7
The Committee received report ES/2272 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/22/3313/FUL. The application was for the installation of a temporary (40 years) ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) farm with Battery Energy Storage System (BESS); along with continued agricultural use, ancillary infrastructure, security fencing, landscaping provision, ecological enhancements and associated works on Land off Gray’s Lane, Wissett.
The application was before Planning Committee North, having been referred by the Head of Planning and Building Control due to the significant location, scale and nature of the application.
The Committee received a detailed presentation from the Senior Planner (Development Management), who was the case officer for the application.
The Senior Planner (Development Management) told the Committee that a Committee site visit was carried out on 25 November 2024. The application had been screened against Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, firstly in 2021 and more recently in 2025 due to the change in the scheme over the course of the application. On both occasions, the application has been screened as not being considered to be EIA development.
The Senior Planner (Development Management), displayed the following slides:
Slide 1
This slide showed the surrounding area of the site. The Senior Planner pointed out Halesworth to the Southeast, Wissett to the South and the circled areas which showed other renewable energy in the area – Bonner’s Solar Farm and the former Holton Airfield. Rumburgh was shown to the West and Spexhall to the East.
Slide 2
This slide showed the closer context of the application site and the route that was taken by the Committee on the Site Visit was outlined to the Committee.
Slide 3
This slide showed the proposed layout of the application, with rows of solar panels from East to West, facing in a Southerly direction. The Senior Planner (Development Management) pointed out the trees on the site to be avoided (most of which were covered by Tree Protection Orders (TPO’s)). The site would be surrounded by deer fencing and the CCTV cameras, internal access tracks and 7 invertor cabins were shown. Field H was shown, noting it was slightly remote from the main field. Pear Tree Villa was pointed out along with the second access through to the Eastern field for the battery storage unit.
Slide 4
This slide showed how the scheme was originally proposed and the area that had since been removed from the proposal.
Slide 5
This slide showed the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in more detail, with the layout of 23 battery units and 7 inverters, the access tracks from Gray’s Lane with passing bays splitting into two separate tracks, with security fence around the battery storage unit and CCTV cameras. The proposed screen planting was shown.
Slide 6
This slide showed the Public Right of Way network in the area, noting footpath 16 was the route that the Committee walked along as part of the Site Visit.
Slide 7
This slide showed Bonner’s Solar Farm, Wissett.
Slide 8
A slide showing a list of the material planning considerations and key issues as detailed in the report was shown and the Senior Planner continued with his presentation addressing each of the issues in turn.
Principle of Development
Proposal is supported by Policy WLP8.27, subject to the relevant criteria in that policy and paragraph 161 of the NPPF.
Landscape
Referring to the Waveney Landscape Character Assessment, the majority of the site was in character area I2 – Saints Plateau East, which covered a large part of the district, with the application site sitting in the Southwestern corner of it. Adjacent to it was character area H6 – Blyth Tributary Valley Farmland. For the purposes of policy, this was considered to be a value landscape. The overlay highlighted that most of the site was outside of the valued landscape apart from the battery storage unit and its access track which just crossed over into it.
Paragraph 187 of the NPPF highlights that valued landscape should be protected and enhanced. Local Plan Policy WLP8.35 highlights that development would not be permitted where it would have a significant adverse impact on the valued landscape.
A map showing the viewpoints submitted within the Landscape Visual Assessment (LVA), submitted by the applicant, was displayed. Alongside this, there was a Cultural Heritage Baseline and Impact Assessment. In response to this, the Save Gray’s Lane group submitted a report by E-nigma. Both of these were assessed by the Principal and Senior Landscape Officers, who visited the viewpoints. It was noted that the viewpoints were not chosen by the Council, but they were considered to be acceptable in terms of the scale of the application. More recently, an arboriculture impact assessment has been submitted to assess the impact on protected trees/hedgerows and the impact on any trees on Gray’s Lane.
A series of photographs showing the characteristics of Gray’s Lane were displayed for the Committee. Starting at the southern end, it was a narrow road, tree lined, high hedges, giving tunnelling effect. Moving northwards it opens up slightly, and as you approach the application site there are more 2-metre-high mature hedgerows, it was noted there are gaps in hedgerows. As the application site itself was approached, it was much more open, particularly at the proposed access to the western field.
The Committee were walked through a series of photographs showing the various viewpoints of the solar array and the battery storage area and from the LVA the impact at Year 1 and the impact at Year 10 with the proposed mitigation in place. The following viewpoints were shown:
Viewpoint 7, Viewpoint 8a, Viewpoint 8, Southside of BESS (footpath 16), Viewpoint 5, Viewpoint 9 Viewpoint 1, View into Field H (viewpoint 11, although not included in LVA, E-nigma report raised this was missing), Viewpoint 10.
Committee Members were told that the report identified moderate to major visual effects in viewpoints in close proximity to the site, such as viewpoints 7,8,9, this would be reducing to moderate and minor when the planting becomes established. It was noted these were localised impacts, and there wouldn’t be any visual impact from much wider views of the landscape.
Landscape character – there would be moderate harm from the loss of characteristic arable farmland and the industrialisation of the landscape in that location, loss of seasonality associated with agriculture. There would be some landscape character impact from the introduction of high hedges at 3 metres, which was not always characteristic. There would be loss of tranquillity around the battery storage area. However, it was noted these impacts were localised and the characteristics of the wider landscape would prevail.
Heritage Impacts
There was a heritage report submitted with the application and the Principal Design and Heritage Officer had scrutinised the application. A slide was displayed showing the location of the various heritage assets along with a table which listed the particular heritage assets, their grade and level of less than substantial harm. The Senior Planner (Development Management) explained there were two levels of substantial harm – less than substantial harm/substantial harm. Substantial was generally for when a development involved demolition of listed buildings and a development that effects the setting was usually less than substantial harm. The level of less than substantial harm to each of the assets were presented to the Committee in turn. The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted that Historic England had also been involved in the application, having commented on the higher-grade heritage assets such as the Scheduled Monument, grade 1 and grade 2* listed.
The Senior Planner (Development Management) told the Committee that there was a Statutory duty under Section 66 of Listed Building Conservation Act to give special regard to preserving the setting of heritage assets. Paragraph 212 of the NPPF highlighted that great weight had to be given to assets conservation. The more important the asset the greater the weight.
The Committee was shown a slide on Pear Tree Villa, Grade 2 Listed Building. The harm caused to the listed building through the development in the setting was the diminished connection between the farmhouse and the landscape. This was caused by uncharacteristic development of the rural landscape.
A separate balancing exercise had been carried out in relation to the harm to heritage assets, referred to in Paragraph 7.141 of the report. The NPPF states great weight must be given to the harm, therefore substantial negative weight had been attributed, however this had been balanced against the public benefits involved through renewable energy and associated benefits (very substantial positive weight – paragraph 215 – NPPF), therefore the conclusion was that the benefits outweighed the harm.
