Planning Development Control Committee - 15 July 2014 Report Item 3

Application No: 14/00361/FULL Full Application

Site: Land At Durley Farm, Pound Lane, , SO40 7EJ

Proposal: Construction of a 6.7 hectare solar farm, to include the installation of solar panels to generate electricity, with associated plant buildings; perimeter fencing; cctv cameras; landscaping and associated works

Applicant: Hive Energy Limited

Case Officer: Rob Ainslie

Parish: DENNY LODGE

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Application of local significance and Parish Council views awaited.

2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DP1 General Development Principles CP1 Nature Conservation Sites of International Importance CP2 The Natural Environment CP4 Climate Change CP5 Renewable Energy CP6 Pollution CP7 The Built Environment CP17 The Land Based Economy

4. SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

Not applicable

5. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Sec 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy Sec 10 - Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change Sec 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

6. MEMBER COMMENTS

None received

1 7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Denny Lodge Parish Council: No comments received yet

Totton & Eling Town Council: No comments received yet

Ashurst & Colbury Parish Council: No comments received yet.

8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Landscape Officer: Raise objection

• Concerns lie mainly with the topography of the site and the capacity of the land to take solar panels and the boundary fenci ng (and possibly CCTV) which will have a high level of visual impact due to the rising and falling of the land. • Fence panels would have to 'step' up and down to accommodate the changes in levels. Solar panels would rise and fall with the land too and be more visible from outside the site than if on the flat. • Ancient Woodland is adjacent to the site and it would be important not to compact soils in the vicinity or damage the woodland with access for large vehicles.

8.2 Ecologist: Support Subject to Conditions

8.3 Tree Officer: Concern raised about possible shading of arrays leading to threat to long term protection of central belt of trees: Awaiting further information/shading diagram from Applicant's agent.

8.4 Development Control (NFDC): No comments received

8.5 Environmental Protection (NFDC): No objection subject to condition

8.6 Highway Authority (HCC): No objection

8.7 Access Development Officer (HCC): No comments received

8.8 Natural : No comments received

8.9 National Grid: No comments received

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 Association: Strenuously object to the application.

• Attitude to Photovoltaic arrays has changed since Planning Application 96086 in 2011. Realisation that ongoing subsidy is not sustainable and implications for visual amenity and wildlife have been understated.

2 • Association asks the National Park to accept the Government’s position has changed and recent comments make it clear the Government intends to take support payments away from unpopular large solar farms. • Instead support for panels on supermarket roofs, schools and businesses where they do not create visual blight. • Any suggestion in the Planning report that this application is of benefit to the nation would be erroneous and misleading. • Land ownership a consideration in that where the proportion of land used is small, an argument of insignificant reuse may have some validity. This is not the case here as extent of land ownership is not known. • Farm has always been used by a practising commoner from a commoning family. It enjoys the rights of common pasture and mast. Not untypical of a commoners holding, land being underutilised to a degree and otherwise being grazed for hay. Precise extent of Durley Farm not known, but likely that the installation will occupy a large proportion of it and the risk exists that one of the 100 or so smallholdings on which commoning depends will be lost. • Fencing will be visible from A326, more so in winter, and especially from double decker buses. Unacceptable that the view into the Park is diminished by the erection of the security fence. Further, report of the Authority's landscape officer re-stated the universal truth regarding visibility in a protected landscape. • 2011 Consensus found South Built Up area to have sixth biggest population in the UK. Difficult now not to view Totton as part of the conurbation. Now alarm that Colbury will soon join it in Southampton. • Application is contrary to the purposes of the National Park, contrary to Policy CP5 in every respect, there are no extenuating circumstances and no benefit to the local community or the nation. Association would rigorously support the Authority in any appeal.

9.2 New Forest Commoners Defence Committee:

• The land involved has been used as back up land for commoning, either for making hay/silage, or for grazing livestock for many years, certainly until the end of 2013. • Authority planning policies include preservation/protection of back up land for commoning from development which would therefore not support this application.

10. RELEVANT HISTORY

10.1 Land filling with surplus spoil form Totton Western By-Pass (NFDC/MIN/89/42483) Granted by County on 6 September 1990

3 11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 This application is for a 3MW solar farm on the north eastern edge of the National Park. The proposals for the solar arrays also include associated infrastructure such as plant buildings, fencing, CCTV and additional landscaping.

11.2 The application site is made up of two fields totalling 6.7 hectares, separated by a line of hedgerow and trees which run from west to east across the site. A small agricultural field lies to the immediate north of the site with the A326 By-Pass beyond the field. A small field lies to the west with an Ancient Woodland, known as Pritchel's Copse beyond this field. Agricultural fields and Durley Farm are located to the south and south east of the site, whilst Colbury Farm is located to the north of the site.

11.3 The topography of the site is varied. The land is at its lowest levels to the south west and rises towards the north. However the land also drops from the south in towards the hedgerow line which separates the field. The land then rises northwards to the curtilage before dropping down again towards Colbury Farm. The site therefore has an undulating nature as far as topography is concerned.

