This plan has been produced for Planning Committee purposes only. No further copies may be made.

Dover District Council District Council Not to be reproduced Not to be reproduced

Dover District Council Not to be reproduced

Dover District Council Not to be reproduced

Dover District Council Dover District Council Not to be reproduced Not to be reproduced

Not to scale Application: DOV 15 00115 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material Marshborough Farm with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controlled of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Marshborough copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

CT3 2BZ Dover District Council Licence Number 100019780 published 2015

TR31545815 Note: This plan is provided for purposes of site identification only. a) DOV/15/00115 - Photovoltaic solar farm, grid connection, grid connection cable, access and associated works - Land at Marshborough Farm, Marshborough, Woodnesborough

Reason for report: Level of public interest.

b) Summary of Recommendation

Planning Permission be Granted.

c) Planning Policy and Guidance

Dover District Core Strategy (CS)

• Policy DM1 states that development will not be permitted outside the confines unless specifically justified by other plan policies, or it functionally requires such a location, or it is ancillary to existing development or uses. • Policy DM15 states that development which would result in the loss of or adversely affect the character or appearance of the countryside will only be permitted if it is; i) in accordance with development plan documents; ii) justified by the needs of agriculture; iii) justified by the need to sustain a rural economy or community; iv) it cannot be accommodated elsewhere; and v) it does not result in the loss of ecological habitats. Measures should be incorporated to reduce as far as practicable any harmful effects on countryside character. • Policy DM16 states that development which would harm the character of the landscape will only be permitted if, inter alia, it incorporates any necessary avoidance or mitigation measures and can be sited to avoid or reduce harm and /or incorporate design measures to mitigate the impacts to an acceptable level.

Dover Core Strategy Evidence Base

• Sustainable Construction and Renewable Energy. Evidence base for sustainable construction policies and testing of renewable energy capacity and feasibility of the Dover District Council Core Strategy 2006 – 2026.

National Planning Policy Framework

• Paragraph 17 sets out core planning principles including reference to encouraging the use of renewable resources. • Paragraph 98. LPAs should not require applicants for renewable energy to demonstrate the overall need for renewable and carbon energy. Applications should be approved if impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. • Paragraph 109. Planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, inter alia, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. • Paragraph 111. encourages the effective use of land by reusing brownfield land provided it is not of high environmental quality • Paragraph 112 indicates that significant development of agricultural land should be shown to be necessary and, where this is demonstrated, areas of poorer quality land should be used in preference to that of a higher quality. • Paragraph 128-136. LPAs should assess significance of any heritage asset which may be affected by a proposal. Where proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, harm should be weighed against public benefits of proposal. The more important the asset the greater the weight should be.

National Planning Practice Guidance

Introduced on 6 March 2014. Provides guidance on a number of planning issues, including solar farms, under the heading of renewable and low carbon energy.

• Paragraph 001. Planning has important role to play in delivery of new renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure. • Paragraph 003. The UK has legal commitments to cut greenhouse gases and meet increased energy demand from renewable sources. • Paragraph 007. Need for renewable does not automatically override environmental protections. Local topography important factor in assessing impact of wind turbines. Impact can be as great in predominantly flat landscapes as hilly areas. Great care should be taken to conserve heritage assets in manner appropriate to their significance. Proposals in AONBs or areas close to them where there could be an adverse impact will need careful consideration. • Paragraph 013. Focussing large scale solar farms on previously developed land and non agricultural land, provided it is not of high environmental value. Where a proposal involves greenfield land, 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 land.

Other Government Policy Statements

• Renewable Energy Directive 2009 requires UK to provide 15% of energy consumption by renewable sources by 2020. By 2011 6.8% of electricity produced from renewable sources. UK Renewable Energy Strategy 2009 suggests UK has potential for renewables to provide over 30% of energy needs by 2020. Latest figures suggest 15% figure will be achieved but further targets will be required beyond 2020. • Speech by Minister for Energy and Climate Change 25 April 2013 – emphasises that brownfield land should be preferred and where solar farms are not on brownfield land preference is for low grade agricultural land. • Speech by Planning Minister 29 January 2014 – emphasises NPPF considerations and that where land is designated at a relatively high grade it should not be preferred for the siting of such developments. • Speech by Minister for Energy and Climate Change 22 April 2014 – main message from UK Solar PV Strategy is that Government keen to focus on domestic and commercial roof space and on previously developed land.

• UK Solar PV Strategy Part 2 – April 2014. Confirms central role that solar PV can play in UK energy mix. Forward by Minister explains that UK has potential to install up to 20GW of solar early in the next decade. Report points out that solar PV enjoys the highest public approval rating of any energy technology, typically above 80%. • Guide issued by Department of Energy & Climate Change May 2104, stresses the continuing importance of role the planning system has to play in delivering renewable energy and provides case studies of wind farms and solar farms. • 28 October 2014 Department of Energy and Climate Change re–issued its Policy for increasing the use of low carbon technologies to ensure the country has a secure supply of energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

d) Relevant Planning History

Application no DOV/13/00332 submitted April 2013 for 24 hectares solar farm site (on land to west of the current site) to produce 13 mw of electricity. Refused by members at Meeting of 8 August 2013 for reasons relating to visual impact and loss of high quality agricultural land. Subsequently dismissed on appeal in July 2014, the Inspector supporting the Council on both issues. e) Consultee and Third Party Responses –

Environmental Health Officer – No objections subject to hours of operation during construction being restricted and for details of any contamination to be investigated. Both matters to be secured through planning condition.

KCC Highways – Confirms access can be suitably managed and controlled through construction. Accepts findings of Glint and Glare study and notes that nearby solar farm to north of old power station site is in same relative location and does not appear to have caused problems. No objections subject to conditions including Construction Management Plan and Decommissioning Management Plan.

Highways Agency – No objections.

Agricultural Advisor – Notes that land has been classified Grade 3b following recent detailed survey and that this does not relate to Best and Most Versatile category. Also note that grazing will take place so that an agricultural use will continue. Does not consider that this particular land would amount to significant development of agricultural land for the purposes of the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF)

Natural – Not likely to have any significant effect on nearby Sandwich Bay to SSSI or will damage or destroy any interest features for which the SSSI has been notified.

Environment Agency – Accept findings of Flood Risk assessment and agree that risk of flooding will be negligible. Agree that proposal to introduce swales will see improvement of existing drainage situation.

Kent Wildlife Trust – No objections but would have preferred to see proposals for long term bio diversity management of construction compound area (Note: Applicant has confirmed that area is only being leased during construction period itself, after which it will be restored to the current condition and revert to the current owner of the land)

KCC Footpaths – No objections but would wish to see mitigation screening to safeguard views from nearby public footpaths. Any fencing or planting should not interfere with route of footpath and any permission does not imply consent to alter footpath which would require separate consenting process.

Ecology Officer – Site is transitional area between Ash Level Character Area (CA) and Preston and Ash Horticultural Belt CA. Predominantly flat landscape at this point but dominated by A256 and A257 and by isolated buildings in the landscape. Character will change with presence of solar farm but not considered significant. Both roads are fast commuter routes and therefore low receptors. Site visible from some public footpaths but mitigated by existing and proposed planting. Biodiversity Management plan offers scope for wide range of biodiversity.

River Stour Drainage Board - Has potential to affect downstream flood risk although not opposed to principle of development. Requests condition for details of surface water drainage to be submitted to ensure run off will be no greater than current greenfield site.

Third Party Responses

Support – I letter of support. A contribution towards less dependency on fossil fuels. Plan is well thought out with low visual impact.

Woodnesborough Parish Council - Supports application in principle but consider that style and design of units out of keeping with rural location and rest of site.

Ward Councillor – Notes that planting has been increased following meeting with local residents and feedback is that they now feel this will be acceptable.

f) 1. The Site and the Proposal

1.1 The application site comprises 9.7 hectares (approx. 24 acres) of land within Marshborough Farm adjacent to the west side of the A256 and just to the south of its junction with the A257. Sandwich lies to the east, whilst the village of Marshborough is approximately I km to the south west. A public footpath lies approximately 100 metres to the south of the site, running in a broadly east west direction before crossing the A256 via a pedestrian bridge. The nearest residential properties are Great Poulders Farm 200 metres to the south east and on the other side of the A256, and residential properties in Each End, 560 metres to the west.

1.2 The site is currently in use for arable purposes for grass and maize but is waterlogged at various times of the year resulting in poor yields. The land is substantially flat, being divided into several parcels, separated by drainage ditches along which there are mature trees and hedgerows. There is open agricultural land to the west and south as well as to the east on the other side of the A256. Access to the site is via an existing gate off the A257 to the north of the site.

1.3 The proposal is for the development of a 4.99MW solar farm sufficient to provide electricity for some 1500 households over a period of 25 years. It will comprise 894 arrays located on 3 main parcels of land within the site separated by existing drainage ditches which will remain. Maximum height of the arrays will be 2.5m above ground level. Each zone would be secured by 2.2m high plastic coated steel mesh fences. There would be 3 cabinets and a spare parts container on the west side of the site which would be 9.7 m in length, 3.1m in width and 3.1m in height. In addition there would be 2 sub stations in the south east part of the site which would be a maximum 6.1m length, 2.5m in width and 4m in height. A buried cable will run south of the solar farm to connect to an overhead power line.

1.4 Land beneath and around the arrays would be sown with grass seed and allowed to form a good sward which would be managed with sheep grazing. A detailed bio diversity management plan accompanies the application which will allow for a variety of measures including the encouragement of meadow planting and retention of corridors alongside the ditches for wildlife, particularly for the development of water voles. Existing hedging will be retained but supplemented by substantial new planting of hedgerows and trees. In particular this will include a triple hedgerow and tree line planted along the eastern boundary adjoining the A256, hedgerows along the western and northern boundaries to assist in screening from residential properties in Each End, and the establishment of 5 forestry copses within the site alongside the drainage ditches.

1.5 Access will be via the existing field gate to the north of the site with a temporary construction compound in the north east part of the array site. A detailed Construction Management Plan has been submitted illustrating delivery routes, access arrangements for large vehicles, parking areas, wheel washing equipment etc. Once completed the compound will be removed and the land restored to farming use. Following construction, traffic will be limited to occasional maintenance work.

1.6 At the end of 25 years, the project will be decommissioned. The applicant acknowledges that at that stage detailed surveys are likely to be required to assess wildlife which has become established at that time.

1.7 The application was supported by a full range of supporting documents including the following; A planning statement; a landscape and visual impact assessment (LVIA); an agricultural land report; a phase 1 habitats survey; an historic environment and heritage asset impact assessment; a flood risk assessment; a glint and glare study; a construction management plan; and a statement setting out the sequential approach towards the site selection. Officers have fully considered all the contents of the supporting studies where appropriate. For practical reasons, this report does not summarise all the topic areas covered, but concentrates on key issues relevant to the merits or otherwise of the application. For the avoidance of doubt where issues are not specifically referred to below, officers have accepted conclusions within studies. Copies of the studies are available for inspection by members if required.

2. Main Issues

2.1 The main issues in the consideration of this application are:

• The principle of the solar farm use • Loss of agricultural land & greenfield site • The landscape and visual Impact • Impact upon heritage assets • Ecological interests • Transport Issues • Other Matters

3 Assessment

Principle of the solar farm use

3.1 It is clear that the Government attaches great importance to the provision of renewable energy and as referred to earlier, the NPPF makes it clear that local planning authorities should not question the need for such provision. Good progress is being made towards meeting UK targets but the Government continues to stress the importance of solar provision in various Ministerial statements. It is emphasised that local planning authorities have a key enabling role in this respect. Additionally the Evidence base for the Core Strategy pointed to the relatively high levels of irradiation in the south east and the potential that Dover has to play in delivering such a form of renewable energy.

3.2 Balancing the above however, the Government recognises the potential concerns about inappropriate siting and in the Executive Summary to the UK solar PV Strategy issued in April 2014, referred to the public response to large scale solar farms which have sometimes been sited insensitively and has begun to erode the otherwise record levels of public acceptability which the solar sector as a whole enjoys. Since then, there have been Ministerial announcements to focus the future growth of solar on domestic and commercial roof space and on previously developed land. Guidance on environmental considerations has also been re-emphasised with the publication of the NPG, with the following factors being particularly important: • the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections; • great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of planning proposals on views important to their setting; • proposals in National Parks and AONBs and in areas close to them where there could be an adverse impact on the protected area, will need careful consideration • Where a proposal involves greenfield land, 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 land. • Protecting local amenity is an important consideration which should be given proper weight in planning decisions.

3.3 The above issue does not necessarily mean that a greenfield site is then justified for a solar farm in preference to brownfield land. Whilst the principle of solar energy is to be supported, it is clear from national policy guidance and more recent Ministerial statements, that selected sites need careful consideration and the principle should not override important considerations such as landscape, heritage, loss of agricultural land and residential amenity.

3.4 In that respect, the applicant points out that the District has a relative shortage of brownfield sites and that developing solar farms on brownfield sites, which are usually in more sustainable locations, is therefore likely to result in a loss of potential land not only for housing, but other commercial or retail development, thus conflicting with other policy objectives in the Core Strategy. More generally, lower grade 4 and 5 agricultural land tends to be in areas of high landscape designation such as the AONB, or areas rich in wildlife or bio diversity such as RAMSAR sites or Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Additionally, many of those low lying sites are prone to flooding and thus unsuitable for solar park development.

3.5 The notable brownfield sites outside urban locations are the former colliery sites. However permission has already been granted for a multiuse development (including a solar farm) at the former Betteshangar site whilst a further solar farm permission has been granted at . Officers do not fully accept that there are no further opportunities for such development as a screening opinion has been issued for an extension to the Tilmanstone site, and a further proposal is under informal consideration at . However, it is accepted that in overall terms there is a lack of obvious brownfield sites.

3.6 In terms of any sequential site selection early appeal decisions for solar farms in 2013 and 2014 suggested that it was appropriate to undertake detailed sequential assessments in order to be satisfied there was no available brownfield land in preference to greenfield land. However more recent appeal decisions have clarified the matter. In an appeal decision at Westerfield Farm in Oxfordshire dated December 2014, the Inspector stated that there was no national or local policy for a developer to prove there is no better alternative location for development before planning permission could be granted. Similarly in an appeal decision dated January 2015 at Partridge Green, the same Inspector stated that National Policy in the form of the NPG acknowledged that the visual impact of a well planned and well screened solar farm can be properly addressed within the landscape if planned sensitively. In particular poorer quality agricultural land should be used in preference to higher quality land and it should allow for continued agricultural use and improved bio diversity.

3.7 In practical terms, the site has a convenient and available connection to the local power network in the form of an overhead line located just to the south of the site. The applicant has also secured a grid connection for the Marshborough site in a regional area where overall grid capacity is very limited. Furthermore it is not in a designated landscape and is remote from residential properties.

3.8 Summing up the above, whilst there is no Government policy for a minimum or target number of schemes to be produced in a District or County, in the light of national renewable energy targets and given constraints elsewhere, it is considered that the use of the greenfield site is acceptable in principle, subject to it being acceptable in terms of other site specific issues which are considered further below.

Loss of Agricultural Land

3.9 The nationally recognised Agricultural Land Classification system divides agricultural land into 5 categories to determine its suitability and longer term protection for agricultural use with Grades 1 – Grade 3a being regarded as ‘Best and Most Versatile’. The previous proposal for the Marshborough site on land to the west of the current site included a detailed survey, which whilst it was not to nationally recognised criteria did establish that a substantial part of the site was on Grade 3 and 3a land. On that basis the Inspector concluded that it would result in the unacceptable loss over the lifetime of the development of a site which contained Best and Most Versatile land.

3.10 In response to the above decision, the applicants commissioned a further detailed study of the current site (this time to nationally recognised standards) which concludes that the whole area is Grade 3b i.e. not Best and Most Versatile. This bears out actual practice which shows crop yields to be varied and low because of its low lying location and tendency to become water logged. Last year for example the applicants’ points out that a maize crop was produced for a nearby anaerobic digestion plant whilst the remaining fields have been used only for grass. In terms of ongoing agricultural use, the applicant confirms that it will be used for grazing purposes, usually in the form of sheep grazing both between and underneath the arrays themselves. In that respect, the actual physical land lost to development in the form of tracks, access roads and supports for the arrays amounts to a total land take of the site of 1.37% only. It could be argued therefore that in practical terms there is not even a temporary loss of any significant agricultural land during the lifetime of the solar farm.

3.11 The Council’s agricultural advisor has accepted the conclusions of the study and as noted above, raises no objections based on loss of agricultural land. Officers concur with that view and consider that in the light of Government Policy which specifically seeks to protect Best and Most Versatile agricultural land only, the proposal overcomes the previous objections in that respect. . Landscape and Visual Impact

3.12 In dismissing the appeal for the previous scheme, the Inspector felt that the scale of the proposal would have an adverse effect on the landscape given that it was on open and gently undulating land and was open to view from various vantage points; In particular the A256, public footpaths and from residential properties to the north and south. In that respect it is worth noting that key boundaries of the site, notably the southern and part of the western boundaries had no physical demarcation in the form of hedgerows.

3.13 There are significant differences between the current and previously proposed site. Firstly in terms of size the previous site was 19.2 hectares in area proposing 2730 arrays, whilst the current site is much smaller at 9.7 hectares proposing 894 arrays. Secondly, the current proposal is far better suited to the immediate landscape configuration being located within existing mature hedgerows along the western and southern boundaries in particular.

3.14 In order to demonstrate impact, a Landscape and Visual Impact Analysis (LVIA) was submitted in support of the application. The study notes that because of the flat nature of the land and existing vegetation it only has limited visibility in the wider landscape. This is most noticeable from the A256 for a distance of about 400 metres when travelling in either direction, and from the public footpath to the south of the site where there are glimpsed views between existing hedgerows. The LVIA acknowledges that the character of the landscape will change from localised views but that because of the existing and proposed screening, this will be unlikely for distant views. In particular, the site will be scarcely visible from residential properties in Each End to the north, or properties in Sandwich Road Woodnesborough which are some 750m to the south. In overall terms the LVIA concludes that the effect on landscape character will be intermediate/moderate adverse effect, whilst visual impact will be low/ adverse effect.

3.15 Officers largely agree with the conclusions of the LVIA albeit that it is felt that the role of the A256 as a ‘low receptor’ is somewhat underplayed given its importance as a busy commuter and holiday route. Notwithstanding, it is accepted that the proposed impact of the solar farm will be largely localised and that there will be no particular wider adverse visual impacts. What impacts there are will be mitigated through a substantial tree and hedging planting programme. As referred to earlier, this is aimed at significant boundary planting around the site and the creation of copsed areas within it. On the most vulnerable boundary, along the A256, the proposed triple hedgerow adjacent to the site boundary, coupled with a line of tree planting adjacent to the road itself, will largely screen the site in summer months and provide filtered views in winter months as it matures.

3.16 In terms of built structures, although utilitarian in appearance, the location of the proposed inverter stations will be well screened along the western boundary, whilst the sub stations in the south east corner of the site will be relatively inconspicuous. In terms of colour, the applicant has now agreed to all the structures being finished in a ‘goose wing grey’ finish rather than the previously proposed dark green. The latter can often look artificial in the landscape and officers feel a neutral grey colour will make the structures less visible.

3.17 Whilst it would be difficult to totally screen a solar farm within the countryside, the proposed site is considered to be good location. Together with selective additional planting, officers consider that the impact in the landscape will be primarily confined to fleeting and somewhat glimpsed views only, apart from a short section of the A256. Whilst there would be some limited landscape harm arising, it would also be consistent with the provisions of Policies DM15 and DM16 in that mitigation measures have been used as much as possible to limit harm to an acceptable level.

Highway Issues

3.18 A detailed Glint and Glare study was submitted in view of the proximity of the site to the A256. The study concludes that there may be limited scope for some reflection for a limited stretch of road of some 380m. However, it would be akin to looking at a water body or a wet road i.e. not an unusual occurrence for road users, and would also involve drivers looking directly away from their direction of travel. Given the above, the study concludes that it would not be an issue. Members will note that KCC Highways concur with the conclusions and point out that it will have a similar relationship to the existing solar farm at Ebbsfleet, to the north of the site, where no issues in terms of glint or glare have been experienced to date.

3.19 Access to the site from the north will be via the existing field access where there is good visibility in both directions. Although it is reasonably close to the roundabout at the junction of the A256 and A257, advance signage is proposed to warn motorists of construction traffic and full details have been supplied. A full Construction Management Plan has been submitted which has since been amended to show on site wheel washing equipment, parking for on- site personnel and routing arrangements following comments from KCC. The latter has been reconsulted and members will be updated with any further comments at the meeting.

Ecology

3.20 A detailed Phase 1 Habitat survey has been submitted which shows that currently the whole site is of low ecological value. Although no water voles were identified on the site, which are a protected species, it is acknowledged that the existing drainage ditches provide a potential habitat. These will be retained and the 12m buffer strips either side of the ditches will provide opportunities for water voles to create habitats if they are present. The site is over 1.8km from the protected SSSI sites on the coast and as noted previously, Natural England has raised no objections. Finally, a detailed bio diversity Management Plan has been submitted in support of the proposal. This provides full details of planting of wildflower meadows and measures to encourage wildlife generally such as the provision of bird/bat and insect boxes. A maintenance programme for the site is also set out for the full 25 years of the lifetime of the project.

Other Matters

3.21 A detailed Heritage Assessment established that there is a low probability of any archaeological remains based on the fact that historically the site has been waterlogged over a prolonged period, and in the absence of any recorded nearby finds. Any archaeology is likely to be related to agriculture only and it is suggested that a watching brief condition is imposed during construction works to monitor works and in the event of any finds being discovered. In terms of heritage assets there are no scheduled monuments within a radius of 1.8km of the site and although there are some 18 listed buildings within that area, none are nearby or located within any zone of intervisibility. The setting of those assets will therefore be preserved.

3.22 A fully detailed Flood Risk Assessment was submitted with the application. The analysis indicated that it complies with the sequential approach in the NPPF in that it comprises essential infrastructure which is considered to be appropriate in a Zone 2 flood zone subject to detailed criteria proving to be acceptable. In that respect all buildings will be located either outside of the 1:200 year flood level areas, or have floor thresholds set above those areas. No increase in water runoff is anticipated from the arrays as there will be rain shadow areas beneath the arrays. However, in order to achieve some betterment a number of swales are proposed alongside the existing ditches to intercept flows and create additional storage. Whilst there is no objection in principle to this, the Internal Drainage Board wishes to see further details in order to be satisfied that there will be no adverse impact upon the local drainage system. Such matters can be secured through condition.

3.23 The current proposal is located further away from residential properties than the scheme dismissed on appeal and will have less impact as a result. The applicants engaged with the local community beforehand having meetings on site to explain the proposals. This has resulted in enhanced planting, particularly along the northern boundary of the site. It is significant perhaps that whereas the previous proposal attracted in excess of 80 objections, there have been no objections to the revised proposal. The Construction Management Plan previously indicated that construction work would commence at 0600 hours. However following concerns raised by Environmental Health officers, hours have now been amended to 0800 – 1800 hours Monday – Friday, 0800 – 1400 hours on Saturday and at no time on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Balancing of Issues and Conclusion

3.24 The proposal would provide 5MW of electricity from a renewable resource which would be a modest but nonetheless valuable contribution to meeting national targets for renewable energy and make a contribution towards the challenges of climate change. The revised scheme means there would be no loss of BMV agricultural land, it would offer scope for ecological enhancement and residential amenity would be protected as evidenced by the lack of local objections. No highway objections have been raised and the Construction Management Plan will ensure that the proposal is carried out in a responsible and safe manner.

3.25 The site is comparatively well screened in the landscape apart from views from the adjacent A256. However this would be fleeting views only, over a short section of road, and in time would be either screened or filtered through the extensive proposed boundary planting. When weighed against the public benefits arising from the proposal, officers consider that such limited harm would be acceptable in this instance.

3.26 The proposal would still involve the loss of a greenfield site but having regard to a combination of factors including the need to contribute towards renewable energy targets, the difficulties of finding suitable brownfield sites, the absence of any site specific objections or loss of BMV land, the availability of a connection to the local network and a willing landowner, it is considered that on balance it is justified in this instance. Accordingly permission is recommended subject to the conditions set out below. g) Recommendation

I PERMISSION BE GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1) standard time limit: 2) approved plans: 3) development carried out in accordance with Construction Management Plan (as amended); 4) landscaping and bio diversity to be carried out in accordance with submitted details: 5) archaeological watching brief; 6) Further details of land drainage run off to be submitted; 7) works to stop in event of contamination being found; 8) details of bunds to be submitted to ensure no oil spillage in construction compound area; 9) construction compound to be removed post completion; 10) arrays to be removed after 25 years: 11) implementation of decommissioning plan: 12) no external lighting: 13) colour of buildings in accordance with revised details.

II Powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Case Officer

Kim Bennett