Neighbour amenity
Pear Tree Villa was the building with the most neighbour amenity impact, the photos shown to the Committee showed the impact on the outlook from Pear Tree Villa.
Other impacts were the impact from noise to the properties in the vicinity. A noise impact assessment had been carried out and assessed by Environmental Protection, assessing properties within 1km of the development. The report stated that noise limit of 30 decibels would not be exceeded. If approved, they would recommend conditions to ensure this limit was adhered to and a validation check would be required after 3 months of operation.
Glint and glare was another potential impact on neighbour amenity. A glint and glare assessment had been carried out - 90 properties were assessed, 51 highlighted as glint and glare being geometrically possible. The assessment highlighted that due to intervening vegetation and other buildings there wouldn’t be any impact on residential properties from glint and glare.
Policy 8.27 highlights that there should be no significant adverse effects on amenity. It is considered that there would be minor level of impact on amenity on Pear Tree Villa, it wouldn’t reach significant adverse effects levels.
Use of Best Most Versatile Land (BMVL)
Best Most Versatile Land (BMVL) is defined as Grade 1, 2 and 3a. The classification map displayed showed that the site was made up of predominantly Grade 3a (78.9%), the remaining being Grade 3b (21.1%). There was no specific policy in the Local Plan regarding BMVL, therefore the reliance was on paragraph 187 of the NPPF – economic and other benefits of BMVL be recognised. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and various ministerial statements cited a preference to using non-agricultural land and where agricultural land was used it had to be shown to be necessary, poorer quality land was to be used in preference to high quality land. The PPG also encouraged continued agricultural use, and grazing was proposed as part of the proposal, it encouraged biodiversity enhancement which again was part of the proposal.
The Officer’s view was that here had been adequate site search, avoiding highest quality grades 1 and 2 land – only 15% of the holding was proposed to be used, this was a small proportion of land across the district as a whole. The supporting report stated the land was the lowest yielding on the holding. There would be no permanent structures, the loss was temporary, albeit 40 years being a long time. The land could be brought back to agriculture use in the future.
A visual was shown, displaying the site search corridor and the expanse of Grade 3 land. It highlighted the land in the applicant’s ownership and the higher grade 2 land being avoided in preference to the lower grade land.
Highways
The Senior Planner (Development Management) outlined the Highways impacts, which had been raised within the objections.
Construction period would be for 26 weeks (5.5 working days/week).
Transport assessment showed there would be 558 HGV deliveries (1,116 two-way movements) note this is based on worst case scenario of all HGV, but there would be a mix of vehicle types.
Average of 4 HGV deliveries per day (8 movements), equates to 1 HGV movement per hour.
Maximum of 30 staff vehicles (60 two-way movements per day).
There would be a booking system to avoid peak hours and vehicles meeting one another, other mitigations measures were highlighted in Section 7 of the Transport and Access Statement.
A Construction Transport Management plan would be required by condition.
There had been objections that no assessment of the movement of battery storage units had been made, other legislation was in place to consider this – Health and Safety Executive Legislation, Dept of Transport Moving of Dangerous Goods.
Construction Route
Concerns were raised by Halesworth Town Council on the point where Wissett Road joins the A144 and safety concerns with increased HGV movement. Moving along Wissett Road, there were highlighted implications with heavier vehicles using this. The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted there was no weight limit on the bridge, Suffolk County Council hadn’t raised any concerns regarding that. Photos were shown moving down towards the application site, it had been highlighted that there were often parked cars in the street in Wissett and generally more vulnerable users, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use Gray’s Lane as well.
Along Gray’s Lane it was proposed to have passing bays. There was one existing parking bay at present, and other informal areas have been created. Slide showed one of 4 plans as to how the passing bays could be created. Suffolk County Council Highways approved of the plans.
Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy
The site was within a low-risk area of flooding – Flood zone 1. There is a Drainage Strategy within the application which has been scrutinised by Suffolk County Council – Lead Local Flood Authority, they have commented throughout the application process and are satisfied with the proposed drainage strategy.
The Senior Planner (Development Management) pointed out the shallow swales on the plan and the attenuation basin proposed for any surface water.
The proposal is compliant with flood risk Policy WLP8.24.
Ecology
There were no designated sites within the vicinity. There were non- statutory sites such as Long Meadow County Wildlife site, running along the southern boundary of the eastern field.
There is a high percentage of BNG. Although no BNG mandatory requirement due to the date of submission, the NPPF and Policy WLP8.34 requires improvements to biodiversity. A number of ecology documents were submitted with the application, ecological impact assessment, preliminary ecological appraisal and associated surveys, BNG calculation and the landscape environmental management plan. There would be modified grass and other natural grass proposed to be grown around the solar array.
There had been no objections from natural England, and although Suffolk Wildlife Trust initially raised concern with the BNG calculation, they had since not objected to the application.
A slide was displayed showing the mitigation strategy proposed, with greater detail of that being required by condition.
Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)
This was of great concern to members of the community. The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted that battery storage was essential to maintaining grid stability and resilience and was vital to the energy mix, becoming more common place.
Planning Practice Guidance encourages applicants as well as local planning authorities to engage with the local Fire and Rescue Service. This has taken place. The application was supported by a fire safety management plan (version 5). It was noted that it had been criticised by objectors. The Fire and Rescue service’s most recent comment stated that they were satisfied that it complies with national fire chief councils’ guidance. Particularly with spacing increased to 6m and the water supply provided (228,000 litres in underground tank) to provide a supply of 1900 litres/minute for 2 hours.
An Emergency Response Plan/Risk Reduction Strategy would be required prior to any work commencing on the site (Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service would work with the applicants to develop this). Regarding the water supply, it was noted there had been many comments about the suitability of the amount of water for 2 hours. There is draft NFCC guidance due to be published later in the year which indicates that the same minimum would be required. This report indicates, in certain situations manufacturers are advising against just putting huge quantity of water on the fires. In this application, it is proposed to use an attenuation basin, large enough to take any contaminated fire water. Some alterations to the battery storage unit would be required to create impermeable seal. Sealed drainage would be implemented to ensure no contamination to existing waterway.
The application had been criticised for the lack of specification on batteries, the Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed it was common to not have the detail at this stage, and this would be provided within an emergency response plan. It was noted that the applicant suggested the storage capacity would be 46 megawatt hours, based on a capacity of 2 hours of storage per battery.
The Senior Planner (Development Management) provided a local example of battery storge that had recently been consented with lesser separation. This was closer to commercial premises and industrial property and the fire service found this to be suitable separation distance.
Overall, the proposal as a whole would not have adverse safety impacts to warrant refusal of the application (WLP 8.27). The Emergency Response Plan was deemed suitable to minimise risks and mitigate impacts.
Referring to the statement that hazardous substance consent was required for these types of application, the Local Authority didn’t agree that hazardous substance consent was required. According to Planning Practice Guidance it was not the intention to bring into scope premises which do not manufacture or store hazardous substances, solely because of a fire might generate hazardous substance.
