Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/01623/FUL - Land at Grid Reference 401975 198339 - Spratsgate Lane , Siddington

Purpose

Installation of solar farm, associated infrastructure and grid connection cable run at Land at Grid Reference 401975 198339 Spratsgate Lane, Siddington, Cirencester.

 

Case Officer

Martin Perks

 

Ward Member

Councillor Mike Evemy

 

Recommendation

PERMIT subject to no objection from the Biodiversity Officer and the Environment Agency and the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering a Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring fee.

Minutes:

The proposal was the installation of solar farm, associated infrastructure and grid connection cable.

 

Case Officer: Martin Perks

Ward Member: Councillor Mike Evemy

 

Recommendation: PERMIT subject to no objection from the Biodiversity Officer and the Environment Agency and the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering a Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring fee.

 

Councillor David Fowles returned to the Committee meeting.

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application.

The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee along with additional pages:

·         One additional objection was received regarding orientation and drainage.

  • The applicant will use the district licensing scheme for Great Crested Newts.
  • The battery storage had been temporarily removed from the application to allow further assessment of bat impact, and transformers have been repositioned away from hedgerows to reduce potential disturbance.
  • Biodiversity net gain matters remain under review with the biodiversity officer. The issues were expected to be resolved through discussions and appropriate conditions.

Public Speakers

Public Speaker 1 – Andy Farmer – supporter

They expressed conditional support for the solar farm, subject to appropriate controls during construction regarding noise, dust, and protection of neighbouring residents. Support was given on environmental grounds, citing potential biodiversity benefits, soil recovery from long-term intensive farming, and the suitability of lower-grade agricultural land for solar use. Potential community benefits, including business rates contributions to the local authority and opportunities to address existing drainage issues were highlighted.

 

Speaker 2 – Agent – Harry Singh-Judd

The scheme aligned with local and national climate and energy policy, contributing to renewable energy generation, energy security, and reduced reliance on fossil fuels, with the site also prioritised for grid connection before 2030. 79% of the site would be taken out of intensive farming during the operational period to allow soil recovery. Additional landscaping, infrastructure reconfiguration, and drainage improvements, evolved through community engagement

A surface water drainage strategy was secured by condition, alongside an annual community benefit fund of £10,000. The development was temporary and reversible, with decommissioning and material reuse/recycling at the end of its operational life.

 

Member Questions

Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that:

·         Solar panel orientation (east–west tracking) did not undermine the visual impact assessment.

·         Additional landscaping and buffering had been agreed along parts of the southern boundary to increase separation and reduce visual impact. Whilst maintenance access and hedgerow management would be needed, a 3.5m buffer was considered acceptable.

  • A Surface Water Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment had been submitted, designed to ensure post-development runoff would not exceed existing greenfield rates.
  • The Environment Agency was reviewing additional information relating to climate change allowances.
  • The Lead Local Flood Authority had confirmed it was satisfied that the proposal would not increase surface water flow rates.

·         Existing hedgerows around the site was generally substantial and provide year-round screening. Additional landscaping was proposed along the southern boundary to strengthen visual mitigation.

·         Proposed equipment and storage/transformer units were distributed across the site rather than concentrated on the boundary, with some repositioned to reduce impacts on hedgerows, bats, and noise.

·         Approximately 18% of the site was Grade 2 quality and 18% was Grade 3A, with the remainder largely lower-grade land.

·         A decommissioning condition would ensure the solar panels and associated infrastructure were removed within six months of the cessation of use and the land restored.

·         The site would be enclosed by low-key deer-proof mesh fencing.

 

April Paintain, Environmental Health Officer for Noise and Amenities confirmed that a noise assessment and a noise management plan had been reviewed for the site.  No significant noise concerns were identified following the relocation of inverter units. A planning condition was recommended requiring a revised noise management plan to be submitted within six months of completion of development

 

Member comments

·         The proposal was considered to make effective use of exhausted agricultural land.

·         The importance of both energy security and food security was highlighted.

·         The development was reversible and the site could be restored in the future.

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed PERMITTING the application subject to no objection from the Biodiversity Officer and the Environment Agency and the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering a Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring fee and Councillor Nick Bridges seconded the proposal.  The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED: to PERMIT the application.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages