Committee Report

COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 15/01740/FUL

Applicant TGC Renewables

Reason for Referral Scale of Development to Committee

Case Officer Sarah Luckham

Presenting Officer Sarah Luckham

Site Address Land at Bascote Road, Long Itchington

. Construction and operation of a solar farm . Approximately 4.64 Mega Watt Peak (MWp) on 5.5 ha of developable area . Energy enough to supply approximately 1,260 local homes with power annually . Would be connected and export power to the local distribution network . Installation of up to 14,500 solar panels supported on up to 234 module tables. Max. height 3m above ground level . Panels matt blue/black colour . Associated equipment including - up to 4 inverter cabins; Description of - up to 2 communication cabins; Development - 2 switch gear housing buildings; - substation - cabling; - fencing; - CCTV system; and - Grid connection via underground cable from the substation(s) along the road through Long Itchington to the Point of Connection 800m south east of the site . Ecological and landscape enhancement measures . Opportunity for a community funded phase if local interest and viable . Between £500 - £1,000 per megawatt peak community benefit per annum for a period of 10 years Description of Site . Open Countryside location Constraints . Site is classed as Grade 3b agricultural land.

Summary of . GRANT TEMPORARY CONSENT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Recommendation Development Plan Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework”.

Relevant Policies in the Development Plan for the application are:- • PR.1, DEV.1, DEV.4, DEV.10 - Consistent • PR.8, EF.13/EF.14 - High degree of consistency (framework only slightly less restrictive) • PR.6, PR.7, DEV.2, DEV.3, DEV.8, DEV.2, DEV.7, EF.6, EF.7, EF.9, EF.10, EF.11, DEV.6, DEV.8, CTY.4 - Some consistency but Framework less restrictive • DEV.5, CTY.1, Inconsistent/out of date

Other Material Considerations

 NPPF 2012 & PPG 2014  Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation  EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC)

Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance

 Stratford on Avon District Design Guide

Other Evidence base documents include:-

 Stratford on Avon Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity Study 2014  Statement of Community Involvement  Corporate Strategy 2011-2015  Sustainable Community Strategy  Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Resource Assessment and Feasibility Study – CAMCO April 2010  Renewable Energy Capacity Study for the West Midlands – March 2011  Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1993  Proposed Submission Core Strategy 2014  UK Solar PV Strategy Part 1: Roadmap to a brighter future – Department of Energy and Climate Change October 2013  UK Solar PV Strategy Part 2: Delivering a Brighter Future, April 2014 Statement by the Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change (November 2013)

Other Legislation

 Human Rights Act 1998  Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006  The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010  Localism Act 2011  Equality Act 2010  Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998  CIL Legislation  Climate Change Act 2008

Summary of Relevant History

No relevant planning history.

Applicant’s Supporting Statement

The above planning application for a 5.5 hectare, 4.6MW solar farm has been submitted to the Council following extensive community consultation. The concerns raised have been noted and addressed, and there are no objections from statutory consultees. In terms of benefits, the solar farm will:  power approximately 1,260 local homes with renewable energy;  support the local energy distribution network;  protect agricultural land from permanent redevelopment for 25 years;  diversify a rural business;  deliver substantial biodiversity enhancements;  generate supply opportunities for local companies during construction and operation;  generate community benefit payments of a minimum of £500 to a maximum of £1,000 per MW (subject to development costs) installed on the Site (irrespective of the Parish Council’s support or otherwise); and  generate approximately £435,000 in business rates over 25 years of operation. Following wide publicity, the first consultation event gathered views, a better understanding of local issues and the likely impacts of a solar farm on the fields immediately to the south of Long Itchington. These views were taken into account, the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area was considered inappropriate by TGC and this site was dropped. To make efficient use of existing infrastructure and grid capacity, an alternative site in the area was sought. The site of the current proposals (application 15/01740/FUL) is not visible from the Conservation Area and is located on poorer quality land which is not Best and Most Versatile (BMV). It is lower quality agricultural land compared to the discarded site. A further consultation event was held and the feedback incorporated into the application:  Western field (on opposite side of Bascote Road) dropped to contain visual impacts;  Additional screening incorporated around the site’s boundaries;  Deer fence used instead of metal paladin fencing; and  Detailed planning assessments prepared, taking into account the issues raised. As noted above, the field to the west of Bascote Road has been dropped, leaving the one field which forms the application. This decision was made to contain the scheme’s visibility, with only more distant receptors to the south and south-east potentially affected and the site not visible from the vast majority of areas or dwellings in Bascote. The need to develop agricultural land has been demonstrated, the Proposals would not result in any loss of agricultural land, the site would continue to be used for agriculture, the site is not BMV land, it is poorer quality agricultural land and there would significant biodiversity enhancements. The submitted Biodiversity Management Plan includes measures based on liaison with the Canal and River Trust and Butterfly Conservation Warwickshire. The solar farm will not be prominent in the wider landscape, and the dwellings to the south will not experience inappropriate effects on their amenity due to the distance from the site, their orientation, the low level nature of the solar farm and the existing and proposed landscaping. There is no objection from highways officers and the construction works will be short and temporary. Consent is sought for the underground cable route through Long Itchington, although shorter and less disruptive routes which will better suit all parties are being investigated. The site is not located in the flood zone and a drainage scheme will improve run off rates from the site. There are no indirect impacts on heritage assets, there will be no direct on inappropriate indirect impact on tourism or recreation in the area, including on the canal or public rights of way. Overall, there is strong policy support for the proposals and they comply with the Development Plan and national planning policy. Specifically, they comply with the main policy test for renewable energy development within the adopted Local Plan (Policy PR.6). The solar farm will make a substantial contribution to meeting the Council’s renewable energy targets as well as a positive contribution to national targets. There are substantial environmental, social and economic benefits, which outweigh the impacts of the Proposals, which have been minimised through site choice, area reduction and mitigation measures such as screening.

Applicant’s Supporting Documents

 Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment May 2015  Ecological Appraisal February 2015  Planning, Design and Access Statement  Agricultural Land Classification (18 Feb 2015)  Provisional Traffic Management Plan  Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal March 2015  Flood Risk Assessment (incorporating Sustainable Drainage Strategy) 25/02/2015  Community Consultation Report  Rooftop, previously developed and/or non-agricultural land solar programme – Opportunity Register Updated May 2015 Additional supporting information submitted during the course of the application:

 Letter addressing issues and enclosure of photo montages 20th October 2015  Landscape photomontages 1 of 2  Landscape Photo Montages 2 of 2  Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan September 2015  Flood Risk Assessment Incorporating Sustainable Drainage Strategy 08/10/15  Site Plan South  Site Plan North  Site Plan Full

Ward Member (Councillor Riches)

Object:  Contravenes emerging Policy CS3  Historic canal and landscape

Little Itchington Parish Council

(The full response is available in the application file)

Object:

 Views from community consultation not accurately articulated  Will be visible to wide area, not just immediate vicinity  Little regard to people who use the local area i.e. walkers, horse riders  A number of unknowns about the project that need to be addressed  Question over viability criteria identified by TGC  Loss of visual amenity  Loss of open field and ‘english countryside’  Spoiling tranquillity – noting potential noise from extractor fans  Inappropriate setting for an industrial feature  Loss of agricultural land  Applicant states that land currently used for grazing. This is wrong. Used for crop growing.  Adverse impact on tourism  Adverse effect on wildlife and ecology  Disruption during construction  Inappropriate roads and access  Two similar recent refusals  Refer Policy CS3 of the emerging Core Strategy  Series of questions that need clarification on (14.07.15)

Jeremy Wright MP

 Will have a substantial impact on Bascote and Long Itchington  Nick Boles letter regarding need for renewable energy should not override environmental protections and concerns of the local community  Government policy relating to local communities  Prefer to see panels sited on domestic and commercial roof space Third Party Responses

(The full responses are available in the application file)

2 Letters of support have been received.

203 objections have been received. The comments can be summarised as follows:

Objections:

Highways issues:

• Access road/routes not suitable • Inadequacy of parking/loading/turning • Rights of Way report inaccurate as does not identify National Cycle Route 41, Centenary Way Canal Walk and the Grand Union Canal walk • Increase in traffic as a shepherd would need to visit sheep daily. • Should not use Bascote Road/Canal bridge during construction • Welsh Road/Bascote Road junction dangerous • Soft verges become dangerous and rutted when heavy vehicles use route • Risk to horse riders

Flood Risk/Drainage issues:

• Land can get very wet, and is an existing run off problem  Swales not clearly identified  Concern regarding existing water course issue, and impact upon the site  Need to ensure drainage appropriate including adequate consideration of SuDS

Landscape and Visual Impact Issues:

• Will ruin views • Destroy beautiful countryside/out of keeping with the countryside • Can be clearly seen from the public road in Bascote Village • Visible from the canal • Will rise to 5.2 meters • Solar farms are ugly • Will be visible from house (Rose Cottage) • DECC Renewable Energy Roadmap advice regarding visibility will not be met. • LVIA makes no mention of additional planting or moorings of canal boats • Is not clear where the secondary hedges will go • No longer term landscape management plan • Concern that reducing the height of the hedge to accommodate the visibility splay during the lifetime of the development will increase its visibility  Findings of LVIA relating to adverse impact.  Not enough information regarding mitigation measures

Ecology Issues:

• Screening will affect local wildlife and take years to grow • Detrimental to wildlife (nothing will grow under the panels) • Hedgerows will need to be cut to allow the sun through • Needs a more in depth ecological study • In a protected fox coven • Loss of trees • Ecology appraisal not carried out at the optimal time of year • No Ecological Management Plan submitted with the application • Vegetation cut back on north eastern boundary relates to Warwickshire Wildlife trust project and therefore will not be grown back as suggested • Limited scope for sheep grazing, grass between panels will die off. • Rabbit population will increase as foxes will be unable to pass under the fencing • Approval would be required from the Canal Trust to plant new hedges • South western corner is a known habitat for newts • Rare plants in Bascote • Advice concerning mitigation planting, species height etc along hedgerows. Does not believe it to be achievable

Miscellaneous issues:

• Agricultural fields are for growing food • No assurance that land will be returned to agricultural use at the end of the temporary consent • Will not benefit local community • Already 2 solar farms within a 5 mile radius (Bishops Itchington and Southam)

• End of life disposal will create environmental impact and pollution risk • Potential of leaching toxic chemicals if panels get damaged  Contravenes government guidance • Should be on brown land/rooftops • Long term economics of smaller solar farms not proven • Panels probably obsolete in 5 to 10 years as new technology comes • What happens if the company ceases trading before the end of the consent and clearance of the site • Threat to local jobs, local shops etc. • Connection to National Grid not fully clear. Distance and digging up of roads would likely make the scheme unviable • At the end of its life the site could be considered as brown field land • Potential for an upfront paid bond in the event that the company is not in business at the end of the 25 years • Properties in Bascote will be devalued • Deterioration of panels over time higher than stated  Impact of direct and reflected lighting • PV Panels to be a max of 10 feet • Note sure if regrading of land required – no topographical survey • Not enough information regarding the cabling  Appears to be different opinions within documentation as to the actual size of the site  Willingness to give contribution to Parish Council does not appear to be accompanied by any legal agreement to secure said payments.  No resident expressed interest in taking up investment opportunities  No local jobs arising from the project  Transmission line will cause enormous problems  Not sure if the hedgerows (particularly along canal) are under control of applicant  Potential to decease height of panels due to sloping nature of the site, but put them closer together? • Need confirmation that National Grid /Power company can accept the power generated from the grid connection point. • Consider amount of power that will be generated from the number of panels is overstated. • It is a double blow in the local area given plans for HS2 as well.  CCTV proposed would be an intrusion on the privacy of people walking in the local area.  Cost of cabling  Concerns regarding how cabling will be accommodated • Cannot be sure that the solar panels will have a value at the end of their lifetime. • Installation should not take place in the winter months • Potential damage to properties in Bascote • Need to confirm how much energy will be generated • Would devalue properties • Field Margins should be 7 – 10 metres wide  Glint and glare information not totally accurate, and will impact upon local residents, walkers and cyclists  Questions the agricultural expertise for sheep farming and seed beds