A series of slides were shown, showing the proposed structures on site, these were:
Inverter cabin
Example of typical battery energy storage container shown (Acoustic barrier would surround at 3.5 m in height)
Substation building
Grid connection
Solar Panels maximum height of 3m, 800 mm off the ground
Deer fence
CCTV cameras shown round perimeter of site.
Proposed access track
Typical security gate
Returning to the original slide, summarising the Material Planning Considerations/Key Issues, it was considered that the proposal complied with the criteria in WLP 8.27, and it would contribute to the Government’s objectives through transition to a low carbon economy increasing renewable energy generation as part of net Zero commitments.
Throughout the topics covered it highlighted some minor conflicts with Local Plan policies, particularly Landscape Policy WLP8.35 and Heritage WLP8.37, minor conflict with WLP8.29 and paragraph 187 of the NPPF. Overall, the application accorded with Policy WLP8.27 and the Development Plan as a whole.
In order to explain the conclusion of the report, the slide was shared showing the detailed planning balance exercise that was carried out and the weight given to each of the harms and benefits.
The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions as outlined in the report.
The Chair thanked the Officer for the in-depth report and invited questions from the Committee.
Councillor Ashton asked to revisit the slides of the various viewpoints, looking particularly at the impact at Year 1.
Running through the viewpoint slides, the Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed:
Viewpoint 8b - Year 1 just the acoustic barrier could be seen and at year 10 there was more shielding from the copse of trees.
Viewpoint 5 – This was taken from behind an established tree belt, the views at year 1 and year 10 were the same.
Viewpoint 1 – confirmed solar panels higher than the hedge at year 1 and at year 10 the higher hedge prevailed.
Councillor Graham asked about hazardous substance consent, noting it was not always necessary in terms of BESS storage, but it was advised when the amount of hazardous substance (lithium) reaches or exceeds a controlled quantity set by the regulations. She asked the Officer what the controlled quantity was and to explain the decision not to request consent.
In response the Senior Planner (Development Management) said that hazardous substance consent was a separate regime, therefore even if it was needed, there could still be a planning application without the hazardous substance consent. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that the hazardous substance regime does not apply unless those quantities are stored or manufactured on site. If they are released through an accident such as a fire, it is highlighted within the PPG that it doesn’t bring it into the scope of the hazardous substances consent regime.
Councillor Graham responded that if it provided assurance to the neighbouring community, what is the barrier to the Council seeking hazardous substance consent. The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied if dealing with hazardous substance consent, that they were the determining authority and they would then seek advice from the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. He reiterated that this application did not fall within the control quantities of the hazardous substance regime.
Councillor Wakeling referred to the noise, stating although 30 decibels didn’t sound very much, it would be at a constant low hum. The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied that was taken at worst case scenario, the tables within the noise impact assessment showed the detail, and the EP limit of 30 decibels would only reach 2 residential properties (at which it would be reached but not exceeded). Councillor Wakeling understood that but was concerned if it was a constant low hum, it would affect the users of the area, the walkers, and those using the bridleway.
Referring to the moderate weight benefit given to associated jobs, Councillor Wakeling asked after the build was done, how many jobs would be offered. The Senior Planner (Development Management) did not have the exact number of jobs on site but referred to the wider benefits of job creation within that sector.
Councillor Ewart asked how the fuel power would be installed under the road, this question was deferred to the applicant to answer later in the presentations.
Councillor Ewart asked about the weight of the storage units, and how the Council supports the community by developing the road, making sure the bridge was strong enough etc. The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed the applicant had stated that the 44-tonne limit would not be exceeded. Anything over those weights required a special licence and further clarity would be given by the applicant.
Councillor Ewart asked if there was a drawing of the turning off the lane, towards the BESS site, that would accommodate a fire engine of 15 to 20 tonnes to take a right-hand turn onto the roadway. The Senior Planner (Development Management) did not have the drawing, but referred Councillor Ewart to the Transport Statement, where the Highways authority was looking closely at track path diagrams. Councillor Ewart noted she had asked for this in relation to the comments regarding having to reverse 20 metres to get to a fire.
Councillor Ewart continued, given this is an application that is hazardous and flammable, it would be advisable to have a dual approach, yet the applicant says that was not feasible. Councillor Ewart stated surely everything had to be feasible if there was a fire? The Senior Planner (Development Management) stated the NFCC Guidance does encourage 2 access points. If that was fundamental, SCC would have objected, the application is showing a single access point that divides into two, they hadn’t said they would be dissatisfied with that.
Councillor Ewart concurred with Councillor Wakeling’s concerns regarding decibels, stating she would follow up with the applicant.
Councillor Ewart was surprised the Environmental Agency (EA) were not a statutory consultee. She referred to the comments from Liam Robinson of the EA to Mr Burton, 6/11/24 regarding fire contamination water and battery waste.
Noting the concern, Councillor Ewart asked where would the water run off go to? Whilst there was an attenuation basin, she questioned if in a fire, could they direct that volume of toxic water into the right place. The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted that was the suggested solution. It would be conditioned to make sure it was sealed and not permeable and any fire water would be directed into the fire attenuation basin which was shown to hold the required capacity. He added this would be dealt with in an emergency response plan in more detail.
Councillor Ewart referred to the letter from Third Revolution 12/7 regarding Field H and the removal of the access track in response to the considerations raised. Noting that access to field H would be via light vehicles such as quad bike only, so as not to damage the RPA’s or canopy of the trees. She asked how they would install into field H, or should it be stated it wasn’t allowed. The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed it was a concern that had been raised, and an Arboricultural impact assessment had been carried out with plans changed accordingly. He confirmed there would be a cellular construction over that area of land to enable vehicles to access without damage. The Tree Officer had reviewed that and was happy with the detail, which would be conditioned.
Councillor Ewart raised a concern about whether the deer fence was high enough.
Councillor Wakeling asked about the construction traffic route, which was on single track windy road, not lit for a lot of the way and whether alternative routes had been considered. The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed that throughout the duration of the application, this was the favoured route. Councillor Wakeling expressed concern that this was the favoured route, as it was still quite dangerous.
There being no further questions, the Chair invited the first of the public speakers, Symon Clarke from Save Gray’s Lane to speak in objection.
Symon Clarke read out the following statement:
The proposed battery energy storage system is contrary directly to Waveney Local Plan 8.27 because it creates a risk of severe adverse effects to local people and the environment. There has been confusion throughout over the size and specification of the batteries. PACE, the developer, originally stated there were 10 containers with 10-megawatt hour capacity and no substances which were combustible or likely to explode were involved, thereby avoiding an environmental impact assessment. As we now know we’re looking at 46 megawatt hours in 23 containers of substances that are potentially lethal if a thermal runaway fire occurs. There is further confusion because the amended planning application includes a cursory fire safety report that specified a type of container that would actually increase the current capacity if used by eight times. What are we to believe now? Particularly when PACE has an option to lease another 100 acres from the same owner on land adjacent to Bullam’s and running up to Rumburgh street. The Save Gray’s Lane campaign commissioned a fire report from Dr Fordham the leading expert who has given evidence at the Sunnica hearing. He demonstrated that a 26 mega hour thermal fire runaway fire would release about 170 tonnes of toxic chemicals into the environment and that any battery site over 22 megawatt hours should require hazardous substance consent. This planning department however assess the developer claim that the batteries are safe, that environmental impact assessment is still unnecessary and that its own local plan does not apply. A thermal runaway fire requires vast amount of water to keep under control until it burns out, there is no water on this site so PACE will install a tank with enough water to manage a single container fire for 2 hours, after that there are no other options. It took 58 hours for a single container fire in Liverpool a couple of years ago to burn itself out and there was a water hydrant on site. How can the planners assert that the public benefit from solar energy outweighs all other considerations by asking this committee today to agree to such a potentially dangerous installation where there is doubt over its energy capacity, no detail as to the chemical composition of the batteries, no hazardous substances consent, no fire risk assessment and no emergency response plan. A slide was shown showing a battery site in Halesworth. Work was halted on this site when a member of the public reported that it did not conform to the design permission granted. the developer then submitted a new planning application for what they had actually built contrary to the original design, the council granted permission. He concluded how can any agreement be made today be trusted by the public and this committee.
There were no questions for Symon Clarke.
There were representatives from 3 Parish Councils, Wissett, Spexhall and Rumburgh, it was agreed that Mr Burton of Wissett Parish Council would answer any questions from the Committee following all three Parish Council making their representations.
The Chair invited Frank Burton from Wissett Parish Council to speak.
Accompanied by a PowerPoint that was shared with the Committee, Mr Burton read out the following:
The second reason for objection as that it causes significant adverts impacts to the locally protected landscape of Blyth tributary farmland contrary to Policy 8.35.
Last month the Government stated the queue to access the grid was overwhelmed with more than 700 gigawatts of projects. The solar target for 2035 is 70 gigawatt and wind is 86 gigawatts, this led the CEO of the grid to announce a year ago there were 5 times the projects required in the pipeline that were needed to decarbonise electricity by 2035. This means that you can easily ensure that projects are not built in a locally protected landscape, are not built in the middle of a ring of heritage assets and are not built on BMV land. Your council commissioned landscape studies in 2008 and 2016 to help planners decide which landscapes could be developed and which conserved, both were incorporated into Waveney local plan which categorically states development will not be permitted if it has a significant adverse impact on tributary farmland. The studies said the ancient landscape and tranquil nature of the area should be preserved. Road signage should be kept to a minimum to avoid urbanisation. It is perverse and unnecessary to ignore your own prohibitions. You may need no persuading that locating the whole of this BESS, 23 6-metre-long containers causing 94 decibels, 7 inverters, 3.5m high sound barrier storage, cameras, signage fencing, all in Blyth tributary farmland amounts to significant harm and adverse impact. No wonder the opposition has been extreme, over 230 people have written objections, and it is your duty councillors, and I know you will comply with it, to listen to your constituents, they paid thousands of pounds to have experts report to assist you. Expert barristers report, scientist report. You do not have any counsel opinion, solicitors’ opinion or scientific evidence. There is a report from Helen Donnelly LVA expert and Suffolk Preservation Society who say that considerable harm would be done by industrialising the landscape and heritage assets. Also, the Council’s own strategic landscape and heritage advisors found harm to the landscape and harm to the heritage assets. The report before you is extraordinary in its bias towards the developer by claiming that green energy overrides the council’s own policies and experts’ views.
Accompanied by a presentation, Les Sharman of Spexhall Parish Council read out the following statement:
PACE accept nearly 80% of the land in issue is BMV contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 180 and persistent ministerial statements over the last two years that BMV land should not be used for Solar Development and it if is proposed there must be compelling evidence that it is necessary. PACE have provided no evidence that is necessary. PACE originally said very little of the land was BMV this clearly was not the case. The national policy guidance adopts the protection of BMV and quotes of ministerial statement that solar energy was desirable but not at any cost, not in any place and not if it rides rough shod over the views of local communities. For larger deployments brownfield land should always be preferred. In other parts of the country solar has been installed on disused airfields and former industrial sites. This is the model for future projects, we will do our best to spread examples of best practice focusing deployment on buildings and brownfield land not greenfield. Subsequently four other ministers and three prime ministers confirmed the position that there is a strong presumption against the use of grade 3a land or above for solar arrays and it is suggested that its use must be demonstrated as necessary and proven by compelling evidence. PACE imposed on itself narrow parameters for search, namely the site had to be within one kilometre of the 33v Halesworth grid, at least 50 hectares and owned by no more than two people. This meant that pace only looks at BMV land in the Halesworth grid corridor. It recognised there were brown site areas available but claimed they were too far from the grid connection. In two appeals concerning solar developments in Sawston, the secretary of state agreed with the inspector that no weight be attached to the assertion that a connection the National Grid is an essential site requirement. The government has acknowledged the need to develop a food system that recognises a threat to food security created by global warming. Almost of the of the land solar farms now occupied was once agricultural land and all of the land in the 900 applications in the system is agricultural land. A study in hydrology suggested there would be a loss of 2 million acres of agricultural land between 1990 and 2025. A study by the University of Cambridge suggested a land shortfall to farming of 4.8 million acres by 2030. Assuming an annual wheat yield of 9 tonnes per hector the annual loss from this site will be over 15,000 tonnes over 40 years. This is why footnote 62 to paragraph 181 NPPF requires that food production should be considered when deciding what sites are most appropriate for development. The decision to seek planning permission on this site is manifestly contrary to NPPF 180, 181 and footnote 62 and as such should be rejected.
The Chair invited Mr Paul Fenner, from Rumburgh Parish Council to make his representation.
Accompanied by a presentation, Mr Fenner read out the following statement:
Section 66 of the Planning Act 1990 requires special regard to be given to preserving a listed building or its setting. It is a statutory requirement that great weight must be given to preserving the setting of a listed building, which means keeping it safe from harm. It’s clear, therefore, that this Committee has got strong and defensible grounds for rejecting this application. There are 34 listed buildings near the proposed site in three parishes, one grade 1 st Andrew’s Church, two Grade 2* Hatton Farm and St Peter’s Church. The Council looked at how this development would disturb these national heritage assets and Mr Scrimgeour said PACE only looked at the individual affected asset without any overview of the significant character these farms share. He also said the development would directly cause harm to 14 listed buildings plus the Wissett village conservation area, this was when he considered the original application in February 2023. He maintained his position when he looked at the amended application later that year, though he agreed there was a slight reduction in harm to Pear Tree Farm, Brooke Hall Farm and the area. He said there was strong evidence of harm to National Heritage assets. Please note strong evidence of harm. The same principal design and heritage officer quoted the national planning framework when he stated great weight should be given to the assets conservation regardless of the level of harm identified. Whatever the level of assessed harm it still amounts to damage. His position is supported by the experts, ESC Strategic Landscape Advisor, report March 2023. Expert opinion of Helen Donley, Enigma Planning November 2022 and September 2023 and the authoritative condemnation of the Suffolk Preservation Society in January 2024. The map on screen showed the location of the site is inappropriate. The site is within a mile radius of 31 listed buildings and the Wissett conservation area. The Council’s own consultation says the development will cause harm to many heritage assets and that harm also amounts to the detriment of Wissett given the existing 70-acre solar farm at Bonner’s Farm on the other side of the village. The Council should be aware that East Lindsey District Council rejected a 49.9-megawatt application in Hatton new Newcastle on heritage grounds with harm to just one grade 2 listed building and its landscape setting. Councillors should also be aware of their own planning guidance which states the Council will work with partners, developers and the community to protect and enhance the district’s historical environment.
Having heard from all parish councillors, the Chair invited questions from the Committee.
Councillor Ashton thanked the public speakers for their presentations and asked for clarification of NPPF 180, making sure that the Committee was referencing the same document. Mr Burton read out the paragraph. It was clarified that the part of the document referred to was now paragraph 187 in the current NPPF.
Councillor Ewart noted she had a question for Ruth Chittock, and the Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed questions for officers would follow all public speaking.
Mr Burton offered clarification to Councillor Graham regarding her concern with hazardous substance consent. He said that they had consulted an expert who stated that should there be a thermal runaway there would be a breach of hazardous substance. The expert had looked at the details of what happens under a loss of control, and this was statutorily defined in the provisions of Part 3, schedule 1 of the 2015 regulations. He told the Committee they had been advised by planning and in law what matters was what the statute says. Acknowledging that the planning guidance advised that hazardous substance consent was not needed, he stated their lawyer had written the book on the issue and as far as he was aware the Planning Committee had not been advised by lawyers. He referred to Dr Fordham’s report and the change in law that had occurred in Northern Ireland regarding hazardous substance consent.
The Chair noted that they were a planning committee and not a legal courtroom.
Councillor Graham asked Mr Burton if they had discussed these matters with the fire and rescue service and what was their feeling about it? Mr Burton responded that they were not a consultee and in the early days Save Gray’s Lane had contacted them and they knew nothing about the proposal. Subsequently national fire chiefs have set out what is required, and Suffolk fire and rescue says that what PACE are doing fits the new guidance. As objectors they are making the point that two key elements are missing, risk assessment and emergency fire response.
The Chair stated that it was only necessary to answer the questions from the Committee and not an opportunity to present beyond those questions.
Councillor Pitchers asked for clarification of the figures quoted for Best Most Versatile land and why there was a difference to those that the officer presented. Mr Burton clarified that 80% is 3A and the rest was 3B. He added whilst there is a push to make 3B as BMV it isn’t currently. There were no differences in the figures. He told the Committee that PACE could never comply with building outside of BMV as they didn’t look outside of BMV land when conducting their search.
The Chair thanked the objector and Parish Council representatives for their presentation.
The applicants made their representations, presentations were received from Mr Kelly, Mr Shaw and Mr Hadingham.
First the Committee heard from the landowner. He told the Committee that the PACE proposal would help them to provide a long-term income stream outside the fluctuations of crop margins whilst also addressing the needs of national requirements for green energy. It was important to realise a solar farm would not be a loss from agricultural production as they would still farm sheep on the farm and after the term the area would be returned to cropping. They have farmed in the local area for over 100 years and the local environment is and always would be important to them. Food security, wildlife protection, and energy self-sufficiency are key to agricultural landscape and initiatives such as this proposal help them move closer to their long-term sustainability objectives. Farming has been through significant changes in recent years. To be sustainable their business needs to be viable. Markets and climatic conditions resulted in them achieving a significant loss in the tax year ending 2024. He has 2 young sons and a diversified income would help to ensure longevity of the business for future generations.
The agent told the Committee:
Today is a culmination of years of work, having used the advice from the community, from specialists, from officers to refine the scheme so that any local impacts are within policy expectations and outweighed by the considerable benefits the scheme will bring from renewables, climate and biodiversity. The site was chosen following an extensive site search. And as per local government policy they’ve shown it’s necessary to use agricultural land and located the land on the lowest quality land. In response to the community concerns fire risk is extremely low for this type of battery and the design meets the national fire chief’s guidance and they would continue to work with them. The NPPF is clear that significant weight should be given to any renewable energy. Changing the Energy System does change part of the landscape and they respect those concerns but the impacts have been fully considered and officers agree that they are outweighed by the benefits it brings. The extensive ecological surveys have confirmed no harm and we will deliver a substantial benefit. He added there was still a very significant need for renewable energy. The UK is falling behind on the delivery of renewables.
The Chair invited questions to the applicants.
Councillor Ashton asked about the suggestion that the land under the panels would be used for grazing, particularly what sort of scale would occur and what evidence they had of that being done elsewhere. The applicants replied that it was fairly standard practice with approximately 50% of their solar farms having sheep grazing on them. Mr Hadingham added they were arable farmers but business has changed. They would look into the ability to have their own sheep or rent the sheet. Cover crops were a much larger part of their farming location and the sheep would provide a solution on that for the winter.
Councillor Graham asked what opportunities for brownfield land exist and why they hadn’t explored them. The applicant replied they had carried out a review of sites within the study area with grid connection. They had carried out a site search in order to comply with national policy land and consulted with the brownfield register. There was nothing or it wasn’t large enough. He explained that the usual process was, is there brownfield, is it big enough (which is very, very rare). Then if there was brownfield land, it has to be a viable proposition. House builders offer more money than a solar development for this land. He confirmed that there was specifically none available in this area.
Councillor Wakeling continued to explore the question around the choice of land, asking whether they looked further afield in the area, between the brownfield and grade 3a and 3b land. The applicant confirmed the first steps in identifying land was identifying where there was capacity to connect to the grid. The Case officer map showed this line and 1 km band around it, they referred to publicly available maps which identified most of that land was grade 3 (not possible to determine 3a or 3b until further digging/testing takes place). They then looked for what was available, was there a willing landowner and followed a series of criteria, national policy statement, heritage landscape, ecology agricultural land grade. Checking all those criteria there were no sites available or clearly better than their scheme. They are directed by national policy that agricultural land grade should not be the predominant criteria when deciding on a location.
Councillor Ewart referred to her experience as a Strategic Project Manager, coming from the design and build industry and said her questions would be around that. Regards to Field H, she asked how they would install on that site, or was that something on reflection that needed to be taken out of the picture. The applicant said they took a view that they needed to protect the trees and their root protection areas. In order to do so, they took everything that needed heavier equipment out of that field, anything that didn’t need its own access track. Putting that into context, the applicant noted that the Hadinghams used substantially heavy farm vehicles daily. It was clarified that any transformers/inverters had been taken out.
It was clarified to Councillor Ewart that the containers were the size of standard shipping container. Councillor Ewart queried whether there would be sufficient space between each of the containers. She asked about the term satisfactory provision used in the fire response and asked if that was good enough for the community and concurring with Councillor Graham’s question, she asked why there was no risk assessment, she didn’t understand.
In response the applicant said the most probable technology to be used is Lithium Iron Phosphate – not aware of any significant incidences with this technology in the UK and very few globally. He confirmed that the separation had been adjusted, and it is 6 metres between each one, which meets the guidance. He confirmed satisfactory was appropriate in that context as it related to its genuine meaning (not needing to go further). Assessed by officers and fire service to be suitable and there was a planning condition that would provide the further detail. The equipment specification used in renewables moves quickly, therefore it was necessary to have the flexibility within the legally binding constraints of planning to give the detail.
Councillor Ewart referred to BESS guidance and asked what the limitations were to achieve maximum access for overall security for this community. Why could there not be a one way in and one way out? The applicant replied there is one way in from Gray’s Lane which then divides and goes around. In the context of the work carried out, it was agreed with the fire authority that this was an appropriate solution at this site.
Councillor Ewart reiterated her concern with only one way in, noting that once the fire engine was in it would be blocked, reservists could come (as noted in the report) but they don’t deserve to be pushed up a lane where they could not get out if there was a significant fire. The applicant responded that the likelihood of a fire is incredibly small.
Following some calling out from the public gallery, the Head of Planning and Building Control asked for continued silence for all speakers.
The applicant said there had been no major instances in this country with the lithium iron phosphate, the technology had improved since then as had the guidance which they had followed. Referring specifically to the question of routes in, the applicant said in order to minimise the number of access tracks from Gray’s Lane across the field, they had created a single track with passing places. As you get toward the battery unit itself there is a turning head where there is the ability to turn and the ability to go in and out in that unlikely event of a fire.
The applicant confirmed to Councillor Ewart that it was unmanned but monitored 24/7 remotely, details of how the remote monitoring worked were given and it was confirmed that all of the safety measures in the fire chief’s guidelines had been taken seriously, and they had provided a scheme that was safe and appropriate. He added in fairness to the community this wasn’t an issue for the sector when they first raised it some years ago, they were ahead of the game and have pushed them to look at it.
Councillor Ewart raised that in the document it also said about safety and security, considering the likelihood of someone who may wish to attack the site.
Councillor Ewart asked about light pollution and said she assumed there was an emergency light plan, asking how that worked and would there be light pollution in the village? The applicant confirmed there would not be lights on day in, day out. Referring to the battery safety detail, they would expect to include emergency lighting that would only be used in the case of emergency. There would be no light pollution from this scheme at all. Should there be an incident that could not wait until daylight hours then those lights would be brought on or in the case of the battery they would only be turned on in that instance.
Councillor Ewart noted therefore when the siren goes off, the lights would go on and they’ll be safe. The applicant confirmed that would be part of the detailed planning condition to be signed off with officers.
Councillor Ewart referred to the noise impact assessment and the equipment used. Using the manufacturer’s data, the typical noise would be approximately 89-106 decibels. The EP assessment is saying it needs to be 30 decibels. Looking at the detail of the BESS assessment, Councillor Ewart noted it was carried out in a cooler month and most of the time the weather will be warmer, and the fans will be on. Councillor Ewart felt therefore that not only Pear Tree Villa, but possibly the other 12 homes could be affected and asked how they would mitigate the noise. The applicant referred to the noise assessment where it assumed a worst-case scenario, it assumed everything (fans/batteries) are operating continually, which they would not be. What is important is what is the sound level at sensitive receptors, e.g. Pear Tree Villa. What the assessment shows is that by that time the predicted noise levels will have reduced dramatically down to worst case scenario of 30 decibels in one receptor. This is a condition of the application, therefore there would be the condition to monitor, regulate and take action accordingly.
Councillor Graham asked why the fire safety plan would be in place after the site was completed, querying why they would not want that in place earlier. The applicant responded that materials may change when the development is constructed in the future. The planning condition would require the detail and safety plans/emergency plans. He said they were not agreeing them for sensible reasons and there was a legally binding mechanism in the discharge conditions which would be subject to scrutiny. He confirmed what had been provided to date was confirmed by Fire and Rescue as being appropriate and adequate.
Councillor Graham commented that whenever private infrastructure development came into their communities there is an understandable resistance for a lot of reasons. This is often due to a lot of the impact is felt by the community and it is not clear to see what is in it for them. She noted other developers had been in discussions with communities regarding compensation packages and asked if any of these discussions had taken place with the community.
The applicant confirmed that they had met with the community, particularly early in the process. They had held events with each of the parish councils and had made the offer of community benefits, he noted this was not part of the planning process. They had not been taken up but they remained open to those discussions.
The Head of Planning and Building Control asked that the public gallery remained silent whilst public speaking was continuing, and pointed out that the claimed community benefits were not material planning considerations for the Planning Committee and asked them to make sure they were not influenced by that potential.
The applicant continued that they considered the scheme to have benefits, recognising that they would be contrary to the views of the local people. He listed these as additional landscaping, climate change benefits, ecological benefits, significant biodiversity net gain.
Councillor Ewart asked if there had been a public consultation in the last 24 months. The applicant confirmed there had been events at Wissett, Spexhall and Rumburgh where lots of questions were asked and feedback forms were provided for completion. The outcome of these events was published as part of the community involvement statement. Post submission, there had been a local authority event, where responses were made that helped to shape the reduced scheme.
He added that PACE were keen to develop a positive community relationship going forward, they were not a developer who would build this scheme and sell it, they were in it for the long term and would continue to engage with the community, should the scheme be approved.
Councillor Ewart commented that they were a new administration and they were very community based.
In response to Councillor Graham it was confirmed that PACE are managing the biodiversity net gain side of the project.
There being no further questions for the applicants, the Chair invited Councillor Beth Keys-Holloway, Ward Councillor to make her representation.
Supported by a PowerPoint, Councillor Beth Keys-Holloway read out the following statement.
She started by quoting Sarah Jones, Department of Energy and Security, 19/01/25. “We agree that we need to look at our responsibilities in terms of climate, agriculture, the countryside and food production. The government take all those responsibilities very seriously and look at them very carefully. We agree that if we are building solar panels, for example, we should build on brownfield sites first. If we cannot, we should build on areas of lower quality land first. We agree that food security is enormously important for this country. The government remain committed to balancing the urgent need for renewable electricity with considerations of land use, food production and community benefit. We want to take people with us on this journey.”
Councillor Keys-Holloway said she had felt conflicted by this application, green energy was important to her, but not if it cancels out its purpose of being clean and green, by potentially wiping out wildlife, green spaces and communities. She could see the reasons that these communities, felt that they were not, ‘with us on this journey.’
