Detailed Objections

Below are detailed objections to the planning application drawn up 

by Dr Mike Browne and Mr Phillip Bratby

The application documents are grossly misleading.  The Planning, Design and Access states at para 1.7 "The proposed Solar Farm would generate approximately 8MW per annum generating power that we estimate would be sufficient to meet the annual electricity needs of approximately 2,478 typical UK households. In generating electricity from a renewable source, it is expected that the proposed development would prevent the emission of 3,515.68 tonnes of CO2 each year3".  A solar farm cannot generate up to 8MW per annum.  8MW is the maximum power, which will only occur on sunny days around mid-day in mid-summer.  There is no such thing as "8MW per annum".

The three footnotes give further incorrect data as follows:


1. "20,397,872Kwh per annum based on OST Energy irradiation study and       high level yield analysis".  To give an annual output to 8 significant figures is ridiculous.  The units should be kWh, not Kwh.  The figure of 20,397,872 is also ridiculous as it corresponds to a capacity factor of 29.1%.  It is impossible to obtain a capacity factor of 29.1% in the UK.  A typical figure for Devon would be 10% (see RegenSW renewable energy progress report 2014).  Thus the applicant has misled the public by using a grossly exaggerated output from the proposed solar farm.  The most likely output, based on a capacity factor of 10%, is 7,000,000kWh per annum.


2. "Based upon the Digest of United Kingdom energy statistics (DUKES) 2011 average UK domestic electricity consumption of 4,152kWh/pa".  The applicant should use the latest data for Mid Devon, which is 4,755kWh/pa (DECC Sub-national electricity sales and number of customers 2005 - 2012).  Thus the number of Mid Devon households supplied would be 7,000,000/4,755 = 1,473.


3. "This figure is derived using a carbon dioxide offset ratio of 430g carbon dioxide per kWh of solar generation. It should be noted that future changes in the power generating mix and fuel costs in the UK over the life of the wind park means this figure may change over time".  The figure of 3,515.68 tonnes CO2 per year does not correspond to an output of 20,397,872kWh per year and an offset of 430 g CO2/kWh.  The applicant appears to be incapable of multiplying two numbers together.  In fact the correct figure for carbon dioxide offset is specified by the Government in its approach to emissions savings in its progress report to the EU 'First Progress on Promotion and Use of Energy from Renewable Sources for the United Kingdom'1 where it is stated that the savings from renewable energy electricity deployment are "calculated by multiplying the amount of renewable electricity generation by DECC's marginal emissions factor".  The marginal emissions factors are given in a joint HM Treasury/DECC report entitled ‘Valuation of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for appraisal and evaluation’, June 2010.  This report was updated in September 2013.  Table 1 below is an extract from the updated report and it shows that a figure of 0.3184 kg CO2/kWh should be used for the marginal displacement of existing capacity for renewable electricity generation plant such as wind turbines during 2014.  The displacement falls over time as electricity supplies become progressively decarbonised such that by 2038, the end of the assumed 25 year life of the proposed solar farm, the displacement factor would be 0.0538 kg CO2/kWh.  The average displacement over the assumed 25 year life of the solar farm is 0.1742 kg CO2/kWh.  Based on an annual output of 7,000,000 kWh, the offset would be only 1,219 te CO2/annum. 

The applicant has shown massive incompetence in his assessment of the output of the proposed solar farm and has provided incorrect and grossly misleading benefits of the proposal.

His incompetence is further on show in para 4.1 where he seems the think that 8MW is a measure of energy, whereas in fact it is a measure of power.  Energy and power are two totally different properties.  It would be highly dangerous to allow an incompetent developer to construct and operate a solar farm of such magnitude.

