Decision Maker: Officer Delegated Decision
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
That planning application WD/D/19/003181, for development on land at
Higher Stockbridge Farm, Stockbridge, should be approved, subject to agreement
of the detailed wording of proposed conditions, with the wording of the
conditions to be agreed with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Strategic
Planning Committee.
The proposed development is described as follows:
Installation of a renewable energy scheme comprising ground mounted
photovoltaic solar arrays together with substation; transformer stations;
access; internal access track; landscaping; biodiversity measures; security
fencing; security measures; access gate; access improvement and ancillary
infrastructure.
This decision was taken by myself, in my role
as nominated officer, during the Strategic Planning Committee meeting on 22
November 2021. The decision was taken under arrangements which were put in
place following the full Council meeting held on 4 May 2021. At this full
Council meeting, it was agreed that all Council meetings that are not executive
in nature would continue to be held virtually, with committee members
expressing a ‘minded to’ decision, and with specific officers (including
service managers) being authorised to exercise delegated powers to make
decisions in light of the ‘minded to’ decisions expressed by members. These
arrangements were subsequently extended by decision notices issued by the Chief
Executive on 22 July 2021 and 4 October 2021.
This application was considered by the Strategic Planning Committee at
its meeting on 22 November 2021. The officer recommendation was to refuse the
application. The reasons for the recommendation are set out in the officer’s
report (paragraph 3.0) as follows:
· The public benefits of the development are not
considered to outweigh the cumulative harm caused to the character of the
valued landscape and its importance to the setting of heritage assets and their
relationship with the rural landscape.
· The proposed development cannot be successfully
assimilated into the receiving valued landscape. It will be visually intrusive
because of its industrial character and scale and will be harmful to the
setting of heritage assets and to the character of the wider landscape.
· Given the above the proposed development does not
comply with local plan policy COM 11.
In considering the planning balance, the officers report identifies that
the proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to both designated and
non-designated heritage assets. However, it notes that, this less than
substantial harm, when considered in isolation, would not be considered to
outweigh the public benefits of the scheme. Rather, it is the officer’s view
that in combination, the landscape impacts of the scheme, and the importance of
the rural landscape to the setting of the heritage assets, are such as to
outweigh the public benefits. This is summarised in paragraph 15.35 of the
officer’s report as follows: “In this case it is considered that the proposed
development cannot be successfully assimilated into the receiving valued
landscape part of which is the setting of the heritage assets. It will be
visually intrusive because of its industrial character and scale and will be
harmful to character of the wider landscape”.
The officer’s report goes on to confirm that the proposed development is
acceptable in relation to biodiversity, highway safety, flooding and drainage
and the neighbouring amenity subject to planning conditions.
At the committee meeting, the presenting officer delivered a
comprehensive presentation, which recognised the significant environmental
benefits of the proposals, including an estimated 64% biodiversity net gain,
significant proposed new tree and hedge planting, and significant renewable
energy generation. However, the presenting officer’s conclusion was that, on
balance, these benefits were outweighed by the cumulative harm to designated
heritage assets in combination with harm to a valued landscape.
It was clear during the committee debate that members felt that there was
a finely balanced judgement to make for this application. The draft minutes of
the meeting state that members “felt that the scheme was balanced on a knife
edge, on one hand Dorset Council had declared a climate emergency which had to
be balanced against the cumulative harm to the landscape and the heritage
assets, plus the loss of recreational value”. The draft minutes go on to state
that “Members felt they had to balance the impact on the whole landscape whilst
maintaining the need to put great weight on renewable energy”.
During the committee debate it was clear that members applied a great
deal of weight to the climate and ecological emergency, and the biodiversity
enhancements offered by the scheme. Members’ questions and comments during the
debate indicated that they were giving careful consideration to the impacts on
designated heritage assets and the landscape. It was noted,
in particular, that the proposals would retain existing hedge lines and
most of the existing trees, and therefore the solar panels would effectively be
‘broken-up’ which would mitigate harm to the landscape.
It was initially proposed by Cllr Ridout and seconded by Cllr Penfold,
that the application be refused on the basis that the benefits did not outweigh
the cumulative harm to the landscape and heritage assets. This proposal was
lost.
It was subsequently proposed by Cllr Clayton, and
seconded by Cllr Tooke that the application be approved. In setting out his
reasons for the proposal, Cllr Clayton noted that the officer’s report
identifies benefits for most of the key planning issues identified, with the exception of landscape and heritage assets. The
officer identified less than substantial harm to heritage assets, and in
accordance with paragraph 202 of the NPPF, the less than substantial harm has to be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposal. Cllr Clayton considered that the public benefits of the proposal far
outweighed the less than substantial harm.
Following a vote, this proposal was supported by the committee, and hence
the committee’s ‘minded to’ resolution was to approve the application, subject
to agreement of the detailed wording of the conditions.
In reaching my decision, I considered the officer’s report, the officer’s
presentation to the Committee, the Committee’s debate
and the reasons for the Committee’s ‘minded to’ decision. I also attended the
committee site visit on 18 November 2021. In my view, it is reasonable for the
committee to have reached the ‘minded to’ resolution to approve the application
for the reasons it gave.
When reaching my decision, I considered the harm to heritage assets. I
agree with the case officer and the Committee that the proposal would cause
less than substantial harm to the designated and non-designated heritage
assets. I gave this harm great weight. I also considered whether there are any
public benefits which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh that harm.
I consider the public benefits are: renewable energy
generation for approximately 10,605 homes a year; significant biodiversity enhancements
and; additional tree planting. In my opinion these are significant public
benefits which are so significant as to clearly and
demonstrably outweigh the identified harm to the heritage assets.
The officer’s report also identifies a conflict with adopted Local Plan
policies, on the basis of cumulative landscape and
heritage impacts and so I need to consider whether any material planning
considerations are such as to outweigh that conflict. I consider that the
public benefits set out above are material planning considerations which
outweigh the conflict with the Local Plan. I agree with the officer’s report
that the application is
acceptable in relation to biodiversity, highway safety, flooding and drainage
and the neighbouring amenity subject to planning conditions.
Therefore, having taken all the above into consideration, I confirmed at
the meeting on 22 November 2021 that the application would be approved in line
with the committee’s ‘minded to’ resolution, subject to agreement of the
detailed wording of the conditions.
The alternative option would be to refuse the planning application,
contrary to the ‘minded to’ resolution of the Strategic Planning Committee. The
report to full Council on 4 May 2021, which introduced the ‘minded to’ arrangements,
sets out that “an officer should only make a decision contrary to the ‘minded
to’ view of members for clear and compelling reasons and if the decision cannot
reasonably be deferred until a time when it can be made by Councillors”. In
this case, I consider that planning permission should be granted for the
reasons set out above and I am not aware of any clear and compelling reasons to
differ from the committee’s ‘minded to’ resolution. The alternative option of
refusing the application contrary to the committee’s ‘minded-to’ resolution
would not be appropriate in this case.
No declarations of interest were made by any of the committee members who
took part in the debate.
Publication date: 10/01/2022
Date of decision: 22/11/2021