She said the proposed site was 1. Not on a brownfield site, 2. Ignores food security, 3. The community is opposed to it and 4. The community gains no benefit and possibly harm from it.
Having spent time listening to the communities she represents, she said it was not that they sit in opposition to green energy, they are a very active community and work hard to bring the environment to the forefront of the villages. They have proven this in Wissett, by already housing a solar farm.
She stated that the evidence produced here today, gives valid reasons as to why this solar factory is in the wrong place. The four principled planning reasons carry weight but not enough to outweigh the desire to establish renewable energy sites, in the right places.
There is emphasis here that we need to work alongside the communities. There is nothing within these plans to contribute to the local area, and one thing she had heard over and over was the fear of the damage to the natural landscape and the potential poisoning of the water.
She stated that unfortunately, any risk avoidance, taken by the company to prevent disaster, does not prevent a thermal runaway, that would release tons of gases and chemicals into the environment causing danger to residents, polluting the water table, the river Blyth would be immediately affected, and the countryside would be destroyed. Dr Fordham’s report has not been addressed by PACE or its fire expert. It would be ironic that the very wish to help improve our energy habits, consequently wiped out the very thing we are working to protect.
She added that again she felt the objection here, was not to solar, it was to the proposed site being looked at.
Careful consideration is taken when looking at all planning applications. Acknowledging this, the residents feel confused that solar panels cannot be placed on or in the curtilage of their listed buildings surrounding the site, but these same buildings will overlook tens of thousands of panels.
She asked if that was because we can see the emphasis on avoiding development on BMV land and that it should be only permitted if enough compelling evidence is produced, could we not look for better and more suitable places? Rooftops and brown field sites for example.
The Greenpeace website states – ‘If your solar farms are competing with food production, you’re doing it wrong.’ With this in mind, could the community have been more involved with the plans? Working with them in their efforts of continuing wildlife and biodiversity growth. Using the land for dual use farming such as grazing and food growth. This surely, would have been more beneficial. Can the communities have a say or shares within where the energy and profit is going? Can they be resolutely reassured that, there is no chance that more solar farms will immediately follow, and that there is no potential risk to the Blyth Tributary farmland or conservation area established by ESC?
No one involved is against solar, it is that this site is not the right place for this farm to thrive in the way it wishes.
There is also significant over-provision in the system with nearly 400GW of projects in the connection pipeline, 40% of which is solar, the CEO of the National Grid has stated that this is over five times the amount needed to meet the 2035 decarbonized electricity commitment. She concluded whilst this is fantastic news and in no way a negative, as we should be striving for clean energy. It also means, that we can be mindful of the communities and the placement of solar farms.
The Chair asked the Committee for any questions for Councillor Keys-Holloway.
Councillor Ashton asked for the pipeline of solar projects and where had the data come from that had been used in her presentation. The data was included in the information shared with the Committee.
Councillor Ewart asked if PACE had consulted with her as a Green Councillor. Councillor Keys-Holloway confirmed she had had brief email communication with them approximately 2 years ago. She commended them coming to them. She had spoken with them about the community’s concerns they had been taken on board. The fundamental concerns remained the fire risk, the lanes, the positioning of the solar farm.
The Chair thanked Councillor Keys-Holloway for her presentation.
Following some calling out from the Public Gallery, the Head of Planning and Building Control addressed the committee on matters of process. He told the Committee that the process of public speaking and planning committee is governed by the ESC Constitution, and any diversion from that puts it at risk of legal challenge on the decision-making process. Therefore, he noted the importance of confining public speaking to the opportunities that were available. He outlined that the Committee would now move on to the next stage which was final questions and clarifications to the Officers and then on to debate.
Following ongoing challenge from the public gallery, the Chair and Head of Planning and Building Control reiterated that they would be opening themselves up for judicial review should the order of public speaking not follow as laid out in the ESC Constitution.
The Head of Planning and Building Control raised, for the public record, that Mr Burton in his 3 minutes did suggest that the report written by Mr Robertson on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control was biased. He noted that he didn’t think that was genuinely intended, and he wasn’t aware of any legal submissions to the Council on that. He told the Committee that all officers at East Suffolk conducted themselves with great integrity, and no decision on any planning application is biased. As holders of public office, the officers uphold the Nolan principles and that includes a requirement for objectivity. Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias. Furthermore, he added that both he and Mr Robertson were Chartered Members of the Royal Town Planning Institute which also governs integrity on their decision making. He concluded if there was any identified bias in the report then he would expect interested parties to write to the Council’s Monitoring Officer upon publication of the report, in advance of the meeting. He reassured the Committee that the report had been subject to comprehensive review both internally and through legal counsel, prior to publication.
The Chair asked for any points of clarification from the Officers at this stage.
The Interim Planning Manager clarified the following paragraphs for the Committee to refer to:
NPPF Heritage – Para 7.109 of the Committee report
Best Most Versatile Land – Para 7.19-7.21 of the Committee report.
Commentary around hazardous substance 7.250 to 7.257 of the Committee report
Commentary around emergency response plan – that was summarised as recommended condition 29 of the Committee report (the detail would be pre-commencement in its nature, meaning it had to be submitted and fully agreed before that element of the scheme being carried out).
Councillor Ashdown asked if the Principal Design and Heritage Officer could give his response to the points brought up by the Parish Councils. The Officer stated that the statements drew heavily on extensive analysis and assessment to impacts on heritage and he was happy that they mirrored what had been said and was content with the way they had been conveyed to members of the Committee.
Councillor Gee asked about the information that the Parish Council referred to, asking if they could have a copy of all information. It was confirmed that this had been supplied prior to the meeting as part of the Update Sheet and Save Gray’s Lane Councillor Briefing Sheet. The third paragraph of this briefing note was read out to the Committee.
Councillor Ashton confirmed that he had already found the information that had been provided.
Councillor Ewart, in response comments from Spexhall Parish Council Ewart asked for clarification on the use of Gray’s Lane from the Senior Landscape Officer. The Senior Landscape Officer clarified there was an LVA process undertaken as part of the project which assessed a series of viewpoints from the public right of way network. This provided information on potential harm to views at year 1 and year 10 none and developed mitigation, and overall, she was happy with the findings as the impact would be mitigated over time by vegetation. She confirmed there would be moderate residual effects, and only at significant would it warrant refusal. She was happy with the Officer’s report, and the removal of panels from the field to the east reduced a lot of the visual harm. There was a lot of planting restored around it.
Councillor Ewart asked about the legislation changing considerably and where that would leave the project. The Chair confirmed that they have the plans in the proposal they were considering, and they cannot speculate on what might occur.
There being no further questions, the Chair asked the Committee to debate the application.
