8/11/2019 Fencing 222

1/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 24 Date: 15.01.14

Officer Report on Planning Application: 13/01697/FUL

Proposal: Solar PV development and associated works. To includethe installation of ground based racking systems, mountedsolar panels, power inverter stations, transformer stations,substation and comms building, fencing, associated accessgates and tracks, and CCTV security cameras mounted onfree standing support poles. ( GR 360359/123950 )

Site Address: Land OS 4200 Sutton Montis Road Queen CamelParish: Queen Camel

CAMELOTWard Cllr M. LewisRecommending CaseOfficer:

Nicholas HeadTel: (01935) 462167 Email:nick.head@southsomerset.gov.uk

Target date: 29th July 2013Applicant: Mr Peter McLaren

Agent:

(no agent if blank)Application Type: Major Dwlgs 10 or more or site 0.5ha+

REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

The application relates to a large scale major development which, due to its size, mustbe referred to Committee for determination if the officer is seeking to approve theapplication, which is the case in this instance.

The application was first referred to Committee in July 2013 but was deferred to give theMOD additional time in which to comment. These comments have now been receivedand the application is therefore referred back to Committee for consideration.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

2/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 25 Date: 15.01.14

The site is located 700m to the south east of Queen Camel, on the south side of theQueen Camel - Sutton Montis Road. The village of Sutton Montis is 1.5 km to the west.It is bordered to the west by the railway line and on the remaining boundaries by open

fields, with a large farmyard towards the east at the northern end of the site. The site is alevel field, bounded by mature hedges. There is a watercourse to the north of the site, onthe opposite side of the public highway. Access to the site is taken off the public highwayat a central point in the site.

It is proposed to create a 5.09MW ground mounted solar park, which would include21,640 solar modules; power inverter stations; transformer stations; security fencing;access gates; and CCTV security cameras (pole mounted).

Documents Submitted with the Application

Design and Access Statement

Landscape and Visual Impact AssessmentCommunity Consultation ReportDesk-based Archaeological AssessmentFlood Risk AssessmentGradiometer SurveyAgricultural land Classification ReportHabitat Survey

HISTORY

12/04622/EIASS - Screening opinion for a proposed solar pv installation - EIA notrequired

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

3/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 26 Date: 15.01.14

POLICY

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 repeats the dutyimposed under S54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and requires thatdecisions must be made in accordance with relevant Development Plan Documentsunless material considerations indicate otherwise.

For the purposes of determining current applications the local planning authorityconsiders that the relevant development plan comprises the saved policies of the SouthSomerset Local Plan.

The policies of most relevance to the proposal are:

Saved policies of the South Somerset Local Plan (April 2006):

ST3 - Development AreasST5 - General Principles of Development

ST6 - The Quality of DevelopmentEC1 - Protecting the Best Agricultural LandEC3 - Landscape CharacterEC7 - Networks of Natural HabitatsEC8 - Protected SpeciesEH11 - Archaeological Sites of National ImportanceEH12 - Areas of High Archaeological Potential and Other Areas of Archaeologicalinterest.EP1 - Pollution and NoiseEP2 - Pollution and NoiseEP3 - Light PollutionME5 - Farm Diversification

Policy-related Material Considerations

South Somerset Sustainable Community StrategyGoal 1 - Safe and InclusiveGoal 3 - Healthy EnvironmentsGoal 4 - Quality Public ServicesGoal 5 - High Performance Local EconomyGoal 7 - DistinctivenessGoal 8 - Quality DevelopmentGoal 10 - EnergyGoal 11 - Environment

South Somerset Carbon Reduction and Climate Change Adaption Strategy 2010- 2014

International and European Policy Context

There are a range of International and European policy drivers that are relevant to theconsideration of renewable energy developments. Under the Kyoto Protocol 1997, theUK has agreed to reduce emissions of the 'basket' of six greenhouse gases by 12.5%below 1990 levels by the period 2008-12.

Under the Copenhagen Accord (2010), the UK, as part of the EU, has since agreed tomake further emissions cuts of between 20% and 30% by 2020 on 1990 levels (thehigher figure being subject to certain caveats). This agreement is based on achieving areduction in global emissions to limit average increases in global temperature to no more

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

4/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 27 Date: 15.01.14

than 2C.

The draft European Renewable Energy Directive 2008 states that, in 2007, the EuropeanUnion (EU) leaders had agreed to adopt a binding target requiring 20% of the EU'senergy (electricity, heat and transport) to come from renewable energy sources by 2020.This Directive is also intended to promote the use of renewable energy across theEuropean Union. In particular, this Directive commits the UK to a target of generating15% of its total energy from renewable sources by 2020.

National Policy Context

At the national level, there are a range of statutory and non-statutory policy drivers andinitiatives which are relevant to the consideration of this planning application. The 2008UK Climate Change Bill increases the 60% target in greenhouse gas emissions to an80% reduction by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). The UK Committee on Climate Change2008, entitled 'Building a Low Carbon Economy', provides guidance in the form ofrecommendations in terms of meeting the 80% target set out in the Climate Change Bill,

and also sets out five-year carbon budgets for the UK. The 2009 UK Renewable EnergyStrategy (RES) provides a series of measures to meet the legally-binding target set inthe aforementioned Renewable Energy Directive. The RES envisages that more than30% of UK electricity should be generated from renewable sources.

The 2003 Energy White Paper provides a target of generating 40% of national electricityfrom renewable sources by 2050, with interim targets of 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020.The 2007 Energy White Paper contains a range of proposals which address the climatechange and energy challenge, for example by securing a mix of clean, low carbonenergy sources and by streamlining the planning process for energy projects. ThePlanning and Energy Act 2008 is also relevant in that it enables local planning authorities(LPAs) to set requirements for energy use and energy efficiency in local plans.

National Planning Policy Framework

Chapters:-1. Building a strong, competitive economy3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy7. Requiring good design10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environmentTechnical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework - Flood Risk

The NPPF outlines that local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility onall communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbonsources. They should:

have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources;

design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy developmentwhile ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, includingcumulative landscape and visual impacts;

consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources,and supporting infrastructure, where this would help secure the development of suchsources; and

identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply fromdecentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for collocating

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

5/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 28 Date: 15.01.14

potential heat customers and suppliers.

The NPPF further advises that when determining planning applications, local planningauthorities should:

not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need forrenewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projectsprovide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions;and

approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitableareas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, localplanning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scaleprojects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets thecriteria used in identifying suitable areas.

The NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should aim to:

avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of lifeas a result of new development;

mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of lifearising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;and

identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbedby noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.

In determining applications, the NPPF states that local planning authorities shouldrequire an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected,including any contribution made by their setting. Local planning authorities shouldidentify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affectedby a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) takingaccount of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this

assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset,to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect ofthe proposal.

It is considered that the main thrust of the NPPF is to positively support sustainabledevelopment, and there is positive encouragement for renewable energy projects.However the NPPF reiterates the importance of protecting important landscapes,especially Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as well as heritage and ecology assets.

CONSULTATIONS

Queen Camel Parish Council:After considerable discussion, the Council on a majorityvote agreed to oppose this application. Their reasons being a) loss of prime agriculturalland, b) visual impact on the landscape, c) the proposed height of the panels - should belower than as shown in plans, d) the impact of height & design of the proposed fencingaround the site, e) The Council felt the application drawings were inaccurate in showingthe distance from the adjacent watercourse, f) that there will be insufficient ecologicalbenefit from the proposals & g) it was agreed that there needs to be a Condition thatstates that at the end of twenty five years the area is returned back to agricultural use.

Highways Authority: No observations.

SSDC Area Engineer: No comment.

SSDC Landscape Officer: The Council's Landscape Officer has undertaken a thorough

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

6/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 29 Date: 15.01.14

appraisal of the proposal, attached to this report as Annex A. In response to initialcomments, the following additional information and changes have been offered by theapplicant:- CCTV Camera maximum height to be 4m, which is considered acceptable, details in

relation to siting and colour have been clarified and raise no further concerns;- The height of solar panels above ground level is to be limited to a maximum of 2.4m;- the height of the perimeter fence has been agreed at 2.4m;- an outline landscape plan has been submitted which covers the concerns raised in

the original response.

In conclusion, the Landscape Officer advises that the proposal has the potential to beaccommodated within the context of the wider vale without undue impact, and the site'svisual profile is low in most part. Its local visibility can be further played down. Hencewhilst there are potentially grounds on which to base a landscape objection, mindful thatnational government guidance is heavily weighted in favour of renewables, and thatLPAs are urged to approve renewable energy schemes providing impacts can be madeacceptable, then I do not consider the extent of landscape impact to be sufficiently

adverse to generate an over-riding landscape objectionsubject to conditions.

SSDC Environmental Protection Unit: No comments.

SSDC Climate Change Officer: The UK has a target to meet 20% of energy needs fromrenewables by 2020. Despite this, renewable electricity generation even within the SouthWest with its abundant renewable energy resource has been minimal until recently.However, this proposed large PV array will be one of several installed in the regionrecently making a significant impact on carbon dioxide emissions.

