Minutes:
The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the installation of a 12.21 MWp solar facility comprising ground mounted infrastructure including inverters, transformers, a GRP switchgear enclosure, fencing, infrared cameras, motion detection system, underground cable connections, export cable, access works, including new tracks, landscape planting and other ancillary development.
Prior to the consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):
· Mr Ramsey Nagaty (to object) read out by: Mr Stephen Mallet (Chairman of Compton Parish Council);
· Ms Karen Stevens (to object) read out by: Mr John Goodridge (Chairman of Surrey CPRE);
· Mr Paul Rogers (Planning Agent Tor&Co) (in support) and;
· Mr Will Davies (Chief Operating Officer, University of Surrey) (in support)
The Chairperson, Councillor King asked the Interim Team Leader, Kelly Jethwa to re-start her presentation owing to the fact that Councillors Steven Lee and Maddy Redpath had joined the meeting late. This would enable them to hear the presentation from the start.
The Committee received a presentation from the Interim Team Leader, Kelly Jethwa. The application was for a solar facility to be located in three fields, including an access track from Egerton Road and an underground cable route from the Stag Hill Campus. The application site was located to the west of the urban area of Guildford and north of the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area. There was a railway line to the north, and beyond which was Wood Street Village. To the west, was the complex of buildings associated with Manor Farm and the University.
The site allocation for Blackwell Park was partly located in the candidate area for the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area and partly located in an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). There was also areas of ancient woodland along the edges of the ancient woodland copses close to the proposed solar fields. Part of the site was located in an area of Green Belt whilst the other part was located in the east in the urban area of Guildford.
The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which detailed the fact that there was a public consultation on amendments to changes to the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area. The entire solar array sat within the Green Belt. The Surrey Hills National Landscape Area extended north of the Hogs Back. The application site fell within the area that was subject of review by Natural England as part of a boundary review and was therefore known as a candidate area. The Committee was reminded that there was no directive which prevented the local planning authority determining this planning application in a candidate area while the review was in progress. In recognition of this, the application would provide measures which comprised of an interpretative information strategy, including information boards, signposts, sculptures and other features for those visiting the area so that they would have a better understanding of the landscape environment and its history.
The Committee noted plans which showed a number of public rights of way which crossed the site. There were also permissive paths that traversed the site. These allowed access for pedestrians and for bridleways from the north of Wood Street Village, from the south and from the urban area of Guildford. The three fields proposed to house the solar facility were called Wildfields, Big Misley and Little Misley. The Committee noted that part of the development proposed would include a 2.4-metre-high deer proof fence which would enclose each of the three fields. The solar array would be placed east to west on an angled frame facing southwards with a maximum height of 3 metres. The applicant had submitted a glint and glare survey and no harm had been identified. In addition, following advice from the Council’s landscape specialist, non-reflective finishes were recommended under condition 19.
The solar panels were inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources was a material consideration as per paragraph 156 of the NPPF. This had been given substantial weight and boosted by the Ministerial Statement issued in July 2024 by the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Committee noted photos of the three fields taken at different times of the year where the seasonal changes could be observed. Little Misley was the smallest field in the AGLV as well as the Green Belt and could be observed northwards towards the boundary with the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area and the Hogs Back in the distance. The Big Misley field was located in the Green Belt and adjoined an ancient woodland. The final field was Wildfields and was furthest to the north nearest the railway line.
The Committee noted further details regarding the access track and cabling. A spoil heap needed to be removed for the access track. The access track and cabling route had been designed to reduce the impact on habitats and species, trees, ancient woodlands, hedgerows and heritage features. The track would have no engineering aprons, curbs or lighting. The track would be laid with recycled or secondary aggregate. The cabling route would run from the solar field to the Stag Hill Campus where it would be connected to a substation. The cables would be laid underground, however, there was a small section that would require open excavation under the A3 along Egerton Road. An engineering technique called horizontal directional drilling would be used to manage the effects on woodlands and habitats. No objections had been raised to this on arboricultural grounds. As these works were construed as an engineering operation where the site was in the Green Belt, it was considered to be appropriate development owing to there being limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
The applicant had carried out a landscape and visual assessment and the viewpoints were agreed with planning officers and a specialist consultant. As a result of this work, additional planting was recommended along the southern boundary of Little Misley field and would be comprised of a 10-metre-deep woodland planting belt with other hedgerows along the field boundaries. The Committee noted the verified views which had been taken by the applicant in accordance with the methodology agreed. It was demonstrated that over time the 3-metre-high solar panels would be screened by the additional planting. It was acknowledged that harm to this viewpoint from the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area would be caused to its setting and potential harm to the candidate area.
The applicant had carried out an alternative sites assessment which had been reviewed by officers and was considered acceptable. Officers were satisfied that all other options to deliver renewable energy had been investigated. Further information had also been requested and provided regarding the use of previously developed land, including car parks and the roofs of buildings. The solar arrays would be used as part of a wider strategy by the University to achieve net zero by 2030 which included roof mounted PV panels, reducing energy consumption, replacing boilers with more efficient electric boilers and better arrangements for heat storage and future battery storage.
The NPPF and policy E5 of the Local Plan safeguarded against the loss of agricultural land. The applicant had carried out a soil and agricultural quality assessment of the fields. Planning Officers were satisfied that the majority of the land was not best and most versatile which fell within grades 3A and 2. The proposed development would result in the temporary loss of 13.4 hectares of best and most versatile land which was approximately 36% of the study area. As the development would prevent arable farming for the term of the use, this would therefore be contrary to the NPPF policy E5 (3).
Some of the public rights of way would go across the access track. Therefore, working with Surrey County Council, the applicant had provided details which would ensure that these rights of way would remain unobstructed. This would consist of a system of gates across the access track which would only be open for maintenance vehicles once the solar farm was operational. Otherwise, the public rights of way would be unfettered, including during construction with further details required by condition 16.
The Committee noted that the proposal would achieve in excess of 20% biodiversity net gain as required by policy P7. New grassland would be laid in the fields with new hedging and a new woodland. In the Wildfields site there would also be some woodland planting and a pond. The supplementary late sheet included a summary of the harms identified and the public benefits. It was the planning officer’s opinion that there were very special circumstances that weighed in favour of the development. Those public benefits outweighed the less than substantial harm identified to the Grade II listed Wildfields Farmhouse and other harms identified to the landscape quality, the Green Belt and the best and most versatile land. Those harms had been balanced against the benefits, and in this case, the benefits would outweigh the harm. The applicant had sought to minimise the effect where possible and where that harm could not be minimised, there would be appropriate mitigation such as the additional screen planting to Little Misley. The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions and a S106 agreement to secure the biodiversity net gain as well as the amendments and corrections as detailed in the supplementary late sheets.
Prior to the Committee discussing the application, Councillor Howard Smith noted that given Councillors Steven Lee and Maddy Redpath arrived late to the meeting, they had missed the opportunity to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests or non-disclosable pecuniary interests. For the record, both Councillors Steven Lee and Maddy Redpath confirmed that they had no interests to declare.
The Committee discussed the application and noted concerns raised that there were insufficient very special circumstances to offset the harm caused to ecology, conservation and wildlife. The site would be losing high quality agricultural land through the use of the fields being turned over to a solar facility. The number of objections received was also a material planning consideration. A similar energy capacity of 9.4 megawatts could be generated by placing solar panels on roof tops rather than fields which generated approx. 12 megawatts. Lastly, it was noted that the solar fields would be in place temporarily for a period of 35 years.
The Committee noted further concerns raised that the inclusion of Little Misley field for use as a solar facility was problematic owing to the harm caused to this piece of land which was a candidate for the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area. No problems were identified with the other two fields proposed to be used for solar panels; Big Misley and Wildfields. If the application were to be approved, it was queried whether it would be possible to secure a mature planting scheme to act as a screen to Little Misley rather than approve planting that could take up to 35 years to fully establish. It was also queried whether the track would be made up of recycled aggregates as referred to in the officers presentation or of unbound materials as detailed in condition 24. This was owing to concerns about carbon emissions associated with concrete production if it was a material to be used in the track.
