Developer ahead on points against council after day one of solar farm inquiry arguments
A solar farm developer ended day one of a planning inquiry ahead on points as the council admitted there were flaws in its case against.
Developer Vattenfall appealed to the Planning Inspectorate after Shropshire Council rejected its application for a solar farm on 19.9 hectares of land near Kemberton, east of Telford.
On day one of the planning inquiry at Shirehall, in Shrewsbury, the two sides locked horns in front of inspector Alison Partington.
Day two on Wednesday is set to see the two sides do policy battle over the impact on greenbelt land, which is the main part of the council's case.
The first day of the three-day inquiry looked into the key aspects of planning policies and whether they support land being turned over to solar farms to help businesses diversify.
Council planning officers had recommended that the scheme should be given permission but elected councillors decided to throw it out. But the council officers are obliged to support its democratically elected members in their decision.
Time and again a council senior planner, Lynn Parker, agreed with the appellant's barrister, Gwion Lewis KC that his interpretations of the authorities' policies were correct.
Miss Parker admitted that she could not explain why there was an objection on development grounds. When asked which part of a council spatial development policy the solar farm would breach she said: "No, I can't explain it."
Miss Parker also admitted that an objection on the grounds that a solar farm would fail to promote rural enterprise was "based on a mistake of fact".
Mr Lewis also put it to Miss Parker that she had not properly read or analysed a developer's report on how the site had been selected.
"Now that you have highlighted it I wish I had included it. But I did read it," she said.
Mr Lewis also put it to Miss Parker that an assertion that organic soil would be lost was not backed by any evidence. Miss Parker said: "I did not bring any evidence."
Mr Lewis said: "The assertion is entirely without foundation."
Miss Parker disagreed, saying that the loss of organic status would be because the field is not maintained as organic for 40 years.
The council's barrister, Sioned Davies, said in her opening submission that the site forms an important role in maintaining the rural buffer zone around Telford.
"Halesfield sits on the horizon and and looks across from the appeal site," she said.
"Compare and contrast this with the quaint Shropshire village of Kemberton, which is a characteristic historic village with a conservation area, which is located to the north-east of the appeal site and washed over by the greenbelt."
She added that the harm from the proposed development is "obvious, occupying an important, narrow gap, between industrial development and historic settlements".
She said: "Ultimately it will blur the boundary of the settlement edge of Telford, and leave an island of greenbelt remaining in between the settlement edge and the proposed development."
Mr Lewis was blistering in his attack on the planning committee's decision to oppose the scheme against planning officers' advice.
He said the council's members needed a "compelling reason, supported by evidence, for rejecting officers' advice".
He said the decision had contained "no such reason".
"The paucity of evidence provided by the council in support of its case at this appeal suggest that the council has had some difficulty advancing a case at odds with the analysis in officers' 38-page report to members."
In comparison with the case for, planners had had submitted an "11-page" justification for their rejection of the plans.
He added that the council had "abandoned" one of its three reasons it originally gave for refusing permission - harm to landscape character.
Mr Lewis said the council's first and second reasons for refusing the plan also "quickly fall apart when tested, as the appellant will do comprehensively at this inquiry.
"With none of the council's reasons for refusal having a proper foundation, the appellant shall invite the inspector, in due course, to allow the appeal."
The inquiry is set to conclude on day four, with closing speeches on Friday morning before the inspector makes her final decision on the matter.
The inquiry continues.
