Agenda item
24/02033/FUL Bridge House, Bridge Street, Shilton
Minutes:
James Nelson, Principal Planner presented the application for photovoltaic solar panel installation comprising of 42 panels on the roof of the spa building and 120 ground mounted panels.
The Principal Planner thanked Members for attending the site visit and gave an overview of the visit.
The Principal Planner’s presentation addressed the following points:
- The application site was to the east of Bridge House and included a pool house and gym, with paddock accessed by a gate to the existing field.
- The application had been deferred for a site visit.
- Bridge House, a Grade II building, was situated within the Shilton Conservation Area.
- The merits of the application were met in Local Plan policies OS3 and EH6 which supported renewable energy sources and highlighted the climate and ecological emergency.
- The Principal Planner presented a slide from Historic England which referred to the mounting of solar panels to listed buildings, surrounding areas and potential impacts. The use of hedgerow screening would shield the view of the solar panels and reduce the impact.
- It was considered that the installation of the solar panels would have a limited urbanising effect. The solar panels and infrastructure would be removed once the use had finished.
- The heritage harms were considered low and were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.
- The officer recommendation was for approval subject to the ecologist report.
The Chair then invited the Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised the following points:
· The Members found the site visit useful as it gave a clarification on the site lay out and clarified where the solar panels would be situated both on the roof and within the paddock.
· The Members asked for clarification on the type of planting to be used for the hedgerows and how this would link to biodiversity net gain. The Principal Planning officer confirmed that the hedgerow planting would be a key consideration and condition 4 in the report would cover this, to safeguard the character and landscape of the area.
· The Members asked for clarification on which way the solar panels would face. The Principal Planner confirmed that the solar panels placed in the paddock would be south facing and the solar panels on the roof would be southwest facing. Members asked if this would have an impact on the character of the village, it was clarified that the proposed planting would act as a screen.
· Members raised concerns that the application was in Shilton Conservation area. The Principal Planner explained that the NPPF gave guidance for owners of historic buildings to enable the use of solar panels with the least impact on the historic building.
· Members raised concerns around the impacts of “Glint and Glare” from the solar panels and neighbouring properties. The Principal Planner confirmed that there would be no significant impact as private views are not a material consideration. The paddock would be retained if the solar and panels and infrastructure were removed in the future.
· Members asked if it was possible for only part of the application to be approved and not include the solar panels in the paddock. The officer explained that each application would have to be considered on its own merits.
Councillor Andrew Prosser proposed to approve the application in line with the officer’s recommendations. Councillor Steve Cosier seconded the proposal and it was put the vote.
Voting record – 5 for the proposal and 5 against. The Chair took the deciding vote against the proposal.
The Chair asked for advice from the Principal Planner as the vote was split. Before casting their vote, the Chair commented that the Committee should refuse the application on the basis that the ground-mounted panels were unacceptable and that if the applicant was to amend the proposal to remove this element of the scheme, the application would then be considered to be acceptable. However, the proposal that had been voted on was to refuse the scheme.
The Sub-Committee Resolved to:
- Refuse the application against officers’ recommendation.