pollution;  out of character; and  spoiling view.

In addition, representations have been received from the following organisations:

4.4 BUGLIFE:

Object for the following reasons:

 loss of the Priority Habitat - Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land (OMH) and subsequent significant impact on a regionally important invertebrate assemblage, including UK Priority Species;  the cumulative impact on the network of important wildlife sites on and around the proposed development, including indirect impacts on three nearby SSSIs – Canvey Wick, Pitsea Marsh and Vange & Fobbing Marshes has not been fully considered;  inadequate mitigation to compensate for the loss of OMH.

4.5 ESSEX BIRDWATCHING SOCIETY:

Object on the basis that the site is an important breeding location for endangered bird species and migrating birds.

4.6 ESSEX FIELD CLUB:

Object to the application on the grounds that:

 data within the ES breaks the terms of service under which it was provided;  the breeding bird survey within the ES is considered to be inadequate;  insufficient botanical survey works;  inadequate invertebrate surveys;  inadequate mitigation and compensation measures.

4.7 BRITISH PIPELINE AGENCY:

The site is not in the zone of the Agency’s interest.

4.8 CASTLE POINT BOROUGH COUNCIL: Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

No comments on the proposed development.

4.9 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY:

No objection, subject to planning conditions addressing contamination. With regard to flood risk, the EA notes that the application will be required to pass the Sequential Test and to be supported by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment.

4.10 ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (ARCHAEOLOGY):

No objections subject to planning conditions addressing archaeological assessment and mitigation.

4.11 NATIONAL GRID:

Note the presence of high and intermediate pressure underground gas pipelines within and adjacent to the site and highlight access / construction requirements and easements applying to the pipelines.

4.12 NATURAL ENGLAND:

No objection, however advise that a programme of post-construction monitoring and adaptive management is secured by a suitably worded planning condition, to ensure that any operational phase bird strike is detected, assessed and, if necessary, mitigated.

Internationally and nationally designated sites –

The site is in close proximity to the Holehaven Creek SSSI which is is geographically and functionally linked with the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site. The application should therefore be assessed under the Habitats Regulations. In advising the local planning authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, and to assist you in screening for the likelihood of significant effects, based on the information provided, NE offers the following advice:

 The proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site;  That the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

NE advise that a suitably worded planning condition should therefore be attached to any permission, which seeks to achieve a bird collision risk monitoring programme (including carcass searching), to be agreed with the planning authority in consultation with Natural England. Although outside of Natural England’s remit, there is concern regarding the loss of dense scrub as a breeding habitat for turtle dove, a priority species, listed under s41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (the NERC Act 2006).

4.13 ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF BIRDS (RSPB):

Objects for the following reasons:

 The impact of the development on the adjacent Holehaven Creek SSSI and proposed Special Protection Area (SPA), Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar site and the internationally important species which they support, have not been adequately assessed;  The cumulative impact on the network of important wildlife sites on and around the proposed development, including indirect impacts on three nearby SSSIs – Canvey Wick, Pitsea Marsh and Vange & Fobbing Marshes has not been fully considered. The wildlife on the development site has not been properly recorded to enable the Council to make an informed decision. Records we have received from a local birdwatcher indicate that 18 of the 25 species noted in the Breeding Bird Survey provided by the developer were under-recorded and a further four species (three of which are Birds of Conservation Concern) were not recorded at all;  Concern about the impact on the potentially nationally important invertebrate assemblage identified by the applicant’s consultants on the site;  the timing of the reptile monitoring does not accord with best practice as laid out in the Herpetofauna’s Workers Manual, which means the importance of the site may be under-recorded.

4.14 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:

No noise or air quality objections. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) should be secured by planning condition. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

4.15 FLOOD RISK MANAGER:

The applicant will need to provide assurances that the land will not be subject to compaction during construction creating additional runoff.

4.16 HIGHWAYS:

No objections, subject to a condition requiring a CEMP.

4.17 LANDSCAPE & ECOLOGY:

No objection, subject to condition

Flora:

The site contains some rarer plant species. However, as these occur outside of the area to be developed, there would be no adverse impact.

Great Crested Newts:

There would be some loss of terrestrial habitat and replacement habitat should be provided.

Reptiles:

All four main reptile species are present on-site. A mitigation scheme should detail protection and maintenance of reptile habitat.

Water Vole:

Water voles are present in water features within and adjoining the site, although PV panels would not be site close to water features. A mitigation plan is required during construction.

Breeding Birds: The site is of District Value for breeding birds. Detailed quantification of the proposed clearance of scrub vegetation is required to assess potential impact on key species.

Invertebrates:

It is unclear from the ES which mitigation measures for invertebrates will be adopted. Until detailed mitigation measures are provided it is not possible to assess the conclusions of the ES. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

Habitats Regulations Assessment:

It is concluded that the proposed scheme is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site that can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment.

Additional ecology information required:

The amount and density of scrub vegetation removal should be quantified, together with a ‘do-nothing’ scenario assessing the value of the site is the land is not developed as proposed. Species-poor and species-rich grassland should be identified and quantified. A preliminary mitigation plan should be produced for key species.

Landscape & Visual Impact:

The scheme would have limited landscape or visual effects.

Conclusion:

While the development would have some adverse ecological effects, particularly on breeding bird habitat these are unlikely to be significant. Mitigation measures can be dealt with by a condition requiring the production of an Ecological Mitigation and Environmental Management Plan in advance of the commencement of works.

4.18 HEALTH & SAFTEY EXECUTIVE (HSE):

As the application site is located close to underground gas and LPG pipelines and is also within the consultation distances drawn around the Vopak Coryton and Petroplus hazardous installations, the proposals have been scrutinised using the HSE’s PADHI (planning advice for developments near hazardous installations) system. The response generated is that the HSE do not advise against the proposal.

5. Policy Context

5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

The NPPF was published on 27th March 2012. Paragraph 13 of the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 196 of the Framework confirms the tests in s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and s.70 of the Town and Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

Country Planning Act 1990, and that the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5.2 The following headings and content of the NPPF are relevant to the consideration of the current proposals.

1. Building a strong, competitive economy 3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

5.3 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

In March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This was accompanied by a Written Ministerial Statement which includes a list of the previous planning policy guidance documents cancelled when the NPPF was launched. PPG contains 42 subject areas, with each area containing several sub-topics. Those of particular relevance to the determination of this planning application comprise:

• Climate change • Conserving and enhancing the historic environment • Design • Environmental Impact Assessment • Flood risk and coastal change • Natural environment • Renewable and low carbon energy • Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking.

5.4 The PPG states that the need for renewable or low carbon energy does not automatically override environmental protections. The first part of the Solar PV Strategy, published in October 2013, states that solar PV should be “appropriately sited, give weight to environmental considerations such as landscape and visual impact, heritage and local amenity, and provide opportunities for local community to influence decisions that affect them”. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

5.5 The PPG sets out criteria for assessing ground-mounted solar project planning applications. The following extract is taken from the guidance (Paragraph: 013, Reference ID: 5-013-20140306):

“The deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes. However, the visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar farm can be properly addressed within the landscape if planned sensitively. Particular factors a local planning authority will need to consider include:

1. Encouraging the effective use of land by focussing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non-agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value. 2. Where a proposal involves greenfield land, whether (i) the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary and poorer quality land has been used in preference to higher quality land; and (ii) the proposal allows for continued agricultural use where applicable and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays. See also a speech by the Minister for Energy and Climate Change, the Rt Hon Gregory Barker MP, to the solar PV industry on 25 April 2013. 3. That solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can be used to ensure that the installations are removed when no longer in use and the land is restored to its previous use. 4. The proposal’s visual impact, the effect on landscape of glint and glare (see guidance on landscape assessment) and on neighbouring uses and aircraft safety. 5. The extent to which there may be additional impacts if solar arrays follow the daily movement of the sun. 6. The need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing. 7. Great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting. As the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence, but also from its setting, careful consideration should be given to the impact of large scale solar farms on such assets. 8. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the significance of the asset. 9. The potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening with native hedges. 10. The energy generating potential, which can vary for a number of reasons including, latitude and aspect. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

The approach to assessing cumulative landscape and visual impact of large scale solar farms is likely to be the same as assessing the impact of wind turbines. However, in the case of ground-mounted solar panels it should be noted that with effective screening and appropriate land topography the area of a zone of visual influence could be zero”.

5.6 UK Solar PV Strategy

Part 1 of the Government’s (Department for Energy and Climate Change – DECC) UK Solar PV Strategy (2013) set out the four guiding principles for deployment of solar in the UK. These principles are:

 Support for solar PV should allow cost-effective projects to proceed and to make a cost-effective contribution to UK carbon emission objectives in the context of overall energy goals – ensuring that solar PV has a role alongside other energy generation technologies in delivering carbon reductions, energy security and affordability for consumers.  Support for solar PV should deliver genuine carbon reductions that help meet the UK’s target of 15 per cent renewable energy from final consumption by 2020 and in supporting the decarbonisation of our economy in the longer term – ensuring that all the carbon impacts of solar PV deployment are fully understood.  Support for solar PV should ensure proposals are appropriately sited, give proper weight to environmental considerations such as landscape and visual impact, heritage and local amenity, and provide opportunities for local communities to influence decisions that affect them.  Support for solar PV should assess and respond to the impacts of deployment on: grid systems balancing; grid connectivity; and financial incentives – ensuring that we address the challenges of deploying high volumes of solar PV.

5.7 Part 2 of the DECC’s UK Solar PV Strategy (2014) refers to ambitions for deployment, including large-scale ground-mounted solar PV deployment. The Strategy highlights the planning guidance for renewable energy development provided by PPG.

Local Planning Policy

5.8 Thurrock Local Development Framework (2011)

The Council adopted the “Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development Plan Document” in December 2011. The Adopted Interim Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

Proposals Map shows the site as oil refinery land. The following Core Strategy policies apply to the proposals:

SPATIAL POLICIES - CSSP2: Sustainable Employment Growth - CSSP3: Sustainable Infrastructure - CSSP5: Sustainable Greengrid - OSDP1: Promotion of Sustainable Growth and Regeneration in Thurrock1

THEMATIC POLICIES - CSTP14: Transport in the Thurrock Urban Area: Purfleet to Tilbury3 - CSTP18: Green Infrastructure - CSTP19: Biodiversity - CSTP22: Thurrock Design - CSTP23: Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness2 - CSTP24: Heritage Assets and the Historic Environment - CSTP25: Addressing Climate Change2 - CSTP26: Renewable or Low-Carbon Energy Generation2 - CSTP27: Management and Reduction of Flood Risk2 - CSTP33: Strategic Infrastructure Provision

POLICIES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT - PMD1: Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity2 - PMD2: Design and Layout2 - PMD4: Historic Environment2 - PMD7: Biodiversity, Geological Conservation and Development2 - PMD8: Parking Standards3 - PMD9: Road Network Hierarchy - PMD10: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans2 - PMD13: Decentralised, Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation - PMD15: Flood Risk Assessment 2 - PMD16: Developer Contributions2

[Footnote: 1New Policy inserted by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 2Wording of LDF-CS Policy and forward amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy. 3Wording of forward to LDF-CS Policy amended either in part or in full by the Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy].

5.9 Focused Review of the LDF Core Strategy (2014) Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

This Review was commenced in late 2012 with the purpose to ensure that the Core Strategy and the process by which it was arrived at are not fundamentally at odds with the NPPF. There are instances where policies and supporting text are recommended for revision to ensure consistency with the NPPF. The Review was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for independent examination in August 2013. An Examination in Public took place in April 2014. The Inspector concluded that the amendments were sound subject to recommended changes. The Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development Focused Review: Consistency with National Planning Policy Framework Focused Review was adopted by Council on the 28th February 2015.

5.10 Draft Site Specific Allocations and Policies DPD

This Consultation Draft “Issues and Options” DPD was subject to consultation commencing during 2012. The Draft Site Specific Allocations DPD ‘Further Issues and Options’ was the subject of a further round of consultation during 2013. The 2012 consultation document allocates the site as within a reasonable alternative site for primary employment. The 2013 consultation allocated the site as land for primary industrial and commercial employment, a reasonable alternative site for primary employment and an oil refinery and storage area. The Planning Inspectorate is advising local authorities not to continue to progress their Site Allocation Plans towards examination whether their previously adopted Core Strategy is no longer in compliance with the NPPF. This is the situation for the Borough.

5.11 Thurrock Core Strategy Position Statement and Approval for the Preparation of a New Local Plan for Thurrock

The above report was considered at the February meeting 2014 of the Cabinet. The report highlighted issues arising from growth targets, contextual changes, impacts of recent economic change on the delivery of new housing to meet the Borough’s Housing Needs and ensuring consistency with Government Policy. The report questioned the ability of the Core Strategy Focused Review and the Core Strategy ‘Broad Locations & Strategic Sites’ to ensure that the Core Strategy is up-to-date and consistent with Government Policy and recommended the ‘parking’ of these processes in favour of a more wholesale review. Members resolved that the Council undertake a full review of Core Strategy and prepare a new Local Plan. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

6. Assessment

6.1 The principal issues for consideration in this case relate to:

I. Plan designation and principle of the development; II. Landscape and visual Impact; III. Ecological implications; IV. Impact on amenity, air quality and noise; V. Impact on heritage assets and archaeology; VI. Highways considerations; and VII. Flood risk.

I. PLAN DESIGNATION AND PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

6.2 The up-to-date position for the Council’s planning policies is set out in paragraphs 5.8 to 5.12 of this report. Core Strategy Thematic Policy CSTP26 addresses the “theme” of renewable or low carbon energy generation. This policy was subject to the Focused Review (2014) and therefore can be considered as consistent with the NPPF.

6.3 The policy sets out a general encouragement towards energy generation from non-fossil fuel and low-carbon sources. Section (II) of CSTP26 states that:

“The Council will promote the delivery of renewable and low-carbon energy developments utilising technology such as solar panels, biomass heating, small-scale wind turbine, photovoltaic cells, Combined Heat and Power and other methods.”

Although this general support is qualified by a need for impacts to be mitigated. Where “significant adverse impact” cannot be mitigated the Policy will consider development proposals to be unacceptable.

6.4 Both the NPPF and PPG express support for the principle of renewable energy and the contributions which can be made to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, this general encouragement does not override environmental protections and PPG refers to “focussing focussing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non-agricultural land”. Clearly the site is not used for agricultural purposes and given its history the site could fall within the definition of ‘previously developed land’ (as provision for restoration has not been made through development control procedures). It is also notable that the site is allocated as “oil refinery land” on the adopted interim proposals map accompanying the LDF Core Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

Strategy. Consequently, the proposals are compliant with the intentions of PPG to locate solar farms previously developed and non-agricultural land.

6.5 The contribution which renewable energy can make towards sustainable development is recognised within the NPPF. Paragraph 17 of this document lists 12 core planning principles which should underpin decision- making. Core principle six supports the transition to a low carbon future by encouraging the use of renewable resources for example, by the development of renewable energy. Under the heading of ‘Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change’ paragraph 93 of the NPPF notes that planning plays a key role in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is described as central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. In order to increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should have a positive strategy to promote energy generation from these uses (NPPF para. 97). When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should not require applicant for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable energy or low carbon energy and should approve the application (unless material considerations indicate otherwise) if its impacts are, or can be made, acceptable (NPPF para. 98). Consequently, there is considerable support within national planning policy for the generation of renewable and low carbon energy.

6.6 In terms of the Core Strategy, Policy CSTP25 (Addressing Climate Change) states that the Council:

“will seek the achievement and maintenance of the following minimum

reductions in CO2 emissions compared to emissions in 2005:

Sector By 2015 By 2020

Domestic: CO2 per household 4.0% 5.8%

Road Transport: CO2 per AADT* 6.0% 6.5%

Business: CO2 per job 9.0% 11.3% * Annual Average Daily Traffic”

Paragraph 5.157 sets out strategic priorities for climate change action which includes “increasing renewable and low carbon energy generation”.

6.7 Under this heading, it is concluded that the contribution the proposal would make towards clean energy generation and reducing carbon emissions is supported by national and local policy. Consequently, there are no objections to the principle of the proposed land use at this location. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

II. LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

6.8 The proposals involve the introduction of an extensive structural framework in order to support the rows of PV panels, security fencing, inverter cabinets, a sub-station and poles surmounted by CCTV cameras. The erection of these features would result in a change to the current nature of the site, which is characterised by open scrub and grassland, with grazing land to the west and oil storage / refining uses to the south. The potential impact on landscape and visual amenity has to be balanced against the extent of any harm and the mitigation measures which are proposed. The ES accompanying the planning application includes a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).

6.9 With regard to the context of planning policy, under the heading of Core Planning Principles the NPPF (paragraph 17) states that “planning should:

 always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings; and  take account of the different roles and character of different areas … recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”.

6.10 Part 11 of the NPPF deals with “Conserving and enhancing the natural and local environment”, and indicates at paragraph 109 that “the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by…..protecting and enhancing valued landscapes”. Paragraphs 113 to116 elaborate on this.

6.11 Core Strategy Policy CSTP23 (Thurrock Character and Distinctiveness) is relevant to this case and Part II of this policy states that:

“The Council requires the retention and enhancement of significant natural, historic and built features which contribute to the character of the Borough as defined by their value, quality, cultural association and meaning or their relationship to the setting and local context”.

Part III of the Policy goes on to state that: “The Council requires the retention and enhancement of strategic and local views, which contribute to a distinctive sense of place. Where development will affect these views, their sensitivity and capacity for change must be adequately assessed and the effect of the development on them appropriately tested”. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

6.12 Core Strategy Policy PMD1 relates generally to impact on amenity and Policy PMD2 (Design and Layout) criteria (i) relates to character and states:

“Development must contribute positively to the character of the area in which it is proposed, and to surrounding areas that may be affected by it. It should seek to contribute positively to local views, townscape, heritage assets and natural features, and contribute to the creation of a positive sense of place”. Criteria (vii) of this policy seeks the protection and enhancement of landscape features.

6.13 The site falls within the Fobbing Marshes landscape character area (C1), as defined by the Thurrock Landscape Capacity Study (2005). This area has key characteristics including:

 a level, low lying and exposed landscape;  large scale landscape;  extensive grazing marsh;  sense of wildness and remoteness;  wide sweeping views dominated by the sky; and  confusion of vertical structures to the south of the character area.

