Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/14/00644/FUL Tel. No: 345786 Plot No: 2/3037&1562&3456&3274 Ctte Date: 23rd February 2015

ITEM 3

PROPOSED SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC FARM WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD FO 27 YEARS AT LAND TO THE WEST OF DUCKMANTON AND NORTH OF TOM LANE, CHESTERFIELD, DERBYSHIRE FOR RES UK & IRELAND LTD Local Plan: Open countryside and other open land Ward: Hollingwood and Inkersall 1.0 CONSULTATIONS

DCC Highways Referred on 22/09/2014 – response received dated 29/10/2014 – see report

DCC Planning Consulted on 17/09/2014 – response received dated 10/11/2014 stating DCC Officers were not able to provide comment due to their officer workload

DCC Archaeology Consulted on 26/09/2014 – response received dated 08/10/2014 – see report

DCC Rights of Way Consulted on 25/09/2014 – response received dated 25/09/2014 – see report

Environmental Services Consulted on 17/09/2014 – responses received dated 19/09/2014 – see report

Design Services Consulted on 17/09/2014 – response received dated 30/09/2014 – see report

Environment Agency Consulted on 17/09/2014 – response received dated 09/10/2014 raising no objections

Yorkshire Water Services Consulted on 17/09/2014 – response received dated 22/09/2014 stating their observation are not req’d as no public sewer

infrastructure is recorded to cross the site

North East Derbyshire DC Consulted on 17/09/2014 – no response received

Bolsover DC Consulted on 25/09/2014 – response received dated 14/10/2014 raising no objection in principle however concerns are raised about the visual impact assessment upon Bolsover Castle

English Heritage Consulted on 25/09/2014 – response received dated 30/09/2014 – see report

Derbyshire Wildlife Trust Consulted on 25/09/2014 – response received dated 02/12/2014 – see report

Natural England Consulted on 25/09/2014 – response received dated 30/09/2014 – see report

Coal Authority Consulted on 25/09/2014 – responses received dated 06/10/2014 and 05/11/2014 – see report

Ward Members Consulted on 16/09/2014 – no response received

Neighbours / Site Notice Two representations received

2.0 THE SITE 2.1 The site the subject of the application comprises of land at the

former Arkwright open cast mine, off Tom Lane Duckmanton. The majority of the open cast site has since been reclaimed and the fields specific to the application are currently utilised for arable farming. The site extends to approximately 19.5ha.

2.2 Access to the site is from Tom Lane to the south via a track which

originally served the open cast workings. The residential settlements of Duckmanton, Inkersall and Staveley / Poolsbrook are situated to the east, west, and north of the site respectively.

2.3 The M1 motorway is approximately 1km to the east of the proposal and links to Tom Lane via Markham Road. The A632 Chesterfield Road runs approximately 1.2km to the south and the Staveley Road/Inkersall Road runs approximately 450m to the west. In addition there are 400kW overhead transmission lines adjacent the west and north of the site towards Inkersall and Poolsbrook Country Park. Footpath 10 also runs alongside the eastern boundary and partially through the northern half of the application site from Tom Lane to Poolsbrook.

2.4 To the immediate west of the application site boundary stands an

85m high wind turbine, which became operational towards the end of 2014.

3.0 SITE HISTORY 3.1 CHE/14/00060/EIA - screening opinion under regulation 5 of the

town and country planning (EIA) regulations 2011 for the locating of a temporary (27 year period) solar voltaic farm capable of generating 6.5mw. Screening direction issued by LPA on 07/02/2014 confirming the proposals were not EIA development.

3.2 CHE/13/00420/FUL - installation of one (1) mid scale wind turbine

of maximum height to tip of 84m and including: upgraded and new access track, a hardstanding area, a small substation enclosure, temporary guyed meteorological mast and associated infrastructure. Approved conditionally on 19/11/2013.

3.3 North East Derbyshire DC - 14/00563/FL - Construction of 4.9 MW

Solar Farm with ancillary buildings, deer fence, cctv, access tracks and landscaping on land NE of Arkwright Town, Cherry Tree Farm, Chesterfield Road Duckmanton, Chesterfield, S44 5JG. Approved conditionally 11/09/2014 but not yet implemented.

4.0 THE PROPOSAL 4.1 The application as submitted details a proposed solar voltaic farm

comprising a 7-8MW PV module array. The proposals also detail incidental works including electrical control cabinets, embedded substations, areas of hardstanding for craneage, a grid connection building, cabling, site access and internal access tracks, fencing, cctv and infra red lighting system, a pyranometer mast and construction compound. The application seeks consent for a

period of 27 years, which allows for up to a year for construction; a 25 year operational period and up to a year thereafter for decommissioning.

4.2 The PV module array will be erected on a supporting racking

system and will cover an area approximately 12ha which will include spacing between the rows and perimeter. The PV modules (solar panels) will be typically 1m x 1.6m x 500mm thick and will be mounted to a maximum height above ground level of 2.5m. The array will be arranged in rows on an east / west axis across the site with the modules mounted 30 degrees from the horizontal facing south to maximise solar gain.

4.3 The installation will require up to 80 small electrical cabinets (1m x

1m x 500mm) which will be positioned near or underneath the array racking to house the cable system that gathers energy from the panels and inverters; and 6 embedded substations are also proposed which will house the transformers and inverters whose function converts DC to AC and up-rate voltage as required by the grid. The substations will be 9m x 3m x 3m.

4.4 The entire installation will be reliant upon various cabling which is

to be buried in trenching throughout the site. Trenching will be 1.5m deep and 600mm / 1.5m wide stretching between the array, cabinets, substations to the grid connection building and will contain DC and AC cables as well as communications cabling.

4.5 The grid connection building will house switch gear and metering

equipment and is located at the point of connection with the electricity grid (the southern end of the site). The building measures 12m x 6m x 4.5m.

4.6 The proposals will be served by the existing highway access point

off Tom Lane and the access track will be upgraded in part by the laying of compacted stone and a geotextile grid. In addition 6 no. hardstanding areas will be formed adjacent each embedded substation measuring 12m x 12m to allow for craneage.

4.7 The site boundary will be secured by 2m high deer fencing which

will be sited within field boundaries and a CCTV system (with infra red lighting) will be installed comprising 15 no. 3.5m high columns. The installation also comprises the siting of a pyranometer mast

which is a 3m high lattice mast which supports equipment to measure irradiation levels on site.

4.8 The application is supported by the submission of the following

documentation: Planning Application Drawing Schedule Planning Statement Design and Access Statement Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (inc. Visuals) Flood Risk Assessment Heritage Statement Statement of Community Involvement Phase I Habitat Survey 4.9 Additional information was submitted by the applicant on

06/01/2015 which comprised: Revised Heritage Statement (further updated on 20/01/2015) Site Selection Appraisal Revised Infrastructure Layout Revised Landscape Mitigation Strategy Schedule of Clarifications 5.0 CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 National/Local Planning Policy 5.1.1 The application site is situated on open countryside / other open

land as defined in the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 - 2031. Having regard the nature of the application proposals the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Policy Guidance (NPPF and PPG); and Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy apply.

5.1.2 The NPPF (paragraph 98) directs that when determining planning

applications for renewable energy development, Local Planning Authorities should:

not require applicants for renewable 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, LPAs 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 sites.

5.1.3 Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy states the Council will support

proposals for renewable energy generation particularly where they have wider social, economic and environmental benefits, provided that they:

minimise adverse impact on the historic environment including designated heritage assets;

minimise adverse impact on the natural landscape and townscape character;

minimise adverse impact on nature conservation;

minimise adverse impact on amenity - in particular through noise, dust, odour and traffic generation;

reduce impact on the open countryside by locating distribution lines below ground where possible; and

include provision to reinstate the site if the equipment is no longer in use or has been decommissioned.

5.1.4 Renewable energy developments are widely accepted and solely

having regard to the location of the solar farm being proposed, the principle of the development in policy terms is acceptable. Detailed assessment of the local potential impacts of the development must however be considered and in this regard the sections of the report that follow look at each issue in turn.

5.1.5 In addition to the policy framework set out above regard should

also be had to guidance issued by the Government in respect of the assessment of renewable energy proposals which accompany the NPPF: National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure - July 2011 (NPS EN-3); and the latest Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy – March 2014 (PPG).

5.1.6 The PPG above sets out clearly what the planning considerations

are in respect of large scale ground mounted solar farm proposals. Particular factors which the LPA are required to consider include the previous land use and any adverse impact arising from the loss of the use of the land for its current use; visual impact (including the effect on the landscape as a result of glint / glare; neighbouring uses and aircraft safety); the extent of impact if the installation

follows the movement of the sun; the need for security measures; the impact of any nearby heritage asset; the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts; the energy generating potential; and the fact solar farms are usually temporary structures and planning conditions can be used to ensure appropriate decommissioning and land use restoration.

5.1.7 Based on the considerations set out above policies CS2, CS9,

CS18 and CS19 of the Core Strategy and saved policy EVR2 of the Local Plan would also apply and these specific issues are addressed in the relevant sections below.

5.2 Principle of Development 5.2.1 Government policy is clearly to focus large scale solar renewable

energy installations on brownfield or non agricultural land and this was reaffirmed in the letter from Greg Barker to LPAs in April 2014 “…the main message from the Strategy is that we are keen to focus growth of solar PV in the UK on domestic and commercial roof space and on previously-used land.”. The NPPF para. 111 requires that planning decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land which has previously been developed and the emphasis on previously developed land is also evident in policy CS2 of the Core Strategy.

5.2.2 Having regard to the above the PPG requirement to consider

‘whether the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary’ suggests adopting a sequential approach, a view taken by an Inspector in a recent planning appeal decision for a large solar farm (APP/D3505/A/13/2204846). In association with this approach the developer has submitted a Site Selection Appraisal (SSA), which sets out the developers approach to site selection including sequential assessment of the development site against preferable brownfield / previously developed land.

5.2.3 The SSA sets out how a partnership between the developer and a

UK wide land owner primarily informed the identification of the site the subject of this particular application; however as requested by the LPA the developer has resultantly appraised several alternative brownfield / previously developed sites against their selection criteria. The conclusions of the SSA inform the decision of the developer that the application site, albeit greenfield, is low grade

agricultural land and therefore is sequentially preferable given its balance against other material considerations.

5.2.4 In respect of the approach taken by the developer above it is

accepted that simply by site area identifying a previously developed site that could accommodate a 7-8MW solar PV array is restrictive and this led the developer to appraise several sites that are already allocated in the Core Strategy for employment led development (Staveley Works, Markham Vale and Hartington Tip). Whilst physically able to accommodate the development, each of these sites either hold a current live planning permission for employment let development or in the case of Staveley Works are the subject of a large scale regeneration proposal which would not be compatible with a large scale solar farm. It is considered that the developer has demonstrated an appropriate sequential site selection appraisal and that on balance the identification of low grade agricultural land for this particular proposal is acceptable given the resulting loss of employment led development land if these proposals were to be sited on previously developed land within the Borough.

5.2.5 The site the subject of the application is land allocated as open

countryside and saved policy EVR2 of the Local Plan 2006 protects this designation through the Core Strategy transition. In respect of policy EVR2 of the Local Plan and policy CS5 of the Core Strategy the proposals would be viewed as rural diversification and therefore the principle of this type of development is considered to be acceptable. Furthermore policy CS5 explicitly supports renewable energy development subject to detailed assessment of other material considerations, and these criteria are addressed individually in the report below.

5.3 Landscape/Visual Impact 5.3.1 PPG guidance clearly sets out how cumulative landscape and

visual impacts should be assessed acknowledging that in case of solar farms this is likely to be the same as assessing the impact of wind turbines. The PGG does however comment that in the case of ground mounted solar panels with effective screening and appropriate land topography the area of a zone of visual influence would be zero.

5.3.2 In respect of the guidance issued in PPG the application submission is supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (prepared by LDA Design dated July 2014).

5.3.3 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been

prepared based upon a 1, 2, 3 and 4km radius of the application site. Presentation of the visual analysis comprises of figures illustrating the Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV); the Public RofW and Local Policy Context; Topography and Viewpoints; Landscape Character; and a Cumulative ZTV with the consented Solar Farm at Cherry Tree Farm (NEDDC). The LVIA also includes an illustrative Landscape Mitigation Strategy and Photomontages from eight viewpoints surrounding the application site.

5.3.4 The landscape in which the proposals are to be sited is that of

open countryside situated between the built settlements of Duckmanton, Inkersall and Arkwright. Associated features in the surrounding area include farm houses and agricultural buildings, woodland, a river channel environment, a public footway; as well as man made features such as telecommunications masts, street lighting, electricity pylons/overhead lines and more recently a wind turbine.

5.3.5 There is no doubt that the site is visible from public viewpoints over

relatively short distances, however it is not considered that the development will be unduly prominent in the landscape. Unlike the wind turbine, which punctuates the skyline, the proposed solar farm arrays will only stand 2.5m high and therefore intervening settlements and woodlands / hedgerows help to minimise ZTV. It is accepted that the application site is spread across several agricultural fields which slope towards the river corridor running west of the site boundary and from distance views the undulating landscape character will mean there is likely to be views of the solar farm in the round. The ZTV submitted also illustrates that if the consented solar farm located on the edge of the North East Derbyshire DC boundary (see section 3.3 above) is built there will be locations within the Borough where both installations would be visible.

5.3.6 It is acknowledged that the introduction of a solar farm has the

potential to have both a landscape impact and a visual impact. The physical appearance of the solar farm arrays and associated development will be immediately visible on a localised level and

this will be different to that of an arable crop field, albeit grass and wildflower may grow between the array frames. Furthermore beyond the localised impact the distant appearance of the face of the solar arrays will be different to that experienced of an arable field particularly as the appearance changes periodically with an arable crop process (ploughed, sowed, flowering crop etc). In stark comparison the face of a solar array will remain physically constant and a discordant grey colour which is distinctly different to the landscape surrounding it. It is also necessary to acknowledge the effect of reflective glint and/or glare from the PV array surface which is unlikely to be experienced from an arable field (unless the crop is covered or there are poly tunnels).

5.3.7 Notwithstanding the above it is considered that the conclusions of

the LVIA are supported and beyond a localised visual impact the visual effect of the proposed solar farm will not detract significantly from visual amenity such that permission could be refused on these grounds. Accordingly the proposals are considered to support the provisions of policy CS2, CS9 and CS18 of the Core Strategy and are acceptable.

5.4 Heritage 5.4.1 PPG guidance indicates that because the significance of a

heritage asset derives not only from its physical presence but also from its setting careful consideration should be given to the impact of any development proposal on such assets.

5.4.2 In accordance with the PPG guidelines above the application is

accompanied by the submission of a Heritage Assessment undertaken by CgMs Consulting dated December 2014 and therefore the Council has sought the views of English Heritage and DCC Archaeology on the Heritage Assessment presented with the application submission.

5.4.3 There are no recorded heritage assets within the application site

boundary however the accompanying Heritage Assessment identifies there to be 3 no. grade II listed buildings located within 1km of the application site; and beyond the Heritage Assessment also identifies the presence of 2 no. grade I listed buildings within 5km. The accompanying Heritage Assessment concludes that the development proposed will have no direct impacts on any designated heritage assets detailed above. Furthermore the

application is accompanied by detailed visual assessments of the proposals from both Bolsover Castle and Sutton Scarsdale Hall in the LVIA.

5.4.4 In respect of the above the LVIA clearly illustrates that the

proposals will not be visible from Bolsover Castle and therefore there are no concerns raised from either DCC Archaeology or English Heritage in relation to this asset. In relation to Sutton Scarsdale Hall the LVIA shows that the proposals will be visible from this asset, furthermore the LVIA indicates that the proposals will have a cumulative impact upon this heritage asset setting due to fact that a solar farm has already been approved by North East Derbyshire DC on land north east of Arkwright (see 3.3 above) which lies within 1km of the application site. The applicant has provided revisions and updates to both the Heritage Assessment and LVIA Figures to meet requests of both DCC Archaeology and English Heritage as the neighbouring solar farm is yet to be implemented making its identification on the LVIA photomontages difficult. The conclusions and advice reached by English Heritage (and concurred by DCC Archaeology) following receipt of these revisions was as follows: ‘We think there is an issue in the erosion of the wider rural surroundings to the Sutton Scarsdale Hall (which have always historically formed its surroundings), its designed landscape and the conservation area, and there is certainly not unlimited scope for development of the agricultural land on the horizon. Thus it will be important for Chesterfield Borough Council to consider the cumulative impact with the solar farms that have already been consented by North East Derbyshire. Looking at the impact of this solar farm on the significance of Sutton Scarsdale we believe that any harm is less than substantial and to the lower end of that. However any harm requires a clear and convincing justification and must be weighed against the public benefits associated with the proposals (para 134 of the NPPF) - thus it is for the decision maker to carry out that balancing exercise in this case. I hope this advice is of use to Chesterfield Borough Council in determining this case.’

5.4.5 Having regard to the advice given by English Heritage above in

this instance it is first and foremost observed that the development proposed will not threaten the existence of the grade I listed

building itself therefore in weighing the balance of harm against other material considerations it becomes necessary to define what would be considered to constitute ‘substantial’ harm to the setting of the grade I listed building.

5.4.6 Substantial harm to the setting of a listed building might include

any type of development which would permanently changed the prevailing character and appearance of the landscape and setting in which the heritage asset exists. This might include redevelopment of the areas surrounding the building for housing for example, where the character of the setting would be permanently changed by the introduction of a new housing estate. It might also include the introduction of a feature within the landscape which changes the visual experience or enjoyment of the heritage asset to a point where the building itself is no longer appreciated because of the visual intrusion of something else, for example the M1 motorway, a wind turbine or indeed a solar farm.

5.4.7 In order to fully appreciate the context in which the comments of

English Heritage are based the site of Sutton Scarsdale Hall was visited by the Case Officer and Councils Conservation Officer. The conclusions of this visit were that the setting of the listed building the subject of this discussion has quite significantly changed by the introduction of the M1 motorway, the previous opencast works which took place in and around Arkwright and Duckmanton, and various other modern urban extensions and farming development. It is however quite clear that these works were not prevented from taking place simply by the fact they would for a time change the setting of any nearby listed buildings.

5.4.8 It has to be accepted that the character and use of a listed

buildings setting is ever evolving and it is an entirely unsustainable view to consider that just because a development will feature in the setting of a listed building that has not yet been experienced, it will contribute harm that would justify refusal of planning permission. Indeed it is advised by English Heritage that in their view the visual impact of the proposed solar farm is on the lower end of being less than substantial, and therefore it is necessary to consider the provisions of para. 134 of the NPPF whereby the public benefits of the proposal should be weighed against the impact.

5.4.9 In respect of the impact upon the surrounding grade I listed

buildings overall there is a considerable distance (3.7 km) between

the solar farm proposals and Sutton Scarsdale, meaning it is unlikely that there would be any meaningful visual relationship between the solar farms and heritage asset. The undulating nature of the landscape means that significant areas of both solar farms would be hidden from view at Sutton Scarsdale, obscured by existing development or various elements of the landscape (trees, hedgerows, etc) and furthermore given the existing levels of development in the landscape, the impacts do not represent new intrusions into a pristine rural landscape, rather the impacts would be minimal and cumulative. Furthermore the solar farm is a temporary feature which can be removed in the future and the land reinstated to agriculture. There are no issues in respect of the impact upon Bolsover Castle.

5.4.10 Having regard to a more localised heritage impact it is noted that

the proposed solar farm lies within 1km of three grade II listed buildings, which are all farmhouses sited on the periphery of Duckmanton / Long Duckmanton and west towards Inkersall. The LVIA submitted illustrates that neither Inkersall Farm nor Cherry Tree Farm will view the proposed solar farm due to the presence of intervening landscape features and the undulating landscape topography, furthermore the LVIA illustrates Poplar Farm will also only view the upper frames of the arrays and not full ground level.

5.4.11 Having regard to the above it is accepted that the solar farm will

feature in a predominantly agricultural landscape and therefore its visual presence will have some impact upon the setting of these surrounding properties given their historic use and probable former association with this application site. Notwithstanding this in a similar manner to the considerations applied in respect of Sutton Scarsdale and due to the limited intervisibility in respect of these properties it is unlikely that there would be any meaningful visual relationship between the solar farms and the heritage assets. Any visual impact could only be categorised as less than substantial and only minor in this case.

5.4.12 In conclusion having regard to the principles of policy CS5 of the

Core Strategy and the wider NPPF the impact upon the historic environment is minimal and accordingly the proposals are considered to be acceptable.

5.5 Highways/Rights of Way 5.5.1 The application site is served by a dedicated junction and gated

metalled track which leads directly off Tom Lane. The application proposals illustrate that the Solar PV Arrays will be positioned in fields both east and west of this metalled track alignment, clear of the adopted highway.

5.5.2 The Local Highways Authority has reviewed the application

proposals and has offered the following observations:

‘It is noted that a valid planning application exists for a wind turbine on a plot of land adjacent to this application site which would utilise the same access.

Given its previous use, the access is considered suitable to accommodate the vehicular movements anticipated.

The access route is also considered acceptable although a photographic survey is recommended prior to any works commencing to record the current condition of the road. Any damage attributable to the works in question will be required to be rectified by the applicant.

It is recommended that the following conditions be included in any consent: 1. Prior to any works commencing, a photographic survey of

Tom Lane (and Staveley Road if considered appropriate) shall be undertaken by the developer in conjunction with a representative of Derbyshire County Council. The developer will be responsible for rectifying any damage attributable to the development.

2. Space shall be provided within the site curtilage for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles likely to require access to the site to enable them to enter and exit in a forward gear (thereafter maintained free from any impediment).

3. The vehicular route to the site for construction traffic will be as specified in the Design & Access Statement (ie from M1 junction 29A, A632, Staveley Road and Tom Lane).’

5.5.3 Having regard to the comments of the LHA above it is not

considered that the development proposals pose any threat to highway safety or raise any adverse highway issues. The comments from the LHA in respect of their request for a photographic survey of Tom Lane and a consequential requirement of the developer to repair any damage to highway is

considered entirely unreasonable. The LHA did not make a similar request when they commented and subsequently accepted the construction strategy on the recent wind turbine development on the application site adjacent. Furthermore Tom Lane is an adopted highway open to all traffic and therefore without 24/7 monitoring throughout the entire construction phase of the proposals it would impossible to prove any damage to the highway has been caused by traffic solely connected with the development proposals and not by another unconnected highway user. It is further questioned whether the LHA would have been prepared to fix any current damage to Tom Lane prior to any development commencing to enable them to prove damage was not simply a result of exposure and wear and tear. A condition to this effect is neither reasonable nor enforceable and therefore cannot be imposed.

5.5.4 In respect of the other suggested conditions from the LHA these

are considered reasonable and appropriate conditions can be imposed, if development is permitted, accordingly. Section 7.0 of the D&AS details access arrangements and anticipated construction traffic movements associated with the development. A total of 1022 vehicle movements are estimated during construction and it is indicated that beyond that ongoing maintenance traffic will be limited to 3 monthly site inspections, 6 monthly panel cleaning and occasional replacement of any failed components. There is however no details of the estimated construction phase duration and therefore it is considered necessary to seek this project timescale to be agreed in full with the LPA and LHA by pre-commencement condition. Subject to these details being agreed the development proposals can be suitably access and do not give rise to any adverse highway safety concerns, accordingly the development proposals accord with the requirements of policy CS20 of the Core Strategy in this respect.

5.5.5 In addition to the comments of the LHA above, the application site

is also affected by the alignment of a public right of way and accordingly comments have been sought from the Public Rights of Way Officer at Derbyshire County Council who has responded as follows:

‘I have checked the Definitive Map for the Staveley Urban District and can advise that Staveley Footpath No 10 abuts the Eastern

boundary of the site and crosses the site toward its North East corner outlined as shown in red on the site layout plan. An extract from the Working Copy of the Definitive Map is attached and I should be grateful if you would make the applicant aware of the legal alignment of the path. The Rights of Way Section has no objection to the proposal as it does not appear to adversely affect the route, however the applicant should be advised as follows:-

The route must remain open, unobstructed and on its legal alignment at all times.

There should be no disturbance to the surface of the path without prior authorisation from Michelle Sergeant, the Rights of Way Inspector for the area.

Consideration should be given to members of the public using the path at all times.

A temporary closure of the footpath may be granted to facilitate public safety during the construction phase subject to certain conditions. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Rights of Way Section.

If a structure is to be erected adjacent to the public footpath, it should be installed within the site boundary so that the width of the right of way is not encroached upon.

Please note that the granting of planning permission is not consent to divert or obstruct a public right of way

If a right of way is required to be permanently diverted then the Council that determines the planning application has the necessary powers to make a diversion order.

To avoid delays where there is reasonable expectation that planning permission will be forthcoming, the proposals for any permanent stopping up or diversion of a public right of way can be considered concurrently with the application for proposed development rather than await the granting of permission.

I can confirm that at today’s date, no applications which affect the site have been received under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This information is provided without prejudice to any claimed rights, which might subsequently be proven to exist under Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.’

5.5.6 Having regard to the comments from the PRofW Officer above the

application site layout was amended to ensure the development did not affect the legal alignment of Staveley Footpath 10 and both the solar PV arrays and security fencing were very slightly revised

to this affect and resubmitted with the package of amendments dated 06/01/2015. Whilst the applicant has been made aware of the comments made by the PRofW Officer an advisory note can be appended to the final decision, if permission if granted, to ensure any subsequent developer is aware of the observations and any legal implications arising.

5.6 Ecology 5.6.1 Having regard to siting and land uses characteristics of the

application site an ecological presence and / or interest may exist which could potentially be effected as a result of its redevelopment for the purposes the subject of this application. To this effect the application submission is accompanied by an Extended Phase I Habitat Survey undertaken by BSG Ecology dated July 2014.

5.6.2 In respect of the above the Council sought the views of both

Natural England (NE) and the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust (DWT) on the Habitat Survey presented with the application submission which has informed consideration of the developments potential impacts upon ecology and biodiversity as required by policy CS9 of the Core Strategy.

5.6.3 Comments from NE in respect of Statutory Conservation Sites

raise no objections and furthermore NE guide the LPA to apply their standing advice in respect of assessing the potential impact of the development proposals upon protected species. NE further comment that the proposals may provide opportunities to incorporate biodiversity and landscape enhancements and in accordance with the NPPF these should be considered.

5.6.4 In the context of the comment from NE above the Council has a

service level agreement with DWT requiring them to review and advise the Council specifically on any ecological issues arising as a result of development proposals and this includes guiding the LPA on matters relating to protected species (see NE comment above). DWT comment that the scope of the Habitat Survey was informed by an appropriate Desk Top Study and they concur with the survey observations that given the grazed or arable cropped nature of the application site fields there is unlikely to be any protected species or ground nesting birds affected by the development proposals. In a similar manner to NE above DWT recommend that there is an opportunity to require the development

to contribute biodiversity benefits in line with the NPPF; furthermore whilst the DWT accept the site will need to be secured the perimeter fence design is of concern as it does not for allow small mammal movements. The comments from DWT recommend that the development proposals are accepted alongside an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Plan and a revised perimeter fence design, both of which can be the subject of pre-commencement conditional approval, if permission is given.

5.6.5 Having regard to the comments and advice given above it is not

considered that the proposals pose an adverse threat to ecology or biodiversity and accordingly subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions which secure a biodiversity enhancement plan and revised perimeter fence design the proposal development is considered to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of policy CS9 of the Core Strategy and the wider NPPF.

5.7 Other Issues 5.7.1 Drainage 5.7.1.1 Having regard to drainage and flood risk matters the application

submission is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) undertaken by ARCUS dated June 2014. The FRA assesses the potential for the development proposals to contribute to an increase in surface water run off from the site or down stream flooding, given the site is greenfield. The proposals include the creation of several areas of hardstanding and therefore there is some potential, without inclusion of a suitable drainage strategy, for increased run off from the site. The accompanying FRA has therefore been prepared to demonstrate how these issues are to be addressed in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.

5.7.1.2 Having regard to the above the FRA has been reviewed by both

the Environment Agency (EA) and the Councils Design Services (DS) team. The EA responded raising no objections to the application proposals.

5.7.1.3 The DS team have responded commenting that the

recommendations of the FRA are acceptable in principle and advise that percolation tests should be undertaken on site to prove

the drainage infiltration techniques proposed are suitable. The DS team request that these test results accompany a detailed drainage strategy based upon the recommendations of the FRA which should be sought by pre-commencement planning condition, if permission is granted. It is confirmed that in accordance with policy CS7 and the NPPF a suitable condition can be imposed to meet these requirements.

5.7.2 Noise 5.7.2.1 The application proposals, albeit located on the edge of the

settlement boundary of Duckmanton, include the installation of site transformers and generators which could be a source of noise. The Councils Environmental Services (ES) team have reviewed the application proposals accordingly and have requested that further information is provided about all sources of noise and the sound output produced by the electrical equipment.

5.7.2.2 Having regard to the comments of the ES team above it is noted

that the development is reliant upon switchgear, transformers, invertors and metering equipment which are all detailed to be located securely in 6 embedded substation buildings and a grid connection building. Accordingly it is unlikely any noise output form this equipment will impact upon the amenity of any nearby residential properties, particularly given the fact a bench mark noise output from the neighbouring wind turbine has already been deemed acceptable.

5.7.2.3 Notwithstanding the above, it is considered appropriate to require

the submission of further details of the sound output from the equipment to ensure any resulting noise levels are agreed and can be monitored, if this is considered necessary. Accordingly an appropriate planning condition can be imposed, if permission is granted, to this effect in the interests of protecting amenity in accordance with policies CS2 and CS18 of the Core Strategy.

5.7.3 Land Stability 5.7.3.1 In respect of the potential issue of land stability the application site

lies within the Coal Authority’s Referral Area, as a site potentially at risk from unrecorded coal mining legacy and accordingly the Coal Authority (CA) were consulted on the application proposals.

5.7.3.2 Albeit the CA originally objected to the application proposals (given the absence of a Coal Mining Risk Assessment being submitted) their objections were subsequently withdrawn. The applicant was able to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the CA that the site and the development proposals did not pose a risk to land stability. In their second no objection response the CA sought that an advisory note be appended to any decision, if permission is granted, to appropriately address any coal mining issues through building regulations.

5.7.4 Residential Amenity 5.7.4.1 There are residential properties based in the adjacent settlements

of Duckmanton and Inkersall, in addition to several large detached farmhouses spread around the site of the proposals and it is possible that the proposals will be visible to properties located on the edges of these settlements as illustrated in the LVIA.

5.7.4.2 There are significant soft landscaped features (hedgerows / self

set woodland / river corridors) running alongside all of the boundaries of the application site, and where these are absent (the northern edge) they are proposed to be improved / enhanced by a landscaping scheme. It is not considered that the proposals will dominate the outlook or amenity of any of the surrounding residential properties.

5.7.4.3 It is possible that there would be some disturbance caused to

nearby residential properties due to the comings and goings of vehicles associated with the development however this disturbance is likely to be at its worst during the construction period, which would be for a relatively short period of time. Once the development is operational there would be minimal traffic movements therefore it is considered that the impact of traffic movements an residential amenity would not be significant.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 8 x site notices posted on 25/09/2014 and advertisement placed in

the local press on 25/09/2014. Two representations received as follows:

The Bungalow, Duckmanton Road

We are writing in support of the Solar Panel farm. We live at the top of Tom Lane, one of the nearest residents to the planned site;

We are in support of clean, green energy from renewable source; We recently went on holiday to Devon where we saw field after

field on these and do not think they are ugly – they are just different; Apart from the energy created another benefit is that animals can graze underneath them including wildlife; We seem to be edging nearer a fuel crisis and we are encourage to use low energy appliances etc so the sooner we produce our own electricity the better, not just for now but for the future; It is encouraging to read the DT article about this proposal and out of all the people who took the time to attend the Presentation in March 2014 80% of people were in support; and

We wish it success and hope CBC will pass it. Noted. Linda Harrison by email

Enquired when work on the proposal would commence if planning was passed as she currently rents the field to keep her horses and need to look for alternative land.

The case officer responded to this enquiry advising that if

consent were granted the developer would have up to three years to commence works and therefore they should contact the land owner for further clarification pending the application outcome.

7.0 HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 7.1 Under the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force on 2nd

October 2000, an authority must be in a position to show:

Its action is in accordance with clearly established law

The objective is sufficiently important to justify the action taken

The decisions taken are objective and not irrational or arbitrary

The methods used are no more than are necessary to accomplish the legitimate objective

The interference impairs as little as possible the right or freedom

7.2 It is considered that the recommendation is objective and in accordance with clearly established law.

7.3 The recommended conditions are considered to be no more than

necessary to control details of the development in the interests of amenity and public safety and which interfere as little as possible with the rights of the applicant.

7.4 Whilst, in the opinion of the objector, the development affects their

amenities, it is not considered that this is harmful in planning terms, such that any additional control to satisfy those concerns would go beyond that necessary to accomplish satisfactory planning control

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Nationally renewable energy developments are strongly supported

and the Council has a clear commitment to addressing climate change, as set out in the principles of Policy CS5 of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 – 2031. Where it is considered that proposed renewable energy generation developments meet the criteria of Policy CS5, the policy is explicit in stating the Council will support these developments.

8.2 Having regard for all of the material considerations which have

been set out and considered in this report it is concluded that the benefits of the development in so far as the provision of renewable energy and a reduction in carbon emissions amount to circumstances which outweigh the minor / less than substantial landscape and visual impacts of the development such that it is recommended planning permission be granted. Overall it is considered that the proposals accord with the provisions of policies CS2, CS5, CS9, CS18 and CS19 of the Chesterfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2011 – 2031 and the wider National Planning Policy Framework and are therefore acceptable.

9.0 STATEMENT OF POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE WORKING WITH

APPLICANT 9.1 The following is a statement on how the Local Planning Authority

(LPA) has adhered to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 in respect of decision making in

line with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

9.2 Given that the proposed development does not conflict with the

NPPF or with ‘up-to-date’ Development Plan policies, it is considered to be ‘sustainable development’ and there is a presumption on the LPA to seek to approve the application. The LPA has used conditions to deal with outstanding issues with the development and has been sufficiently proactive and positive in proportion to the nature and scale of the development applied for.

9.3 The applicant/agent and any objector will be provided with copy of

this report informing them of the application considerations and recommendation/conclusion.

10.0 RECOMMENDATION 10.1 It is therefore recommended that the application be approved

subject to the following:

Conditions

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

The condition is imposed in accordance with section 51 of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004.

02. All external dimensions and elevational treatments shall be

as shown on the approved plans, 03236D2202-01, 03236D2215-01, 03236D2207-01, 03236D2212-02 Sheet 1, 03236D2212-02 Sheet 2, 03236D2203-03, 03236D2206-01, 03236D2201-02 and 03009D1001-07, with the exception of any approved non material amendment.

In order to clarify the extent of the planning permission in the light of guidance set out in "Greater Flexibility for planning permissions" by CLG November 2009.

03. The planning permission is granted for a period of 27 years

from the commencement of the solar farm development. Not less than 12 months from the expiry of the 27 years or on cessation of electricity generation on site (whichever is

sooner) details of the removal of the array and associated equipment; the restoration of the land to agricultural use; and the phasing of works shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / approval. Not less than 6 months from the expiry of the 27 years or on cessation of electricity on site (whichever is sooner) all development hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to agricultural land in accordance with the approved scheme.

In the interests of visual amenity and the amenities of nearby residential properties.

04. Development shall not commence on the solar farm until details of

a biodiversity enhancement plan and landscaping scheme have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval. The scheme shall take account of the recommendations of the Habitat Survey submitted with the application and shall include an amended perimeter fence design which will allow for the movement of small mammals through the application site. Only those details which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out on site in accordance with an approved timetable.

The condition is imposed in order to enhance the appearance of the development and in the interests of the area as a whole.

05. If, within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any

tree or plant, that tree or plant, or any tree or plant planted as a replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, or becomes, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place.

The condition is imposed in order to enhance the appearance of the development and in the interests of the area as a whole.

06. Development shall not commence on the solar farm until a full

Drainage Strategy prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by ARCUS June 2014 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Percolation test results shall

accompany the Strategy to demonstrate any infiltration techniques necessary to adhere to the recommendations of the FRA are suitable. Only those details which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out on site.

To ensure that the development can be properly drained and in the interest of satisfactory and sustainable drainage.

07. Prior to their installation details of the operating noise output levels

from any of the switchgear, transformers, invertors and metering equipment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only those details which receive the written approval of the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out on site. Thereafter during the operational phase of the development, the noise emanating from works or machinery for operation of the solar farm shall be no more than 35dB LA90, when measured* or calculated at a point 1 metre from the boundary of any non-related residential property. * This level does not need to be measured if the generated noise is deemed inaudible at the boundary of any non-related property during any period of the day or night.

In the interests of amenity of nearby neighbouring properties.

08. Development shall not commence on the solar farm until details of

the materials / finishes to be used in the construction the embedded substation buildings and grid connection building have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval. The building shall only be constructed in accordance with the details agreed.

In the interests of visual amenity.

09. Development shall not commence on the solar farm until details of

all construction activities, method of working and timings have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration / written approval. Development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

In the interests of highway safety.

10. No development shall take place until space is provided within the

site curtilage, for site accommodation, storage of plant and

materials, parking and manoeuvring of site operative's and visitor's vehicles together with the loading/unloading and manoeuvring of goods vehicles. The space shall be constructed and laid out to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear, in surface materials suitable for use in inclement weather and maintained free from impediment throughout the duration of construction works.

In the interests of highway safety.

11. All electricity cables shall be installed below ground.

In the interests of visual amenity.

Notes

01. If work is carried out other than in complete accordance with the

approved plans, the whole development may be rendered unauthorised, as it will not have the benefit of the original planning permission. Any proposed amendments to that which is approved will require the submission of a further application.

02. This approval contains condition/s which make requirements prior

to development commencing. Failure to comply with such conditions will render the development unauthorised in its entirety, liable to enforcement action and will require the submission of a further application for planning permission in full.

03. The proposed development lies within an area that has been

defined by The Coal Authority as containing potential hazards arising from former coal mining activity. These hazards can include: mine entries (shafts and adits); shallow coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and previous surface mining sites. Although such hazards are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur in the future, particularly as a result of development taking place. It is recommended that information outlining how the former mining activities affect the proposed development, along with any mitigation measures required (for example the need for gas protection measures within the foundations), be submitted alongside any subsequent application for Building Regulations approval (if relevant). Your attention is drawn to the Coal Authority

policy in relation to new development and mine entries available at www.coal.decc.gov.uk Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) requires the prior written permission of The Coal Authority. Such activities could include site investigation boreholes, digging of foundations, piling activities, other ground works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine entries for ground stability purposes. Failure to obtain Coal Authority permission for such activities is trespass, with the potential for court action. Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Service at www.groundstability.com If any of the coal mining features are unexpectedly encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 0845 762 6848. Further information is available on The Coal Authority website www.coal.decc.gov.uk

04. Staveley Footpath No 10 abuts the Eastern boundary of the

application site and crosses the site toward its North East corner outlined as shown in red on the site layout plan. The applicant is therefore advised of the following: o The route must remain open, unobstructed and on its legal

alignment at all times. o There should be no disturbance to the surface of the path

without prior authorisation from Michelle Sergeant, the Rights of Way Inspector for the area.

o Consideration should be given to members of the public using the path at all times.

o A temporary closure of the footpath may be granted to facilitate public safety during the construction phase subject to certain conditions. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Rights of Way Section.

o If a structure is to be erected adjacent to the public footpath, it should be installed within the site boundary so that the width of the right of way is not encroached upon.

o Please note that the granting of planning permission is not consent to divert or obstruct a public right of way

o If a right of way is required to be permanently diverted then the Council that determines the planning application has the necessary powers to make a diversion order.