Since the introduction of the feed in tariff installed capacity of PV arras in SouthSomerset stands at 10.32 MW (Ofgem statistical report 22/04/2013).

This proposed large PV array is one of a small handful currently in planning that willmake a very significant impact of the regions renewable electricity generation. Ifapproved, this installation will provide just over 0.60 % of South Somerset's total annualelectrical requirement (or just over of the equivalent of one very large 120 m high windturbine). It will certainly supply in excess of the annual requirement of all surroundingvillages (Queen Camel, West Camel, Sparkford, North and South Cadbury, SuttonMontis, Corton Denham, Rimpton and Marston Magna.)

This development is a well-designed installation. The site chosen is very suitablebecause it is relatively close to electricity consumers in the adjacent villages, which willminimise grid losses and is just the type of application that planning authorities should

encourage.

I have no objections.

SSDC Ecologist: I'm satisfied with and in general agreement with the Extended Phase 1Habitat Survey submitted with the application. The only significant issue identified wasthe presence of badgers, including a main sett, at the boundary of the site. I recommenda mitigation plan for badgers is submitted and made the subject of a condition.

SSDC Area Development: No comment received.

SSDC Rights of Way Officer: No comment received.

County ROW Officer: No comment received.

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

7/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 30 Date: 15.01.14

Wessex Water: No comment received.

County Archaeologist: The DBA and geophysical survey show that there are somelimited remains on the proposal site. These appear to be of local significance and wouldrequire some investigation as part of the development.For this reason I recommend that the developer be required to archaeologicallyinvestigate the heritage assets and provide a report on any discoveries made asindicated in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 141). This should besecured by the use of model condition 55 attached to any permission granted.

MOD Safeguarding: No safeguarding objections.

English Heritage: No objection.

Environment Agency: No objection, subject to a drainage condition, and informativenotes attached to any permission.

Natural England: No objection; notes and advice offered on biodiversity and sustainabledevelopment.

Somerset Wildlife Trust: No objections. Support is offered for various ecologicalenhancements; further badger survey would be required.

National Rail: No comment received.

Monarch's Way Association: The Association objects to the proposal, raising thefollowing points:

- the proposal will cause harm to the landscape and local distinctiveness;

- the proposal will harm views, particularly from the Monarch's Way footpath;- the development could lead to flooding problems resulting from reduction of ground

water drainage;- there is significant adverse impact upon views of the surrounding landscape and

features and also upon a long distance footpath which commemorates an importanthistorical event.

Campaign for Rural England: No comment received.

Rambler's Association: No comment received.

Neighbouring Councils

Sparkford Parish Council: No comment received.

Marston Magna Parish Council: No comment received.

South Cadbury Parish Council: No comments or observations.

Rimpton Parish Council: No comment received.

Corton Denham Parish Council: No comment received.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter has been received, supporting the proposal.

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

8/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 31 Date: 15.01.14

CONSIDERATIONS

The application seeks planning permission for a large array of solar panels, covering anarea of 12.7 Ha. and generating approx 5.09 MW. The proposal seeks to install the PVpanels in arrays supported on metal posts driven into the ground allowing the groundbeneath to grass over with the potential for low-level grazing (there are variable gapsbetween the rows). Land under the panels is capable of being grazed to keep vegetationgrowth down. The use is temporary, and the land reverts to purely agricultural activityafter the lapse of the permission.

The site is located in the open countryside and remote from any development areas. It isproposed to erect an array of solar panel units with inverter units, transformer stations,security fencing with associated access gates, and ancillary equipment. Permission issought for a 25-year period.

The main considerations for this application are considered to relate to landscapecharacter and visual amenity, residential amenity, impact upon ecology, impact upon

setting of heritage assets, highway safety, effect upon flood risk and the operationaleffectiveness of nearby RNAS Yeovilton.

Principle of Development

The policy position in relation to renewable energy developments has been clearly setout above. In terms of meeting the challenge of climate change, paragraph 97 of theNPPF states that Local Planning Authorities (LPA's) "should recognise the responsibilityon all communities to contribute to energy generation and renewable or low carbonsources", they are expected to have a positive and supportive attitude for opportunitiesfor renewable or low carbon energy sources. Whilst it might be preferable for brownfieldsites to be considered before greenfield agricultural land there is no requirement for

developers to consider brownfield sites in the first instance or apply any sort ofsequential test as to the optimum site from a land use or landscape point of view. LPAsshould not require applicants to demonstrate a need for renewable or low carbon energyand if the impact of the development is or can be made acceptable, they should approveapplications unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The NPPF is supportive of proposals such at this. However, material considerations suchas landscape impact and impact on heritage assets must be balanced against thistogether with the potential for mitigating any impacts. The proposal has also beenassessed against saved policies of the Local Plan relating to development in thecountryside (Policies ST3 and EC3 in particular).

Agricultural Land Classification: A submitted Agricultural Land Classification Surveyindicates that the land falls within Grade 3b. The Council's records indicate that the landis Grade 3 agricultural land. It is therefore not considered that the land can be regardedas being the 'best and most versatile agricultural land' as defined in the NPPF.

The proposal is for the temporary use of the land (25 years) for the purposes of solarpower generation. The installation is capable of being economically decommissionedand removed from the site at the end of its viable life or duration of planning permission ifapproved, whichever is the sooner, with the site returned to its original appearance andagricultural use. This can be enforced by a planning condition. It could be argued that thepresence of panels would preclude more intensive agricultural uses for the period of 25years, thus allowing the soil to regenerate. It is not therefore considered that thisproposal would result in the permanent loss of the best and most versatile agriculturalland.

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

9/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 32 Date: 15.01.14

An Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion (12/04622/EIASS) wasrequested and undertaken by the LPA. Under this assessment a consideration of thelikelihood of significant environmental effects needs to be judged. In this case anEnvironmental Impact Assessment was not required as the development is of local (andnot national) importance, the site is not within a designated area, is not particularlyvulnerable or sensitive and the development is not unusually complex with hazardousenvironmental effects.

Landscape Character and Visual Amenity

The site comprises a single large field on flat land partially contained by mature hedges.The western boundary of the site, is formed by the railway reserve of the line linkingYeovil and Castle Cary. The land is slightly elevated in relation to the railway line. Distantviews of the site are obtained from raised ground to the east (including Cadbury Castleand the Corton Denham Ridge) and south-east. Clear views of the site itself are offeredto motorists and pedestrians using the bridge crossing the railway line along the north-west edge of the site.

The Landscape Architect, together with the case officer, has carried out a thoroughassessment of the proposal, assessing both the submitted documentation and the localimpact of the proposal on site and at points distant from the site (including points on theCorton Denham Ridge. The Landscape Architect's full report is attached as Annex A.

His assessment of the proposal is that, although there is a 'minor adverse' impact to thelandscape, this is not considered sufficient to warrant a refusal of the proposal onlandscape grounds. As he notes, and as is clear from the detailed statement ofGovernment Policy discussed above, there is very strong policy support for renewableenergy schemes such as this. On the basis of a detailed examination of the site, andconsideration of the proposal, it is not considered that there is a landscape or visual

amenity reason for refusal of the application.

Impact on Residential Amenity

There are no dwellings in close proximity to the site. The nearest residential property isat Windsor Farm, 170m to the east of the site. The land is not raised, and it is notconsidered that any harm would result to the amenity of these residents. It is noted thatsome machinery on site will generate low noise levels. No objection has been raised bythe Council's EPU officer, and it is not considered that there is any resident close enoughto the site to raise a concern about noise nuisance.

Impact on Ecology

The application has been accompanied by detailed assessments of ecological impacts.These have been assessed by the Council's Ecologist, who raises no objections. Subjectto appropriate conditions, it is not consider that there is any ecological reason for refusalof the application.

Impact on Listed Buildings and Other Heritage Assets

Protection of heritage assets is stressed as important (NPPF), and permissions shouldnot be granted that unacceptably compromise identified heritage assets.

There are no listed buildings in close proximity to the site whose settings would benegatively impacted by the proposal. English Heritage has been consulted, particularlyover concern about views from Cadbury Castle, a Scheduled Monument. No objection

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

10/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 33 Date: 15.01.14

has been raised. It is not considered that there is any reason for refusal of the applicationrelating to listed buildings or the Scheduled Monument.

The County Archaeologist has recommended that approval is subject to a pre-commencement condition, in order to ensure that the site is archaeologically investigatedfor any heritage assets, in order to provide a report on the findings.

Access and Highway Safety

The proposed development takes access off a single existing accessway. Thedevelopment will require construction of an internal access track running along thenorthern boundary and also north-south in a central position.

The access is considered to be in a good position from the point of view of vehicularaccess during construction. No objection has been raised by the highways authority. It isnot considered that there is any highway safety concern that would warrant a refusal ofthe application.

Airfield Safeguarding:

The application site is situated within the statutory aerodrome safeguarding zonesurrounding RNAS Yeovilton and is approximately 4.1km to the east of the aerodromedirectly beneath the approach to one of the runways; the MOD was therefore consultedin respect of this application.

In the MODs initial consultation response concerns were raised that insufficientinformation had been provided to be able to fully assess the impact the array might haveupon the operational effectiveness of their Tactical Air Navigational system and anypossible issues of glare which could affect aircraft circuiting or undertaking landing and

take-off manoeuvres at the aerodrome. On this basis they were unable to offer theirsupport to the proposal.

Since this time the applicant has provided further detailed analysis of these areas ofconcern and the MOD has confirmed that they are satisfied with these details and thatthey no longer object to the application. It is therefore considered that the proposeddevelopment should not adversely affect aviation safety or the operational effectivenessof RNAS Yeovilton.

Cumulative Impact of Similar Development

Although the LPA has approved other similar developments within the district, none of

these is within sight of the site under consideration. Two other sites have been approvedwithin Area East (Chilton Cantelo and land near Hatherleigh Farm), but it is notconsidered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable cumulative landscapeimpact, notwithstanding the visibility of both the Chilton Cantelo site and this currentproposal from distant positions on higher ground.

Flood Risk

The EA has raised no objection to the proposal on the basis that an adequate drainagescheme can be submitted prior to development.

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

11/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 34 Date: 15.01.14

Objection of the Parish Council

The PC objections are dealt with in order:

(a) Prime Agricultural Land: The NPPF defines the 'best and most versatileagricultural land' as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural LandClassification. The site has been identified as being outside of this classification,and it is considered that the guidance in Para 112 of the NPPF has beencomplied with. It is not agreed that this is 'prime agricultural land' or that thisobjection could be sustained.

(b) Visual/Landscape Impact: The issue of visual impact has been dealt with indetail (see Annex A). It is not agreed that there is a valid reason for refusal of theapplication on the basis of negative landscape impact.

(c) Height of Panels: A reduction in the original specification has been agreed.(d) Height of Fencing: Given the locality and the proposed mitigation planting, it is

not considered that the height of the fencing is excessive, or that it would intrudesufficiently to warrant refusal.

(e) Accuracy of Drawings: The PC objection is not clear; the water course is on theopposite site of the road and appears to accord with the LPA's mappinginformation. The submitted details are considered accurate enough to enable adecision.

(f) Ecological Benefit: Government guidance requires that applications forrenewable energy development such as this should be approved if their impactsare (or can be made) acceptable. There is no requirement for 'ecological benefit'that is considered to over-ride this.

(g) Cessation of Use: The proposal is for a temporary permission, albeit for 25years. The land remains agricultural and reverts to that use after the expiry of theperiod.

It is not considered that the PC has raised any reason for refusal of the proposal thatcould be sustained.

Objection of the Monarch's Way Association

The landscape impact of the proposal, and the resulting impact on visual amenity fromvarious vantage points, has been carefully assessed against the clear governmentadvice on renewable energy. It is not considered that the concerns raised by theAssociation would outweigh the very clear guidance set out in the NPPF.

Conclusion

Government advice is clear. Planning Authorities should approve applications forrenewable energy projects where impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (NPPF Para98). The current application has raised some concerns in relation to visual amenity,landscape character, impact on ecology, and flood risk, and heritage assets. A thoroughassessment of these impacts indicates that, for the most part, they are acceptable - orcan be made acceptable by appropriate mitigation measures - in the context ofGovernment advice and the clear need for renewable energy sources. Where impactscan be overcome by way of pre-commencement or other conditions (archaeology,ecology, landscaping) appropriate conditions are recommended. Subject to theappropriate controls set out in conditions, it is now considered that the impacts of theproposal can be considered 'acceptable' as set out in Government guidance.Notwithstanding the objections received from the Parish Council and the Monarch's WayAssociation, the proposal is considered to represent sustainable development which isaccordingly recommended for approval.

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

12/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 35 Date: 15.01.14

S.106 AGREEMENT

Not relevant.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant permission.

01. Notwithstanding local concerns it is considered that the benefits in terms of theprovision of a renewable source of energy, which will make a valuablecontribution towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions, outweigh the limitedimpact of the proposed PV panels on the local landscape character and heritageassets. As such the proposal accords with the Government's objective toencourage the provision of renewable energy sources and the aims andobjectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies ST3, ST5,ST6, EC3, EC7, EH5, EH11, EH12 and EP3 of the South Somerset Local Plan2006.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of threeyears from the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 91(1) of the Town and CountryPlanning Act 1990.

02. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with thefollowing approved plans: drawings ref. TGC/PV001 Rev A1, TGC/PV002 Rev A1,TGC/PV003 Rev A1, TGC/PV004 Rev A1, TGC/PV007/01 Rev A1, TGC/PV009/01

Rev A1,TGC/PV010/01 Rev A1, PV 1.00 Rev A4, 2V Racking System Rev B.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

03. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until there has beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailedscheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees andhedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measuresfor their protection in the course of the development, as well as details of anychanges proposed in existing ground levels. The landscaping scheme shall be inaccordance with the submitted Landscape Masterplan plan ref. P0046 Rev 2. Allplanting, seeding, turfing or earth moulding comprised in the approved details of

landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season followingthe commencement of the development. For the duration of this permission thetrees and shrubs included in the scheme shall be protected and maintained, andany trees or plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged ordiseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar sizeand species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to anyvariation.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape character in accordancewith the NPPF and saved Policies ST5, ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset LocalPlan.

04. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced unless a site managementplan for tree, hedge and grass maintenance of the site has been submitted to and

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

13/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 36 Date: 15.01.14

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such management plan, onceagreed, shall be fully implemented for the duration of the use hereby permitted,unless any variation is agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to safeguard the character andappearance of the landscape in accordance with Policies ST5, ST6 and EC3 of theSouth Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

05. No hedge, nor any part thereof, shall be removed, except for permitting reasonableaccess to the site, until the details of the proposed removals have been submittedto the local planning authority and approved in writing. Any significant amount ofremoval will require the details to include the results of dormouse presence and batactivity surveys undertaken to current best practice, an impact assessment, andmitigation proposals in respect of any impacts identified.

Reason: For the protection of bats and dormice in accordance with theConservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Local Plan Policy EC8.

06. The supporting posts to the solar array shall be anchored into the ground as shownin drawing 'Solar Farm 2V, 40 Module Racking' ref. 2v Racking System, receivedon 3 May 2013, and shall not be concreted into the ground.

Reason: To avoid an unsustainable method of attachment in the interests oflandscape character and visual amenity in accordance with saved Policies ST5,ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006), and Part 10 of the NPPF.

07. The development hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to itsformer condition within 25 years of the date of this permission or within six months

of the cessation of the use of the solar farm for the generation of electricitywhichever is the sooner in accordance with a restoration plan to be submitted toand approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The restoration plan willneed to include all the works necessary to revert the site to open agricultural landincluding the removal of all structures, materials and any associated goods andchattels from the site.

Reason: In the interests of landscape character and visual amenity in accordancewith the NPPF and saved Policies ST3, ST5, ST6 and EC3 of the South SomersetLocal Plan (2006).

08. No means of external illumination/lighting shall be installed without the prior written

consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to safeguard the rural character of thearea to accord with the NPPF and saved Policies EC3, ST6 and EP3 of the SouthSomerset Local Plan (2006).

09. No CCTV equipment shall be installed on the site other than that shown on thesubmitted layout plan ref. PV 1.00 RevA4, in accordance with the CCTV designdetails submitted with the application.

Reason: In the interests of landscape character and visual amenity in accordancewith the NPPF and saved Policies ST5, ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset LocalPlan.

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

14/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 37 Date: 15.01.14

10. No form of audible alarm shall be installed on the site without the prior writtenconsent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and to accord with the NPPF andsaved Policy ST6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006).

11. No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for thesite, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrologyand hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to andapproved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequentlybe implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development iscompleted.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect waterquality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surfacewater drainage system.

12. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced unless details of themeans of connection to the electricity grid from the site have been submitted to andapproved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordancewith the aims of Policies ST3, ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local Plan,2006.

13. No development hereby permitted shall be commenced unless full details of themeans of construction, surfacing and materials of the access track have beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such detailsonce approved shall be fully implemented.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordancewith the aims of Policies ST3, ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local Plan,2006.

14. No development here by permitted shall be commenced unless a Site ConstructionManagement Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority. Such Plan shall seek to regulate, in terms of best practice,hours of operation, deliveries, and impacts of noise, dust, fumes, vibration, traffic,delivery routes etc., during construction, in the interests of traffic management andamenity.

Reason: In the interests of traffic management and minimising the impacts of theconstruction of the development in accordance with the aims of Policies ST5, ST6and EP6 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

15. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until there has beensubmitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a badgermitigation plan detailing measures for protection of the main sett, minimisingdisturbance and harm to badgers, and enabling badgers continued access withintheir territory as appropriate for their welfare. The works shall be implemented inaccordance with the approved details and timing of the plan, unless otherwiseapproved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: For the conservation and protection of legally protected species inaccordance with Policy EC8 of the South Somerset Local Plan, and to ensure

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

15/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 38 Date: 15.01.14

compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and Protection of BadgersAct 1992.

16. No development hereby approved shall take place until the applicant, or theiragents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme ofarchaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation whichhas been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard any archaeological remains on the site, and to accord withthe NPPF and Policy EH12 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

17. The solar panel arrays indicated on the revised drawing ref. 2V Racking SystemRev B, received by email on 21 June 2013, shall not exceed a maximum height of2.453m above ground level at any point on the site.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area, and to accordwith the aims of the NPPF and saved Policies ST3, ST6 and EC3 of the South

Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

Informatives:

01. The applicant's attention is drawn to the advice of the Environment Agency set outin their letter of 5 June 2013, a copy of which was forwarded to the applicant'sagent, and which is viewable on the Council's website:www.southsomerset.gov.uk .

http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/http://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

16/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 39 Date: 15.01.14

ANNEX A

Conservation Consultation Response - Landscape

TO: Nick HeadFROM: Robert ArcherDATE: 07 June 2013

APPLICATION: 13/01697 Land W of Windsor Farm, Queen Camel

Nick, I have reviewed the above application and its associated documentation submittedin support of the above proposal, which seeks to construct a PV solar array on land of12.70ha that lays to the south of the Sutton Montis road, circa 0.6km to the east ofQueen Camel and immediately alongside (east of) the main Bristol Yeovil rail-line. I

have previously visited the site, and am familiar with the wider landscape context of theproposal.

SSDC has produced a guidance note on PV installations, which provides assistance toboth PV developers and our own assessment of such proposals. This guidance includeslandscape criteria that proposals should aim to satisfy, to ensure potential impacts arenot significantly adverse. These criteria include:

(1) Site selection - array proposals should ideally be guided toward previously developedland. Greenfield site proposals should express arelationship with existing developmentpresence;(2) Landscape character - the proposal should complement the character of the local

landscape, particularly its scale and pattern, and be located within land areas that equateto typical field/plot sizes, and are suited to the uniformity of a PV array;(3) Visual impact - the array should be sited to limit its visual profile, with minimaloverlooking from sensitive public vantage points;(4) Cumulative impact - there should be no overly cumulative effect of PV sites arisingfrom consents given in any one area; and(5) Site detail - site layout and design should be landscape-sympathetic.

This application includes an assessment (LVIA) of potential landscape and visualimpacts that may arise from the installation of an array at this site. The LVIA concludesthat the proposal relates well to the pattern and scale of the local landscape, and will notadversely impact upon its defining characteristics. It considers there to be limited

visibility, due to the low elevation of the site and its surround, and judges the locallandscape to be capable of absorbing an array, due to the strong hedgerow structuresurrounding the site, to provide a wider context for site assimilation, and a positiverelationship with the landscape pattern.

In relation to the above criteria, and the findings of the L&VIA, my detailed commentsfollow:

(1) SSDCs PV guidance note advises thatarray proposals should be located to expressa relationship with existing development presence. In this instance, the relationship withestablished built form is limited. A local lane runs to the north of the site, which includesa substantial bridge structure over the adjacent rail-line, to thus provide a partial

development edge to which this proposal can key. There is otherwise no developmentpresence, to which this proposal can be anchored whilst the west boundary is a rail

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

17/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 40 Date: 15.01.14

corridor, it lays a little below adjoining land for its presence to be an effective key. HenceI am not persuaded that the application site expresses a credible relationship withdevelopment presence.

(2) With regard to potential landscape character impact, the array is proposed to laywithin a single field that is typical of the general scale of the fields that lay over this partof the lowland vale; primarily defined by managed hedgerows that broadly correspond toa rectilinear enclosure pattern. The bounding hedgerows offer a potential for enclosureand containment, which may enable the sites assimilation into the wider landscapepattern. Also to advantage is the relatively flat topography of the vale floor, whichenables the array to lay in the base of the vale. Hence in this respect, I would concurwith the L&VIA, that the character of this local landscape appears capable of absorbingan array.

However, landscape characterisation also considers the appropriateness of the contextfor development, as touched upon in (1) above: In this instance, an array circa 12.70 ha.is a sizeable area, and its expression of panel forms within security fencing can be

viewed as being industrial in character. Such character is in most part at variance withthis landscape setting, which has a strong sense of rural character as expressed by thepattern and strength of the hedgerow network; extensive open farmland; and the lowlevel of development presence. This incongruity reinforces the concerns raised in siteselection (1) above.

(3) The relatively flat topography of the sites surround enables the proposed array to laywithin the broad spread of the vale, which will assist in reducing the number of low-levelviews into the site. The L&VIA notes that closer views of the site are partial and low-trajectory, and disrupted by intervening hedges to thus limit public prospect. Higher levelviews are at a greater distance from the site, e.g; Cadbury Castle, Parrock Hill andCorton ridge, from whence the site, whilst apparent, is a minor component in wide

panoramas and far reaching views. The main impact is upon the viewer travelling overthe rail bridge, at the sites northwest edge. This is immediate and adverse, but only laststhe length of the roads elevation, to limit the weight of impact. The applicationundertakes to mitigate this view with planting, along with supplementation of hedgeboundaries to break-up the mass of the array, to thus reduce any potential visibility, and Iagree these proposals to be appropriate and necessary to reduce the potential visualimpact upon local visual receptors. Overall, I agree the findings of the L&VIA that the sitewill not create a significantly adverse visual impact.

(4) This proposed array lays to the northeast of a recently constructed PV installation atChilton Cantelo, with little more than a 3km distance between them. This gives thepotential for a cumulative impact to arise. The context of both sites is the wide lowland

vale west of the Corton ridge, which lays between the low hills to the south of Rimptonand Marston Magna, and the ridge formed by West Camel and Sparkford Hills to thenorth. This is a broad area, and field sizes vary to include large areas of single crops.Within this context, both PV installations will only have a significance in their immediatevicinity, and it is noted that whilst the L&VIA for each indicate overlapping ZVIs for thetwo sites, there will be few locations that will perceive the two in the same sightline, andin those instances, perception will be minimal. Consequently, the cumulative impact isnot deemed sufficiently adverse to tell against this application.

5) Turning to site detail, I note that the height of the array is stated as being 3.0M whilst aweldmesh fence surround of circa 2.4 m height is cited. It would appear that no site-levelling works are intended, and PV mounting is limited to a fixed racking system with itstoes driven into the ground without need for concrete, which I view as a positive. Thereare a number of structures which include a DNO substation; Camms building; and Switch

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

18/19

AE

Meeting: AE09A 13:14 41 Date: 15.01.14

Gear Unit, which are concentrated in the NE corner of the field. I have not seen anindication of how grid connection will be achieved, which should not involve anyoverhead cabling, nor is it clear (i) what the height of CCTV camera mounts will be, (ii)the tone finish of the mounting, nor (iii) where they will be located. Clarity is needed onthese items.

Reviewing these detailed proposals, I view an array height of 3 metres as too great - withother less exposed sites we have agreed a 2.4 metres height, which would be moreappropriate here. I note the lower edge of the array scales as 1.35m agl, hence it wouldappear that adjustment is feasible. As for fencing type, I note that a weldmesh fence isproposed. In this open landscape, I believe that deer fencing would be moreappropriate, unless the height can be reduced to 2.1m max. I also consider theaggregation of structures/units to raise a local impact, and I would wish to see thismitigated by choice of muted and compatible colour tones, and enclosure by tree andshrub planting. Such fine-tuning is necessary to ensure the schemes acceptability. Ialso note that the site layout indicates some infilling of local hedges and additionalplanting, but there is no clear landscape mitigation proposal, nor is future management

of the ground and surrounding hedgerows indicated, and these omission do not assist apositive view of the scheme.

Looking at the application overall, it is clear that whilst the location selected is notstrongly related to development form, and projects some incongruity of character withinthis open agricultural landscape, I would acknowledge that the scale of the proposalhas the potential to be accommodated within the context of the wider vale withoutundue impact, and the sites visual profile is low in most part. Its local visibility can befurther played down. Hence whilst there are potentially grounds on which to base alandscape objection, mindful that national government guidance is heavily weighted infavour of renewables, and that LPAs are urged to approve renewable energy schemesproviding impacts can be made acceptable, then I do not consider the extent of

landscape impact to be sufficiently adverse to generate an over-riding landscapeobjection, providing:

(a) a satisfactory landscape mitigation proposal comes forward, to include

management intent;

(b) there is a reduction in the height of the array;

(c) similarly so the fencing;

(d) there is satisfactory detail of grid connection;

(e) there is a satisfactory grouping/colouration and landscape treatment of thestructures/units in the NE corner; and

(f) details of CCTV installations are confirmed to our satisfaction.

Should these elements be agreed, and you are minded to approve the application,could you please then condition;

(g) The planting works to conform with the (yet to be submitted) landscape

masterplan and;

8/11/2019 Fencing 222

19/19

AE

(h) A detailed site management proposal to be submitted pre-commencement

covering the long term management of the sites vegetation and landscape

features.

Do get back to me if you require clarification on any of the above points, or if there are

any other issues related to this application that I may have overlooked at this stage.

Robert ArcherLandscape Architect

telephone: 01935 462649e-mail:robert.archer@southsomerset.gov.uk

File: renewable/pvs/apps/queencamel 13-06

mailto:robert.archer@southsomerset.gov.ukmailto:robert.archer@southsomerset.gov.uk