Additional comments following the submission of additional supporting information

An additional 26 letters have been received. A majority confirmed their previous grounds for objection still stood. The following new points were raised:

 Land will be classed as brownfield industrial afterwards  Considers that that the additional information provided is misinformation. Residents require more time to respond.  Object to tone of applicants supporting letter  Concerns regarding height of hedgerows/hedge management  Photomontages show summer situation  Wildflowers under panels not appropriate  Swales not shown on Ecology and Landscape Plans

Consultations

 WCC Highways – No Objection. Access needs to be widened, hedges need to be removed for visibility splays. Subject to conditions (10.07.15)  Environment Agency – No Objection. Refer to Lead Flood Authority (09.07.15)  SDC Environmental Health – No objection. (13.06.15)  Severn Trent Water – No objection (04.08.2015)  Lead Flood Authority – No objection subject to conditions (14.07.15)  Ramblers – Warwickshire Area – No objection (11.07.15)  SCC Rights of Way – No objection. There are no public rights of way crossing or immediately abutting the application site (03.07.15)  Warwickshire Wildlife Trust – No objection subject to conditions including a Habitat Management Plan. Considers that solar farms can Solar farms can benefit biodiversity (17.07.15)  WCC Ecology – No objection subject to provision of a Biodiversity Management Plan (24.07.15)  The Canal and River Trust – No Objection subject to conditions (17.08.15)  WCC Archaeology – to be reported verbally ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Principle of Development

The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key material planning consideration. The emerging Core Strategy is also a material consideration.

The Development Plan

At the time of writing this report, the formal development plan comprises only the saved policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework”.

Saved policy PR.6 states that the provision of renewable energy schemes, particularly from wind, solar and biomass resources will be encouraged. According to the scale and nature of the scheme proposals will be considered against the following four criteria:-

(a) ‘the proposed development would not have a detrimental effect on the environment and character of the local area, including visual impact and the generation of emissions; (b) the development is located and designed in a manner which would be sensitive to the character of any buildings affected; (c) the location of the scheme does not impinge on transport routes, including aircraft flight paths, and public rights of way; and (d) the scheme does not cause an unreasonable adverse effect on existing dwellings and business premises’.

Paragraph 3.6.5 of the Local Plan goes on to state that solar energy is considered to be the cleanest form of renewable energy. However, it can have a visual impact on the landscape and on the character of buildings which requires careful attention. Policy PR.6 of the Local Plan Review is generally consistent with the NPPF in terms of the overall aims and considerations to be taken into account, and is therefore afforded significant weight on this basis.

Saved Policy CTY.1 states that all forms of development in the countryside, other than those in accordance with provisions elsewhere in the Local Plan, will generally be resisted in order to preserve its character and to ensure that resources are protected. Proposals for developments that are not covered by the provisions of the plan will have to be fully justified and demonstrate that they would not be contrary to the overall strategy of the Plan, and that their impact on the character of the area would not be harmful. Policy CTY.1 is more restrictive than the NPPF as it resists development in the open countryside, unless it accords with the provisions of the Local Plan. Consequently the policy is not consistent with the NPPF and is afforded limited weight.

Saved Policy PR.1 also states that development proposals should respect and, where possible, enhance the quality and character of the area. Proposals that would damage or destroy features which contribute to the distinctiveness of the local area will not be permitted unless significant public benefit would arise from the scheme. Policy PR.1 is consistent with another core planning principle of the NPPF which takes account of the character of different areas and recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and weight should therefore also be attached to it in terms of the current proposal.

Saved Policy CTY.4 relates to Agriculture and Farm Diversification and states that farm diversification is generally supported subject to a number of criteria including an assessment of whether best and most versatile land is affected. The policy is considered to be consistent with paragraph 28 of the NPPF which promotes agricultural diversification.

Principle - Emerging core strategy

The Examination in Public (EIP) of the Core Strategy was in January 2015 with the Inspector’s Interim Report published in March 2015.

At Full Council on 22 June 2015, Members endorsed some of the emerging Core Strategy Policies for Development Management purposes, such that they can be considered to carry ‘some weight’.

The emerging Core Strategy Policy CS.3 Sustainable Energy relates, at part B, to Solar Energy. This says that proposals for solar energy will be supported where the impacts are, or can be, made acceptable, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An assessment against a number of criteria would need to be undertaken: • Impact on agricultural activities and disturbances to agricultural land • Impact on openness and character of the landscape and on visual amenity • Impact on the character of the historic landscape • Impacts of trees and other vegetation which may cause overshadowing, making allowance for future growth • Impact on and opportunities to enhance biodiversity • Impact of direct and reflected lighting on the amenity of occupied affected buildings or land on light pollution, on aviation and on biodiversity

Proposals will be determined with regard to the Council’s Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity Assessment which was reported to the Council’s Cabinet 8 September 2014 where it was received as evidence to inform the application of Policy CS.3.

Policy AS.10 of the Draft Core Strategy relates to development in the Countryside and Villages. Whilst promoting a wide range of activities and development in rural parts of the District in order to maintain balanced rural communities and a strong rural economy, it stresses that this is subject to development minimising any impact on the character of the local landscape, communities and environmental features; minimising the impact on occupiers of existing properties; avoiding a harmful increase in traffic; prioritising the use of brownfield land and avoiding development on the best and most versatile agricultural land.

The policy identifies the type of development and uses which may be appropriate in rural areas, and states that other types of development or activity in the countryside will need to be fully justified, offer significant benefits to the local area and not be contrary to the overall development strategy for the District. Solar farms are not specifically identified as being an appropriate use of land, although farm-based business activities that would help to diversify and support the viability of agricultural operations are listed.

National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states ‘inter alia’ that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that planning permission should be granted where development accords with the development plan.

Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless: - any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole; or - specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.

One of the core planning principles set out in paragraph 17 of the NPPF is to support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy).

The Climate Change Act 2008 commits the UK to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 and a 34% reduction by 2020, based on 1990 levels. Linked with this, Paragraph 94 of the NPPF advises that local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, in line with the objectives and provisions of the Act.

Paragraph 97 states that to help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy local planning authorities should have a positive strategy to promote energy from such sources and consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources. At Paragraph 98 the NPPF advises that in determining applications for such developments the applicants should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable and low carbon energy, and authorities should approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Planning Practice Guidance (2014)

The Planning Practice Guidance (2014) (“the PPG”) states that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not necessarily mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. Renewable energy developments should be acceptable in their proposed location. 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.

In terms of the particular planning considerations that relate to large scale ground-mounted solar photovoltaic farms, the PPG states that authorities should consider the following particular factors:

 encouraging the effective use of land by focussing solar farms on previously developed and non agricultural land, provided it is not of high environmental value;  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; and (ii) the proposal allows for continued agricultural use where applicable and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays;  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;  the proposal’s visual impact, the effect on landscape of glint and glare and on neighbouring uses and aircraft safety;  the extent to which there may be additional impacts if solar arrays follow the daily movement of the sun;  the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing;  conservation of heritage assets;  the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening with native hedges;  the energy generating potential, which can vary for a number of reasons including, latitude and aspect.

UK Solar PV Strategy Part 1: Roadmap to a Brighter Future – Department of Energy and Climate Change October 2013

This document sets out the Government’s vision for the strategic direction for solar PV in the UK, based on four guiding principles:

• 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; • 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; • 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.

UK Solar PV Strategy Part 2: Delivering a Brighter Future April 2014 (selected relevant extracts)

Clear ambition to see a further step change in deployment, focusing on a major opening up of the market for mid-size, commercial and industrial onsite generation and a new drive to work with industry to scale up domestic deployment, aiming for 1m roof installations by the end of 2015. Also focus on innovation to identify new options and solutions.

Confirmation that more large-scale solar projects have come forward than originally envisaged by Government models which may have implications for financial incentives available in Great Britain under the Renewables Obligation and the Small-scale Feed-in-Tariff.

Further recognition that large-scale solar farms provide opportunities for greater generation but can also have a negative impact on the rural environment if not well-planned and well-screened. Statement by the Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change (November 2013)

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change issued a ministerial statement on Solar Energy in November 2013. This provided an update on government ambitions for solar energy, stating that solar PV is one of the priority renewable energy technologies which will assist in meeting renewable energy targets and help to deliver secure, cleaner energy at the lowest possible cost to the consumer and ensure security of supply. The Minister is keen for the focus of growth to be on domestic and commercial roof space and previously used land. He is aware of concerns raised by the public about the potential growth of large scale solar farms, and stressed the need for sensitive siting of solar farms and the need to take full account of the latest planning guidance, as set out in the Solar PV Roadmap.

Site Selection Process and Community Consultation

The Planning, Design and Access Statement submitted by the Applicant outlines the site selection process applied to the current proposals. It should be noted that Sequential Tests are no longer required as a part of the planning process.

The applicant also advises that substantial efforts were made to identify opportunities on roof tops and previously developed land. To this effect, a document entitled ‘TGV Renewables – Rooftop Previously Developed and or Non- agricultural Land Solar Programme – Opportunity Register’ submitted with this application found limited opportunity.

In terms of identifying the site currently under consideration, the starting point was to identify sites in areas with suitable grid connection opportunities. These were then filtered through detailed planning and environmental assessment which considered, for instance, access, transport, topography, biodiversity issues, heritage impacts, existing land use, and grade of agricultural land.

Once a number of sites were identified, more detailed work on grid connection followed together with discussions with land owners. This was followed by viability assessments and landowner interest, after which the application site was one of the few remaining viable sites within this area, together with another site close to Long Itchington.

The UK Solar Strategy Roadmap states that support for the solar PV should provide opportunities for local communities to influence decisions that affect them. The PPG also says that in identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy by Local Planning Authorities, the views of local communities likely to be affected should be listened to.

Having identified specific sites, an initial public consultation exhibition was held in relation to solar proposals on a site at Manor Farm, Church Road, Long Itchington in January 2015. This was attended by approximately 300 local residents who, the Community Consultation Report advises, were mostly against the proposals at Manor Farm.

The exhibition also introduced a number of alternative sites for a proposed solar farm, which appeared to be more favourable alternatives to the attendees.

Following the negative response in relation to Manor Road Farm, and the identified potential to impact significantly on heritage assets, TGC advises that they decided not to pursue the proposals at Manor Road Farm, and instead developed proposals for the site currently under consideration.

A further exhibition was therefore held in March 2015, which was attended by approximately 180 people. This related to two sites – one to the west of Bascote Road, and one to the east (now the subject of this application)

Following initial comments at this exhibition the plans were refined prior to submission to include additional screening along boundaries, post and wire deer fencing, and the western field was removed due to concerns regarding landscape and visual impact.

It should be noted that since the submission of the application further amendments have been made to the application in relation to screening, addition of nesting boxes, wildflower planting and alternative location for the siting of external housing equipment etc.

A number of residents have mentioned their concern and/or confusion over the community consultation process, and, whilst the situation was less than ideal as it has appeared to lead to a level of confusion about the intentions of the applicant, it is in my opinion, not unreasonable to discount the original site during the consultation process in favour of one that does not have the same heritage constraints, particularly as this decision was followed up with further community consultation.

Impact on the landscape and character of the area

As part of its core principles (paragraph 17) the NPPF requires account to be taken of the different roles and character of different areas, and recognition to be given to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, as well as seeking to secure high quality design. Paragraphs 58 and 109 seek to achieve visually attractive schemes as a result of appropriate landscaping and the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes.

Saved policies PR.1 and DEV.2 of the Local Plan Review have a high degree of consistency with the NPPF as they state that proposals should respect and enhance the quality and character of the area and landscaping should be an integral part of a development. Policy PR.6 states that renewable energy schemes should not have a detrimental effect on the environment and character of the area, including its visual impact.

A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted in support of the application.

This identified that two Natural England National Character Areas (NCAs) are located within the 5km study area of the site.

The site and a majority of the 5km study area are located within NCA 96 Dunsmore and Feldon which is predominantly a rural, agricultural landscape. A small area to the south east of the study area is located within NCA 95 Northamptonshire Uplands which is an area of ‘gently rolling limestone hills’.

The site at County level is located on the edge of the Lias Uplands county level landscape area.

The assessment concluded that the site and surrounding area is generally of rural character where the topography is gently undulating, with low hills, heathland plateau and clay vales separated by occasional upstanding escarpment. It is largely agricultural landscape with intensive pastoral grazing on variable field sizes. Roadside trees and hedgerows are prominent, and there is nucleated settlement, thus retaining a rural character.

Whilst there are designated areas and sensitive receptors within the 5km study area, these are located at a sufficient distance from, and / or there is sufficient intervening vegetation and built development such that the application site will not impact on these receptors.

The topography of the immediate area is relatively flat, however it undulates in places.

The site itself slopes from north to south with a difference of approximately 10 metres between the northern and southern boundaries. It is comprised of two fields that have been used for crop growing and is bounded by hedgerows and hedgerow trees, albeit that there are currently some gaps in places.

The Grand Union Canal and the Rivers Itchen and Leam flow within the study area. The Canal runs immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the application site.

There are no Tree Preservation Orders within a 250m search around the site area.

There are a number of public highways in the area as well as footpaths and bridleways that network with some of the minor roads. The closest to the proposed development include the Grand Union Canal Walk, which lies adjacent to the southern boundary of the site at its closest point. The Millennium Way passes to the south of Long Itchington. National Cycle Route 41 is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, and National Cycle Route 48 is located on Bascote Road, along the western boundary of the site.

The visual envelope of the site is generally defined by small areas of relatively high topography towards the perimeter of the study area, and, dense roadside vegetation.

The LVIA undertook an appraisal of the landscape effects that would result from the construction of the site including solar panels and associated infrastructure.

The Assessment indicates that overall the sensitivity of the site and the surrounding area is considered to be ‘medium’. The vegetation on the boundary of the site reduces the scope for intervisibility thus decreasing the sensitivity/susceptibility of the site. During construction however the short term landscape effect would be ‘substantial adverse’.

The introduction of new buildings/structures would have a ‘substantial adverse’ effect – but only on the most immediate area adjoining the site. For this reason, the location of the proposed equipment housing has, during the course of the application, been moved along the western boundary behind existing dense hedgerows. Additional screening in relation to the equipment housing can be adequately conditioned.

The effects of the overall operational effects on landscape character are assessed as ‘moderate adverse’ however the LVIA says that whilst the landscape character of the site would be altered by the presence of the solar farm, the hedgerows and hedgerow trees on the boundary of the site will be retained and enhanced thus reducing the magnitude of landscape impact. The most notable points to consider are:

The effects on the closest residential receptors are assessed as being ‘moderate adverse’. For remaining properties the assessment is ‘negligible to slight adverse’ or ‘negligible adverse’.

In relation to the transport and rights of way network, whilst a majority are considered ‘negligible to slight adverse’, there are a number of points from which the effects are considered to be more severe.

In relation to the Bascote Road which runs along the western boundary of the site, the visual effects have been identified as ‘negligible to substantial adverse'. This is due to gaps in the hedgerows, which can be mitigated against. Likewise on the Grand Union Canal Walk, also adjacent to the site, there are substantial gaps along sections within the hedgerows, thus creating a ‘severe adverse’ visual impact in places. Again these can be stopped up through additional appropriate planting.

In summary, the LVIA indicates that the highest visual impacts would affect only short isolated sections for which it is possible to mitigate through the setting back of panels along the boundary of Canal Towpath, and additional screen planting along the hedgerows.

In addition to considering the details above, and visiting the site, I have also analysed the proposals against the Stratford on Avon District Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity Study (July 2014), which provided part of the evidence in relation to the Core Strategy, especially Policy CS.3.

The primary purpose of the report is to set out the findings of the sensitivity and capacity of the landscape character types to various scales of wind and solar development.

According to criteria within the Study, the application site is classified as a medium sized solar site.

Table 6 of the Study indicates which characteristics make a landscape more or less susceptible to solar energy development. The criteria are generally to be considered of equal weight in principle. However, for solar energy, the degree of slope, the presence of hedgerows and the field pattern are usually significant.

The assessment criteria have been used to categorise the most appropriate landscape characteristic areas within Stratford upon Avon capable of accommodating solar development. This concludes that there are areas of opportunity and constraint for solar energy within Stratford upon Avon. The main areas of constraint are Ancient Arden, The Cotswolds High Wold and Wolds, and the Ironstone Wolds. Outside these areas there is some capacity for occasional solar energy developments spaced to avoid cumulative impact. The Study indicates that there may be potential for solar energy development to be spaced so as to become a key characteristic in the Feldon Vale Farmlands, which is the designation within which this application sits, provided that suitable mitigation is possible.

I have also used this table as a simple guide to measure the site suitability for solar development, and on balance have found that the overall landscape characteristic of the site should be considered less susceptible to solar energy development. Proposed Mitigation

All planting on the site boundaries would be retained and enhanced, particularly where gaps are apparent – thus reducing the magnitude of effects.

Following the initial planning application, and subsequent discussions with the applicant, additional information was provided in the form of photomontages from key viewpoints, a Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan, and plans indicating repositioning of some of the infrastructure.

The photomontages in effect confirm the findings above, and my view is that these views can be mitigated against via an appropriate Landscape Management Plan to include new hedges, together with further setting back of the panels from the canal towpath boundary.

I have noted community concerns regarding the need for detailed drawings in relation to mitigation, and although the Landscape and Ecology plan, as submitted, is fairly basic in nature, it does give an indicator of what could be achieved on site. However, I am comfortable that the full mitigation plans can be conditioned, with the expectation that this will contain more detail in terms of species, heights, exact location of planting and a more integrated approach towards ecology. At the time of writing, I am aware that the applicant has been discussing the proposals with the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust who have made a number of recommendations in terms of species planting that the applicant will take on board. This is likely to have developed further prior to Committee in which case I will update Members orally.

In summary therefore, I have noted the concerns raised by local residents in relation to visual impact, including their concerns in relation to the impact upon tourists visiting the area. I have considered the supporting information submitted with the application, and assessed the proposals against the Council’s own evidence base in relation to Landscape Sensitivity. I have also discussed further improvements and the need to refine the landscape management plan in relation to screening in order to mitigate against the severe /adverse impacts, and am satisfied that this can be adequately conditioned.

I am generally satisfied that the siting of panels and associated development on this reasonably well enclosed and screened site would result in moderate harm in terms of the landscape and visual impact. In coming to this conclusion I acknowledge that these impacts would vary over time and would be dependent on various factors, including the maturity and mitigation effect of the tree and hedgerow planting and the seasonal variation. Impacts during the short term construction and decommissioning phases would also be greater. I also recognise that the development is for a temporary 25 year period, and is fully reversible.

On this basis therefore I am satisfied that with appropriate mitigation, on balance the landscape and visual impact of the scheme is acceptable.

Highways Matters

Paragraph 32 of the NPPF seeks to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. Saved policy DEV. 4 of the Local Plan Review remains consistent with this approach. Direct access to the proposals will be taken from Bascote Road, and although County Highways had initial concerns in relation to the ability of the bridge over the Grand Union Canal being able to take the weight of construction/delivery vehicles, it has been confirmed that there is no weight restriction that would limit its use by these vehicles. County Highways have also carefully considered the access arrangements and are satisfied that the appropriate visibility splays can be accommodated during construction.

In terms of trip generation, the proposals would generate up to 21 deliveries per day for the first week, after which the numbers would decline. Notwithstanding local concerns, County Highways have confirmed that it is possible for an HGV and car to safely pass one another, and where the road is slightly narrower, passing bays could be agreed – secured by condition. Given the limited period during which construction/delivery vehicles would visit the site, County Highways are satisfied that the highway network can accommodate the temporary increase in vehicular trips during the construction phase.

WCC Highways have therefore raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions. Consequently I conclude that the proposal will not result in any unacceptable highway dangers and is acceptable in highway safety terms. The proposal therefore accords with Policy DEV.4 and Paragraph 32 of the NPPF.

Impact on Heritage Assets

The Heritage Assessment submitted with the planning application indicates that there is very limited archaeological activity at the site. It did identify a windmill mound of potential medieval date to the north of the site and earthwork remains of a former pump recorded in historic maps and identified on site.

The archaeological evidence suggests that the potential for the discovery of any buried features is low.

The Assessment concluded that approaches along Bascote from the south, approaching the Long Itchington Conservation Area would be unaffected by the proposed development, which would be visible only fleetingly, even in winter months. The Assessment notes that there is no intervisibility between the site and the Conservation Area as a result of the intervening former railway line embankments.

The three listed buildings within Bascote would also remain unaffected by the intermittent views.

To date no comments have been received from the WCC Archaeology Officer. Members will be updated orally at Committee.

Impact on Residential Amenity

One of the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF (Paragraph 17) is that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF sets out that planning policy should avoid noise from giving rise to adverse impacts. Policy PR.8 of the Local Plan states that planning permission will not be granted for development which could give rise to air, noise, light or water pollution which may cause harm to other land uses. Policy PR.8 is considered to be in conformity with the NPPF. The panels themselves do not generate any noise, and the proposed infrastructure is not likely to generate any significant change in ambient noise levels. Whilst full technical details have not been submitted for consideration as part of the application, I consider that there is no evidence indicating that the proposed equipment would generate any significant change in ambient noise levels. I therefore consider that the proposals are not likely to result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers by virtue of noise or general disturbance.

The LVIA noted that the visual effects on the closest dwellings are assessed as being ‘moderate adverse’. For remaining properties the assessment is ‘negligible to slight adverse’ or ‘negligible adverse’.

As indicated above, I am satisfied that suitable mitigation can be employed that would significantly reduce this impact. The detailing of the mitigation can be conditioned. I consider therefore that the proposal complies with policy PR.8 and the NPPF.