Project Need

The NPPF at paragraph 98 states that "local planning authorities should not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy".  However, it should be noted that the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap 2011 states “Even though we are starting from a low level, the UK can meet the target to deliver 15% of the UK’s energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020.  Recent ‘bottom-up’ analysis, tested with industry, suggests that there is significant upside potential as well as downside risk to deployment”.  This was confirmed in the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update 2012 which states “This, the first annual update to the Renewable Energy Roadmap (the Roadmap) published last July, shows both strong growth in renewable electricity deployment over the last year and that the UK is on track to meet the first interim target on the way to the ambitious target of 15% renewable energy consumption by 2020”.  The progress was also confirmed in the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap Update 2013 which states “We are continuing to make excellent progress in the deployment of renewable electricity across the UK".  An analysis of DECC data, published on May 5th by the Renewable Energy Foundation, has shown that sufficient renewable energy infrastructure "is already built, under construction or has planning consent" to meet the 2020 target with a 5% margin.  This was confirmed by Lord Deben, Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change who has said "there were enough wind farms with planning permission to meet a legally binding target for renewable energy by 2020.  After that date the public may choose other methods of cutting emissions".  The Prime Minister's office has also confirmed this "All of the projects needed to meet Britain’s renewable targets have already received consent under the existing planning regime".  There is thus no need for this proposed solar farm since the UK 2020 renewable energy targets will in any case be met.
Furthermore, the defunct regional target of 847MW of electricity for the south-west by 2020 was exceeded by March 2013, by which time the electricity capacity was 852MW (RegenSW Renewable Energy Progress Report 2013).  By March 2014, the electricity capacity was about 1,200MW (RegenSW Renewable Energy Progress Report 2014), an overshoot of the target by about 40%.  This further reinforces the fact that there is no need for the proposal.

The annual electricity generation of 7,000MWh is about 0.003% of the 2020 target of 216 to 225TWh.  The contribution of the proposal to the already met UK 2020 renewable energy target would be insignificant.

There is thus no need for the proposed solar farm.

Policy

The NPPF states at paragraphs 2 and 196 that "Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise".  The Mid Devon Local Plan is up-to-date and conforms to the NPPF.  The proposal must therefore be determined against the policies of the Mid Devon Local Plan which, for this type of application, consists of Part 1: Core Strategy 2006 - 2026 (adopted July 2007) and Part 3: Development Management Policies (adopted October 2013).

COR 2 states that development will sustain "the preservation and enhancement of the distinctive qualities of Mid Devon's natural landscape". The proposal does not preserve and enhance the distinctive qualities of MID Devon's natural landscape and thus conflicts with this policy.

COR 5 states that "the development of renewable energy capacity will be supported in locations with an acceptable local impact, including visual, on nearby residents and wildlife".  The proposal does not have an acceptable local impact and thus conflicts with this policy.

DM2 (high quality design) states that new development must make "efficient and effective use of the site".  Utilising 20ha of land to produce only about 7,000MWh/year of electricity is a grossly inefficient use of the site.  There will be very little agricultural potential; the grass will be of very low quality due to the shade and lower temperature under the panels.  The proposal conflicts with this policy.

DM5 (renewable and low carbon design) states that "The benefits of renewable and low carbon energy development will be weighed against its impact.  Proposals for renewable or low carbon energy will be permitted where they do not have significant adverse impacts on the character, amenity and visual quality of the area, including cumulative impacts of similar developments within the parish or adjoining parishes.  Where significant impacts are identified through Environmental Impact Assessment, the Council will balance the impact against the wider benefits of delivering renewable and low carbon energy.  Development must consider a) Landscape character and heritage assets; b) Environmental amenity of nearby properties in accordance with Policy DM7".  The proposal has significant adverse impacts on the character, amenity and visual quality of the area.  It is clear that the benefits are insignificant and do not outweigh these significant adverse impacts and thus the proposal conflicts with this policy.

The NPPF identifies three dimensions to sustainable development:

an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being;

and an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

The proposal fails these three sustainability dimensions:
Firstly it is not economically sustainable, requiring massive subsidies throughout its lifetime, subsidies which adversely impact all electricity consumers, particularly those in fuel poverty.  Most of the equipment would be imported.

Secondly, the proposal would not support the local community; the benefit to the landowner and any low-grade employees used to clean the panels would not outweigh the damage to other local businesses.

Thirdly, the proposal would not protect or enhance the natural environment and there is no evidence that it would help mitigate climate change or assist in moving to a low carbon economy.

Government Solar Strategy

In October 2013 the Government issued 'UK Solar PV Strategy Part 1: Roadmap to a Brighter Future'.  It set out four guiding principles which are:


I    Support for solar PV should allow cost-effective projects to proceed and to make a cost-effective contribution to UK carbon emission objectives in the context of overall energy goals ….. .

II    Support for solar PV should deliver genuine carbon reductions that help meet the UK’s target of 15 per cent renewable energy from final consumption by 2020 ….. .

III    Support for solar PV should ensure proposals are appropriately sited, give proper weight to environmental considerations such as landscape and visual impact, heritage and local amenity, and provide opportunities for local communities to influence decisions that affect them.

IV    Support for solar PV should assess and respond to the impacts of deployment on: grid systems balancing; grid connectivity; and financial incentives – ensuring that we address the challenges of deploying high volumes of solar PV.

The applicant has not mentioned the UK Solar PV Strategy.  He has disregarded the four principles as explained below:

Items I and II:    The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal would make a cost effective contribution to UK carbon emission objectives.  It is likely that, given the large 'carbon footprint' of the proposal (likely to be equivalent to a payback time of about 2 to 4years, i.e. about 10% of the lifetime electricity generated (para 136 of Part 2 of the Strategy)), together with the impact of the intermittent electricity produced on the operation of a backup source of electricity to maintain grid stability, that there will be negligible, if any, 'carbon emissions' savings.  Furthermore, the performance of the solar panels is likely to degrade by about 1% per year, which, together with degradation in the performance of the inverters, will further erode any potential carbon emissions savings.

Item III:    The proposal is not appropriately sited, being on high grade greenfield farmland.

Item IV:    The proposal, by nature of the lack of frequency control, will have an adverse impact on the local grid (network) which the applicant has not addressed.  The applicant has not stated where the 8MW of electricity that could be produced around mid-day in summer will be consumed, nor from whence those consumers will receive their electricity during winter and the hours of darkness.  This issue is addressed further below.

In April 2014 the Government issued 'UK Solar PV Strategy Part 2: Delivering a Brighter Future'.

Accompanying the release, Energy Minister Greg Barker stated to the solar industry "We need to be careful that we do not over-incentivise large-scale ground-mounted projects in inappropriate places – I am thinking of greenfield agricultural land – that could generate strong opposition to our community energy agenda… …It needs careful design and thoughtful consideration.  It certainly could not be a scheme about renewable energy at any cost.  Impacts on the local community, on landscape and on consumer bills have to be a real consideration.  So our message is very clear.  And it is consistent.  We have revised our subsidy structure, offering higher levels of support to building-mounted solar PV.  And we will do our best to spread examples of best practice, focusing deployment on buildings and brown-field land – not green-field.  Where solar farms are not on brownfield land, you must be looking at low grade agricultural land which works with farmers to allow grazing in parallel with generation".

The strategy reiterated the use of the PPG "DECC will promote DCLG’s planning guidance on large-scale solar farms.  The guidance sets out particular considerations for solar farms, such as their visual impact, and underlines that it is important that the planning concerns of local communities are properly heard in matters that directly affect them".

The strategy stated "While large-scale solar farms provide opportunities for greater generation, they can have a negative impact on the rural environment if not well-planned and well-screened.  There can also be problems where local communities see no benefit but consider that they bear amenity issues.  The Solar Trade Association has developed a statement of “10 Commitments” for solar farm developers which seeks to ensure that the impact of large-scale solar farms on communities, visual impact and long-term land use are minimised".

The 10 commitments of the Solar Trade Association  are: 

1. We will focus on non-agricultural land or land which is of lower agricultural quality.

2. We will be sensitive to nationally and locally protected landscapes and nature conservation areas, and we welcome opportunities to enhance the ecological value of the land.

3. We will minimise visual impact where possible and maintain appropriate screening throughout the lifetime of the project managed through a Land Management and/or Ecology plan.

4. We will engage with the community in advance of submitting a planning application.

5. We will encourage land diversification by proposing continued agricultural use or incorporating biodiversity measures within our projects.

6. We will do as much buying and employing locally as possible.

7. We will act considerately during construction, and demonstrate ‘solar stewardship’ of the land for the lifetime of the project.

8. We will seek the support of the local community and listen to their views and suggestions.

9. We commit to using the solar farm as an educational opportunity, where appropriate.

10. The end of the project life we will return the land to its former use.

The strategy referenced the guidance produced by the National Solar Centre which states that:

" Planning applications for commercial scale solar development should be accompanied by the following information : Installed capacity (MW);  Capacity factor;  Estimated annual production (MWh p.a.);  Number of residential properties equivalent".

Para 120 of the Strategy Part 2 stated:

"There are four key system challenges for connecting solar PV to the grid. 
    First, there is limited spare connection capacity, with most capacity at suitable sites already assigned to developers, whether or not projects have progressed.

    Secondly, solar can lead to voltage level increases, when generation is high and demand is low, and this could result in network assets tripping and damage to electrical equipment.

    Thirdly, PV does not provide inertia, a property which affects the frequency control capability of the system: as low carbon generation replaces conventional fossil fuelled generation, the overall system inertia reduces because conventional plant has rotating mass which provides inertia to the system, whilst solar PV does not.  As a result there is a greater impact in the balancing of supply and demand, requiring additional measures.  This can have local effects as well as system-wide ones.

    Fourthly, uncontrolled renewable generation can exceed minimum demand and it is not currently possible to turn off most solar PV.  Electricity market incentives and action by National Grid should mean that other generation reduces its output to as solar PV increases.  This is likely to have a cost, particularly if the point is reached when the only generation remaining on the system is that which must run".

The applicant has not addressed any of these issues.  Quite clearly the application conflicts with Part 2 of the Strategy.  The proposed site does not follow best practice, being greenfield agricultural land, not buildings or brown-field land.  The applicant has not addressed the impact on local electricity bills.  In fact, with the electricity produced being subsidised to about three times the cost of normal electricity, there will be a significant impact on electricity bills.  The planning application is not accompanied by the requisite information on the expected capacity factor and does not address the adverse impacts on the local electricity network.

Guidance

Paragraph 13 of the PPG, headed 'What are the particular planning considerations that relate to large scale ground-mounted solar photovoltaic Farms?' states that "Particular factors a local planning authority will need to consider include:
encouraging the effective use of  land by focussing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value;
where a proposal  involves greenfield land, whether (i) the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary and poorer quality land has been used in preference to higher quality land; and (ii) the proposal allows for continued agricultural use where applicable and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays.

See also a speech by the Minister for Energy and Climate Change, the Rt Hon Gregory Barker MP, to the solar PV industry on 25 April 2013.
that solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can be used to ensure that the installations are removed when no longer in use and the land is restored to its previous use;

the proposal’s visual impact, the effect on landscape of glint and glare (see guidance on landscape assessment) and on neighbouring uses and aircraft safety;
the extent to which there may be additional impacts if solar arrays follow the daily movement of the sun;

the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing;
great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of proposals on views important to their setting. As 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 large scale solar farms on such assets. Depending on their scale, design and prominence, a large scale solar farm within the setting of a heritage asset may cause substantial harm to the significance of the asset;

the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening with native hedges;
the energy generating potential, which can vary for a number of reasons including, latitude and aspect."

The proposal conflicts with the first and second of these guidance factors: the site is not previously developed or non-agricultural land; the applicant has not shown that the use of the land is necessary for a solar development and he has stated at para 4.1 that the site is "Grade 1 and in parts Grade 3" and thus the land is of high quality, not of poorer quality.

Noise

The noise impact of the proposed solar farm has been ignored.  It is stated at para 4.17 that "Once the park has been constructed, there will be no environmental effects in terms of noise or pollution".  This is not acceptable.  The Inspector at appeal reference APP/J3530/A13/2193911 for a solar farm at Hacheston in Suffolk commented on the issue of noise during operation at paras 211 to 213.  He stated "However, no background noise assessment has been carried out.  EN-1 advises at paragraph 5.11.4 that the characteristics of the existing noise environment should be assessed" and "However it has not been shown that the noise impact would actually fall within acceptable levels".

The Secretary of State agreed with the findings of the Inspector and dismissed the appeal.  The applicant should provide baseline noise measurements and an assessment of operational noise, particularly associated with the three inverters.  Unless the applicant provides this information, Mid Devon District Council must refuse the application.

Landscape

In June 2013, Devon County Council issued a report 'Devon Landscape Policy Group Advice Note No. 2: Accommodating Wind and Solar PV Developments in Devon's Landscape.  Guidance on minimising harm to the distinctive character and special qualities of Devon’s landscape through sensitive siting and design'.

