|
|
sw/13/0702 (3.1) - luddenham court, luddenham, faversham
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Derek Conway, Mike Henderson, Peter Marchington, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Peter Bell, Paul Gregory, Joanne Hammond and Graham Thomas.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Andrews (Clerk to Luddenham Parish Meeting), Mr Mathias (Agent), Mr Stevens and Mr Wilkinson (Heritage Consultant).
APOLOGY: Councillor Andy Booth.
|
|
|
sw/13/1202 (2.6) - land adj. south lees farm, lower road, minster-on-sea, sheerness
PRESENT: Councillor Barnicott (Chairman), Councillor Prescott (Vice-Chairman), Councillors Sylvia Bennett, Derek Conway, Mike Henderson, Peter Marchington, Ben Stokes, Ghlin Whelan and Tony Winckless.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Kellie Mackenzie and Jim Wilson.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Mr Holdcroft (Agent), Mr Illsley and Mr Arnold (Applicants), Miss Bounsall and Mr Robertson (supporters), Councillor Adrian Crowther, Mr Stanford, Mr Twiselton, Mr Parr and Mr Young (Minster Parish Council), Mr and Mrs Naden, Mr and Mrs Coward (objectors), Mr S Attwood and Mr J Attwood (local land owners) and Mr Goodwin (local land manager).
APOLOGY: Councillor Andy Booth.
|
|
496
|
sw/13/0702 (3.1) - luddenham court, luddenham, faversham
The Area Planning Officer introduced the application for an extension to an existing livestock building.
Mr Mathias explained the reason for the application, that it was proposed in the only logical place and that it comes down to impact upon the church. He observed that trees had recently been felled in the church yard.
Mr Wilkinson pointed out that the tomb stones were not normally visible because of the undergrowth in the church yard and said that despite being listed they were commonplace and in no way unusual. He described the history of the farm.
Mr Stevens made the following comments: the use of corrugated fencing was a material consideration and was unacceptable; it was a spectacular view across arable and marsh-land which would be compromised by the proposed structure; the Church was a Grade I Listed Building with a growing number of visitors; the proposal would impact on the neighbouring house; it would not solve the long-term farming issue; and it was the wrong solution to the problem.
The Conservation Officer made the following comments: the value of the Church as a Grade I Listed Building should not be under-estimated; the Church was currently in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust and was a tourist asset for the area, attracting thousands of visitors a year; the Church reflected many phases of history; the proposal could cause substantial harm to the setting of a building of such importance; other locations on the farm had been identified for the livestock building but had not been properly considered by the applicant; and a building to the north of the site would protect the view and move the building away from the Church.
Members asked questions regarding the fencing. The Area Planning Officer confirmed that planning permission would be required due to the proximity to a listed building; however, farmers could erect fencing under permitted development rights if there was an agricultural need.
Members then inspected the site with Officers.
|
|
497
|
sw/13/1202 (2.6) - land adj. south lees farm, lower road, minster-on-sea, sheerness
The Major Projects Officer explained that the application was for solar panels and associated works on approximately 19 hectares (47 acres) of land adjacent South Lees Farm, Lower Road, Minster-on-Sea, for a temporary period of 25 years. The Major Projects Officer explained that approximately 53,000 solar panels were to be erected and each would measure 2.2 metres in height and be covered with a non-reflective layer.
The Major Projects Officer reported that CCTV cameras were to be provided along with 2 metre high security fencing. In terms of landscaping, hedging and a substantial buffer on the southern and northern boundaries of the site would be provided. The Major Projects Officer explained that access to the site would be via the existing farm access to South Lees Farm from the Lower Road but that a temporary secondary access would be created, connecting the eastern site boundary to the Lower Road via the existing access to New Hook Farm, during construction of the solar panels and for a further three months.
The Major Projects Officer stated that the Government was supportive of renewable energy and drew attention to new guidance issued in July 2013 stating that suitably designed projects on low-grade agricultural ground should be supported as a matter of principle. The Major Projects Officer noted that the soil at the site was Grade 3b and therefore not best and most versatile soil.
The Major Projects Officer considered that there were no reasons to refuse the application on either landscape or visual amenity grounds. He noted that Natural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Kent County Council (KCC) Biodiversity Officer and KCC Highways all raised no objection, and as such that the development was considered to be acceptable in terms of ecological and highway safe/convenience.
Mr Holdcroft, the Agent, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that the site had been selected due to its topographical and existing vegetation and as it had no special site designations and would cause no significant visual material impact to the area. He explained that the scheme had evolved following a local consultation with letters sent to local residents prior to submission of the application. He stated that the panels would only be a maximum of 2.2 metres in height with no moving parts and considered that adequate screening would be provided. With regard to the ecology study he stated that breeding surveys had been carried out during the summer months and Natural England raised no objection.
Mr Stanford, representing Minster Parish Council, spoke against the proposal. He stated that whilst Minster Parish Council had no objection in principle to solar farms, they were concerned about the effect this particular proposal would have on the visual amenity of adjacent residents. They noted that the size of the solar farm was not 'set in stone', and queried why the infrastructure needed to be: so close to the dwellings concerned, and why not re-position it further away?; and so huge in the first place as to necessitate that proximity? Mr Stanford raised concerned that neither of these questions had been addressed and queried why maps and boundaries provided had changed several times and their exact position was still not clear.
Mr Stanford stated that Minster Parish Council considered that the only reasonable way forward was to defer the application until all parties could get a clear picture of the exact configuration of the site proposed and what the developers call 'topographical detail' and the reasons behind it and then re-consider the application on that basis.
Mr and Mrs Naden of Poors Farm, immediately adjacent to the proposed solar development, raised the following points: everything the applicants wanted to erect on this site, including the panels would be taller than the 2 metre fence; 55 acres of 52,800 solar panels, at 2.2m, 6 sub-stations at 4 m, plus other ancillary buildings, 6 CCTV poles, 200 metres apart, and 4 metres high; installation work would take place as soon as possible in the winter months and the proposed planting would not go in until autumn 2014; would leave the site looking messy; planting scheme would take many years to only partially disguise the development; the proposed planting would be totally inadequate for the best part of the 25 year term, with an expanse of 55 acres the site would always be visible from Poors Farm, which was confirmed in paragraph 5.130 of the latest planning submission where it states that the proposal would have a major adverse impact on Poors Farm; would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity and rural character of the area; landowner was originally responsible for removing all the hedgerows; query why this site which was immediately adjacent to private homes; Kent Police had confirmed that the site was high security risk, so would increase the risk to their property; The Old Rides Farm solar site consisted of 20,000 less panels, and was in a sheltered position and not adjacent to private homes; could be sited next to New Hook Farm which was the centre of a commercial farm; discrepancies in the drawings submitted stating that a topographical survey had not been undertaken and the design was subject to change discredited the whole of the application; the ornithological reports stated that birds tend not to use a sloping landscaping, so why put this on a flat site which would also allow natural drainage?; concern that they would not be able to commence work due to the ground being too wet; seek revision to the hours they are allowed to work, or carry on through the breeding season; concern that solar panels and other items would fly through the air during high winds; and discrepancies in the exact location of the site to Poors Farm.
Other local residents made further points which included: Natural England did not prepare the ecological survey and this needed to be looked into; piling would cause adverse noise implications and there would also be “buzzing†from the panels; access not suitable for the traffic proposed; 2.2 metre was higher than a 6 foot fence; would have an adverse impact on the local nature; boggy nature of the land would make it difficult to manage; would be able to view from the Sheppey Bridge; the Isle of Sheppey can not afford to lose any more agricultural land the proposal would make this a brownfield site; detrimental impact on endangered birds of prey; devaluation of local properties; adverse impact on a local bridle way; and would be a blot on the landscape.
In response to a query from a Member, the agent stated whilst not able to give an exact date when work would commence, construction would need to be completed by 31 March 2014.
The Chairman then toured the site with the Major Projects Officer.
|