The Study also describes these characteristics as key qualities which are desirable to safeguard.

6.14 Immediately to the south of the site is the BP Coryton and Marshes landscape character area (D2), defined as a low lying and level landscape which is dominated by the refining, storage and distribution of oil and associated structures and buildings.

6.15 As the site is located in a low lying and level estuarine landscape which is influenced by the presence of oil refinery structures, storage tanks, chimney and port cranes to the south the impacts of the proposals on landscape character is considered to be minor. This is due largely to the scale and height of the solar farm structures which, with a general height of 2-3m (aside from CCTV poles up to 4m), would integrate into the level landform of the grazing marsh. As noted above, PPG advises that in the case of ground-mounted solar panels “ … with appropriate land topography the area of a zone of visual influence could be zero”. In this case, the landscape impact of the proposed solar PV farm within a low lying open and large-scale landscape is considered to be of minor significance. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

6.16 With regard to visual impact, there are no sensitive residential receptors close to the site (the nearest dwellings being located at Oozedam 450m to the west, Canvey Road (Canvey Island) 3km to the east and Wharf Road, Fobbing 2.2km to the west. The LVIA includes an assessment of the potential visual impact on viewpoints from public rights of way close to the site, such viewpoints being defined as sensitive to change. Footpath no. 191 is located to the east of the site and at its closest would be approximately 300m from the solar farm. A separate public footpath on the eastern (Canvey) side of Holehaven Creek is located some 500m to the east of the application site.

6.17 The LVIA considers potential visual impact from a total of 16 viewpoints along the two footpaths. As seen from vantage points along Footpath no. 191, the magnitude and significance of visual impact is assessed as either negligible or minor. This is due to the presence of intervening soft landscaping features and the presence of buildings and structures at the oil refinery acting as a backdrop to the development. The visual impact on vantage points along the public footpath on the eastern (Canvey) side of Holehaven Creek is similarly assessed as either negligible or minor. This low level of impact is due to the presence of the oil refinery / port as a backdrop to the development and the partial screening effects of flood defences and vegetation.

6.18 With regard to potential measures to mitigate the impact of the development on landscape and visual receptors, the LVIA notes that any new tree or shrub planting would itself be an intrusive feature within a low lying, level and open landscape. Therefore aside from the retention of existing vegetation along site boundaries no landscape or visual mitigation measures are proposed. The Council’s landscape and ecology advisor agrees with findings of the LVIA and confirms that the proposals would have limited landscape and visual effects.

III. ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

6.19 No land on the application site forms part of any statutory internationally or nationally designated site. However, land to the immediate north and east of the site forms part of the Holehaven Creek SSSI. The citation for this SSSI states that Holehaven Creek regularly supports nationally important numbers of wintering Black-Tailed Godwit. Located approximately 350m to the west of the site is the Vange and Fobbing Marshes SSSI. The citation for this SSSI refers to the unimproved coastal grassland and associated dykes and creeks support a diversity of maritime grasses and herbs, including nationally uncommon or rare species. The combination of grazing land, water courses and fringing saltmarsh also provides an ideal habitat for Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

numerous invertebrates and birds. Approximately 700m to the east of the site is the Canvey Wick SSSI, which supports a nationally important assemblage of invertebrates associated with herb-rich grassland, early successional habitat and scrub edge, and brackish (coastal wetland) habitats. The site also supports a nationally important population of the Shrill Carder Bee.

6.20 Located a minimum of 3.1km to the south and south-west of the site is the Thames Estuary and Marshes Special Protected Area / Ramsar site which supports internationally important numbers of wintering waterfowl.

6.21 In addition, the application site and land immediately to its south and south- west forms part of the Corringham / Fobbing Marsh Local Wildlife Site (LWS), as defined in the Thurrock Biodiversity Study. The Study describes the LWS as one of the largest areas of relict grazing-marsh in south Essex. However, the designation as LWS is non-statutory.

6.22 The ES accompanying the planning application includes a chapter assessing the potential impacts on ecology and nature conservation. A Preliminary Ecological Assessment and species surveys for botany, great crested newts, breeding birds, reptiles, water voles and invertebrates form appendices to the ES.

6.23 National policy guidance in the NPPF notes at paragraph 118 that when determining planning applications local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying a number of principles, including:

• if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.

Adopted Core Strategy policy PMD7 is similar in its intentions to the NPPF and, in addition, seeks net gains in biodiversity

6.24 Habitats Regulations:

The consultation response received from Natural England (summarised above) notes that the application site is located close to internationally and nationally designated sites (Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site). European sites are afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). In considering the European site interest, the local Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

planning authority, as a competent authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, should have regard for any potential impacts that the proposals may have. The Habitat Regulations, which are a UK transposition of EU Directives relating to the conservation of natural habitats, flora and fauna and specifically wild birds, apply to certain designated sites including Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites. Of particular relevance to this application, regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations requires, inter-alia, that:

Before deciding to give any permission for a plan which: (a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European Site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site

The competent authority must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives.

6.25 Natural England has provided a detailed response on the proposals which confirms:

“In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, and to assist you in screening for the likelihood of significant effects, based on the information provided, Natural England offers the following advice:

 the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site  that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site, and can therefore be screened out from any requirement for further assessment

When recording your HRA we recommend you refer to the following information to justify your conclusions regarding the likelihood of significant effects.

HRA Rationale Natural England has already provided pre-application advice to both the developer (email dated 1st May 2015) and the planning authority (letter dated 18th July 2014). As part of this advice, we highlighted the importance of the Holehaven Creek SSSI to the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA, and the consequent need to consider the impacts of both bird strike with solar panels, and the loss of functionally linked land to solar panels. Both these impacts have been considered in the submission, in Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

particular Appendix D to the Environmental Statement, the Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA).

Regarding the potential loss of functional land to development, we have considered the suitability of the application site in particular to black-tailed godwit, the notified feature of the Holehaven Creek SSSI. Whilst this species is reliant upon mudflats and saltmarsh, it will utilise suitable inland habitats behind sea walls, such as grazing marsh and wet grassland. In this case, the application site is characterised by areas of dense scrub, and where grassland is present, scrub remains scattered. In this scenario, wading birds prefer open habitats where predators can be easily spotted, and our view is that black-tailed godwits are unlikely to use the application site in any significant way. We note the comments of the PEA, that

‘the dominance of scrub throughout much of the site means that many of the notable wetland bird species highlighted within the desk study are unlikely to occur, although the strip of short grassland along the northern boundary and the open grazing marsh to the west may be used by wading birds for feeding during the winter months’.

Natural England broadly agrees with this assessment, and considers that no mitigation is required for the loss of functionally linked land to the SPA / Ramsar site. We further note that the Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) count sector does not include the application site (which would indicate that wetland birds are present in numbers worthy of regular counts), and also that more favourable habitats are present in the immediate area, including extensive areas of grazing marsh to the north and west.

Regarding the question of bird strike, the PEA sets out a brief commentary at section 5.2, concluding that ‘the risk posed by the proposed development to waterbirds is not considered to be significantly greater than any other large development type.’ Natural England disagrees with this conclusion. To the best of our knowledge, the question of solar farms causing a bird strike impact has not been studied in any detail, especially in the context of sensitive wetland environments. The absence of any detailed studies reported by the PEA would appear to bear this out (although we are aware of papers which discuss this question which have not been identified through the literature search). We maintain that the generally flat, dark, semi-reflective properties of solar panels, which particularly during conditions of poor visibility (low light or fog / mist) may resemble a water surface, and the location of the proposal immediately adjacent to a site designated for its wetland bird interest requires a precautionary but proportionate approach to be adopted. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

Consistent with our advice to other solar farm developments in the district (notably the Barvills Farm site, LPA ref: 14/01124/FUL and 15/00288/FUL) and elsewhere in the county, we advise that a suitably worded planning condition should therefore be attached to any permissions, which seeks to achieve a collision risk monitoring programme (including carcass searching), to be agreed with the planning authority in consultation with Natural England. We suggest that condition 16 of 15/00288/FUL could be used to achieve this outcome.

In addition to the above, we welcome the identification of hydrological links between the application site and the SSSI, and we agree that any water- borne pollution impacts should be mitigated with routine adherence to the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines. A suitably worded condition to secure a Construction Environment Management Plan would be appropriate to address this.

We also welcome the avoidance of construction noise disturbance to the SSSI, by scheduling construction works, as a starting point, outside of the over-wintering period, considered to be October – March inclusive. We support the suggested production of a Biodiversity Management Plan, which could integrate the above bird strike monitoring as well.

Conclusion With respect to the Habitats Regulations, we consider that, with the above planning conditions, the competent authority is able to conclude that the project is not likely to have a significant effect on European sites.”

6.26 It is therefore recommended that the local planning authority formally determine that, on the basis of the information available, the proposed development will not have a likely significant impact on a European site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

6.27 The consultation response received from the RSPB (summarised at paragraph 4.15 above) objects to the application partly on the grounds that the RSPB considers that insufficient information has been presented to enable the Council to undertake a full Habitats Regulations Assessment. Notwithstanding the content of this objection, the detailed comments received from Natural England (the statutory consultee for planning applications affecting the natural environment) provide a detailed commentary on the Habitats Regulations. The conclusion of Natural England, cited at paragraph 6.25, is that the local planning authority can conclude that the proposal (project) is not likely to have a significant effect on European sites. The Council’s Landscape and Ecology advisor reaches a similar conclusion. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

6.28 Habitat / Species:

The Preliminary Ecological Assessment and individual species surveys accompanying the ES identify that habitats on-site mainly comprise scattered and dense scrub vegetation, open semi-improved grassland and water features. This mix of habitats supports the following list of notable fauna:

 Great Crested Newts – the site provides terrestrial scrub and grassland habitat for this protected species. This habitat will be lost as a result of the proposed development and replacement habitat will be required. The applicant will need to seek separate approval from Natural England, via a licence, for the trapping and relocation of specimens. The ES concludes that the effect at a local level on great crested newts would be minor adverse until the completion of works, then neutral. This conclusion is agreed by the Council’s ecologist;  Reptiles – low numbers of all four main reptile species are present on-site and the site can therefore be considered as ‘key’ for reptiles. The applicant proposes a trapping and relocation exercise, with post- development monitoring of the site;  Water Voles – surveys recorded evidence of the species in watercourses and reedbeds on site. However, none of the proposed solar PV panels would be site within 10m of any of these features. As originally proposed, access tracks within development were sited close to water vole habitat. However, revisions to the proposed layout have now relocated tracks further away from water vole habitat;  Breeding Birds – 25 species of breeding bird were recorded confirming the ‘Regional’ value of the site. Four of the recoded species are of conservation concern. The proposed removal of areas of scrub habitat would result in adverse impact upon breeding birds. However, the Council’s ecologist concludes that, with mitigation, these impacts are unlikely to be significant. Areas of scrub habitat outside of the area which would be covered by PV arrays are proposed to be retained, these being within the control of the applicant;  Invertebrates – a number of rare species are encountered on-site. In isolation the site is of regional value for invertebrates, however the site forms part of a much larger group of sites that are of National value for invertebrates. The semi-improved grassland and scattered Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

scrub mosaic habitats on-site would be significantly affected by the proposals. However, the existing grassland will be retained between the rows of PV panels and over-seeded with suitable wildflower species to enhance its value for foraging.

6.29 Comments from the Council’s ecology advisor (responding to the planning application as originally submitted) requested further information as follows:

 an assessment of birds overflying the site in winter;  an assessment of whether wading birds utilise a large pond to the west of the site;  an assessment of the amount of scrub habitat which would be removed;  an assessment of the value of scattered scrub habitat;  an assessment of the ‘do nothing’ scenario where the site is not developed;  identification and quantification of species-poor and species-rich grassland; and  preparation of a preliminary mitigation plan.

6.30 The applicant responded to these requests and an updated response from the Council’s advisor confirms that whilst the proposals would have some adverse ecological effects, particularly on breeding bird habitat, these effects are unlikely to be significant. Consequently, subject to a planning condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of ecological mitigation of management, no objection are raised to the scheme on ecological grounds.

6.31 Within Chapter 4 of this report is a summary of ecological objections to the application received from Buglife, Essex Birdwatching Society, Essex Field Club and the RSPB. Aside from the concerns raised regarding the Habitats Regulations (which considered in paras 6.24 to 6.27 above) these objections refer largely to loss of habitat for breeding birds and invertebrates. As noted above, the site includes a range of habitats with areas of scrub providing habitat for breeding birds and more open grassland areas providing suitable habitat for invertebrates. The proposals would result in the loss of approximately 34% of the existing dense scrub habitat on-site and there would be a greater loss of semi-improved grassland and scattered scrub habitat. However mitigation measures promoted by the applicant include the management of remaining areas of scrub and wildflower seeding within the grassland habitat in between PV panels.

6.32 It is of note that the site is currently unmanaged and a comparison of aerial photographs from 1999 and 2014 reveals that the quantity of scrub habitat Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

on-site has increased substantially over time. If left unmanaged, scrub vegetation on-site will continue to spread reducing areas of open grassland to the detriment of both invertebrates and reptiles. The application offers an opportunity to manage habitats on-site for a range of species. Finally, it is considered unusual for Buglife to object to the application in circumstances where the same organisation provided the invertebrate survey which forms part of the ES.

IV. IMPACT ON AMENITY, AIR QUALITY AND NOISE

6.33 Comments received from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) raise no issues with regard to potential impact by reason of noise or air quality. The nearest residential receptors to the site are located approximately 450m from the site and given this degree of separation the development is unlikely to cause material harm to neighbouring amenity with regard to noise, vibration or overshadowing. There are no hazardous, toxic or noxious substances emitted during the operational phase of a solar farm and as such there are no implications for air quality.

6.34 During any construction phase of the development there is the potential for impact for on amenity through noise and / or vibration. The EHO therefore recommends that any planning permission is subject to a planning condition requiring submission and approval of a construction environment management plan (CEMP). The CEMP should include measures for dealing with any unforeseen contamination encountered during construction.

6.35 A further consideration under this heading is the potential for incongruous glint and glare from the panels. However, the proposed PV panels would have a dull finish designed to absorb and not reflect sunlight. A number of recent appeal decisions for similar schemes have all concluded that the potential for harmful glint or glare is insignificant. The LVIA addendum includes consideration of glint and glare which notes that PV panels reflect less than 10% of sunlight, whereas typical rural environments reflect 15- 30%.

V. IMPACT ON HERITAGE ASSETS & ARCHAEOLOGY

6.36 No part of the application site forms part of a designated heritage site and there are no designated heritage assets within, or immediately adjacent to, the site.

6.37 The consultation reply from the Council’s Historic Environment Advisor notes that the site is within an area of considerable archaeological interest. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

However, subject to appropriate planning conditions attached to any grant of planning permission to secure archaeological investigation no objections are raised to this aspect of the proposals.

VI. HIGHWAYS CONSIDERATIONS

6.38 Access to the application is taken from the private estate roads within the Thames Oilport site, which in-turn link to the public highway (A1014) at The Manorway roundabout junction. If approved, the construction phase of the development would last approximately 12 weeks and would involve a number of HGV movements to and from the site associated with the delivery of construction materials etc. During operation of the proposed solar PV farm there would be monthly maintenance visits, however no staff would be based on-site.

6.39 On the basis of the information submitted in the application, no objections are raised from a highways perspective, subject to a planning condition requiring submission and approval of a Construction Environment Management Plan.

7. FLOOD RISK

6.40 The application site is located within the high risk flood zone (Zone 3), although the site benefits from flood defences along the banks of both the River Thames and Holehaven Creek. As required by paragraph 103 of the NPPF, the application is accompanied by a flood risk assessment (FRA).

6.41 With regard to the flood risk vulnerability of the development, the applicant’s FRA considers that the solar PV farm should be classified as “water- compatible development” with reference to the NPPF. However, this classification in the FRA is considered to be incorrect. Table 2 (paragraph 066) of PPG provides a “Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification” for different categories of development. Solar farms are not explicitly categorised under a specific vulnerability classification, however “essential infrastructure” is defined as including:

“Essential utility infrastructure which has to be located in a flood risk area for operational reasons, including electricity generating power stations and grid and primary substations; and water treatment works that need to remain operational in times of flood”

6.42 In this case, the flood risk vulnerability classification of the development is an important flood risk consideration as, in combination with the flood zone, this will determine whether a development is appropriate, should not be Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

permitted or should be subject to the Exception Test. With reference to Table 3 (paragraph 067) of PPG, if the development is considered to be “essential infrastructure” then subject to the Sequential and Exception Tests, the proposals could be appropriate in Flood Zone 3a.

6.43 Table 2 of PPG defines “essential Infrastructure” as including “essential utility infrastructure which has to be located in a flood risk area for operational reasons”. There is no doubt that solar PV panels are utility infrastructure as they would generate electricity. Therefore, in light of the similarities between solar farm development and the wording of PPG Table 2 and given the general evidence from comparable FRA’s it is reasonable to conclude that the proposals would comprise ‘essential infrastructure’.

6.44 PPG notes that ‘essential infrastructure’ which is located in Flood Zone 3a should be subject to the Sequential and Exception Test and should be designed and constructed to:

 remain operational and safe for users in times of flood.

6.45 The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. In this case, the site is within an area allocated as oil refinery land on the adopted interim proposals map accompanying the LDF Core Strategy. A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment supported the adoption of the LDF Core Strategy and the Boroughs five broad areas for regeneration, including ‘London Gateway / Corringham and Stanford-le-Hope’, have all been subject to the sequential test via adoption of the LDF Core Strategy.

6.46 With regard to the requirements of the Exception Test, it is considered that the generation of renewable energy would provide wider sustainability benefits that, in this case, outweigh flood risk. Furthermore, the submitted FRA demonstrates that the development will be safe for its 25 year lifetime and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

7. Conclusions And Reasons For Recommendation

7.1 The proposal would make provision towards clean energy generation and reducing carbon emissions and in this respect is supported by national and local policy. Consequently, there are no objections to the principle of the proposed land use at this location. The proposals would have limited landscape and visual effects and there are no objections to the proposals on the grounds of impact on amenity, heritage assets, highways or flood Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

risk. The development of a solar PV farm as proposed would have some impact on ecological interests, particularly breeding birds and invertebrates. However, subject to mitigation and management, these impacts are not considered to be significant.

7.2 In coming to its view on the proposed development the content of the ES submitted with the application has been taken into account as well as representations that have been submitted by third parties. The ES considers the potential impacts of the proposal on a range of receptors and sets out mitigation measures. Subject to appropriate mitigation which can be secured through planning conditions, the ES concludes that any impact arising from the construction and operation of the development would be within acceptable limits. Having taken into account representations received, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable, subject to compliance with a number of planning conditions that are imposed upon the permission. Therefore, it is recommended that planning permission is granted, subject to the recommendation set out below.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Recommendation A:

That the local planning authority formally determine pursuant to regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), and on the basis of the information available, that the development proposed will not have a likely significant effect on a European site either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

8.2 Recommendation B:

Grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

Time Limit:

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence no later than three years from the date of this decision. Written notification of the date of commencement of the development hereby permitted shall be given to the local planning authority no later than 14 days after the event.

REASON: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

Approved Plans:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and drawings:

Reference Name 15K62-CV-GS-101 Rev. AB Site Location 15K62-EL-LY-101 Rev. AC Layout 15K62-EL-LY-101A Rev. AB Layout (2 of 5) 15K62-EL-LY-101B Rev. AB Layout (3 of 5) 15K62-EL-LY-101C Rev. AB Layout (4 of 5) 15K62-EL-LY-101D Rev. AB Layout (5 of 5) 15K62-EL-PA 101 Rev. AA PV Array elevation 15K06-CV-HS 102 Rev. AA Control Cabin elevation 15K62-CV-FC 103 Rev. AA Fence and gate details 15K62-CV-HS-101 Rev. AA Inverter housing elevation 15K06-CV-HS 103 Rev. AA Storage container elevation 15K62-CV-HS 104 Rev. AA CCTV Layout and CCTV pole details 15K62-CV-EL-CR 101 Rev. Cable route and POC AA

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is in accordance with the details to which the application has been assessed.

Temporary Period and Decommissioning:

3. Planning permission is hereby granted for a temporary period of 25 years from the commencement of development. On the 25th anniversary of the commencement of development the use shall cease. Prior to the 25th anniversary of the commencement of development the solar panels and all ancillary equipment and structures shall be decommissioned and removed from the site in accordance with the Decommissioning Method Statement agreed pursuant to Condition 4.

REASON: In order to accord with the terms of the submitted planning application and to ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site.

Decommissioning Method Statement:

4. Within three months of the cessation of power production on the site a Decommissioning Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

shall include the timing for decommissioning of the solar farm if it ceases to be operational, along with the measures, and a timetable for their completion, to secure the removal of panels, plant, fencing and equipment. Decommissioning shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Statement and details including the timing of works.

REASON: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site in accordance with the NPPF and paragraph 27 of "Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy".

Details of CCTV / Fencing:

5. Notwithstanding the information shown the submitted plans, development shall not commence until details of the design and location of all CCTV poles and cameras and details of the design and finishing colour of perimeter fencing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The perimeter security fence shall specifically be designed to facilitate the passage of small mammals through the site. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.

REASON: In order to minimise the impact of the development on the local landscape.

Additional Fencing:

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fencing or means of enclosure (other than temporary fencing associated with and purely for the period of the construction and decommissioning phases) shall be erected other than that which is detailed on the approved plans or has been expressly authorised pursuant to conditions attached to this permission.

REASON: In order to retain the character and openness of the site.

CEMP:

7. No construction works shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in writing. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

The CEMP should contain or address the following matters:

(a) vehicle haul routing in connection with construction operations (including routing of proposed Abnormal Load Vehicles Movements (if any)) (b) wheel washing (c) details of construction access; (d) location and size of on-site compounds (including the design layout of any proposed temporary artificial lighting systems) (e) details of any temporary hardstandings; (f) details of temporary hoarding; (g) method for the control of noise with reference to BS5228 together with a monitoring regime (h) dust and air quality mitigation and monitoring, (i) method statement for the prevention of contamination of soil and groundwater and air pollution, including the storage of fuel and chemicals, (j) details of security lighting layout and design; (k) a procedure to deal with any unforeseen contamination, should it be encountered during development. (l) ecology and environmental protection and mitigation, to include; (i) a series of Method Statements including:  protected species mitigation  site/vegetation clearance;  habitat creation.  bird mitigation statement  reptile / great crested newt mitigation method statement – to be formulated in consideration of the following: habitat manipulation; temporary fencing of donor sites (if required); habitat creation / enhancement; potential translocation; and monitoring programme. (ii)details of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) to be appointed to oversee the implementation of the CEMP and a program to ensure that construction workers are aware of the ecological constraints present and agreed measures including the habitat creation methods being implemented. (iii) details of temporary protective fencing to ensure that the construction area does not encroach into ecologically sensitive areas. (iv) measures to be taken to prevent pollution to waterbodies

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the CEMP and shall adhere to the following restrictions: Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

a) there shall be no burning of any kind on Site during construction, demolition or site preparation works. b) no construction or decommissioning works shall be undertaken outside of the following hours: 0700-1900 Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Public Holidays.

REASON: In order to minimise any adverse impacts arising from the construction of the development in accordance with Policies PMD1, PMD9, CSTP19 and PMD7 of the Adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).

External Lighting:

8. No external artificial lighting or security lighting other than those agreed as part of this permission (i.e. temporary lighting during construction / decommissioning and any passive infrared sensor controlled lighting on the sub-station and emergency lighting brought to the site during an emergency event) shall be installed during the operation of the site as a solar PV facility without the prior written agreement of the local planning authority.

REASON: To minimise the potential for pollution and disturbance to local amenity and wildlife in accordance with LDF Core Strategy policies PMD1 (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity), PMD2 (Design and Layout), CSTP19 (Biodiversity) and PMD7 (Biodiversity and development) and Paragraph 27 of the Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy.

ES Mitigation:

9. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures contained with the Environmental Statement and studies / reports submitted with the application.

REASON: To protect and improve the appearance of the site in the interests of visual amenity of the area and to provide biodiversity enhancement opportunities, in accordance with LDF Core Strategy policies PMD1 (Minimising Pollution and Impacts on Amenity), PMD2 (Design and Layout), PMD4 (Historic Environment) and PMD7 (Biodiversity, Geological Conservation and Development). Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

Wheel Washing:

10. Wheel cleansing facilities shall be provided on the site in close proximity to the highway access in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Such facilities, which shall include provision for a barrier which stops all vehicles before they enter the highway to ensure that all mud and other debris is removed from the undercarriage of the vehicle and all its wheels, shall be maintained at all times during the construction (which shall include any demolition works) of the development hereby permitted.

REASON: To avoid the tracking out of mud and detritus on to the public highway, in the interests of safety and amenity generally.

Construction Compound:

11. Before any work associated with the development hereby approved commences, a temporary hardstanding shall be constructed on the site, clear of the public highway, of materials to be agreed with the local planning authority and the hardstanding as agreed shall be used at all times for the delivery of materials to the site and their storage pending construction works. No such activities shall take place on the highway.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity and to prevent mud and spoil being deposited on the public highway and to ensure no storage of materials on the public highway.

Access Details:

12. Prior to the commencement of development details showing the layout, dimensions and construction specification of the proposed access to the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented on-site as part of the construction programme.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety and efficiency.

Archaeology:

13. No development or preliminary groundworks shall commence until a programme of geophysical assessment and archaeological trial trenching has been secured and undertaken in accordance with a Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, and approved by the planning authority. A mitigation strategy detailing the excavation/preservation strategy shall be submitted to the local planning authority following the completion of this work.

REASON: To ensure that the archaeological history of the site is recorded in accordance with Policy PMD4 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].

Archaeological fieldwork:

14. No development or preliminary groundworks shall commence on those areas containing archaeological or palaeo-environmental deposits until the satisfactory completion of fieldwork, as detailed in the mitigation strategy required by condition 13, and which has been signed off by the local planning authority through its historic environment advisors.

REASON: To ensure that the archaeological history of the site is recorded in accordance with Policy PMD4 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].

Post-excavation assessment

15. The applicant will submit to the local planning authority a post- excavation assessment (to be submitted within six months of the completion of fieldwork, unless otherwise agreed in advance with the local planning authority). This will result in the completion of post- excavation analysis, preparation of a full site archive and report ready for deposition at the local museum, and submission of a publication report.

REASON: To ensure that the archaeological history of the site is recorded in accordance with Policy PMD4 of the adopted Thurrock LDF Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD [2011].

Contamination:

16. No development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

local planning authority), shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1) a preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

 all previous uses  potential contaminants associated with those uses  a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors  potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

2) a site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3) the results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4) a verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

REASON: To protect and prevent the pollution of the water environment (both groundwater associated with the underlying Secondary and Principal Aquifers and surface waters) from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses) in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; paragraphs 109 and 121), EU Water Framework Directive, Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Environment Agency Groundwater protection: Principles and practice (GP3:2013) position statements.

Verification report

17. No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.

REASON: To protect and prevent the pollution of the water environment (both groundwater associated with the underlying Secondary and Principal Aquifers and surface waters) from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses) in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; paragraphs 109 and 121), EU Water Framework Directive, Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Environment Agency Groundwater protection: Principles and practice (GP3:2013) position statements.

Long-term monitoring and maintenance plan

18. No development should take place until a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan in respect of contamination including a timetable of monitoring and submission of reports to the local planning authority, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reports as specified in the approved plan, including details of any necessary contingency action arising from the monitoring, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any necessary contingency measures shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the approved reports. On completion of the monitoring specified in the plan a final report demonstrating that all long-term remediation works have been carried out and confirming that remedial targets have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

REASON: To protect and prevent the pollution of the water environment (both groundwater associated with the underlying Secondary and Principal Aquifers and surface waters) from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses) in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; paragraphs 109 and 121), EU Water Framework Directive, Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Environment Agency Groundwater protection: Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

Principles and practice (GP3:2013) position statements.

Contamination

19. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

REASON: To protect and prevent the pollution of the water environment (both groundwater associated with the underlying Secondary and Principal Aquifers and surface waters) from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses) in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; paragraphs 109 and 121), EU Water Framework Directive, Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Environment Agency Groundwater protection: Principles and practice (GP3:2013) position statements.

Surface water management strategy

20. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved a surface water management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include details of the means of connection, phasing of provision and capacity of the receptor system. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground within restored landfill areas will be permitted unless it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The surface water drainage systems shall be constructed in accordance with the approved strategy and maintained thereafter in accordance with it.

REASON: To ensure that adequate measures for the management of surface water are incorporated into the development. To protect the water environment in accordance with policy PMD1 of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011).

Protection of Pipelines:

21. An easement strip along the route of the underground pipelines Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

passing under the site, as detailed on drawing No. 15K62-EL-LY-101 Rev. AC shall be established and kept free of development. Access to the pipeline easement shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

REASON: To protect existing utilities assets.

Bird-Strike Monitoring:

22. Prior to the first operational use of the development, or any part thereof, a scheme detailing the post-construction monitoring of bird collisions with the solar PV panels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The monitoring scheme shall include reference to potential management action(s) which could be implemented in the event of evidence of bird collisions. The measures within the approved scheme shall be implemented on first operation of the solar farm and maintained during the operation of the development

REASON: To ensure that the potential impact upon birds is adequately monitored and mitigated as appropriate.

Ecological Mitigation and Environmental Management:

23. Prior to the commencement of development an Ecological Mitigation and Environmental Management Plan (EMEMP), based upon the content of the submitted Environmental Statement as supplemented by the information in the letter from the ‘Ecology Consultancy’ to the applicant’s agent (under cover of an e-mail dated 18th December 2015), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The EMEMP shall include mitigation and enhancement measures for the habitats and protected and notable species on-site, together with long-term management and monitoring arrangements and a timetable for implementation. The approved measures with EMEMP shall be undertaken in accordance with the timetable for implementation and maintained throughout the operation of the solar PV farm, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

REASON: In order to maintain and enhance ecological interests on- site in accordance with Policies CSTP19 (Biodiversity) and PMD7 (Biodiversity and development) of the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development DPD (2011). Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL

Documents:

All background documents including application forms, drawings and other supporting documentation relating to this application can be viewed online: www.thurrock.gov.uk/planning/15/00877/FUL

Alternatively, hard copies are also available to view at Planning, Thurrock Council, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, Essex, RM17 6SL. Planning Committee 14 January 2016 Application Reference: 15/00877/FUL