Concerns have been raised in relation to the use of CCTV cameras, and potential loss of privacy for walkers and cyclists in the area. The cameras however are trained onto the solar site itself, and I consider that a planning condition to require full details relating to the siting of cameras to be agreed, and then implemented, could overcome such concerns. Subject to such a condition being complied with, I consider that the proposal complies with policy PR.8 and the NPPF.

Other matters

Drainage and Flood Risk

Although the site is located close to the River Itchen, the entire site itself is within Flood Zone 1 (low risk).

The proposed development will introduce very small impermeable areas around the site where previously land had been permeable, which could increase run off rates. Rain falling on each solar panel will run off the panels and flow or infiltrate in the sheltered ‘rain shadow’ area underneath the downslope of the modules. The existing grass covered areas which provide for infiltration will only be marginally reduced.

The access roads would be constructed from permeable materials (most likely grass tracks) and therefore will not increase run off.

The installation of swale features running parallel to the site contours within downslope area of the site would intercept and distribute any water flows creating storage, attenuate run off and promote infiltration across the site. The system will be an ‘oversized’ system, which in effect reduces the run off rates to less than the pre developed run off rates.

The Lead Local Flood Authority have carefully considered the proposals and supporting information, and raised no objections subject to a condition relating to the construction of the swales. I concur with this view, and a planning condition is recommended to secure this. I therefore consider that the development is in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 93-108 of the NPPF and saved policies PR.7 and DEV.7 of the Local Plan Review, and Policy CS.4 of the Draft Core Strategy, which remain broadly consistent with the NPPF. Impact on Agricultural Land

The NPPF at paragraph 112 requires planning authorities to take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. Based on its known classification and current use I can see no obvious conflict with this aspect of the NPPF.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that authorities should encourage the effective use of land by focusing development on previously developed and non agricultural land. However, if a proposal does involve Greenfield land, authorities should consider whether 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, and the proposal allows for continued agricultural use and/or encourages bio-diversity improvements around arrays.

Saved Local Plan Review Policy CTY.4 generally supports the diversification of farm-based operations but states that consideration must be given to whether the best and most versatile agricultural land is affected. Best and most versatile land is identified as Grade 1, 2, and 3 a. This policy is considered to be generally consistent with the NPPF.

An Agricultural Land Classification Report was submitted with this application. This report indicates that the site is located within a mixed farming area, where land uses are generally arable cropping or grasslands. It concludes that the Agricultural classification for the site is Grade 3 b, moderate quality agricultural land.

The solar farm would not have any direct impact on the agricultural land quality as there is very little in the way of intrusive works into the soil and once the development is decommissioned the land can again be farmed without its quality having been affected.

I also take account of the fact that this scheme would allow for livestock to graze under the panels to assist in the maintenance of the site, whilst providing scope for agricultural diversification with a dual use of the land. This is in line with paragraph 28 of the NPPF, which seeks to support a prosperous rural economy and in line with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I also take account of the fact that the land can be readily returned to productive use with the quality of the land unaffected.

The proposal is for a temporary period and would not result in the loss of the best or most versatile agricultural land. I am satisfied that a suitably worded condition will ensure that it will be able to revert back to its original use at the end of the life of the solar farm.

Ecological Impact

The Ecology Appraisal submitted with the application indicates that there are no statutory designated sites within 1 km of the application site, although there are 10 non statutory designated sites within 1km. One of these, the Marton junction to Braunston Disused railway line ecosite directly borders the northern boundary which is notable particularly for its flora and butterflies. Bascote Road Scrubs is located a few metres to the north west of the site on the opposite side of Bascote Road, which supports scrub and young woodland. It is known to have supported breeding nightingales.

The Grand Union Canal Ecosite is located a few metres to the south and south east of the site. This provides habitats for both flora and fauna.

Roadside Verge, Bascot Road East Ecosite is located to the south and is mostly hawthorn scrub.

As work relating to the current proposals will be confined within the site, there is unlikely to be any impact on the above ecosites.

The Ecology Appraisal indicates that there are a number of protected and notable species within 1 km of the site, including, for instance, pipistrelle, otter, badgers, barn owl, grass snake, and great crested newt.

All the hedgerows around the site qualify as UK BAP Priority Habitats. All existing hedgerows and trees would be retained, enhanced and managed. No new entrance would need to be created for access as there is currently an access point on Bascote Road.

The Warwickshire Wildlife Trust have commented that solar farms can have a beneficial impact on wildlife subject to a suitable Wildlife Enhancement Plan or Habitat Management Plan which could be secured via condition. They have also expressed an interest in being involved in such Plans. To this end, the applicant has been in discussions with them regarding the future ecological management plans.

The County Ecologist has also carefully considered the proposals and supporting information, and noted that although there are a number of records of protected species immediately adjacent to the site, the site itself is of low ecological value. Noting resident comments, whilst the County Ecologist noted that February is not the optimal time of year to undertake a habitat survey, given the site is largely arable land the timing was not considered to be a major constraint. Given the potential wildlife gain through additional planting, and wildflower seeding etc. the County Ecologist has raised no objection subject to a condition relating to the Biodiversity Management Plan.

Given the level of concern raised by local residents in relation to potential ecological impacts on the site, I requested a fuller Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan.

The Plan includes detailing of the level of site enhancements that would be implemented in the event of an approval. They anticipate finalising these plans in consultation with the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, Warwickshire Butterfly Conservation and the Canal and River Trust. The Management Plan includes the management of hedges, infilling with native species, secondary hedgerows, grassland under solar panels, nest boxes, owl boxes and wildflower.

In light of the above, I am satisfied that the proposals will not impact on protected species, and the additional planting will bring tangible ecological benefits. This could not therefore be a considered a reason on which to refuse this application.

