Erection of solar pv panels for the creation of a solar park together with associated infrastructure which includes security fencing and structures.
Local Member: Councillor Dilwyn Lloyd
Minutes:
Installation of PV solar panels to create
a solar park along with ancillary work including security fence and structures
Members of the Committee had visited the
site before the meeting.
(a) The Development Control Manager elaborated on the
application’s background and noted that this was a full application to install
a row of solar panels in order to create a solar park situated west of Cilgwyn.
It was noted that the application site measured 12 acres in area and comprised
three fields that were partly used for sheep grazing purposes. The location was described as a site within the Dyffryn Nantlle
Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest as contained within Section 2, of
the Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special Historical Interest
along with a great number of nearby listed buildings and monuments located
within 2km of the application site.
It was explained that in
the context of local and national planning policies and advice relating to developments
for the generation of renewable and sustainable energy, it was essential to
balance the need for such developments against their potential impact on the
quality of the landscape and other environmental and social considerations.
In the context of this
application, it was noted that the site was not reasonable land to install
solar panels due to its open and uneven nature – it was not possible to
alleviate the development or hide the site and it was anticipated that the
installation of 9000 solar panels would decrease the area’s visual value and
would be an alien and very prominent development. It was
also deemed that the proposal, due to its size and nature, was likely to have a
detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residents and on the general
amenities of walkers who use the nearby popular public footpaths with open and
clear views of the area.
Attention was drawn to
the additional observations that had been received.
(b) Taking advantage of the right to speak, an objector
noted the following main points:-
·
That the guidance
stated that it should be level land for such a development.
·
That the plan
indicated that a 3m fence would be erected behind the traditional walls.
·
The solar panels
would be prominent and would be seen amongst the heather and would be an alien
element in the landscape.
·
The site was
located within an historic landscape
·
The renovation of
old cottages to be commended, however the solar panels would be prominent and
detrimental to the open area.
·
The solar panels
would cover the public footpaths.
·
CCTV installed on
the development would prevent the privacy of nearby residents.
·
Clean energy was
merely a theory.
(c)
Taking advantage
of the right to speak, the applicant’s representative noted the following main
points:-
·
Expressed
disappointment that the officers’ recommendation was to refuse the application.
·
It was a good
plan and an opportunity for the landowner to diversify.
·
Sheep could
continue to graze the land.
·
Limited impact on
the heathland.
·
The plan
encouraged biodiversity and it was proposed to improve the public footpaths.
·
Several attempts
had been made to alleviate the situation with nearby residents.
·
Several letters
of support to the application had been received.
·
The landowners
supported the local community.
(ch) The local member (not a member of this Planning Committee) made
the following main points:-
·
That he had no
objection to green energy, however, the location in question was not suitable.
·
The application
had supporters and objectors – it would be pleasing to be able to agree,
however Gwynedd Council policies recommended that it be refused.
·
Concern that the
solar panels would be prominent and visible.
·
A network of
public paths went through the site.
·
Many traditional
dwellings in the area – the development would be an eyesore.
·
Dyffryn Nantlle
had made a bid for a World Heritage Site designation – the development was
contrary to this principle.
It was proposed and
seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation.
(d) During the discussion, the following main
observations were made:
·
Supportive of
renewable energy, however, this development was visible and had a detrimental
impact on the landscape.
·
Consistency was
required when discussing applications. Consistency was
required across the whole of Wales. It had to be
ensured that members received information about appropriate policies and not
ones that had dated.
·
It was suggested
that the Members of Parliament should be contacted to speed up the process of
getting specific policies to ensure that clear guidance was given on this
issue.
·
Natural Resources
Wales supported the application – would it be possible to consider a
development site that was smaller in size?
·
Need to ensure
that beautiful places are protected as well as the local economy.
(dd) In response to the above comments, the Senior Planning
Service Manager noted that the information submitted in the report gave a clear
and current recommendation. It was explained that a recent
landscape assessment had been completed which assessed landscape with the
capacity to receive such developments. In terms of policies, Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan
was the only adopted plan at this moment in time.
In terms of impact, these would
certainly vary from application to application, depending on the sites. It was further stated that training on solar panel developments would
be organised for the members early in 2016.
In response to considering an application of a smaller
size, it was noted that the applicant was aware of the officers' concerns and
no consideration had been given to these recommendations / observations. It was
confirmed that an application for a smaller sized site would mean a new
application.
RESOLVED
To refuse –
reasons:-
1.
The proposal is unacceptable considering its location,
scale and prominence in the local landscape, its detrimental impact on the
visual amenities of nearby residents and also members of the public who use the
nearby public rights of way for recreational and amenity purposes. Consequently, it is considered that the
proposal is contrary to the requirements of Strategic Policies 1, 2, 4 and 9,
Policies A1, A3, B14, B22, B23 and B25 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan,
Technical Advice Notes 8 and 12, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Landscape Character (2009) and Practical
Guidance: Planning for Renewable and Low Carbon
Energy, (2011).
2.
The proposal is unacceptable considering its location,
scale and prominence in this important historic landscape along with its
detrimental impact on the setting of the nearby grade II listed building of
Parc. Consequently, it is considered that the
proposal is contrary to the requirements of Strategic Policy 3, Policies B3, B7
and B12 of the Gwynedd Unitary Development Plan, the Welsh Office 60/96 and
61/06 Circulars, Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 12: Design (2014)
and the Practical Guidance: Planning for Renewable and Low Carbon
Energy, (2011).
3.
The proposal is unacceptable due
to its location, construction, form and scale as it would involve losing and
causing permanent damage to heathland which is a habitat of European and
national importance. Consequently, it
is considered that the proposal is contrary to the requirements of Strategic
Policies 1, 2 and 9, Policies A3, B15, B16, B17, B20 and B21 of the Gwynedd Unitary
Development Plan, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Wildlife Sites (2010), Planning Policy Wales, Technical Advice Note 5
Planning and Nature Conservation and Practical Guidance: Planning for Renewable and Low
Carbon Energy, (2011).
Supporting documents: