Chediston Hall - Waveney District Council

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 11 DECEMBER 2012
APPLICATION NO DC/12/1119/FUL
EXPIRY DATE 6 January 2013
APPLICATION TYPE Full Application
LOCATION
Land Adjacent To Bonners Farm
Mill Road
Wissett
Suffolk
11
APPLICANT
Chediston Hall 1 Solar Park Limited
PARISH
PROPOSAL
Wissett
Installation of a 12.3MW solar farm and associated infrastructure
DO NOT SCALE
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may
lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
SUMMARY
1.1 The proposal is for a “solar farm”, consisting of 50,376 photovoltaic panels on land to the
west of the village of Wissett, adjoining the district boundary. Landscape impact is likely to
be the main issue, but there are also outstanding issues with archaeology. The application
was the subject of a members site visit on 3 December.
SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 The site comprises 24.9 hectares of agricultural land to the west of Mill Lane, Wissett. The
site is approximately 1.5 kilometres north west of Halesworth. A public footpath runs along
98

the south western boundary of the site (which also forms the boundary with Suffolk Coastal
district). A further public footpath runs along part of the northern boundary of the site.
2.2 There are two small areas of woodland adjacent to the site, an area known as “The Spring”
which forms part of the north east boundary of the site and a smaller unnamed area adjacent
to the south east boundary.
PROPOSAL
3.1 The proposal is for the installation of a “solar farm” comprising approximately 50,376 solar
panels generating up to 12.3MW of electricity to feed into the electricity grid network. The
application states that this could supply up to 3,041homes with their annual electricity
requirements.
3.2 The application is accompanied by:
• A Planning and Environmental Report
• A Flood Risk Assessment
• A Design and Access Statement.
3.3 The solar panels would be mounted on “tables” with a front height of 0.6 metres and a back
panel height of up to 2.2 metres. The panels would be set in rows 4-5 metres apart. Eight
inverter cabins are proposed at intervals throughout the site. A “point of connection facility”
would be provided at the southern end of the site. 2 metre high security fencing would be
provided with CCTV cameras at intervals of 100 metres, mounted on four metres high pillars.
3.4 Access would be taken from Chediston Street – the B1123 – the access point is in fact within
Suffolk Coastal district – with an access road joining existing farm roads close to Chediston
Hall. The total distance between the site and the public highway would be approximately
1300 metres.
CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS
4.1 Neighbour consultation/representations: two objections have been received, on the
grounds of loss of view, loss of property value and potential damage to boundary trees.
4.2 Wissett Parish Council Comments: The parish council met to discus the planning
application for Chediston Hall solar farm. The decision was to approve the solar farm,
however there were some concerns that councillors felt it was necessary to address. These
are listed below:
• Assurance that the solar panels will not be higher than 2.2 metres as stated in the plans.
Concerns were raised that the panels would be mounted on tables which would be
graduated and therefore higher than that stated.
• Assurance that no other solar farms are planned for this area.
• Request that mature indigenous hedging be planted
• We have been informed that the electricity grid will be at maximum capacity. Will this
affect individual households from installing solar panels?
4.3 Chediston Parish Council comments awaited
Consultees
4.4 Suffolk Wildlife Trust: We have read the ecology section of the Planning and Environmental
report and note the findings of the ecological consultant. We request that the ecological
recommendations made within the report are implemented in full, via a condition of planning
99

consent, should permission be granted. In addition to the recommendations included within
the Planning and Environmental report we have the following comments:
4.5 Existing woodland and hedges: The site is currently surrounded by hedges and two small
woodlands, we request that all these features are retained and that they are suitably buffered
from the solar panels and any associated development. The wildlife value of hedges is
largely dependent on their subsequent management and this in turn will depend on sufficient
room being allowed for hedges to fill out and have a graded tall herb edge. If hedges need to
be close clipped with short grass to the base their value will be largely visual rather than to
the benefit of wildlife. We therefore recommend that sufficient gaps are left between the
edges of the panel rows and the hedges. Management of these gaps should allow a graded,
tall herb edge to develop up to the hedge.
4.6 Enhancements: Developments such as solar farms offer opportunities to provide ecological
enhancements on the site. We would support the planting of new native hedges and the
‘gapping up’ of the existing hedgerows where this is necessary. In addition to the proposed
hedges we would also suggest that opportunities to establish additional areas of scrub are
explored. This would provide additional habitat for bird species such as turtle dove. As the
current outbreak of ash die back (Chalara fraxinea) highlights it is important that only locally
grown plants from seed of local provenance are used in planting schemes.
4.7 It is also understood that this site and the surrounding land are in various environmental
stewardship schemes (Natural England Nature on the Map website). We would suggest that
further ecological enhancements at this site could be guided by the types of habitats already
being targeted through these schemes.
4.8 Management: We would recommend that, should permission be granted, a management
plan for the site is produced prior to the commencement of any works and that its
implementation is secured by condition. We would recommend that this management plan
includes the strip of land to the south west of the proposed solar farm, outside of the
proposed security fence but within the red line boundary shown on the proposed site layout
plan drawing.
4.9 Suffolk County - Archaeological Unit This application concerns the installation of a solar
farm. The site of the proposed development has high potential for the discovery of important
hitherto unknown heritage assets of archaeological interest in view of its large size and
location close to a number of sites recorded in the County Historic Environment Record. This
includes a number of multi-period findspots (CHD 050, CHD 069, WSS 007). However, the
site has not been the subject of previous systematic investigation.
4.10 Given the potential, lack of previous investigation and large size of the proposed
development area, I recommend that, in order to establish the full archaeological implications
of this area and the suitability of the site for the development, the applicant should be
required, prior to determination of the application, to provide an archaeological evaluation of
the site. The proposed development area cannot be assessed or approved in our view until a
full archaeological evaluation has been undertaken, and the results of this work will enable
us to accurately quantify the archaeological resource (both in quality and extent). This is in
accordance with paragraphs 128 and 129 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
4.11 Decisions on the suitability of the site, and also the need for, and scope of, any further work
should there be any below-ground archaeological finds of significance, will be based upon
the results of the evaluation.
4.12 A geophysical survey should be undertaken in the first instance. The results of this work
would then inform the archaeological mitigation strategy for the development area, which is
likely to involve trial trenching and/or monitoring of any groundworks. The results of the
evaluation must be presented in the application, along with a detailed strategy for further
investigation. The results should inform the development to ensure preservation in situ of any
100

previously unknown nationally important archaeological remains within the development
area.
4.13 Suffolk Preservation Society I am writing on behalf of the Suffolk Preservation Society with
regard to the above application.
4.14 This application highlights the need for county-wide guidance to assist decision-making in
order to prevent land subject to competing uses for dwellings, agriculture, tourism, and
recreation being inappropriately diverted to what is, in essence, an industrial use, thereby
leading to the unnecessary blighting of the Suffolk landscape. As noted by Natural England,
‘Careful site selection and design is the best way to avoid or minimize potential adverse
landscape and visual impacts’. (‘Solar Parks: maximizing environmental benefits’, TIN101,
p.4, italics added.)
4.15 The location for this proposed solar park is a gently rolling landscape of ancient fields,
hedges, copses, footpaths, and small villages. The site falls into two categories that Natural
England has designated as reducing the chance that solar parks can be accommodated in
the landscape – the presence of small scale historic settlement, roads and tracks; and
physically or perceptually remote, peaceful or tranquil. (TIN101, p. 6, Table 1.)
4.16 The proposed installation is considerably more dominant than anticipated by TIN101’s
guidance. It is almost 25 hectares vs 2-15 hectares. Its solar panels will stand 4.4 metres
from the ground when the total height of the panels and supporting tables are calculated, as
opposed to the 1.5 - 2.5 metres contemplated by Natural England. To appreciate impact, one
needs also take account of the collective industrial infra-structure – panels, access tracks,
fencing (described as ‘deer’ but perhaps more likely to be industrial style weld mesh for
security reasons), cameras, housing for transformer and metering stations.
4.17 The grade of agricultural land requires clarification – is it 3A or 3B? If the former, then it
would be considered ‘best and most versatile agricultural land’, which is discouraged from
being taken out of agriculture production for sustained periods – in this case 25 years.
(TIN101, p. 2, citing TIN049.)
4.18 Suffolk has ample brown field sites, including former airbases, which would be optimal for
siting solar farms, not to mention industrial roof space. There is no evidence in the
applicant’s proposal of a sequential approach to site selection.
4.19 NPPF, P. 98, confirms that, although solar park proposals should not be required to prove
the benefits of sustainable energy, approval is contingent upon the impact of such proposals
being acceptable or capable of being made acceptable.
4.20 The principles for evaluating this application are contained in the Waveney Landscape
Character guidelines and the Council’s policies CS02 and CS16 which seek to preserve and
enhance local landscape character and biodiversity.
4.21 Landscape Character The field lies within the Landscape Type I1 Saints Plateau West
Farmed Plateau Clayland; the relevant objectives for this landscape are set out in Para I121
and I122 (italics added):
4.22 I1.21 The primary strategic objective for this character area is to conserve and enhance the
small scale historic landscape pattern which persists at points and to conserve the low key,
well wooded settlements, maintaining the tranquil, rural and remote character of the area.
4.23 Landscape Management: ‘I1.22 Principal landscape management objectives are to reinforce
existing native hedgerows with appropriate species in order to enhance landscape structure
and opportunities for connectivity. New native hedgerow tree planting should also be
considered as part of the long term approach to hedgerow management and enhancement.
Conserve and enhance the remaining examples of co axial field boundaries.’
101

4.24 Core Strategy Policies Policy CS02 High Quality and Sustainable Design. ‘All development
proposals must demonstrate a high quality and sustainable design that positively improves
the character, appearance and environmental quality of an area’.
4.25 ‘Proposals for development are expected to retain and add to local distinctiveness, retain
tranquility, avoid fragmentation of habitats and seek to enhance wildlife corridors and
networks. In addition, proposals should conserve and contribute towards the enhancement of
the landscape character, biodiversity and geodiversity of the District…’
4.26 CS 16 Natural Environment: “The District Council will work with partners such as the Suffolk
Wildlife Trust, Suffolk Biodiversity Partnership, Suffolk Coast and Heaths Project, the Broads
Authority and the community to protect and enhance the natural and historic environment in
the District. Proposals for development are expected to retain and add to local
distinctiveness, retain tranquility, avoid fragmentation of habitats and seek to enhance wildlife
corridors and networks.’
4.27 Applying the above principles to the application, we note a lack of rigour in assessing the
proposal’s impacts on landscape character and quality of the field and location. We have not
been able to locate a summary of the LVIA (Landscape and visual impact assessment)
carried out. Whilst we recognize that this is not EIA development, a summary would be
helpful in identifying the level of impacts on the quality and views of this arable landscape.
4.28 The submitted Planning and Environmental Statement (Para 5.89) does refer to the
landscape impact as being detrimental with the scheme introducing an artificial element into
the landscape. ‘Overall, this will result in a moderate adverse effect on the landscape
character of the local context with effects diminishing further over time as a result of the
growth of new boundary hedgerow planting…’
4.29 The Design and Access Statement (Paragraphs 4.17 and 4.18) clarifies that Solarcentury is
relying on the new hedging to align the solar park with planning principles. The proposed
new hedging will ‘effectively hide the development from view. This includes new hedgerow to
be planted along the south western and north eastern boundaries to obscure the site from
the public rights of way that adjoin the site, coupled with hedgerow reinforcement on the
eastern boundaries’.
4.30 However, achieving mitigation depends on the height, depth and bulk of hedging. The new
hedging relied on to screen the solar panels from neighbouring footpaths and property could
take, at minimum, half the lifetime of the panels to reach young maturity.
4.31 In addition, without prejudice to our position on the choice of site, we provide the following
comments on the proposed hedging.
• The hedge species mix contains no tree species despite the recommendations of the
Ecologist report (Avian Ecology Para 6.69). We assume this is due to shading concerns.
• Some species (guilder rose and midland thorn) are unlikely to grow naturally at this
location. All hedgerow schemes should use the Parish hedgerow survey as a reference
point for ensuring that suitable species mixes are chosen, which was not done here.
• If mature ash trees currently provide any screening, these may succumb to die back. The
Landscape Institute recent guidelines on assessing impact in this event should be noted
and taken into account.
• It is disappointing that no additional hedges are proposed to break up the scale of the
proposal and provide internal buffer spaces.
• In terms of buffer zones the submitted aerial photograph shows wide field margins that
perhaps are part of a farm stewardship scheme. However the current application is for
panels to be sited within 4/5 metres of the hedgerows seemingly reducing these wider
margins. Scope for wider buffer zones, with fences kept further from perimeter
102

hedgerows, are advisable to ensure protection of hedgerows and trees and minimizing
their shading impacts.
4.32 In sum, an objection on grounds of impact and unsuitable large proposal in high quality
landscape. Given that solar energy is universally available, and the County’s topography is
slight, it cannot be demonstrated that solar PV at Chediston presents any public benefit
beyond that of other sites. The applicant has thus failed to demonstrate that alternative sites
would not be sequentially preferable or that the conflict with Waveney Core Strategies is
justified or necessary.
4.33 County Planning Officer was consulted on the 19 October 2012.
4.34 Natural England: From the information provided with this application, it does not appear to
fall within the scope of the consultations that Natural England would routinely comment on.
The lack of specific comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement
that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely
to result in significant impacts on statutory designated sites, landscapes or species. It is for
the local authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national or
local policies on biodiversity and landscape and other bodies and individuals may be able to
help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of the environmental value of
this site in the decision making process, LPAs should seek the views of their own ecologists
when determining the environmental impacts of this development.
4.35 We would, in any event, expect the LPA to assess and consider the possible impacts
resulting from this proposal on the following issues when determining this application:
4.36 Protected species: If the LPA is aware of, or representations from other parties highlight the
possible presence of a protected or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species on the site, the
authority should request survey information from the applicant before determining the
application. The Government has provided advice1 on BAP and protected species and their
consideration in the planning system.
4.37 Natural England Standing Advice is available on our website to help local planning
authorities better understand the impact of this particular development on protected or BAP
species should they be identified as an issue at particular developments. This also sets out
when, following receipt of survey information, the authority should undertake further
consultation with Natural England.
4.38 Local wildlife sites: If the proposal site could result in an impact on a Local Site, Local Nature
Reserve (LNR) or priority habitat the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to
fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local site before it determines the
application, ensuring that it does so in conformity with the wording of paragraph 168 of the
National Planning Policy Framework. For further information on Local Sites, your authority
should seek views from your ecologist, or the Local Sites designation body in your area.
4.39 Biodiversity enhancements: This application may provide opportunities to incorporate
features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting
opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider
securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to
grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF.
Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and
Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its
functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to
the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that
‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring
or enhancing a population or habitat’.
103

4.40 Local Landscape: This proposal does not appear to be either located within, or within the
setting of, any nationally designated landscape. All proposals however should complement
and where possible enhance local distinctiveness and be guided by your Authority’s
landscape character assessment where available, and the policies protecting landscape
character in your local plan or development framework.
4.41 Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural
environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural
Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again.
4.42 Suffolk County - Highways Department: recommends that any permission should include
a condition requiring a HGV Deliveries Management Plan.
4.43 The Ramblers Association The Ramblers Association, currently, have no policies with
regard to solar farms providing the Rights of Way remain open and are restored to their
original condition. Please note Footpaths 3 and 5 (Wissett) are close to this development.
4.44 Suffolk County - Rights Of Way Thank you for your consultation dated 19 October 2012
concerning the above application. Public Footpath No. 5 is adjacent to the development site,
and Public Footpath No. 3 provides access to it.
4.45 The Public Rights of Way do not appear to be directly affected by this application and we
have no objection to the proposed works, but would make the following points in respect of
public rights of way:
1. There must be no interference with the surface of the right of way as a result of the
development.
2. The right of way must be kept clear and unobstructed for users and no structures placed
upon the right of way.
3. Any damage to the surface of the route as a result of the development must be made
good by the applicant.
4. The Highways Authority is not responsible for maintenance and repair of the route beyond
the wear and tear of normal use for its status and it will seek to recover the costs of any
such damage that it has to remedy.
There are four different statuses of public rights of way:
• Public footpath – this should only be used by people on foot, or using a mobility
vehicle.
• Public bridleway – in addition to people on foot, bridleways may also be used by
someone on a horse or someone riding a bicycle.
• Restricted byway – this has similar status to a bridleway, but can also be used by a
‘non- motorised vehicle’, for example a horse and carriage.
• Byway open to all traffic (BOAT) – these can be used by all vehicles, including
motorised vehicles as well as people on foot, on horse or on a bicycle.
5. The Area Rights of Way Office must approve any proposed works to the surface of the
routes.
6. The applicant should have private rights to take motorised vehicles over the public right of
way. Without lawful authority it is an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take a
motorised vehicle over a public right of way other than a byway. We do not keep records
of private rights.
7. If the public right of way is temporarily affected by works which will require it to be closed,
a Traffic Regulation Order will need to be sought from the County Council. A fee is
payable for this service.
8. There may be other public rights of way that exist over this land that have not been
registered on the Definitive Map. These paths are either historical paths that were never
claimed under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, or paths that
have been created by public use giving the presumption of dedication by the land owner
whether under the Highways Act 1980 or by Common Law. This office is not aware of any
such claims.
104

9. Public rights of way are protected by law. If you wish to build upon, block, divert or
extinguish a right of way within the development area marked on the planning application
an order must be made, confirmed and brought into effect by the local planning authority,
using powers under s257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
4.46 Suffolk Coastal District Council was consulted on the 25 October 2012.
PUBLICITY
4.47 The application has been the subject of the following press advertisement:
Category Published Expiry Publication
Major Application, 19.10.2012 08.11.2012 Beccles and Bungay
Public Right of Way
Affected,
Journal
Major Application,
Public Right of Way
Affected,
19.10.2012 08.11.2012 Lowestoft Journal
SITE NOTICES
4.48 The following site notices have been displayed:
WDC General Site Notice
Reason for site notice: Major Application, In the Vicinity of
Public Right of Way, Date posted 01.11.2012 Expiry date
21.11.2012
PLANNING POLICY
5.1 The Waveney Core Strategy was adopted in January 2009. Policy CS02 requires high
quality and sustainable design. Policy CS16 commits the Council to protect and enhance the
natural and historic environment of the District.
5.2 The Development Management policies were adopted in January 2011. Policy DM03
deals with renewable energy and so is the most relevant policy for the determination of this
application. It is considered in detail in the following section of this report.
5.3 Policy DM02 sets design principles for new development. Policy DM27 deals with the
protection of landscape character.
5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework is also relevant to the application and is referred
to below.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 The starting point for the consideration of this application is planning policy, both National
and Local.
6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out an approach that is proactive towards
renewable energy developments. Paragraph 98 states that applications should be approved
if impacts are, or can be, made acceptable unless material considerations indicate
otherwise.
6.3 Development Management policy DM03 states that:
“Proposals for stand alone energy generation and other CO2 reductions will generally be
supported. The District is seeking new renewable energy generation capacity to deliver an
105

appropriate contribution towards the UK Government's binding renewable energy target.
Therefore targets for Waveney District include:
• Approximately 30% electricity from renewable sources by 2021
• Approximately 12% heat from renewable sources by 2021.
Renewable energy schemes will be permitted where:
• There are no significant adverse effects or cumulative adverse effects upon the
landscape, townscape and historic features;
• There are no significant adverse effects on the amenities of nearby residents by way of
noise, dust, odour or increases in traffic; and
• The wider environmental, economic, social and community benefits directly related to
the scheme outweigh any potentially significant adverse effects.
In areas of national importance, large-scale renewable energy infrastructure will not be
permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the designation are not
compromised. Small-scale developments will be permitted where they are sympathetically
designed and located, include any necessary mitigation measures and meet the criteria
above.
When the permitted technology is no longer operational there is a requirement to
decommission, remove the facility and complete a restoration of the site to its original
condition.”
6.4 In is clear that the proposal will contribute towards meeting the District’s energy targets set
out in policy DM03 with the energy generated being transferred directly into the national grid.
The renewable energy proposal is consistent with the District overall aim of improving
sustainability and contributing towards Suffolk becoming the ‘Greenest County’. Policy DM03
supports renewable energy installations where they are proposed in appropriate locations
where they will not have significant adverse impacts on the amenity of local people, historic
features or on the environment. The wider economic, social and environmental benefits of
the proposal should be considered against any significant impacts of the surrounding area.
6.5 In terms of impact of the development, the main potential impacts to be considered are
therefore:
• Landscape and visual impact
• Impact on wildlife and ecology
• Impact on built heritage and archaeology and
• Construction impacts, principally traffic.
6.6 In terms of landscape impact, the NPPF also places strong emphasis on the protection of
the environment, particularly landscapes that are protected. The area of land to be covered
by the solar PV array is significant. However the structural form of the solar PV array is low
level. In addition an appropriate screening scheme could be implemented to minimise impact
on the character of the area when observed from ground level.
6.7 There are hedges around part of the site, as well as the small areas of woodland noted
above, but the eastern side is generally more open. The gently rolling landform will also
provide visibility of the site from some locations.
6.8 The site is not in a designated landscape. However part of it does fall within the “Blyth
Tributary Valley Farmland” Landscape Character Assessment Area. Policy DM27 states
that:
“Development affecting the…Tributary Valley Farmland areas will not be permitted unless it
can be demonstrated there is an overriding national need for development and no alternative
site can be found.”
106

6.9 The development is likely to have a life of around 25 years, and when decommissioned there
should be no lasting effects on the landscape. In addition the opportunities for additional
screening to reinforce the existing hedges and the limited overall height of the panels with
also reduce the landscape impact.
6.10 Nevertheless the objection from the Suffolk Preservation Society (paragraphs 4.13 to 4.32
above) has some merit.
6.11 The Design and Access Statement proposes new hedgerow planting along the south
western and north eastern boundaries, and reinforcing the hedgerows on the eastern
boundary.
6.12 The Council’s Landscape Adviser recommends conditions requiring this new hedgerow
planting, with species to be agreed.
6.13 The agricultural land that makes up the site is classified as Grade 3, indicating that the site is
of moderate quality but is not high quality for crop growing.
6.14 Suffolk Wildlife Trust has provided recommendations to enhance the biodiversity of the site,
which could be secured by a planning condition.
6.15 In respect of built heritage and archaeology, there are no listed buildings sufficiently close to
the site to be affected, the nearest being “Millcroft”, approximately 400 metres from the site
boundary and “Whitehouse Farm”, approximately 330 metres from the site boundary; both
are on Mill Lane. However Suffolk Archaeology considers that an archaeological evaluation
of the site is required before the application is determined. Decisions on the suitability of the
site, and also the need for, and scope of, any further work should there be any below-ground
archaeological finds of significance, would then be based upon the results of the evaluation.
This work had not been commenced as this report was written.
6.16 Construction impacts are primarily traffic. The Design and Access Statement indicates that
the construction of the solar farm would require 192 HGV trips to the site (so 384
movements in total), with 18 movements per day. The County Council has recommended a
condition requiring a HGV Deliveries Management Plan.
CONCLUSION
7.1 There is no doubt that this will be a significant development. Landscape impact is likely to be
the most critical issue, but bearing in mind the low-level nature of the development, the
existing landscape and topography, and the potential for mitigation is it not considered that
this will be so significant as to outweigh the benefit of the renewal energy that will be
provided.
7.2 However at the time of writing this report archaeology remains an outstanding issue.
RECOMMENDATION
A verbal recommendation will be made depending on the position with archaeology at the time of
the Committee meeting.
If the pre-determination archaeological investigation has not been completed, then the application
will be recommended for refusal on the grounds of potential impact on archaeology.
Similarly, if the investigation reveals that the development will affect significant archaeological
remains the application will be recommended for refusal.
However should the pre-determination investigation be completed prior to the meeting, and
confirms that that is no reason why permission should not be granted (with conditions if necessary)
then the application will be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions:
107

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning
with the date of this permission.
Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as
amended.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until it has been completed
in all respects strictly in accordance with drawing reference SAVIL-CHEDI-001-100, SAVIL-
CHEDI-001-120 rev B, SAVIL-MULTI-001-201, SAVIL-MULTI-001-210, SAVIL-MULTI-001-
211, SAVIL-MULTI-001-212, SAVIL-MULTI-001-213, SAVIL-MULTI-001-214, SAVIL-MULTI-
001-216, SAVIL-MULTI-222 and BPI-368398-2001 rev C received 8 October 2012, for which
permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To secure a properly planned development.
3. The planning permission is for a period from the date of this permission until the date
occurring 25 years after the date of commissioning of the development. Written confirmation
of the date of commissioning of the development shall be provided to the Local Planning
Authority no later than 1 calendar month after that event.
(“Commissioning” is defined as the point at which the solar farm is put into active service or
becomes “active”, or is in use or useable condition)
Reason: To ensure that the landscape impact of the development exists only for the lifetime
of the development.
4. If the solar farm hereby permitted ceases to operate for a continuous period of 6 months
then, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a scheme for the
decommissioning and removal of the panels and any other ancillary equipment, shall be
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority within 3 months of the end of
the cessation period. The scheme shall include details for the restoration of the site. The
scheme shall be implemented within 12 months of the date of its agreement by the Local
Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the landscape impact of the development exists only for the lifetime
of the development.
5. In relation to the construction of the development hereby permitted; no machinery shall be
operated, no process shall be carried out and no construction traffic shall enter or leave the
site between the hours of 08.00 hours and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday, nor between the
hours of 8.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays or Bank
Holidays unless approved in writing in advance with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area
6. All HGV traffic movements to and from the site over the duration of the construction period
shall be subject to a Deliveries Management Plan which shall be submitted to the planning
authority for approval a minimum of 28 days before any deliveries of materials commence.
No HGV movements shall be permitted to and from the site other than in accordance with
the routes defined in the Plan. The site operator shall maintain a register of complaints and
record of actions taken to deal with such complaints at the site office as specified in the Plan
throughout the period of occupation of the site.
Reason: To reduce and / or remove as far as is reasonably possible the effects of HGV
traffic in sensitive areas.
108

7. Before any development is commenced details of measures to enhance the biodiversity of
the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The approved
scheme shall be implemented within 12 months of the commencement of development.
Reason: to preserve and enhance the biodiversity of the site.
8. In accordance with advice set out in British Standard BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to
design, demolition and construction - Recommendations. No development shall take place
until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved.
These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; hard
surfacing materials; proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g.
drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc indicating lines, manholes, supports
etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant. Soft
landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and
other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting
species, plant sizes and proposed number/densities where appropriate; implementation
programme.
Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscape design.
9. In accordance with advice set out in British Standard BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to
design, demolition and construction - Recommendations. The landscaping scheme shall be
completed within six months from the date when the solar farm is brought into use, or such
other date as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants
which die during the first 5 years shall be replaced during the next planting season.
Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscape design.
10. Notwithstanding the submitted details, security lighting shall be infra red only.
Reason: to avoid interference with bats and other nocturnal animals.
BACKGROUND PAPERS
CONTACT
Case File DC/12/1113/FUL. Contact Development
Management, The Marina Centre, Lowestoft.
Richard Amor tel. 01502 523018 or
richard.amor@waveney.gov.uk
109