Earlier this year I published an article on this blog about a planning application to install a solar farm on land at Sheraton. Background details can be found here: https://robcrute-blackhall.blogspot.com/2021/01/solar-farm-planning-application.html
Last week the application was considered by the County Planning Committee at county hall and, despite planning officers’ recommendations to approve the scheme, members of the committee refused consent - accepting the arguments put forward by me and members of the community that the development was in entirely the wrong location.
While agreeing that solar generated power is supported in principle, residents of Sheraton and the surrounding area were clear in making representations to committee members that this particular proposal was in the wrong place. The visual and landscape effect on the community was proved to be unacceptable - particularly in relation to the risk of ‘glint and glare’ when light is reflected from the solar panels.
We also made the case that there was the potential for a cumulative impact of the development when it is considered there are several other similar schemes either in place or in the pipeline. However, the clinching argument was that this solar farm was intended to be installed on high-grade farming land adjacent to an area of high landscape value (AHLV).
The chairman of the Sheraton Parish gave a brief history of the village before speaking in detail about the issues raised above. Residents followed with arguments about specific elements of the proposal and the detrimental impact it would have on the settled community and the surrounding countryside. For my part I focused on the general concerns of the residents and a number of planning policies that members of the committee might use if they were minded to reject the application. I’ve published a summary below for information. The representations I made at committee are based very closely on residents’ comments:
Before I make my statement I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to solar generated power. However I am opposed to any form of development in the wrong location or where it has an unacceptable impact on local residents and the settled community – which I know to be the case in this particular application.
What I would like to do this morning is refer to a number of general points raised by residents from Sheraton, and then link them to the relevant material planning policies. Following my comments some of the residents themselves would like make further representations in more detail on the location and visual impact of the development – focussing specifically on problems associated with ‘glint and glare’ coming from the development:
The first point relates to energy generation: Lightsource state in their application that the proposed solar installation will: generate enough electricity to power 9,444 typical homes and save approximately 9,771 tonnes in CO2 emissions per annum – the equivalent of removing 5338 standard cars from the road each year.
However there is no evidence to back it up. The loss of so much agricultural land or the disposal of the panels has not been taken into account to balance this assessment. The fields at the proposed site are already providing vital energy in the form of food. The DCC Local Plan refers to sustainability of food production, and losing another 160 acres to solar goes against this commitment.
Decommissioning and aftermath: We live in volatile times and in the past couple of months over 20 energy companies have gone out of business. How can we be certain that Lightsource will even exist in 20 or 40 years time? The scrap market is volatile and these panels may be worthless. Government strategy is already moving to smaller scale nuclear facilities, making this type of electricity provision potentially redundant- thus, the company, even if it still exists, would not be in a position to fund the decommissioning. I would request that as a condition an assessment of the cost of decommissioning should be made prior to any construction and funds supplied by the applicant in a bond to cover the full costs of decommissioning to protect DCC and the landowner/s from liability should the panels be left to rust in the fields.
Land Use: The land proposed for development is privately owned. DCC’s own policy is that priority for these solar developments should be given to brown field sites and land that is Council owned. There are currently another 3 similar applications within County Durham – all on privately owned land. Provision already exists within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to compulsorily purchase land for public good. Given the scale and momentum of these applications, the position of any further applications should balance the needs of developers, land owners and the general public. Schemes such as this, if done fairly, on Council owned, brown field sites could generate substantial sums to level up deprived areas within County Durham.
Cumulative and Visual impact: This proposal must be seen within the wider context of over 400 acres of agricultural land already lost to solar generation at nearby Hulam and Hart. There will undoubtedly be a cumulative effect when development is completed The CPRE did not object to the solar installations at Hulam or Hart but have submitted objections to this scheme because the landscape is different and the countryside will be damaged. The network is surrounded by miles of 3 metre fencing and all the infrastructure that goes with it. Taken as a whole, this development will completely industrialise this beautiful, unspoilt countryside. The community at large must be protected from this and all future thoughtless developments. Therefore, in terms of Lightsource’s application for cabling, we would ask, that if any of the proposal is granted, then strict stipulations regarding the size and capacity of the cabling infrastructure are considered.
Consultation and Public Benefit: Residents in Sheraton feel that Lightsource has not properly engaged with the community. I am informed by residents that they have ignored emails and basically run roughshod over people’s genuine concerns.
To make matters worse, residents feel that’s this proposal offers no benefit to the community whatsoever. Sheraton is a small community of mostly older people who entered into discussion willingly and with open minds. Demographically the community is vulnerable because of the age of residents, most of whom won’t live to see the projected end of the scheme in 40 years time. They are vulnerable because they don’t enjoy equitable access to amenities such as broadband, shops or even street lights and they are mostly on their own when it comes to crime. For the people living here, the countryside is the only amenity and to effectively consign residents to living in the middle of a solar power station is grossly unfair. Lightsource are doing this at this location simply because they can.
County Hall is currently positioned on land that is flat and well screened. If a scheme like this would not be good enough in the centre of Durham City then it’s not good enough in this location either!
The scheme does not provide any jobs.In fact jobs will be lost - for example contractors who currently work the fields. No one will save a penny on utility bills and people living in County Durham are already having to make stark choices about whether to heat their homes or eat. People come from surrounding villages to enjoy this countryside and almost all available evidence proves that being amongst green fields and the natural environment is good for physical and mental health. The costs of this scheme do not come anywhere near outweighing the benefits.
So, in planning terms I would cross reference residents’ comments above with the planning policies within the main body of the report. Namely:
Para 28, NPPF Part 15 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment - The Planning System should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, site of biodiversity or geological conservation interests, recognising the wider benefits of ecosystems, minimising the impacts on biodiversity, preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from pollution and land stability and remediating contaminated or other degraded land where appropriate
Para 33, Policy 14 – Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land and Soil Resources – States that development of the best and most versatile agricultural land, will be permitted where it is demonstrated that the benefits of the development outweigh the harm, taking into account economic and other benefits
Para 39, Policy 31 – Amenity and Pollution - Sets out that development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there will be no unacceptable impact, either individually or cumulatively, on health, living or working conditions or the natural environment and that the development can be effectively integrated with any existing business and community facilities. Development will not be permitted where inappropriate odours, noise, vibration and other sources of pollution cannot be suitably mitigated against, as well as where light pollution is not suitably minimised to an acceptable level
Para 43. Policy 39 – Landscape – States that proposals for new development will only be permitted where they would not cause unacceptable harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of the landscape, or to important features or views. Proposals are expected to incorporate appropriate mitigation measures where adverse landscape and visual impacts occur. Development affecting Areas of Higher landscape Value will only be permitted where it conserves and enhances the special qualities of the landscape, unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh its impacts. Development proposals should have regard to the County Durham Landscape Character Assessment and County Durham Landscape Strategy and contribute, where possible, to the conservation or enhancement of the local landscape
I would draw particular attention to Para 105, CDP Policy 39, which states: thatproposalsfornewdevelopmentwillbepermittedwherethey would not cause unacceptable harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of the landscape, or to important features or views. Proposals will be expected to incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate adverse landscape and visual effects. Development affecting Areas of Higher Landscape Value will only be permitted where it conserves, and where appropriate enhances, the special qualities of the landscape, unless the benefits of development in that location clearly outweigh the harm
Finally I would draw the attention of members to the Statutory Responses in the report:
58. Sheraton with Hulam Parish – Raises the concerns with regard to the proposed solar farm: classification of the proposed land, landscape and visual impact, glare, effects on wildlife, security, access down the West Lane, land drainage and flooding.
As for the Public Responses:
19 letters of objection have been received raising the issues of landscape harm, loss of open countryside, visual impacts, impacts on PRoW, property values, residential amenity, glint and glare, traffic impacts, scale of development, impacts on the village of Sheraton, green infrastructure, habitat degradation, harm to wildlife, approach to public consultation, cumulative impacts, loss of agricultural land, agricultural land quality, health risks associated with panels and contamination, nearby heritage assets, flood risk and water quality. Some responses also express concerns that there will be no direct benefits to the community directly
As I mentioned earlier the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) – objects to the solar farm application. The scheme is fragmented over a number of fields, with the most south- westerly field in an Area of Higher Landscape Value (AHLV) noting that the site will be highly visible from a number of locations and views are available into the parts of the site within the AHLV due to topography plus lower hedges and significant gaps. It is noted that gapping up of hedges will take time and the photomontages (after 5 years) are dependent on successful planting which will take time to be established. CPRE sympathise with comments which note that the screening may be oppressive. The minor single track road from the B1280 to the A19 at Sheraton is in a poor state of repair and there are clear signs of flooding. Should the application be approved CPRE request that the access to the eastern parcels is clarified. CPRE are unsure if the footpath to the north will be screened. Concern has also been raised regarding the proximity to the Hulam solar farm site and it is considered that the sequential cumulative impact is an important factor. The development will involve the loss, for 40 years, of arable land which is of Grade 3b and is still productive (CPRE recognise that this is not best and most versatile agricultural land). It is considered that sheep grazing is less valuable than arable land. The application is not in an "appropriate location", from a visual point of view, and CPRE consider that it will have a detrimental environmental impact, whatever the social or economic impacts may be. The development does not conserve and does not enhance the AHLV. It is noted that there is no evidence that the locality, as opposed to the general public, will benefit from this development and so represent that any benefit does not outweigh the harm.
In closing my statement I would draw members’ attention to the images I circulated last week which illustrate the devastating impact that natural elements can have on developments of this nature. For comparative purposes the proposed solar farm at Sheraton is in a more exposed and elevated location and the potential consequences of constructing a solar farm at this location are there for all to see. I would urge members will take these comments into consideration before they come to a decision this morning. I hope I’ve provided sufficient evidence – both in planning policy terms and on behalf of residents in Sheraton – to guide you towards refusing this application on the grounds set out here and elsewhere by other organisations and members of the local community.