The purpose of the report and guidance was to promote "good siting and design of wind and solar PV development that takes account of the special qualities and distinctive characteristics of Devon’s landscape" and to ensure that the requirements of the NPPF with regard to landscape protection, the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and rural communities, would be properly accounted for.  It was intended for use by planning authorities in Devon and by "wind and solar developers who seek to take into account the special qualities and distinctive characteristics of Devon’s landscape and secure a high standard of design in their development proposals".  The applicant makes no reference to use of the guidance.

In September 2013 report ' An Assessment of the Landscape Sensitivity to Onshore Wind Energy and Large Scale Photovoltaic Development in Mid Devon District' was issued for Mid Devon District Council.  This report built on and was consistent with the work of the above Devon County Council report and provided an assessment of the sensitivity of the landscape to field-scale solar PV development in Mid Devon.  It recognised that "Mid Devon’s landscape is vitally important to the local economy".  It defined Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) and Landscape Character Types (LCTs).  The applicant makes no reference to use of the report and mentions neither LCAs nor LCTs.

Fig 2.1 of the report shows that the proposed site lies within LCA DCA17 (Culm Valley Lowlands).  The proposed site lies within LCT3E (Lowland Plains).  Table 3.3 show that the proposal of 20ha is defined as a "Very Large Solar PV Scheme".  Fig 4.10 shows that there is a High sensitivity to very large solar farms within LCT3E.  More detail is provided on pages 139 to 148.  Guidance for development states:
When siting and designing solar PV developments in this LCT the generic guidance within Chapter 3 of the Devon Landscape Policy Group’s Advice Note No. 2: Accommodating Wind and Solar PV Developments in Devon's Landscape should be followed particularly when considering the cumulative impacts of multiple schemes.

In addition, within this LCT particular care will need to be taken to ensure:
Consideration is given to the visual relationship between estates and the wider landscape (including through designed vistas), and the setting of areas of historic parkland to ensure heritage significance of these assets is maintained.
The diverse land cover pattern with a patchwork texture including areas of remaining intact orchards and Culm grassland is maintained.
Areas of Barton fields and medieval enclosures based on strip fields are maintained and remain recognisable in the landscape.
Areas of open and strongly rural character are maintained.
Solar PV development does not adversely affect the sense of remoteness, wildness and tranquillity associated with the Exmoor National Park, or unacceptably impact on the striking views from the National Park into the district.

It is evident that the proposal will have a severe adverse impact on the landscape and represents industrialisation of a large area of farmland.  The local landscape will be dominated by arrays of industrial solar panels, three large inverter/transformer buildings and two substation/switchgear buildings and an industrial security fence surmounted by CCTV cameras.  The site cannot be hidden from view by screening.  Moving through the landscape, the industrial nature of the development will become apparent as the view changes between the backs of the rows of panels, the sides of the rows of panels and the front of the rows of panels.

The application should be refused due to the adverse impact on the landscape.

Period of Operation

It is assumed that the life of the proposed solar farm is 25 years.  In the above-referenced Hacheston appeal, the Secretary of State's view of the 25 year life of that proposal was that "as a significant length of time over which harm to the setting of Parham Old Hall would be endured.  Accordingly he considers that the reversibility of the scheme should not be an influential factor in determining this appeal".

In Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/A/13/2203107, Chalhanger Farm, Buckland Filleigh, Beaworthy, EX21 5JB the Inspector dismissed the appeal stating "However, 25 - 30 years is a significant length of time for a harmful development to be in place. Although the scheme would have the capacity to generate about 6MW of electricity, I find that the damage to the quality of the landscape in this remote and rural location would outweigh the benefits identified".

Conclusions

The application is inadequate.  It has not followed the latest Government Planning Policy Guidance (the PPG of March 2014) , it has ignored the latest Government statements set out in the UK Solar PV Strategy Parts 1 and 2 and it has ignored the Devon and Mid Devon reports on landscape sensitivity to large scale solar developments.  The proposal is on high grade agricultural land, contrary to the PPG.  There is no assessment of operational noise.  An assessment of operational noise is required before a decision can be made.  Without such information, the application should be refused.

The proposed solar farm conflicts with National Policy, with the UK Solar PV Strategy and with four policies of the Mid Devon Local Plan.  The benefits of the proposal have been incorrectly given by the applicant, but in any case, with there being no need for the proposal, any benefits would be insignificant, would carry very little weight in the planning balance and would not outweigh the significant adverse impacts.  Mid Devon District Council should therefore refuse the application.