Councillor Pitchers said he had listened to all of the debate; he was greatly concerned about fire risk possibilities and lithium-ion batteries. He had sought advice on this and felt the fire risk was negligible and things were advancing so fast, he could disregard that. He still hadn’t made his mind up on the landscape and was looking forward to what people had to say.
Councillor Ashdown was in a similar situation, having not made his mind up yet. He said the Officer’s report was excellent, and had covered everything that was needed to know, he appreciated what the local community felt, but there was a comprehensive list of conditions which should resolve any issues. At the moment he was edging towards approval.
Councillor Wakeling said his mind made up, he came in conflicted, as a green councillor, a farmer, but as more has progressed, there hadn’t been enough weight made on the impact on the landscape. He had driven along the M25 and seen solar farms along the motorway, which he could accept. This was a small sleepy farmland village, weight had to be given to the impact of the unit and the loss of BMVL. He had serious concerns around construction management and the route for traffic back and forth which was dangerous.
Councillor Graham told the Committee that she was a Green councillor, who had moved from London for all the reasons that people love living in Suffolk. She said rapid climate change had brought a state of crisis for the land, giving the need for food security, for renewables to connect to the grid urgently and the biodiversity crisis. She recognised the need to support communities. She said it was very much the same in her ward and it was not the type of solar development she wants to see, with developers coming in top down. She would much rather see community infrastructure projects where town and parish councils could plan together and reap the benefits. She recognised that wasn’t what the current proposal was, however, she had researched into targets and noted that they were not where they needed to be, they were short both nationally and locally. She knew this following frequent conversations with community energy groups. Global warming was an issue. She noted the policy re BMV land, and guidance that we should try to steer towards lower grade land, and this did have a connection. The backlog was waiting for a grid connection. Food security is a concern, but DEFRA say the greatest threat is climate change. She noted Labour were rolling out a new land use framework. She said more land was given to golf courses than any renewable projects. This was a small-scale project, and she was reassured by the BNG and farming. She recognised with regret the impacts on heritage and community, noting a strong case for community compensation. With great sympathy, she understood the community arguments, she would be moving to approve the application with a hazardous waste consent secured as a condition.
Councillor Gee had a contrary view, she always put the environment first. For all of its benefits, she felt the proposal would damage the corner of Suffolk. She had been on the site visit and saw the devastation that would occur first hand. She didn’t understand why it had to be so near to Gray’s lane. Waveney Local Plan Policy WLP8.27 states renewable and low carbon energy projects will be supported provided they have been identified in an adopted neighbourhood plan and there were no significant effects on amenities of businesses properties. It would take 10 to 20 years for mitigation of the trees and shrubs. She said it was unacceptable for the people impacted. She felt there was a danger of fire, referring to issues with lithium. Having read all of the objections and information, she could not vote in favour and felt it needed to go back to the drawing board.
Councillor Ashton stated he had attempted to get as informed as possible about the challenge to get to net zero and the country was well overdue a debate at Government level. Information was needed on what was required to get to net zero by 2030, and to grow the grid, the frustration was with Government, particularly the secretary of state. The discussions needed to be in context, as at Planning Committees they were taking the heat for a decision that largely needed to be sorted at Government level. Referring to the application, he noted that they were heavily constrained by the potential for connection to the grid. This application was attractive to the applicant and achievable. The pipeline included a lot of speculative things, not full of projects ready to go. They had to look at what was in front of them. With what they could see, national debate and solar and wind. These developments will happen all over the country. The targets will not be med with putting everything on roofs, some will need to go on land too. He agreed with Councillor Graham and agreed with the proposal.
Councillor Pitchers moved that the proposal was accepted.
The Interim Planning Manager, referred to Councillor Graham’s comment regarding approval subject to the hazardous substance condition being granted. It was separate legislation, and it is something that would be applied for and granted separately if required. If minded to approve, members could apply an additional condition, that, in conjunction with the conditioned emergency response plan required prior to the development of the BESS area, final detail around how that element of the scheme would be developed and details to demonstrate no requirement for hazardous substances consent, must be submitted for approval.
Councillor Ewart returned to the document regarding balance and the harm and benefits of the scheme. She noted that professionals and residents are quite different when considering the balance and that was where the issue lay. They hadn’t heard from the resident at Pear Tree Farm, and his home has been carolled by this situation as have 12 others. Waveney Local Plan rural areas benefit from a rich environment and when this type of plan is considered, we don’t have green belt but there are areas. This site is in the middle of everywhere, uses good BMVL – she felt it was fractured as a project, industry dangers, unmanned. A detailed response document had been on behalf of Save Gray’s Lane, and she asked the Committee to take this document forward. She did not give this planning permission her vote.
Councillor Ashdown asked if there was any way that the planting could be speeded up and larger trees and bushes put in place earlier. The Senior Planner (Development Management) said the landscape condition requires detail to be provided prior to commencement and for the planting to be carried out 2 months after approval.
The Landscape Officer confirmed there would be bolstering of existing hedgerows, development of existing hedgerows, and at that point they can incorporate species that grow quickly, develop a dense habit. Smallish plants if managed well will grow quickly.
Councillor Gee referred to the mitigation of fence panelling surrounding the site, and expressed concern it would suburbanise the whole character of this very special place. She stated they were putting aside the heritage and the beauty of the unique landscape of Suffolk, it would be a sacrificial lamb, at the altar of net zero.
Councillor Pitchers proposed that the recommendation was approved, subject to the change of condition as explained. Councillor Ashdown seconded the proposal.
Councillor Plummer said she would like to be able to parachute this into place, like Councillor Wakeling she was quite bothered about the transportation route in. She was wavering but was completely on side with everything that Councillor Graham said about green energy.
Councillor Parker having listened to everything that everyone had said and could see valid points from both sides. He had a tendency to vote against and had issues with the access for vehicles.
Councillor Ewart revisited the chart which showed the harms given to all aspects of the proposal.
The Chair asked everyone to take a vote on the recommendation to approve by Councillor Pitchers, seconded by Councillor Ashdown. It was by a majority vote
RESOLVED
That approval of planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
Conditions (summarised)
1) Time limit.
2) Approved plans.
3) 40-year temporary period.
4) Reinstatement scheme if operations cease
5) 40-year restoration
6) Offsite highway improvement works.
7) Condition survey/repair to Gray’s Lane.
8) Construction Transport Management Plan.
9) Noise levels.
10) Validation of noise survey.
11) Inverters and substation.
12) Acoustic barriers.
13) Drainage Strategy.
14) Maintenance & Management of drainage.
15) CSWMP
16) Verification report.
17) Ecology report compliance.
18) Construction Method Statement Ecology.
19) Annual Reviews Ecology.
20) Nesting skylarks.
21) Glare complaints
22) Landscape scheme.
23) Landscape implementation.
24) Details of signage to SM.
25) Sheep grazing strategy.
26) Archaeology 1.
27) Archaeology 2.
28) Archaeology 3.
29) Emergency Response Plan
30) Soils management Plan
31) Impermeable Drainage Strategy