The Interim Team Leader, Kelly Jethwa confirmed that in condition 15 (8), officers had made a request for advanced planting of trees and hedgerows. If members were minded, then it could be conditioned that Little Misley was planted earlier so to assist the quicker development of screening. It was also confirmed that unbound materials included aggregates and condition 19 required details to be submitted including embodied carbon.
The Committee noted that the second round of consultation for the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area was finishing on 10 December 2024. Was it therefore possible to defer this application until this was decided so that the Committee could make a well-informed decision, should Little Misley become part of the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area.
The Joint Assistant Director for Planning, Claire Upton-Brown advised the Committee that the end of the consultation period for the Surrey Hills National Landscape Area was not a decision date. The Committee therefore needed to be mindful that should they want to align a decision with this application with the decision on designation that there was no timescale for, and that the application could therefore be undetermined potentially for an indefinite period of time.
The Committee noted a query raised regarding the financial savings that would likely be achieved via the scheme. The Joint Assistant Director for Planning confirmed that she was not in a position to discuss the finances of the applicant. Energy bills had obviously increased globally, and the University’s budget had not increased in turn. The creation of solar energy onsite would therefore help the University bridge that financial gap. The commercial arrangement between SSE and the University was unknown however the energy generated by the solar farm would be used by the University. A query was also raised about whether the planting would sufficiently screen Little Misley. The Interim Team Leader, Kelly Jethwa confirmed that the applicant provided a landscape and visual assessment which identified harm to the landscape. The additional planting would go some way to mitigate that harm, but it would not completely obscure it.
The Committee noted a comment that the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan which was part of the Local Plan, and it did not permit solar facilities on such land. The Senior Planning Officer, Kelly Jethwa confirmed that the application site was not within the Surrey Hills National Landscape, part of the site was rather located in a candidate area. The relevant policy in the AONB Management Plan was P6 which related to the setting of the AONB and views to and from the Surrey Hills National Landscape.
The Committee noted comments that some members had attended a site visit earlier that week which had helped place the application in context, particularly when considering the views of Little Misley. The additional planting, at an earlier stage was fully endorsed so to ensure that the solar panels were screened more quickly. It was also queried and confirmed that the solar panels would be fixed in place and would not move.
The Committee noted concerns raised that there were no very special circumstances to enable this development on a significant green asset. Rather, a combination of utilising urban options would have been preferred. It was also observed that the likelihood of Guildford achieving net zero by 2030 was very slim.
The Committee noted comments that the cables being run through the solar facility was close to ancient woodland. It was queried whether further information could therefore be provided on the specific type of drill being used, how far down the drilling would go and what the buffer distance was around the trees to protect them. In addition, was the cable shortened within the options of what they assessed and how many routes did they look at? What was the timeframe to deliver renewable energy back to the University? Was it four years? Lastly, how many options were looked at with the access track which was a form of hardstanding?
The Interim Team Leader confirmed that in relation to the drilling, a drill would go down at a given entry point on one side and to a greater depth of three metres owing to the woodland areas and would then emerge at an exit pit on the other side. There was one very large ancient woodland next to the site allocation and another one next to Little Misley. In those locations there was a requirement by Natural England and the Forestry Commission for a 15-metre buffer. The drilling entry and exit points would also be outside of those buffer areas. In terms of the cable route, it needed to be long because it had to get from the solar fields, which were effectively in the countryside to a substation. The substation which had the best capacity to serve the needs of the University was at the Stag Hill campus. It was acknowledged that the route followed a zig zag path however if it followed a straight line, it would be much more harmful to the designation in that area. It was also estimated that there was a 20-month lead in period from starting work to potentially first exporting electricity from the site.
