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 include
the installation of ground based racking systems, mounted
solar panels, power inverter stations, transformer stations,
substation and comms building, fencing, associated access
gates and tracks, and CCTV security cameras mounted on
free standing support poles. ( GR 360359/123950 )
Site Address: Land OS 4200 Sutton Montis Road Queen Camel
Parish: Queen Camel
CAMELOT Ward Cllr M. Lewis
Recommending Case
Officer:
Nicholas Head
Tel: (01935) 462167 Email:
nick.head@southsomerset.gov.uk
Target date: 29th July 2013
Applicant: 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, must
be referred to Committee for determination if the officer is seeking to approve the
application, which is the case in this instance.

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

SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL

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 the
Queen 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 a
level field, bounded by mature hedges. There is a watercourse to the north of the site, on
the opposite side of the public highway. Access to the site is taken off the public highway
at a central point in the site.

It is proposed to create a 5.09MW ground mounted solar park, which would include
21,640 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 Assessment
Community Consultation Report
Desk-based Archaeological Assessment
Flood Risk Assessment
Gradiometer Survey
Agricultural land Classification Report
Habitat Survey

HISTORY

12/04622/EIASS - Screening opinion for a proposed solar pv installation - EIA not
required

AE


Meeting: AE09A 13:14 26 Date: 15.01.14
POLICY

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 repeats the duty
imposed under S54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and requires that
decisions must be made in accordance with relevant Development Plan Documents
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

For the purposes of determining current applications the local planning authority
considers that the relevant development plan comprises the saved policies of the South
Somerset Local Plan.

The policies of most relevance to the proposal are:

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

ST3 - Development Areas
ST5 - General Principles of Development
ST6 - The Quality of Development
EC1 - Protecting the Best Agricultural Land
EC3 - Landscape Character
EC7 - Networks of Natural Habitats
EC8 - Protected Species
EH11 - Archaeological Sites of National Importance
EH12 - Areas of High Archaeological Potential and Other Areas of Archaeological
interest.
EP1 - Pollution and Noise
EP2 - Pollution and Noise
EP3 - Light Pollution
ME5 - Farm Diversification

Policy-related Material Considerations

South Somerset Sustainable Community Strategy
Goal 1 - Safe and Inclusive
Goal 3 - Healthy Environments
Goal 4 - Quality Public Services
Goal 5 - High Performance Local Economy
Goal 7 - Distinctiveness
Goal 8 - Quality Development
Goal 10 - Energy
Goal 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 the
consideration of renewable energy developments. Under the Kyoto Protocol 1997, the
UK 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 to
make further emissions cuts of between 20% and 30% by 2020 on 1990 levels (the
higher figure being subject to certain caveats). This agreement is based on achieving a
reduction in global emissions to limit average increases in global temperature to no more
AE


Meeting: AE09A 13:14 27 Date: 15.01.14
than 2C.

The draft European Renewable Energy Directive 2008 states that, in 2007, the European
Union (EU) leaders had agreed to adopt a binding target requiring 20% of the EU's
energy (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 the
European Union. In particular, this Directive commits the UK to a target of generating
15% 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 and
initiatives which are relevant to the consideration of this planning application. The 2008
UK Climate Change Bill increases the 60% target in greenhouse gas emissions to an
80% reduction by 2050 (based on 1990 levels). The UK Committee on Climate Change
2008, entitled 'Building a Low Carbon Economy', provides guidance in the form of
recommendations 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 Energy
Strategy (RES) provides a series of measures to meet the legally-binding target set in
the aforementioned Renewable Energy Directive. The RES envisages that more than
30% of UK electricity should be generated from renewable sources.

The 2003 Energy White Paper provides a target of generating 40% of national electricity
from 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 climate
change and energy challenge, for example by securing a mix of clean, low carbon
energy sources and by streamlining the planning process for energy projects. The
Planning 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 economy
3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy
7. Requiring good design
10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework - Flood Risk

The NPPF outlines that local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on
all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon
sources. 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 development
while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily, including
cumulative 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 such
sources; and
identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from
decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for collocating
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 planning
authorities should:
not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for
renewable or low carbon energy and also recognise that even small-scale projects
provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions;
and
approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable
areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local
planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale
projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the
criteria 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 life
as a result of new development;
mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life
arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;
and
identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed
by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.

In determining applications, the NPPF states that local planning authorities should
require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected,
including any contribution made by their setting. Local planning authorities should
identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected
by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking
account 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 of
the proposal.

It is considered that the main thrust of the NPPF is to positively support sustainable
development, 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 majority
vote agreed to oppose this application. Their reasons being a) loss of prime agricultural
land, b) visual impact on the landscape, c) the proposed height of the panels - should be
lower than as shown in plans, d) the impact of height & design of the proposed fencing
around the site, e) The Council felt the application drawings were inaccurate in showing
the distance from the adjacent watercourse, f) that there will be insufficient ecological
benefit from the proposals & g) it was agreed that there needs to be a Condition that
states 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
AE


Meeting: AE09A 13:14 29 Date: 15.01.14
appraisal of the proposal, attached to this report as Annex A. In response to initial
comments, the following additional information and changes have been offered by the
applicant:
- 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 be
accommodated within the context of the wider vale without undue impact, and the site's
visual profile is low in most part. Its local visibility can be further played down. Hence
whilst there are potentially grounds on which to base a landscape objection, mindful that
national government guidance is heavily weighted in favour of renewables, and that
LPAs are urged to approve renewable energy schemes providing impacts can be made
acceptable, then I do not consider the extent of landscape impact to be sufficiently
adverse to generate an over-riding landscape objection subject to conditions.

SSDC Environmental Protection Unit: No comments.

SSDC Climate Change Officer: The UK has a target to meet 20% of energy needs from
renewables by 2020. Despite this, renewable electricity generation even within the South
West 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 region
recently making a significant impact on carbon dioxide emissions.

Since the introduction of the feed in tariff installed capacity of PV arras in South
Somerset 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 will
make a very significant impact of the regions renewable electricity generation. If
approved, this installation will provide just over 0.60 % of South Somerset's total annual
electrical requirement (or just over of the equivalent of one very large 120 m high wind
turbine). It will certainly supply in excess of the annual requirement of all surrounding
villages (Queen Camel, West Camel, Sparkford, North and South Cadbury, Sutton
Montis, Corton Denham, Rimpton and Marston Magna.)

This development is a well-designed installation. The site chosen is very suitable
because it is relatively close to electricity consumers in the adjacent villages, which will
minimise 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 1
Habitat Survey submitted with the application. The only significant issue identified was
the presence of badgers, including a main sett, at the boundary of the site. I recommend
a 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.
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 some
limited remains on the proposal site. These appear to be of local significance and would
require some investigation as part of the development.
For this reason I recommend that the developer be required to archaeologically
investigate the heritage assets and provide a report on any discoveries made as
indicated in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 141). This should be
secured 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 informative
notes attached to any permission.

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

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

National Rail: No comment received.

Monarch's Way Association: The Association objects to the proposal, raising the
following 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 important
historical 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.
AE


Meeting: AE09A 13:14 31 Date: 15.01.14
CONSIDERATIONS

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

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

The main considerations for this application are considered to relate to landscape
character and visual amenity, residential amenity, impact upon ecology, impact upon
setting of heritage assets, highway safety, effect upon flood risk and the operational
effectiveness of nearby RNAS Yeovilton.

Principle of Development

The policy position in relation to renewable energy developments has been clearly set
out above. In terms of meeting the challenge of climate change, paragraph 97 of the
NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities (LPA's) "should recognise the responsibility
on all communities to contribute to energy generation and renewable or low carbon
sources", they are expected to have a positive and supportive attitude for opportunities
for renewable or low carbon energy sources. Whilst it might be preferable for brownfield
sites 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 of
sequential test as to the optimum site from a land use or landscape point of view. LPAs
should not require applicants to demonstrate a need for renewable or low carbon energy
and if the impact of the development is or can be made acceptable, they should approve
applications unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

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

Agricultural Land Classification: A submitted Agricultural Land Classification Survey
indicates that the land falls within Grade 3b. The Council's records indicate that the land
is Grade 3 agricultural land. It is therefore not considered that the land can be regarded
as 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 solar
power generation. The installation is capable of being economically decommissioned
and removed from the site at the end of its viable life or duration of planning permission if
approved, whichever is the sooner, with the site returned to its original appearance and
agricultural use. This can be enforced by a planning condition. It could be argued that the
presence of panels would preclude more intensive agricultural uses for the period of 25
years, thus allowing the soil to regenerate. It is not therefore considered that this
proposal would result in the permanent loss of the best and most versatile agricultural
land.
AE


Meeting: AE09A 13:14 32 Date: 15.01.14
An Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion (12/04622/EIASS) was
requested and undertaken by the LPA. Under this assessment a consideration of the
likelihood of significant environmental effects needs to be judged. In this case an
Environmental Impact Assessment was not required as the development is of local (and
not national) importance, the site is not within a designated area, is not particularly
vulnerable or sensitive and the development is not unusually complex with hazardous
environmental 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 linking
Yeovil and Castle Cary. The land is slightly elevated in relation to the railway line. Distant
views of the site are obtained from raised ground to the east (including Cadbury Castle
and the Corton Denham Ridge) and south-east. Clear views of the site itself are offered
to 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 thorough
assessment of the proposal, assessing both the submitted documentation and the local
impact of the proposal on site and at points distant from the site (including points on the
Corton 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 the
landscape, this is not considered sufficient to warrant a refusal of the proposal on
landscape grounds. As he notes, and as is clear from the detailed statement of
Government Policy discussed above, there is very strong policy support for renewable
energy schemes such as this. On the basis of a detailed examination of the site, and
consideration 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 is
at Windsor Farm, 170m to the east of the site. The land is not raised, and it is not
considered that any harm would result to the amenity of these residents. It is noted that
some machinery on site will generate low noise levels. No objection has been raised by
the Council's EPU officer, and it is not considered that there is any resident close enough
to 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. Subject
to appropriate conditions, it is not consider that there is any ecological reason for refusal
of the application.

Impact on Listed Buildings and Other Heritage Assets

Protection of heritage assets is stressed as important (NPPF), and permissions should
not be granted that unacceptably compromise identified heritage assets.

There are no listed buildings in close proximity to the site whose settings would be
negatively impacted by the proposal. English Heritage has been consulted, particularly
over concern about views from Cadbury Castle, a Scheduled Monument. No objection
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 application
relating 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 investigated
for 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. The
development will require construction of an internal access track running along the
northern 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 vehicular
access during construction. No objection has been raised by the highways authority. It is
not considered that there is any highway safety concern that would warrant a refusal of
the application.

Airfield Safeguarding:

The application site is situated within the statutory aerodrome safeguarding zone
surrounding RNAS Yeovilton and is approximately 4.1km to the east of the aerodrome
directly beneath the approach to one of the runways; the MOD was therefore consulted
in respect of this application.

In the MODs initial consultation response concerns were raised that insufficient
information had been provided to be able to fully assess the impact the array might have
upon the operational effectiveness of their Tactical Air Navigational system and any
possible 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 their
support to the proposal.

Since this time the applicant has provided further detailed analysis of these areas of
concern and the MOD has confirmed that they are satisfied with these details and that
they no longer object to the application. It is therefore considered that the proposed
development should not adversely affect aviation safety or the operational effectiveness
of 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 approved
within Area East (Chilton Cantelo and land near Hatherleigh Farm), but it is not
considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable cumulative landscape
impact, notwithstanding the visibility of both the Chilton Cantelo site and this current
proposal from distant positions on higher ground.

Flood Risk

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

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 versatile
agricultural land' as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land
Classification. 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 been
complied with. It is not agreed that this is 'prime agricultural land' or that this
objection could be sustained.
(b) Visual/Landscape Impact: The issue of visual impact has been dealt with in
detail (see Annex A). It is not agreed that there is a valid reason for refusal of the
application 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 intrude
sufficiently to warrant refusal.
(e) Accuracy of Drawings: The PC objection is not clear; the water course is on the
opposite site of the road and appears to accord with the LPA's mapping
information. The submitted details are considered accurate enough to enable a
decision.
(f) Ecological Benefit: Government guidance requires that applications for
renewable energy development such as this should be approved if their impacts
are (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 25
years. The land remains agricultural and reverts to that use after the expiry of the
period.

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

Objection of the Monarch's Way Association

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

Conclusion

Government advice is clear. Planning Authorities should approve applications for
renewable energy projects where impacts are (or can be made) acceptable (NPPF Para
98). The current application has raised some concerns in relation to visual amenity,
landscape character, impact on ecology, and flood risk, and heritage assets. A thorough
assessment of these impacts indicates that, for the most part, they are acceptable - or
can be made acceptable by appropriate mitigation measures - in the context of
Government advice and the clear need for renewable energy sources. Where impacts
can be overcome by way of pre-commencement or other conditions (archaeology,
ecology, landscaping) appropriate conditions are recommended. Subject to the
appropriate controls set out in conditions, it is now considered that the impacts of the
proposal can be considered 'acceptable' as set out in Government guidance.
Notwithstanding the objections received from the Parish Council and the Monarch's Way
Association, the proposal is considered to represent sustainable development which is
accordingly recommended for approval.
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 the
provision of a renewable source of energy, which will make a valuable
contribution towards cutting greenhouse gas emissions, outweigh the limited
impact of the proposed PV panels on the local landscape character and heritage
assets. As such the proposal accords with the Government's objective to
encourage the provision of renewable energy sources and the aims and
objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies ST3, ST5,
ST6, EC3, EC7, EH5, EH11, EH12 and EP3 of the South Somerset Local Plan
2006.

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

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

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

02. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following 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 been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed
scheme of landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and
hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures
for their protection in the course of the development, as well as details of any
changes proposed in existing ground levels. The landscaping scheme shall be in
accordance with the submitted Landscape Masterplan plan ref. P0046 Rev 2. All
planting, seeding, turfing or earth moulding comprised in the approved details of
landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following
the commencement of the development. For the duration of this permission the
trees and shrubs included in the scheme shall be protected and maintained, and
any trees or plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or
diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size
and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any
variation.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape character in accordance
with the NPPF and saved Policies ST5, ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local
Plan.

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


Meeting: AE09A 13:14 36 Date: 15.01.14
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such management plan, once
agreed, 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 and
appearance of the landscape in accordance with Policies ST5, ST6 and EC3 of the
South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

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

Reason: For the protection of bats and dormice in accordance with the
Conservation 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 shown
in drawing 'Solar Farm 2V, 40 Module Racking' ref. 2v Racking System, received
on 3 May 2013, and shall not be concreted into the ground.

Reason: To avoid an unsustainable method of attachment in the interests of
landscape 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 its
former 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 electricity
whichever is the sooner in accordance with a restoration plan to be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The restoration plan will
need to include all the works necessary to revert the site to open agricultural land
including the removal of all structures, materials and any associated goods and
chattels from the site.

Reason: In the interests of landscape character and visual amenity in accordance
with the NPPF and saved Policies ST3, ST5, ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset
Local 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 the
area to accord with the NPPF and saved Policies EC3, ST6 and EP3 of the South
Somerset Local Plan (2006).

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

Reason: In the interests of landscape character and visual amenity in accordance
with the NPPF and saved Policies ST5, ST6 and EC3 of the South Somerset Local
Plan.

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 written
consent of the Local Planning Authority.

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

11. No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the
site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrology
and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently
be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is
completed.

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

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

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordance
with 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 the
means of construction, surfacing and materials of the access track have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details
once approved shall be fully implemented.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area in accordance
with 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 Construction
Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning 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 and
amenity.

Reason: In the interests of traffic management and minimising the impacts of the
construction of the development in accordance with the aims of Policies ST5, ST6
and EP6 of the South Somerset Local Plan, 2006.

15. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until there has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a badger
mitigation plan detailing measures for protection of the main sett, minimising
disturbance and harm to badgers, and enabling badgers continued access within
their territory as appropriate for their welfare. The works shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved details and timing of the plan, unless otherwise
approved in writing by the local planning authority.

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


Meeting: AE09A 13:14 38 Date: 15.01.14
compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and Protection of Badgers
Act 1992.

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

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

17. The solar panel arrays indicated on the revised drawing ref. 2V Racking System
Rev B, received by email on 21 June 2013, shall not exceed a maximum height of
2.453m above ground level at any point on the site.

Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area, and to accord
with 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 out
in their letter of 5 June 2013, a copy of which was forwarded to the applicant's
agent, and which is viewable on the Council's website: www.southsomerset.gov.uk.


AE


Meeting: AE09A 13:14 39 Date: 15.01.14
ANNEX A

Conservation Consultation Response - Landscape


TO: Nick Head
FROM: Robert Archer
DATE: 07 June 2013

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


Nick, I have reviewed the above application and its associated documentation submitted
in support of the above proposal, which seeks to construct a PV solar array on land of
12.70ha that lays to the south of the Sutton Montis road, circa 0.6km to the east of
Queen 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 the
proposal.

SSDC has produced a guidance note on PV installations, which provides assistance to
both PV developers and our own assessment of such proposals. This guidance includes
landscape criteria that proposals should aim to satisfy, to ensure potential impacts are
not significantly adverse. These criteria include:

(1) Site selection - array proposals should ideally be guided toward previously developed
land. Greenfield site proposals should express a relationship with existing development
presence;
(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 equate
to 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 minimal
overlooking from sensitive public vantage points;
(4) Cumulative impact - there should be no overly cumulative effect of PV sites arising
from 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 visual
impacts that may arise from the installation of an array at this site. The LVIA concludes
that the proposal relates well to the pattern and scale of the local landscape, and will not
adversely 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 local
landscape to be capable of absorbing an array, due to the strong hedgerow structure
surrounding the site, to provide a wider context for site assimilation, and a positive
relationship with the landscape pattern.

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

(1) SSDCs PV guidance note advises that array proposals should be located to express
a relationship with existing development presence. In this instance, the relationship with
established built form is limited. A local lane runs to the north of the site, which includes
a 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 development
presence, to which this proposal can be anchored whilst the west boundary is a rail
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. Hence
I am not persuaded that the application site expresses a credible relationship with
development presence.

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

However, landscape characterisation also considers the appropriateness of the context
for 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 with
this landscape setting, which has a strong sense of rural character as expressed by the
pattern and strength of the hedgerow network; extensive open farmland; and the low
level of development presence. This incongruity reinforces the concerns raised in site
selection (1) above.

(3) The relatively flat topography of the sites surround enables the proposed array to lay
within the broad spread of the vale, which will assist in reducing the number of low-level
views 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 level
views are at a greater distance from the site, e.g; Cadbury Castle, Parrock Hill and
Corton 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 over
the rail bridge, at the sites northwest edge. This is immediate and adverse, but only lasts
the length of the roads elevation, to limit the weight of impact. The application
undertakes to mitigate this view with planting, along with supplementation of hedge
boundaries to break-up the mass of the array, to thus reduce any potential visibility, and I
agree these proposals to be appropriate and necessary to reduce the potential visual
impact upon local visual receptors. Overall, I agree the findings of the L&VIA that the site
will not create a significantly adverse visual impact.

(4) This proposed array lays to the northeast of a recently constructed PV installation at
Chilton Cantelo, with little more than a 3km distance between them. This gives the
potential 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 Rimpton
and Marston Magna, and the ridge formed by West Camel and Sparkford Hills to the
north. 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 immediate
vicinity, and it is noted that whilst the L&VIA for each indicate overlapping ZVIs for the
two sites, there will be few locations that will perceive the two in the same sightline, and
in those instances, perception will be minimal. Consequently, the cumulative impact is
not 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 a
weldmesh 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 its
toes driven into the ground without need for concrete, which I view as a positive. There
are a number of structures which include a DNO substation; Camms building; and Switch
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 an
indication of how grid connection will be achieved, which should not involve any
overhead 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 on
these items.

Reviewing these detailed proposals, I view an array height of 3 metres as too great - with
other less exposed sites we have agreed a 2.4 metres height, which would be more
appropriate here. I note the lower edge of the array scales as 1.35m agl, hence it would
appear that adjustment is feasible. As for fencing type, I note that a weldmesh fence is
proposed. In this open landscape, I believe that deer fencing would be more
appropriate, unless the height can be reduced to 2.1m max. I also consider the
aggregation of structures/units to raise a local impact, and I would wish to see this
mitigated by choice of muted and compatible colour tones, and enclosure by tree and
shrub planting. Such fine-tuning is necessary to ensure the schemes acceptability. I
also note that the site layout indicates some infilling of local hedges and additional
planting, 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 a
positive view of the scheme.

Looking at the application overall, it is clear that whilst the location selected is not
strongly related to development form, and projects some incongruity of character within
this open agricultural landscape, I would acknowledge that the scale of the proposal
has the potential to be accommodated within the context of the wider vale without
undue impact, and the sites visual profile is low in most part. Its local visibility can be
further played down. Hence whilst there are potentially grounds on which to base a
landscape objection, mindful that national government guidance is heavily weighted in
favour of renewables, and that LPAs are urged to approve renewable energy schemes
providing impacts can be made acceptable, then I do not consider the extent of
landscape impact to be sufficiently adverse to generate an over-riding landscape
objection, 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 the
structures/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;
AE


Meeting: AE09A 13:14 42 Date: 15.01.14
(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 Archer
Landscape Architect
telephone: 01935 462649
e-mail: robert.archer@southsomerset.gov.uk
File: renewable/pvs/apps/queencamel 13-06