11.4 In terms of surrounding topography it is noted that the land is relatively flat to the south east of the site. The land drops down to the north with the A326 being at a lower level. The existing screening along the A326 is relatively robust and only limited filtered views are offered towards the application site. Muttonsnow Farm to the south is at a raised level and views are afforded across to the application site from the access track to this property.

11.5 The proposed panels would be mounted on 1.86m high frames aligned in rows facing south to capture winter and summer sun angles. The frames would be designed to allow access under and around the arrays so that livestock could graze the field. The arrays would have a finite lifespan and any consent would not run for more than 25 years.

11.6 As well as a Design and Access Statement, the application is accompanied by a series of detailed reports, including Ecology and Archaeology reports and a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

11.7 The main issues for consideration in this application are:

• the extent to which the proposals comply with policies contained within the Core Strategy, the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance; • the impact of the proposals on the landscape character of the site, the surroundi ng locality and the i ntrinsic value of the

4 National Park generally; • the impact of the proposals on ecological interests; and • the wider socio-economic and environmental benefits that could accrue from the proposal

11.8 Policy Considerations - Central Government Policy & Guidance

The National Planning Policy Framework is generally supportive of renewable energy with authorities being encouraged to design policies to maximise developments while ensuri ng adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including cumulative landscape and visual impacts (Section 10 para 97). The issue of impact on landscape is a further focus (Section 11 Para 115) where it is confirmed that:

'Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.'

11.9 Subsequent to the NPPF, the government has now published the National Planning Practice Guidance which provides further advice in relation to specific topics such as renewable energy. This more recent document introduces requirements which have previously not been considerations for such schemes.

11.10 The guidance looks at what the particular planning considerations that relate to such schemes and in particular mentions that Authorities will need to consider:

• encouraging the effective use of land by focusing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non-agricultural land, provided that 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; and the proposal allows for continued agricultural use where applicable and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays; • the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing; • the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening with native hedges.

11.11 The most relevant part of the guidance infers a sequential approach whereby such schemes should firstly be considered on brownfield sites and non-agricultural land. An inspector re-enforced this approach in a recent appeal decision concerning a site in Ipswich.

The inspector stated:-

5 'The first question to ask is whether the use of agricultural land is necessary. This exercise should demonstrate that no suitable brownfield land or non-agricultural land is available within a search area. '

'Whilst the plan area may in circumstances be an appropriate search area, there is no policy guidance which advocates restricting searches to within a local authority's administrative area. The PPG at paragraph ID 5-003 confirms that "Whilst local authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, there is no quota which the Local Plan has to deliver". Therefore there is no need to site renewable energy development in a particular local authority in order to meet a local green energy quota.'

11.12 The Inspector then considers that the appellants search has been confined to too small an area, being far from robust and completely inadequate.

11.13 In the case of this application the supporting documentation fails to either demonstrate compliance with the Planning Practice Guidance or provide details of any meaningful exercise that would confirm that there are no more acceptable alternative sites locally that would negate the need to develop on agricultural land, so on a pure principle the proposal fails to comply with recently published government guidance on such schemes.

11.14 Policy Considerations - Core Strategy

Notwithstanding the above, consideration needs to be given as to whether the proposal accords with Policies contained within the Core Strategy with particular reference to Policy CP5 which confirms that such proposals for renewable energy schemes will be permitted where they are:

a) small scale;

b) located and designed to reduce visual impacts; and

c) do not have significant impacts on the special qualities of the National Park.

11.15 It is certainly arguable as to whether a scheme set within 6.7ha of agricultural land could be considered as small scale. Where there remains a question of whether the scheme would sit comfortably withi n the definition of small-scale development consideration should be given as to whether there are other environmental, social and economic benefits that would outweigh the in-principle policy objection. The impact on the existing and surrounding landscape and the cumulative impact of larger scale solar farms are considered elsewhere in the report, however consideration needs to be given to whether benefits have been demonstrated in

6 relation to Policy CP17 which would add weight towards a recommendation for approval.

11.16 Policy CP17 confirms that land based businesses that help maintain the overall character and cultural identity of the National Park will be supported by supporting farming that is beneficial to the forest through farm diversification. The supporting documentation with the application confirms that the land is owned by the 'Trustees of the Longdown Life Interest Trust' (although subsequent correspondence refers to the Barker-Mill Estate as owners). The agricultural assessment submitted with the application confirms that the estate comprises 5,000 acres of agricultural land of which 3,000 acres is agricultural land. The majority of agricultural land is rented out on a variety of tenancies and grazing agreements so the degree of agricultural enterprise specifically carried out by the owners appears to be much smaller.

11.17 The assessment also confirms that the estate has a number of diversified enterprises including a portfolio of around 150 let properties, three business parks, a gravel pit, two visitor attractions and an existing solar park located in Marchwood on restored gravel workings.

11.18 Further correspondence from the applicant’s agent confirms that the construction of the solar park would allow the owners to invest back into agricultural properties for renovation and improvement. In addition they confirm that the estate intend to ensure that an agricultural enterprise remains on site by having sheep grazing among the panels to maintain the grassland sward.

11.19 Concern remains as to whether this scheme can truly be considered as part of an agricultural diversification scheme. The documentation clearly states that a large percentage of the agricultural activity is not carried out by the estate but is rented out. The perceived benefits of the proposal by the applicant are that this income would allow them to invest back into agricultural and property however the working out of this, with a clear business plan appears somewhat vague and does not demonstrate whether this would merely result in upgrading of the let properties that exist or whether the diversification would truly result in investment for those who currently work the land. In addition, it would appear that the specific land in question has continued to be used over time in connection with commoning activities and the proposal would effectively result in the loss of back-up grazing. It is therefore considered that it has not been demonstrated that a case has been put forward to approve a scheme that essentially fails to accord with Policy CP5. It is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would accord with Policy CP17 or have such a benefit as to set aside the general need for such schemes to be small scale.

7 11.20 Landscape Impact

It is firstly important to note that the recent Planning Practice Guidance on solar farms at the outset states that the deployment of large scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes. The site itself would be best described as undulating with the two fields dropping in towards the intervening hedgerow and also dropping away towards the east.

11.21 The site is screened from more distant landscape views from the east and west. The A326 is set at a slightly lower level and any views i nto the site would be brief and intermittent, given the screening which currently exists alongside the road although it must be noted that double decker transport would be afforded full view into the site. Pritchel's copse also screens the fields from the west, and essentially limit views from the entrance track to Durley Farm until the fields are on the left of the track.

11.22 Given the higher level of the fields at the northern point, it is clear that views of the arrays would be afforded from Colbury Farm and would appear obtrusive in the landscape, given the agricultural character that currently exists. The applicants have proposed planting a tree belt beyond the northern boundary to limit views from Colbury Farm however one would question whether a new random line of trees would look conspicuous, formal and forced in this location.

11.23 The southern boundary of the field currently has hedgerow that varies between 1.5 and 2 metres in height. Whilst the land beyond the site may not be within the public realm it is clear that even with additional re-enforcement of planting along this boundary, there will be elements of the development (arrays, fencing, CCTV) that would be visible from the south and at odds with the rural character of the surrounding landscape.

11.24 The impact of solar panels and associated infrastructure on undulating landscape can have more of an impact than on a level site. In this particular case, a longer distant view of the site is afforded from the property to the south east at a higher level (Muttonsnow Farm). Views can be gained from this property of the upward slope of the southern field in the application site. The impact of the development would be obvious from this view and exacerbated by the topography of the land. It is considered that this would have a detrimental impact on the character of this rural landscape and the character of the National Park.

11.25 Notwithstanding the above, even if the application site offered no views outside the land under the ownership of the Estate, this in itself would not mean that landscape impact be discounted. Impact needs to be considered both in respect to the immediate locality, irrespective of ownership, and it is also important to

8 consider the impact that such schemes would have on the intrinsic character of the National Park, both individually and cumulatively.

11.26 Whilst it is acknowledged that the character of the surrounding area is markedly different on the northern side of the A326, it is considered that this makes the agricultural land and its character important in delineating the boundary of the National Park and where the sensitivity of the landscape changes dramatically. On this basis it is considered that the proposals would have an adverse impact on the both the immediate area, the intrinsic landscape character of the National Park both individually and cumulatively with other large schemes within the Park.

11.27 Other Issues

There are no objections to the proposal on ecological, contaminated land, or highway grounds subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. However the acceptability of the scheme on these issues does not outweigh the concerns raised in relation to policy and landscape as mentioned above.

11.28 Conclusion

It is considered that the proposals fail to comply with recently published Planning Practice Guidance requiring a sequential approach in considering suitable sites for renewable energy schemes. In addition, the proposal is not considered to comply with Policy CP5 in that it is not small scale and would have an impact on the landscape character and special qualities of the National Park. It has not been demonstrated that there are any benefits which would outweigh these concerns and refusal is therefore recommended.

12. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1 No information has been provided to demonstrate that the use of agricultural land is necessary and that suitable alternative sites have been considered in the surrounding area (including land outside of the boundary of the National Park). The location of the proposal has not therefore been justified and it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would comply with the National Planning Practice guidance which confirms that a sequential approach should be taken focussing such schemes on previously developed land and non-agricultural land.

2 The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the landscape character (in both short and long distance views) of the area by

9 virtue of its undulating topography and the position of array and infrastructure on the slopes within the site. The proposal is considered not to be small scale and would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area and the special qualities of the National Park. Notwithstanding the above it is also considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable cumulative impact on the intrinsic landscape character of the National Park. It has not been demonstrated that the scheme could be considered as a form of agricultural diversification that would outweigh setting aside the adverse impact on the landscape and the scheme would therefore be contrary to Policies DP1, CP5 and CP17 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010), the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

3 The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, would result in the loss of back-up grazing land which is essential to the future of commoning, and therefore would be contrary to policy CP17 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD (December 2010).

10 43 43 50 64 50m 50m 54 57 61

112000m 112000m

16 16

13 13

09 09

06 06

110250m 110250m 43 43 64 50 54 57 61 50m 50m

New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 14/00361/FULL Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG Scale: 1:10000 Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Date: 01/07/2014

© Crown copyright and database rights 2014 Ordnance Survey 1000114703

11