A number of options were looked at for the access road. The previous application included an access from Chalk Pit Lane. After a road safety audit it was felt to not be a viable option and alternatives had to be sought. Another option included accessing the site from the north but the railway line impeded access. Land ownership issues affected routes from the north and the west. Access to the east of the site by the Surrey Research Park was also dismissed because of ownership issues as well as the impact on trees and ancient woodland. The access track proposed therefore allowed access using Egerton Road onto University Road including Francis Crick Road.
It was confirmed by the Interim Team Leader that there would be a requirement for a tree protection monitoring report to be provided on a monthly basis by a suitably qualified arboriculturalist as per condition 21.
On the site visit, it was noted that there was a property behind the hedgerows closest to Little Misley. It was queried whether that property would be affected by glare and glint from the solar panels. It was confirmed by the Interim Team Leader that the frames would mainly have a southernly aspect, and the house was located towards the west. Condition 19 also required the panels to have an anti-reflective finish applied to the panel frame to help mitigate those concerns.
The Committee noted comments that this was a much welcomed solar farm and a first for Guildford and considered that the panels would not be visible. Concerns about loss of farmland were not accepted given this was only three fields out of thousands of fields in Guildford overall. The Council should still strive to meet the zero-carbon emissions target despite views that we might not reach it. If the University could supply itself with over a third of the power it required then that was a very good thing, not just for the cost reduction for them but for Guildford as well.
The Committee noted comments made that three issues needed to be considered, the need for sustainable energy, the protection of an area of AGLV land and a candidate as a Surrey Hills National Landscape Area and the need to ensure national food security. It was acknowledged that solar farms could be built in the Green Belt and on agricultural land and on best and most versatile agricultural land. Paragraph 156 of the NPPF states that in very special circumstances, this included renewable energy projects. However, the inclusion of Little Misley in this application was of concern, as it was visible from the Hogs Back and would take a long time for them to be screened by the additional planting proposed. The land was also comprised of best and most versatile agricultural land and equated to a lot of land being taken out of agricultural production. Land of this quality was not a common feature in Surrey and food security needed to be elevated in the UK. The application should be refused on that basis. Councillor Oven who raised these concerns stated that he was minded to refuse the application and had reasons to support a refusal should other members wish to support him. No other member stated they would do so.
The Committee noted comments that the University had explored other brownfield sites and commended the application for approval.
The Chairperson, Councillor King asked the Committee if any other member had further comments to make on the application. No further comments were made.
The Chairperson, Councillor King moved the motion to approve application 24/P/00441 subject to a S106 and Councillor Jo Shaw seconded that motion which was carried.
RECORDED VOTE LIST
|
||||
|
|
FOR |
AGAINST |
ABSTAIN |
1 |
Cllr Bilal Akhtar |
|
|
X |
2 |
Cllr Stephen Hives |
X |
|
|
3 |
Cllr David Bilbé |
|
X |
|
4 |
Cllr Vanessa King |
X |
|
|
5 |
Cllr Cait Taylor |
X |
|
|
6 |
Cllr Dominique Williams |
X |
|
|
7 |
The Deputy Mayor, Cllr Howard Smith |
X |
|
|
8 |
Cllr Lizzie Griffiths |
|
|
X |
9 |
Cllr Steven Lee |
X |
|
|
10 |
Cllr Joss Bigmore |
X |
|
|
11 |
Cllr Pat Oven |
|
X |
|
12 |
Cllr Maddy Redpath |
|
X |
|
13 |
Cllr Richard Mills |
|
X |
|
14 |
Cllr Joanne Shaw |
X |
|
|
15 |
Cllr Gillian Harwood |
X |
|
|
|
TOTALS |
9 |
4 |
2 |
In conclusion, having taken consideration of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee
RESOLVED to approve application 24/P/00441 subject to the updated and additional conditions as detailed in the supplementary late sheets and:
(i) That delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant permission and make minor amendments to the wording of conditions subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement to secure:
· Monitoring of onsite Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
(ii) That upon completion of the above, the application be determined by the Joint Assistant Director of Planning. The recommendation is to approve planning permission subject to conditions.
Supporting documents: