Item 4A 13/00811/FULMAJ Case Officer Mrs Helen
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Item 4a 13/00811/FULMAJ Case Officer Mrs Helen Lowe Ward Pennine Proposal Construction of a (up to 8MW) Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Farm and associated works Location Land Bounded By Black Brook, Chapel Lane And Tithe Barn Lane Heapey Applicant Cassidy & Ashton Group Ltd. Consultation expiry: 25 December 2013 Application expiry: 28 November 2013 Proposal 1. This application, which was submitted in August 2013, proposes a solar farm comprising the installation of approximately 32000 solar panels, arranged in arrays of 20 panels. Each array will measure 10.25m by 4.02m. These are mounted on steel posts rammed into the ground (thus avoiding the need for a concrete base platform). The overall height of the arrays will vary as the angle will be adjusted depending on the topography of the ground - the minimum height would be 1.89m and the maximum height would be 3.78m. The applicant has indicated that the development is intended to last for a period of 25 years. 2. The applicant advises the proposed solar farm would provide up to 8MW of energy which is the equivalent of powering 2500 homes a year. It would save 340 tonnes of carbon dioxide. 3. In addition to the proposed panels, the proposal requires the installation of six inverters and a substation building. Each inverter actually comprises two small buildings measuring 3.2m in height, with a maximum combined length (of both building) of 11.62m and a width of 2.6m. The six inverters are distributed throughout the site, located at the edge of a field in each case. The substation would be located in the southern part of the site, approximately 50m north of the junction of Tithe Barn Lane and Higher House Lane. The substation building would measure 8.3m by 5.2m by 3.9m high. It is proposed to erect a 2.4m high galvanised steel palisade security fence around the whole of the site, alongside the public footpath crossing the site, and within the site (effectively dividing the site into separate six separate parcels. The fence would be either side of the footpath, with a gap of between 6-10m for the path. Eight security cameras are to be located at various locations around the site. The amended fencing plan (ref. C3343-P01A received on the 12 th of November) shows the security cameras located on top of the fencing poles, although the applicant has stated that the location of the cameras has been chosen on the ability for them to be placed on existing trees where possible. 4. The site comprises agricultural land located to the east of the settlement of Chorley and the M61, within the parish of Heapey. The southernmost tip of the site is adjacent to the settlement of Little Knowley/Kittiwake estate. The site is bounded to the west by Black Brook and to the north by Chapel Lane. The site is bounded by Tithe Barn Lane to the east. The site covers an area of 18.4ha. 5. At the time of writing this report, the applicant has indicated an intention to submit further information regarding the visual assessment and photo montages. Information has also been requested clarifying matters relating to boundary treatments and the access point to Chapel Lane. This information, if received, will be considered on the addendum to the committee. Depending on the nature of the information received a view will need to be taken as to whether it is necessary to re-consult on the application 6. The following table details the information submitted by the applicant as part of the initial application, together with further information submitted in relation to consultee responses or requests from the Council. Date Received Document Title Reference (if available) 29 th August 2013 Planning design and Access statement Landscape and visual impact assessment (plus appendices) Flood risk assessment Ecological survey and assessment Inverter/transformer unit BK/m239/03 Road section and trench BK/m23902 Topographical survey (x 2) Indicative substation BK/m239/04 Photographic appraisal supporting documents Site layout BK/m239/01 Indicative array FT/4679/01 22 nd October 2013 Transport statement CCTV technical specification Additional supporting information (by letter) Letter from Ribble Ecology RB -13 -102 Amended site layout (location of security cameras) Fencing plans 4th November 2013 Letter from Ribble Ecology RB -13 -102i Site layout 11 th November 2013 Letter from Ribble Ecology Site layout 12 th November 2013 Fencing plan 15 th November 2013 Site layout 22 nd November 2013 Transport Statement – supplementary report and updated framework construction traffic plan 25 th November 2013 Indicative array Recommendation 7. It is recommended that this application is refused full planning consent. Main Issues 8. The main issues for consideration in respect of this planning application are: • Background information • Principle of the development • Green Belt • Impact on the neighbours • Landscape and visual impact • Ecology • Flood Risk/Drainage • Traffic and Transport • Public Right of Way • Contamination and Coal Mines Representations 9. 479 letters of objection have been received. They make the following comments Consultation/Application Information • A decision should not be made until there is a detailed and accurate classification of the land has taken place; • The proposal should be accompanied by a coal mining risk assessment; • A full ecological survey should be carried out; • The application should not be determined until a newt survey has been carried out. • Why has an EIA not been required; • No further mitigation letters from ‘experts’ should be accepted by the Council • Plans are indicative only and therefore inadequate; • Lack of information given to residents; • The developer has not contacted local residents and communities; • The application should not be considered until such a time as the developer has undertaken a proper set of consultations; • A development of such magnitude warrants greater consultation and wider notification; • I don’t believe the notification and consultation was anywhere near enough for the size of this proposed development. Why was the councils approach so low key for such a massive impact on our countryside? • Notification - many do not receive local paper; 9 small notices on telegraph posts around this huge area, missed by many residents of the Kittiwake estate; insufficient neighbour notifications • Complaints about 14 Nov closing date for comments on further amendments in time for 19 Nov committee, timescale for committee notification, and impact on ability to attend at short notice, especially if living further afield Principle of the Development / Overall Assessment • The proposal does not fit in with the NPPF; • Inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • The harm to the Green Belt will be substantial and openness will be completely eroded by thousands of solar panels. This will not be outweighed by benefits which are still unclear • Very special circumstances do not exist because the proposed benefits could be obtained by development on other sites not located within the Green Belt; • Lack of information provided to justify the proposal and existence of very special circumstances; • Loss of good quality agricultural land; • This is not the place for such a large site; • Solar panels should be on roofs in commercial areas • Should be on brownfield sites; • More favourable sites should be used first • The proposal is illogical, harmful, incongruous and lacks local support; • Not in keeping with the character of the area; • The development is not in keeping with the area; • Will set a precedent for further development of solar farms; Visual Impact • would make the environment appear industrial; • There will be a huge visual impact; the panels will be seen from all popular walking points – Great Hill; Healey Nab, West Pennine Hills, Rivington; • The elevated position will mean it is clearly visible from many vantage points and cannot be screened; • The panels will be clearly be visible over wide stretches of the West Pennine Moors; • The Landscape and Visual assessment is redundant as its conclusions are based on an assumed panel height of just under 3m, whereas the amended submission gives the height as nearly 4m; • The visual impact survey does not take into account the changing seasons; • The landscape and visual impact assessment is incorrect in relation to the assessment of impact on Tithe Barn Farm; • The area will look like a prison; • Will be impossible to screen • area will be surrounded by security fencing; • Object to the use of security fencing; • Security fencing will be an eyesore and visible from surroundings; • It will take 10-15 years for vegetation to grow sufficiently to act effectively as a screen; • Mitigation planting should be at the start of the proposals and there is no indication of how soon after commissioning such planting will take place; • Will there be pylons • Will not benefit the area visually and will be unattractive and highly intrusive; • Will be clearly visible from a numerous beauty spots General Impacts • Will be a blot on the landscape; • The scale of the proposal would have an unreasonable impact on the immediate locality and its appearance; The scale is too large and intrusive; • Impact on Tithe Barn Farm - dismissed by applicant as not very significant, but development will be intrusive - are buildings more important than people? • Unreasonable impact on residential life through noise and visual disturbance; • Noise and disruption from construction; • Will increase noise and general disturbance; • A noise and vibration impact assessment