Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

The Members’ Update sought to amend paragraphs 3.1.17 and 3.1.18 of the report and add in a section regarding pre-commencement conditions, this was noted.  Amendments to conditions 5 and 18 were also detailed and noted.

Prior to her presentation of the application to Members, the Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee of an error in the information submitted with the application, the amount of electricity the solar farm would produce would power approximately 5,200 homes per year and offset approximately 4,200 tonnes of CO₂ per year (this was different to what was provided in the report).

An objector, Ms Middleton and the applicant, Mr Howie then addressed the Committee.

The Chairperson moved the recommendation of approval as set out in the report, but this was not seconded.

A lengthy debate ensued and in response to some queries raised the following information was highlighted:

·                  In respect of biodiversity it was not necessary for this information to be provided prior to the approval of the development.  Specialist advice from Essex County Council Ecology had been taken.

·                  The ancient woodland was not within the application site boundary and therefore it was not possible to require biodiversity net gain / diversity improvements as the woodland was not within the ownership or control of the applicant.

·                  Any disruption caused by the construction of the proposed development would be temporary and a construction management plan would ensure any disruption was minimised.

·                  The application site was 140m at its closest point to the dwelling at The Crib.  The Officer commented that the solar farm, being a low lying and quiet development, may be visible but not necessarily harmful.  A number of Members expressed concern regarding the proximity of the proposed development to The Crib including in relation to potential glint and glare.

·                  In response to concerns raised an assessment looking at the impact on the Stow Maries Great War Aerodrome had been undertaken and no harm was found to justify refusal of planning permission.

Following the debate the Chairperson put the Officers’ recommendation of approval to the Committee.

Councillor A S Fluker proposed that the application be refused, contrary to Officers’ recommendation, under Policy D1 as it had not been demonstrated that the harm the development would cause was outweighed by its benefits in this case.  He further clarified that this was particularly in relation to the impact of the proposal on The Crib.  This proposal was duly seconded and upon a vote being taken was agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be REFUSED subject to reasons delegated to Officers in consultation with the Chairperson.