Planning Development Control Committee - 17 February 2015 Report Item 3

Application No: 14/01004/FULL Full Application

Site: Land Off Lepe Road, Exbury, SO45 1AJ

Proposal: Construction of a 9ha Solar farm to include solar panels to generate electricity; associated plant buildings; perimeter fencing; landscaping and associated works; internal access track

Applicant: MTS Exbury Solar Ltd

Case Officer: Deborah Slade

Parish: EXBURY AND LEPE

1. REASON FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

Referred by Authority Member.

2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATION

No specific designation

3. PRINCIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

CP19 Access DP1 General Development Principles CP2 The Natural Environment CP4 Climate Change CP5 Renewable Energy CP7 The Built Environment CP8 Local Distinctiveness 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 Sec 12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

6. MEMBER COMMENTS

Richard Frampton – The Application should be determined by committee in view of the potential significance of the development. 7. PARISH COUNCIL COMMENTS

Exbury & Lepe Parish Council: Do not support this proposal and recommends refusal on the basis that it fails to comply with Government policy through its intention to use good quality agricultural land, its failure to acknowledge the special nature of a National Park and fears that it could lead to further industrialisation of the area. There is significant opposition from parishioners.

8. CONSULTEES

8.1 Highway Authority (HCC): No highways objections, subject to condition.

8.2 Natural England: No objection on grounds of impact upon designated sites.

8.3 Landscape Officer: Objection on grounds of impact upon landscape.

8.4 Ecologist: Objection on inadequacies of information relating to Field Woundwart, waders and Brent Geese.

8.5 Archaeologist: No objections subject to conditions.

8.6 Environment Agency: No objections provided that the Flood Risk Assessment is satisfactory.

9. REPRESENTATIONS

9.1 55 objections received:

• Contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework • The development would be harmful to the enjoyment of the use of the public right of way. • Harmful impact upon the setting of a Grade II Listed Building - Lepe Farmhouse. • Loss of agriculture land. • Harmful visual impact and detrimental to the unspoiled open character of the landscape. • The New Forest already has other solar farms on more appropriate sites. • The proposal is not 'small scale'. • Other proposals for solar farms within the New Forest have been refused on landscape grounds which sets a precedent for future applications. • A detailed site selection has not been carried out. • Would result in the industrialisation of agricultural land. • Adverse impact upon wildlife. • Disturbance to nearby properties during construction.

9.2 Representations of objection received from the Exbury and Lepe Community Group (122 members):

• Loss of primary agricultural land. • A proper site selection has not been carried out by the applicant. • 25 years is not a temporary period. • Visual impact from the public right of way. • The applicant has disregarded the importance of the New Forest National Park. • Contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

9.3 Letter of objection received from the New Forest Association setting out similar concerns as those raised by residents.

9.4 Letter of objection received from the CPRE setting out similar concerns as those raised by residents.

9.5 Nine representations of support received:

• A solar farm would help to reduce CO2 emissions and generate clean renewable energy. • It would not spoil the enjoyment of the New Forest National Park. • A 9 hectare site is a small site. • There is not a lack of agricultural land. • The proposal would diversify land use with little impact on the local community. • The proposed planting would screen the development.

9.6 Letter of support received from the Exbury Estate:

• The Exbury Estate consists of 898 acres of agricultural land. • The application site is a large industrial scale arable field. • The proposal would establish a long term income for the Estate which in turn will help to ensure the future employment of 5 full time staff and 14 part time staff. The estate is one of the main employers in the village. • The Estate business runs at a deficit and the proposed solar array would halve the Estate’s annual deficit and generate much needed income to ensure the Estate's work in supporting the local rural economy can continue as well as helping to secure rural employment for the future.

9.7 Three representations of comment received:

• The proposal would detract from the public right of way. • The area is a National Park and it seems a shame to cover it in solar panels. • It would be preferable if the solar farm were built on an existing industrial site. 10. RELEVANT HISTORY

10.1 Application for Screening Opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) regulations (2011) for a proposed solar farm (14/00642), determined that EIA not required on 12 August 2014

10.2 Agricultural Barn (12/97174) approved on 5 April 2012

11. ASSESSMENT

11.1 The application site comprises an area of farmland some 9 hectares in size, located to the east of Lepe Farm House and accessed from Lepe Road. To the north is a bridleway and track leading to East Hill Farm. To the east is a footpath. To the south is Pophams Wood.

11.2 Permission is sought for a 5MW solar farm, comprising 2.15m high panels, surrounded by 2m high deer fencing, and associated buildings comprising a Control House, Substation, DNO substation and a Transformer Station. A new access road would be created from the west, as well as a parking and roundabout area within a site compound some 90m x 40m in area, at the front of the site, for the construction phase (and subsequent decommissioning phase). There would be CCTV cameras on 3m high poles. The land surrounding the panels would be seeded with wildflower mix. The application has been accompanied by a Design and Access statement together with a number of other supporting documents.

11.3 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 wider socio-economic and environmental benefits that could accrue from the proposal; • the impact of the proposals on the landscape character of the site, the surrounding locality and the intrinsic landscape value of the National Park generally; • loss of agricultural land; • the impact of the proposals on ecological interests; • Impact upon agricultural land • the impact on heritage interests; and • flood and drainage characteristics.

11.4 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 ensuring 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.”

11.5 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.

11.6 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; and • the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening with native hedges.

11.7 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 stating that:

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

11.9 In the case of this application the applicant has undertaken an 'alternative site search report' which is focused around the 'viable grid connection' of the Langley Substation. There is nothing within central government policy guidance which states that the search criteria should begin within a viable grid connection and assume there is a suitable site near to it. This search has encompassed an area of 5kmn radius which takes in the south-east corner of the National Park as well as some sites in NFDC such as Fawley Power Station. The report concludes that there are no brownfield sites within that 5km area but fails to identify the brownfield site of the decommissioned Fawley Power Station itself which is within 5km of the grid connection. The report also fails to refer to paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework which specifically refers to National Parks when considering the policy context of the search. No other potential grid connections have been considered.

11.10 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.

11.11 Previous applications for solar farms include a 12 hectare site which was granted permission by the Authority in 2011. In that case it was clearly demonstrated that the specific socio-economic benefits of the proposal merited being given additional weight. There remains doubt of whether the scheme would sit comfortably within 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.

11.12 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. In this case the land is presently farmed and would not be farmed if permission were granted, thus resulting in a net reduction in utilised farmland. The applicant considers that the additional source of income provided by the proposal would generate a long term income for the Exbury Estate and would 'halve the deficit' of the estates finances. The additional monies generated would enable the applicants to continue their farming and associated rural stewardship of their land. However, no estate-wide plan, nor financial information, has been put forward to demonstrate or substantiate this point. It is not clear how the other half of the deficit would be addressed.

11.13 Previous support for such large installations have been based on an appreciation of wider economic benefits for large estates with an existing workforce that would benefit from the scheme and allow finances to be ploughed back into the agricultural elements of the business. On the basis of the current information on the agricultural enterprise which currently is undertaken at the site and the limited wider socio-economic benefits, it has not been demonstrated that the scheme would provide an agricultural diversification to outweigh other concerns with the scheme.

11.14 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. This site is gently undulating and from the site visit it became clear the solar installation would be widely visible from a range of views, from the west, north and east, including from a public footpath and public bridleway. Whilst there are copses adjacent to the site to the north-east and south-west, these only provide limited breaks in views. Whilst there is a hedgerow along the boundary with the bridleway track to the north, this is a low-cropped hedgerow with views over the top towards the wide expanse of farmland to the south. The footpath to the east is directly across the field and across the brow of the hill, resulting in a direct interaction with the landscape and a sense of openness of landscape, with trees and copses to the horizons. This footpath forms part of the 'Lepe Loop', a popular circular walk, and it was being utilised by a small group of walkers at the time of the site visit. When at the site, there is a sense of being completely surrounded by countryside, with almost no modern development, except for a modern agricultural barn to the west, which is not intrusive nor appears unexpected. The site has much 'natural' beauty and is typical of an area of the National Park which provides for enjoyment and understanding of its special qualities to walkers, riders and visitors.

11.15 By comparison, the proposed installation would comprise an unexpected, industrial installation within an otherwise open, characterful landscape. As well as the panels, there would be the CCTV, security fence, ancillary equipment housing buildings and compound, and service road - all of which would add to the urbanisation of the site. The installation, being in the centre of the field, would not relate to existing field boundaries, and rather would rely on a 2m securing fence, to be 'selectively grown with ivy' as proposed visual mitigation. The presence of a 2m high fence grown with ivy in the middle of an otherwise open, agrarian landscape would look intrusive and out of place within its own right, so even if this were to completely screen the panels, it would not resolve the problem of visual intrusion. The site compound would be outside of the security fence, and would have an urban character of its own for the duration of the construction phase.

11.16 New hedgerows are proposed in areas which are presently open farmland; these would not relate to existing field boundaries and would follow the form of the installation to the east. Whilst this would provide some mitigation, the establishment of a proper native hedgerow from scratch would take 5-6 years, assuming optimum care is taken, during which time the installation would be largely unmitigated from views. Mention is made of a 'green corridor' to the east of the installation but this is not shown on the proposed planting proposal.

11.17 Conclusion on landscape impact

The impact of solar panels and associated infrastructure on landscape with changes in levels can have more of an impact than on a level site. In this particular case, the site is particularly visible from public vantage points. The impact of the development would be obvious from the footpath, bridleway/ track, and from roads to the west and east. It is considered that this would have a significant, detrimental impact on the character of this rural landscape and the character of the National Park.

11.18 Notwithstanding the above, even if the application site offered no views outside the land under the ownership of the applicant, this in itself would not mean that landscape impact should be discounted. Impact needs to be considered both in respect to the immediate locality, irrespective of ownership, and it is also important to consider the impact that such schemes would have on the intrinsic character of the National Park, both individually and cumulatively.

11.19 It is considered that the agricultural land and its character is important in this rural location and a development of the size and appearance proposed 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.

11.20 Impact on Ecology

It is noted that Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre records are held of the locally notable species of Field Woundwort being present on site, and this has not been considered in the ecological survey. In addition, the ecological report highlights that survey work for waders and Brent Geese has not been possible, however Natural England has raised no objection on this latter point. Nonetheless the Authority's Ecologist raises objection on grounds of insufficient consideration of notable flora species at the site in relation to the former issue. The proposal is accompanied by a Tree Report which demonstrates that no tree removal is required; there are no trees directly upon the application site. Whilst the principles of biodiversity enhancements such as the sowing of wild flower seeds, bat boxes, and hedgerow creation are laudable, these could be achieved on the existing field margins and are not reliant upon the proposal itself in order for them to be implemented. The estate is already in Higher Level Stewardship schemes which require appropriate ecological management of estate land.

11.21 Impact upon Agricultural Land

Government guidance makes it clear that solar farms should avoid high quality agricultural land. The applicant has undertaken an agricultural land classification which rates the soils as 3b quality ('good to moderate'). The survey does not make reference to the Natural England Agricultural Land Classification map ALC007 dated 24 August 2010 which grades the land as 2 ('very good'). No explanation of this discrepancy is offered by the applicants though the samples which were taken by the applicants do cover the whole site in a fair manner. No sample of an adjacent site is offered to show that the site is an anomaly which is generally surrounded by site grade 2 land. The discrepancy is unaccounted for. 1983 data is included to assess the local context though this has been superseded by the 2010 data which should have been used instead. Despite these discrepancies the installation should not result in a long-term or short term significant loss in agricultural land in the area as set out in 6.2 of the report.

11.22 Impact on Heritage Interests

Local concern has been raised about the potential impact upon the setting of historic buildings, notably Lepe Farm House, a Listed Building at the south west of the site and East Hill Farm, which is a Listed building to the north. The local setting of the buildings would be unaffected; their curtilages and immediate contexts can still be read as intact. It is the wider landscape setting of these buildings which would be affected. Whilst they are presently set within landscapes of rural countryside, largely without modern intrusions, this would be changed by the proposal. However this is linked to the landscape concerns above rather than a specific concern about the setting of these Listed Buildings per se. The proposal is accompanied by archaeological investigations and although the Authority's archaeologist determines that further work would be required, it would be feasible to address this matter by planning condition.

11.23 Flood & Drainage Characteristics

The Environment Agency raises no objections to the proposal, but recommends that the Flood Risk Assessment has demonstrated certain attributes such as how it will be feasible to balance surface water run-off and how SUDS techniques will be used. It does not appear that the Flood Risk Assessment does actually address these issues. The Land Drainage Authority have not commented on the case on the understanding that the Environment Agency would comment. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal can adequately and sustainably deal with surface water on site. Policy CP4 supports proposals which include sustainable water treatment but the proposal fails to demonstrate this. However the proposal does not fall foul of the tests of policy DP4 concerning flooding and the coast as a flood risk assessment has been provided, as required by that Policy.

11.24 Conclusion

It is considered that the proposals fail to comply with Policy CP5 in that it is not small scale and would have a significant, adverse and unmitigable impact on the immediate and intrinsic landscape character and special qualities of the National Park. It has not been demonstrated that benefits would outweigh a scheme of this size and impact.

12. RECOMMENDATION

Refuse

Reason(s)

1 The proposal would have a significant, detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area (in both short and long distance views) by virtue of its existing intermittent boundary screening and the position of array and infrastructure 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/ estate diversification that would outweigh setting aside the adverse impact on the landscape of a scheme of this size and the scheme would therefore be contrary to Policies DP1, CP8, 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.

2 The proposal fails to consider the potential for locally important species of flora which has raised an ecological objection. It therefore fails to adequately protect features of the natural environment as required by Policy CP2 of the New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010), and the National Planning Policy Framework particularly section 11.

44 44 37 52 00m 00m 40 43 46 49

100500m 100500m

02 02

99 99

96 96

93 93

90 90

98700m 98700m 44 44 37 40 43 46 49 52 00m 00m

New Forest National Park Authority Ref: 14/01004 Lymington Town Hall, Avenue Road, Lymington, SO41 9ZG Scale: 1:10000 Tel: 01590 646600 Fax: 01590 646666

Date: 29/01/2015

© Crown copyright and database rights 2015 Ordnance Survey 1000114703