I am therefore, satisfied that the development complies with paragraph 118 of the Framework and policies EF.6 and EF.7 of the Local Plan Review. I have also given due regard to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, and to emerging Policy CS6.

Grid Connection

A number of residents have raised concerns regarding grid connection given that plans show it will be taking a somewhat circuitous route through Long Itchington.

As a result I asked the applicant to provide me with additional information to clarify and explain the grid connection proposals further.

The route identified on the planning application documentation is identified as a worst case scenario, whilst discussions have been on going regarding alternative cable routing. At the time of writing, these discussions are still ongoing.

The applicant has clarified that the cable laying would take place alongside the development of the solar farm and within the same timeframe.

The additional information confirms that the public highway will not need to be closed at any point to accommodate these works.

I am content therefore that the proposed cable routing will not have any unacceptable transport impacts, nor inappropriate impacts on highways, access or amenity during construction.

I addition, a condition could be applied relating to the submission of a Construction Method Statement to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Community Benefit

TGC have offered a community benefit element as part of these proposals. Potentially a minimum of £500 to a maximum of £1000 per installed MW for ten years payable to the Parish Council. This is line with the governments desire for local communities to benefit from such projects through the Infrastructure Act 2015.

There is also the opportunity for community investment in the proposals, subject to resident interest and viability. In the event of an approval, the applicant would discuss this option further with the Parish Council and/or interested parties.

Decommissioning

At the end of the 25 year period, the solar farm would be decommissioned and removed.

A number of residents have expressed concern that in the intervening period, the solar company may no longer to around to do so, or that the system will be inactive and left on site due to new technologies.

In the event of an approval, a condition can be applied to the permission requiring the removal of equipment at the end of the 25 year period, or, if the system becomes inactive, removal if inactive for a period of 6 months. The site would be required to be restored to its pre development condition. The wording would apply to the land and / or the operational company. The panels and associated infrastructure contain many components that could be recycled at the end of their life; it is not assumed that the panels themselves will be sold as second hand. A Decommissioning Plan would also need to be agreed prior to removal of the equipment, and this requirement can be conditioned in the event of a planning approval.

It should be noted that some residents have expressed concern that the site would be classed as brownfield industrial land in the event that a planning approval is given and implemented. This would not be the case and the site would remain as greenfield.

In terms of pollution concerns, Solar PV is a proven technology considered suitable for placement on domestic dwellings as well as open fields.

Conclusions

Assessing the application against the relevant development plan policies of this Council, I consider that the principle of the development would generally accord with those policies.

The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It gives three dimensions to sustainable development: social, economic and environmental. These should not be assessed in isolation, because they are mutually dependant. On this basis, I have concluded that the proposal is sustainable development.

Assessing the planning balance, I consider that the benefits from the scheme would be:

 The significant increase in the generation of a clean source of renewable energy in a location in close proximity to the town of Stratford-upon-Avon, where that energy would be utilised.  A source of income to the landowner’s business helping farm diversification over the lifetime of the development.  Biodiversity enhancements through new habitat formation and new soft landscaping.  The provision of a 25 year period for the land to lay fallow, assisting in reducing the biological contamination of the site.  The ability for the site to return to its former agricultural use at the end of the temporary use.  Enhancing the work of Warwickshire Wildlife Trust in relation to butterflies  The additional income available to the Parish Council as a result of the proposals.

With regards to the potential harm arising from the development, I consider that:

 The harm to the landscape and visual impact as seen from the surrounding area including views from public rights of way, would be moderate and can be mitigated to a large degree through additional planting.

 The harm to highway safety from the use of the access during construction can be mitigated and controlled satisfactorily through planning conditions

• The harm to neighbours amenity is limited and is to an acceptable degree and can be mitigated or controlled satisfactorily through planning conditions • The harm due to a loss of Grade 3b agricultural land is limited and for a temporary period that is fully reversible without land quality degradation and can be mitigated or controlled satisfactorily through planning conditions

Technical issues from statutory consultees can be dealt with by planning conditions. The development will not place undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

Recommendation

It is recommended that TEMPORARY PLANNING PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. Development to commence within 3 years. 2. Temporary permission – maximum of 25 years only with panels to be removed prior to the end of this period. 3. Notification to be provided when electricity is first exported to the grid. 4. Development in accordance with approved plans. 5. Approval of Construction Method Plan 6. Full details of landscaping scheme to be agreed. 7. Any existing and proposed hedgerow planting that is removed, uprooted, severely damaged, destroyed or dies within 25 years following the commencement of development shall be replaced by the approved type planting and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details as identified in condition 6. 8. All hedgerows and tree planting identified on the approved soft landscaping details shall be retained in situ for a period of 25 years following the commencement of development, unless agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority. 9. Details of Tree/hedgerow protection details during construction. 10. Details of colour, materials, location and external appearance of the camera poles, cameras, inverter(s), transfer station(s), collecting station(s), storage container(s). 11. Full details of the design, height and colour of boundary treatments. 12. If the generation of electricity ceases for a minimum of 6 months all structures removed and land restored. 13. Details of CCTV cameras direction and field of vision 14. Archaeological programme of work. 15. Development carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 16. The development shall not be occupied until the existing vehicular access to the site has been widened/remodelled. 17. The existing access to the site shall be surfaced with a bound material for 15 18. Visibility splays provided with an ‘x’ distance of 2.4 metres and ‘y’ distances of 160 metres. 19. The development shall not be occupied until parking/loading/unloading provided. 20. Biodiversity Management Plan to be submitted and implemented.

Notes:

1. NPPF Note on positive working. 2. Minor Highways Works Agreement 3. Agreement with Highway Authority under Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980 4. Preventing mud or other extraneous material is not carried onto the highway.

ROBERT WEEKS HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING