Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee - Wednesday 17 June 2026, 2:00pm - Buckinghamshire Council Webcasting

Central & North Buckinghamshire Area Planning Committee
Wednesday, 17th June 2026 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  3. Cllr Chris Poll
  4. Cllr Llew Monger
  5. Cllr Cameron Anderson
  6. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  7. Cllr Phil Gomm
  8. Cllr Andy Huxley
  9. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  10. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Carrie Chan - Senior Planning Officer
  2. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  3. Public Speakers
  4. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  5. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  6. Public Speakers
  7. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  8. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  9. Cllr Llew Monger
  10. Public Speakers
  11. Cllr Llew Monger
  12. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  13. Carrie Chan - Senior Planning Officer
  14. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  15. Public Speakers
  16. Cllr Phil Gomm
  17. Public Speakers
  18. Cllr Phil Gomm
  19. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  20. Public Speakers
  21. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  22. Cllr Gregory Smith
  23. Public Speakers
  24. Cllr Frank Mahon
  25. Public Speakers
  26. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  27. Cllr Frank Mahon
  28. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  29. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  30. Mark Aughterlony - Development Management Manager
  31. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  32. Cllr Chris Poll
  33. Carrie Chan - Senior Planning Officer
  34. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  35. Cllr Phil Gomm
  36. Carrie Chan - Senior Planning Officer
  37. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  38. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  39. Mark Aughterlony - Development Management Manager
  40. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  41. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  42. Cllr Phil Gomm
  43. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  44. Carrie Chan - Senior Planning Officer
  45. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  46. Mark Aughterlony - Development Management Manager
  47. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  48. Mark Aughterlony - Development Management Manager
  49. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  50. Cllr Llew Monger
  51. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  52. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Llew Monger
  2. Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor
  3. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  4. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  5. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  6. Public Speakers
  7. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  8. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  9. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  10. Public Speakers
  11. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  12. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  13. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  14. Cllr Gregory Smith
  15. Public Speakers
  16. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  17. Public Speakers
  18. Cllr Phil Gomm
  19. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  20. Public Speakers
  21. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  22. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  23. Public Speakers
  24. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  25. Public Speakers
  26. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  27. Cllr Phil Gomm
  28. Public Speakers
  29. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  30. Public Speakers
  31. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  32. Cllr Gregory Smith
  33. Public Speakers
  34. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  35. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  36. Public Speakers
  37. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  38. Cllr Chris Poll
  39. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  40. Cllr Llew Monger
  41. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  42. Cllr Phil Gomm
  43. Public Speakers
  44. Cllr Phil Gomm
  45. Public Speakers
  46. Cllr Phil Gomm
  47. Cllr Gregory Smith
  48. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  49. Public Speakers
  50. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  51. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  52. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  53. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  54. Public Speakers
  55. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  56. Public Speakers
  57. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  58. Cllr Gregory Smith
  59. Public Speakers
  60. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  61. Public Speakers
  62. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  63. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  64. Public Speakers
  65. Cllr Caroline Cornell
  66. Public Speakers
  67. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  68. Cllr Phil Gomm
  69. Public Speakers
  70. Cllr Phil Gomm
  71. Public Speakers
  72. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  73. Cllr Phil Gomm
  74. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  75. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  76. Public Speakers
  77. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  78. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  79. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  80. Public Speakers
  81. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  82. Cllr Llew Monger
  83. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  84. Cllr Llew Monger
  85. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  86. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  87. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  88. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  89. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  90. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  91. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  92. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  93. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  94. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  95. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  96. Cllr Chris Poll
  97. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  98. Cllr Chris Poll
  99. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  100. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  101. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  102. Cllr Gregory Smith
  103. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  104. Cllr Gregory Smith
  105. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  106. Cllr Frank Mahon
  107. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  108. Cllr Frank Mahon
  109. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  110. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  111. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  112. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  113. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  114. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  115. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  116. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  117. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  118. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  119. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  120. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  121. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  122. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  123. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  124. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  125. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  126. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  127. Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer
  128. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  129. Cllr Andy Huxley
  130. Cllr Patrick Fealey
Share this agenda point
  1. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  2. Cllr Robin Stuchbury
  3. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  4. Cllr Frank Mahon
  5. Cllr Raj Khan
  6. Cllr Gregory Smith
  7. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  8. Cllr Gregory Smith
  9. Cllr Kathy Gibbon
  10. Cllr Chris Poll
  11. Cllr Llew Monger
  12. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  13. Cllr Phil Gomm
  14. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  15. Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer
  16. Cllr Patrick Fealey
  17. Webcast Finished

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:00:00
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:00:04
Good afternoon ladies, gentlemen, colleagues. Welcome to the Central and North Buckinghamshire
Area Planning Committee. Can I just remind you a couple of things? Could you turn your
mobile phones off please? Or on to silent. And also if we do have an alarm, the exits
are that way, just follow us. And we will take you out to the assembly point in the
car park. Can I also just remind you that this is webcast, this committee meeting,
and by entering the room you're consenting to be filmed, which these
films possibly will use on a number of occasions, both for training and other
purposes. Right, we've also got a number of speakers this afternoon. I just want
to cheque that speakers are with us. Got a Jeff Stagg, Tony Thompson. Are you both
speaking yeah okay thank you also we have John Chilber and Elaine
Caroline Moore Anita Antonia soy and Nick bed to what for the speakers can I
I just emphasise when you make your presentation,
if you remain seated at the presentation area
so that colleagues can actually discuss with you
some of the points you have raised.
And we can only go over the points
that you actually deliver to us.
We cannot go into any other areas at all.
And I will be making sure that my colleagues,
counsellors don't do that.
So it's very focused on what you're presenting
and what you said is what we will look at and challenge.
Now on support of this afternoon,
on the extreme left is Mark Antoloni,
he's Senior Manager for Planning Team.
Kerry Chan, who's going to be one of our
presenting officers for the first case.
Catherine Alomstubs, who is a legal advisor
and tries to keep me in cheque.
And Harry Thomas is a member of the Democratic Services.
And if we could just go around the room,
Councillor Hough.
Councillor Frank Manne representing Grendan -on -the -wood and the Chaydens ward.
And Councillor Stetsby representing Buckingham.
Councillor Raj Khan representing Aldermen North.
Greg Smith, Hadlam and Stone ward.
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:02:39
Councillor Chris Pole representing Ivinghoe ward.
Lou Monga Winslow ward.
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:02:46
Cllr Cameron Anderson - 0:02:48
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:02:49
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:02:51
Cllr Andy Huxley - 0:02:53
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:02:57
Cathy Gibbon, Bearden Kingsbrook and Wainslow Ward. Phil Garlan with Clayton Ward. Andy Huxley representing Aylesbury East. Caroline Cornell representing Newton Longville Ward and Wainslow Town Council.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:03
I'm Patrick Feeley, I represent Gwent Underwood and the Clayton's Ward and I have the privilege of being your chairman.
Right, can we go to the agenda please?

1 Appointment of Vice-Chairman

The first agenda item is for the appointment of Vice Chair and I'd like to propose Frank Mahon as my Vice Chair for the forthcoming year.
Do we have any apologies?

2 Apologies

No Chairman, we haven't had any.

3 Minutes

Thank you. Can I have your agreement with the minutes for a meeting on the 13th of May?
Agreed. Agreed. Can I also have your agreement on the minutes on the 20th of May?
Thank you very much.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:03:51
I was pleased to have them see the minutes weren't as long as the meeting.
So we could get through them reasonably quickly.
They were not seven hours long.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:03:58
Thank you.
Thank you.
Are there any declarations of interest?

4 Declarations of Interest

Council Cornell?
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 0:04:14
I called in the one in Thornton.
because it concerns the local people and to back up John Chilver.
But I have an open mind and I will listen to everything.
Okay, thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:04:31
Right, in that case then, can we go to our first applications of the day,

5 24/00492/APP - Green Park Activities and Training Centre, Green Park, Stablebridge Road, Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire, HP22 5NE

which is 24 stroke 00492 APP.
This is for Green Park Activities and Training Centre,
Green Park State Bridge Road, Aston Clinton. Our Presenting Officer is
Carrie Chan - Senior Planning Officer - 0:05:02
Okay. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Air Force. This application is reference 24
slash 00492 slash APP. Excuse me.
I don't think it's in your class.
It's the sound.
Is it? Okay.
We tweak it.
The technical team just look at it please.
I can't believe you don't hear me Councillor Gordon.
Is he in there? That's the question.
Are you in?
Are you in the meeting?
Yeah.
It's just that it's different.
It's not quite known about...
..2 .11 .1 .11.
OK, can you try speaking?
Is that better?
Any better? No?
It's quite muffled. It's not clear. Normally it's very clear.
That's better.
No, it's muffled.
It's an application relating to Green Park activities
and training centre in Aston Clinton.
The proposal relates to the erection
of accommodation activity facilities and associated works
and it's part retrospective.
This application is before members today
as Buckinghamshire Council has a land ownership interest
on this site.
The site is located to the south of Aston Clinton, off Stable Bridge Road,
and it's a large area of open space to the south of Aston Clinton Park.
It comprises an established outdoor activity and education centre with existing buildings,
activity structures, and areas of mature vegetation.
The site lies within designated local green space and is also identified as a non -detonated heritage asset.
Members should also note that the site is subject to three blanket tree preservation orders,
reflecting the importance of existing trees within the parkland setting.
On this slide, we're here to show what the application is seeking permission for.
So the application seeks full planning permission for a range of development,
including the removal of eco -domes, the erection of accommodation cabins, toilets and shower blocks,
the retention of three activities areas, SIP wires and structures, change of use
of the existing dining slash nursery building and ancillary works including
access track and hard standing.
Members should also note that the proposal is part retrospective. A number
of elements have already been constructed on site, including 11 of the 18 cabins,
four staff accommodation cabins, all three activity areas, and one sip wire and structure.
In addition to that, we have a number of access track and hard standing that already exist on site.
The remainder of the development is set out within the application description.
is proposed. Just a quick slide on the planning history. Members will note that
a previous application for a similar form of development was refused in 2022
for three main reasons relating to visual impact and loss of open space,
lack of ecological information and insufficient information on drainage
details. Following that refusal, works were undertaken within the wider site without
planning permission. Some of those elements that were carried out are being addressed
through this application, while others are subject to separate enforcement action.
This plan on the screen, submitted as part of the current application, shows the layout of the site
as of February 2024.
It reflects the current position on the ground,
including both elements forming part of this application
and others which do not form part of this application.
Members should know that previous enforcement cases
have been closed pending the determination of this application
with any remaining unauthorised elements
to be considered separately through the enforcement process.
Turning back to the application itself, this plan shows the development proposed for approval.
The layout has been revised from the previous review scheme with development arranged in smaller clusters alongside existing vegetation, reducing its prominence and visual impact.
I've got five slides here showing the different floor plans, elevations of the different elements being proposed.
Here we've got the floor plans and elevations of the accommodation cabins.
Along with the leader's cabin.
Toilet and shower blocks.
And the PGL star -voned cabins.
Elevations of the sit -line layout along with the relevant structures.
This is one of the activity areas.
On this slide is the internal layout of the dining room,
which is proposed to be changed to provide additional accommodation.
Just to note that there will be no external changes to this particular building.
I've got a series of photographs here.
First, top left, entrance to the site, bottom left.
This is the front of the existing dining room slash nursery building, where the change of use is proposed to happen.
On the right -hand side, existing eight beds and leader's cabins.
On the left, we've got a picture taken in February 2026 showing the, what's left of the eco -domes.
And the picture on the right taken just last week of the hard standing,
following the removal of the actual structure itself.
Left hand side again, existing sip wire and structure along the southern boundary.
On the right hand side above and below are the climbing frames and the activity areas.
Members will be able to see the extent of existing development as well as the mature vegetation and trees covering the site.
On the left here we've got few towards the wooden cabin.
So these are the eight beds under leader's cabin when viewing from the adjacent sip wire and structure.
On the right we've got view from the open field to the north looking towards where the eco -domes were.
A couple more photos here. Top left, view from the open field towards the site.
Top right is exactly the same.
And the bottom photo is viewed towards the location
of where the new sip wire and structure will be placed.
It is adjacent to the artery area.
Members will be able to see from photos that views into and out
of the site are generally filtered and limited
with development seen within the context
of the established activity centre.
And the final photo taken this morning.
View from up the hills looking back towards Aston Clinton.
The arrow points to the group of trees around, within Green Park.
The view is very limited.
I have highlighted on this slide the key planning considerations that this application has been assessed against.
The principal issue is the acceptability of the development within the local green space.
In this case the proposal is considered to comprise appropriate facilities for outdoor recreation.
and the revised layout ensures that openness is preserved.
Other considerations include design and landscape impact,
heritage, ecology, and biodiversity,
impacts on the Chiltern Beechard Sat,
and residential amenities and highways.
In terms of benefits, the proposal enhances
an established outdoor education facilities,
provides improved accommodation,
and delivers clear educational and community benefits.
It also supports local employment
and delivers biodiversity enhancements secured
over the long term.
In terms of harms, the development results
in a low level of less substantial harm
to the non -destinated heritage asset, alongside impacts arising
from previous unauthorised work and the loss of the nursery use.
However, the identified harms are limited in scale.
Some are mitigated through conditions
and the remainder carry limited weight in the planning balance.
Overall, the proposal is considered
to represent appropriate development
within the local green space.
There are no objections from statutory consultees
and impacts are limited and mitigated.
Officers therefore conclude
that the benefits clearly outweigh the identified harms.
In addition to the update paper members have in front of them,
there are a small number of additional updates
that are recommended conditions.
First one being as indicated on the update paper,
officers propose to amend the wording of condition three
to remove the age restriction and instead restrict the use to outdoor educational purposes only.
For condition 6 officers propose to remove the words in full
to ensure the requirement is proportionate and practical while still requiring compliance with the construction traffic management plan.
Minor amendments are also proposed to Conditions 7 and 14 to improve clarity and accuracy.
These changes do not alter the overall recommendation.
Accordingly, officers recommend that planning permission be deferred and delegated for approval, subject to conditions, the update paper, the verbal update and the completion of the legal agreement.
And that's the end of the presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:18:05
I'm sure you appreciate some of those changes, conditions,
when necessary because we have young people that we look
after as well over the age of 17 and therefore to preclude them
from going to it would be inappropriate.
So thank you for that.
We have no local council members or parish members.
We have the agent and applicant, so I'd like to call Jeff Stagg and Tony Thompson to the presentation. Chairs, please.
Gentlemen, you've got three minutes between you and the clock will come up behind here.
And as I said earlier, if you remain seated so that we can go over any points of clarification
so that if any members have any details on those points of clarification, it would be
good.
Okay, thank you.
Just press.
Public Speakers - 0:19:09
There we go.
Good afternoon, members, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of
PGL Travel.
My name is Jess Stagg.
I'm the Transformation and Delivery Director for PGL, and I'm pleased to introduce my colleague
Tommy Thompson who is the Design and Specification Manager for PGL. We welcome the Planning Officer's
thorough and balanced report and are pleased at the following detailed consideration and extensive
consultation. The application is recommended for approval post any conditions. PGL we've
actually only been leaseholders for the past 12 months so any previous stuff we're taking on.
PGL is UK's leading provider of outdoor education and adventure experiences for young people
established in 1957. We operate 16 activity centres across the UK and provide
educational and development experiences for thousands of children every year.
PGO is recognised by the relevant governing bodies, holds adventure,
activity licence, authority, accreditation and has a long -standing reputation for
delivering safe, high quality outdoor learning opportunities. The application
does not introduce a new use, rather it secures and enhances an established
education facility, ensuring its long -term future and viability. The
proposal will deliver significant benefits. Number one, development will
support valuable employment opportunities as set out in the report
and will benefit local residents whilst also generating economical benefits
through local suppliers and services. Number two, the centre will offer
structured outdoor learning experiences that build confidence, teamwork,
resilience and personal development at a time where opportunities for young
people to engage with the outdoors are increasingly important. Green Park will
continue to provide a facility that delivers significant social and
community value. Number three is the application to secure substantial
ecological and environmental benefits for the landscapes and ecological
management plan, woodland management proposals, biodiversity enhancements and
long -term habitat monitoring secured for the legal agreement. Let me just hand
over to Tommy. Members will also note that all technical matters have now been
comprehensively addressed. There are now no objections from Natural England, the
Environment Agency, Highways, Drainage, Ecology, Landscape, Trees, Environmental
Health or Heritage Consultees. The revised scheme has addressed the concerns
associated with the previous application through a more sensitive layout, enhanced
landscaping, detailed ecological mitigation and a robust long -term
management strategy. Ultimately the Plannell Officer concludes that the
proposal accords with the development plan as a whole.
The development preserves the openness and function of the local green space,
supports employment, enhances an established educational use,
delivers biodiversity gains, and does not result in unacceptable impacts
on landscape character, heritage, ecology, highways, drainage, or
residential amenity.
For those reasons, we respectfully ask members to support the officer's
recommendation and approve this application. Our aim is to reopen Green Park fully by March next year.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:22:21
Thank you gentlemen, thank you. Good timing there.
Is there any point of clarification?
Councillor Stutchfield.
As you mentioned it in your deliberations, you referred to the employment section of
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:22:41
the application, so numbers that you intend to employ and you referred to the educational
benefits, would be useful for background to understand the total amount of people who
would use the site prior and after if you have those aspirations to understand the added
value of the site and lastly the ecological elements of the site you
have heard that this will manage those adequately.
Have you got any experience or background in demonstrating how you think that will happen?
Okay, thank you.
Public Speakers - 0:23:23
I was struggling to hear a little bit of all this but I think I did hear so I think the first one was employment yeah to answer.
So this was around, we estimate 60 people.
We have a group of people that live on centre
and live off centre.
So there will be a local opportunity to recruit there.
But it's around 60 people from that point
in terms of opportunity, as we estimate.
For the educational benefit, obviously, that's
mainly for our guests that come.
So this would be mainly from schools across the country,
but mainly local.
So definitely in the Bucks and Hertfordshire area is the main kind of port for that.
And this is around a multitude of different experiences.
So it's normally on a residential that would last between three to seven days.
They're supported for the trip and will hit certain aspects of educational value
through outdoor learning.
So it's something we've been doing for 70 years now from that point.
going on to the ecological experience.
Yeah, so as part of this application we've removed quite a lot of buildings and
activity structures that were on the previous application that interfered with
the local wildlife.
So for example, one of the villages is completely gone.
A zip line that went through a budget set has now been taken away.
So the enhancements we're making are bringing the site back to a state where it was previously.
And I think to add to that, we also have 16 other centres that are set in very similar surroundings.
So in case of our experience, we have very similar management plans across all of our centres that we want to embrace the environment we're in for that point.
so experience yet that there's a lot in our business that want to embrace the
environment we're in not destroy it. Thank you. Just to come back, well thank you for that.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:25:22
I am reassured you've both been down the zip wire. I understand that's
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:25:32
taking place because it will make me feel so much better. Thank you. Councillor Mungo. Thank you
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:25:38
Chair. You mentioned that PGL had only been the lease holder for the past 12
months. Can you just clarify, therefore, that you were not involved with the application in 21 that
was refused and the cavalier attitude that was subsequent to that review?
Public Speakers - 0:26:01
Sir, 100%. So yeah, we were awarded the lease from the council actually in October
2025 and 26 now. So yeah, that's the under a year from that point. So we had nothing to do with
anything previous and we are absolutely committed in doing it the right way which is why we've
Come through planning. We've not done any work so far
We've made sure that we're doing it soon our attitude fully and has been with all of our sites that we follow our walls
And we work with local councils like a Paris to do it in the white ways. Yeah, absolutely
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:26:33
Thank you very much. I'm frankly relieved to hear good good good
Chancellor given
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:26:37
All right
First of all, I'd just like to say I approve of the concept of somewhere where children
are away from their phones and are in a situation where they have to grow physically and emotionally.
I think the concept of PTL is brilliant for young people.
I just have three questions.
One, I think you have answered, but because everything's so fast, it's quite hard to get
all of it.
So I'm assuming you have a sort of agreed construction environment management plan
and a landscape and ecological management plan. Yes, yeah they're part of our conditions as well
to make sure that we have many details. Yeah I'm happy to provide clarification on that one.
Carrie Chan - Senior Planning Officer - 0:27:24
Both the construction ecological management plan and the landscape ecological management plan
They're both being secure fire conditions.
So we expect the applicants to submit these documents
to us for review.
Great, brilliant.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:27:44
And my last one was who maintains the zip wire?
Because in my experience, they don't tend to last very long.
Who does what, sorry?
Public Speakers - 0:27:51
The zip wire, who maintains the zip wire?
Because they don't last.
No, so obviously we've having 16 sites
with multiple activities including road parts etc we have a very strict policy
so we have external auditors that service this equipment every month it's
checked every year everything so we over maintain these things because they're so
important and so dangerous that they're used in the wrong way so yeah absolutely
that is fully controlled by us and fully managed internally but by also external
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:28:27
this is as well. Okay, Councillor Gough. Thank you Chairman. So, a bit on about
consortees etc. I know that area quite well, overlooks Aston Kinton. I will
say it was a fantastic place until something went drastically wrong. But do
you have consultation with the parish council and those that live down in that
Public Speakers - 0:28:49
lower area? Yeah, so we engaged with the parish council originally just to
say we're coming to this planning applicant. Um,
and then we'd post this.
We then form a good relationship because every PGL centre we have,
we want to be part of the community, not beside it. So actually we would,
we would look to do things as we do in all of our other centres with,
with parish and the local radio, things like open days, invite onto site,
et cetera, any works. We have numbers, phone numbers to call us to say,
if you think there's something wrong here, please call us.
So we fully engage, so yeah, we've engaged with the Paris Council, but Phil Postis, if
this is a positive application, we fully then really engage and become part of that community.
I'm glad to hear that.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:29:30
And just following on from Councillor Munger, again, the man that knows the area quite well,
it's good to see that a firm like yours has taken over from what happened previously confirmed
over there.
To be honest, I find it disgusting that people flout the planning law and then come to us
for retrospective.
It's nice to see actually it's changed and you've taken on the new licence to bring that forward.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:29:55
Great, thank you, Chancellor. There's one point I'd just like to pick up on.
You say that you use it both for Buckinghamshire schools and outside Buckinghamshire.
So is your arrangements a payback for Buckinghamshire?
What, sorry? Sorry, I didn't know that.
Is there some payback to Buckinghamshire when it's been used by other outside counties?
Public Speakers - 0:30:16
It really depends on booking.
So obviously we would get this for any school that wants to come to us for that.
The main concentration obviously from a travel distance is normally around,
you'd normally find it's about an hour, an hour and a quarter is the maximum.
In terms of payback for local schools, I'm not sure we had anything written in the planning app
for that. We would normally do something but it's not normal yet so we would normally offer
So we're probably doing viewings at the moment just to get people interested from local schools.
So we would normally do a local offer, but it's not something in our report.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:30:55
I mean I've been familiar with Greenbark for years. We used to send lots of students in. It was a great experience.
Yeah, but we're really pleased it's coming back up as Councillor Gough says.
But it's just a point you made it's being used by outside other authorities.
I won't go any further with that.
Not a problem, thank you.
Councillor Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 0:31:16
Could you just clarify?
It seems like a great plan and some of us have fond memories of PGR holidays as children, going back that long.
There's a lot of staff accommodation.
Is there any intention that some of that would be kind of year -round, people permanently living on site?
Public Speakers - 0:31:40
So it's very low. So I would say that let's say I think at the moment there's a there's around 30 beds
Something like that. You'd expect that 20 of them are probably seasonal that makes sense of peak
They would go over four to five months of a period and you'd say I'd probably a percentage wise
Probably around 10 or year round which which is normally your core maintenance team, etc
Essentially keeps the site running from that point
So it's around percentage gains, but it's normally that 10 to 30 percent.
Green Park offers a much better opportunity for local employment
because of our location right next to villages and towns.
We have some centres that are in the middle of nowhere.
We actually have to have a lot more live on from far away.
So actually, Green Park will buck our trend a little bit
in terms of be able to get a lot more live off colleagues.
Kathy, Noel. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:32:29
As an ex parish counsellor and looking after many play areas in my village, we
always had to bring in an independent inspector every year to do an inspection
on all the equipment. Do you have to do exactly the same? Yes, all of our kind of
Public Speakers - 0:32:53
off -ground ropes equipment, zip wires, etc. Yeah, we have an external
company that doesn't do any retrospective work just in specs. That's a company called
Capstone that we use at the moment, which is an accredited specialist in assessing every
part of equipment. We also obviously do all of our own risk assessments as well for any
other low level equipment, even such as fields. We'd still risk assess a field to say actually
is there any boundaries, et cetera, but absolutely yearly expectations, but we do it more often
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:33:26
if we need to. Absolutely. Good, thank you. There's no further questions so
thank you for your time and you may return to your seat.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 0:33:37
Colleagues, Mr. Baughan. Mr. Chairman, I haven't read the officer's report, listened to the
officer's presentation, listened to the applicant. This application would not be
be before us today if we as a council didn't own the land.
So I'd like to make a proposal that we
approve the officers recommendation and go to a vote.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:34:03
Okay, that was a bit quick.
I was going to suggest, is there any technical questions anyone has before we take that point?
It's a technical question. Yes?
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 0:34:17
Is any provision being made for the lack of the nursery because nursery places are really important so people, you know,
families can work. Is anything being done to alleviate this lack of nursery places?
There's a planning question.
Mark Aughterlony - Development Management Manager - 0:34:37
The report acknowledges the fact that there is the loss of the nursery.
At the end of the day that kind of use is something that market forces will dictate.
There are believed to be other nurseries available kind
of in the area.
We can't insist on something staying open.
And what I would also add is that with the changes
to the use classes order a couple of years ago,
it is highly likely that the use of that nursery could change
without the need for planning permission anyway.
It is acknowledged as a harm in Carrie's evaluation,
but nevertheless it's something that we feel
in the balance we couldn't object to.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:35:15
Okay, thank you very much. Paul?
Thank you. Yeah, just one technical question.
Cllr Chris Poll - 0:35:20
The applicant seems very keen and willing to do the right thing and is looking at 12 months virtually before they can begin to operate.
And a lot of conditions are applied, mainly to cover up what has gone on before.
Is our planning team confident that they can satisfy all the work that's required in that nine, ten months period to assist the applicant?
Okay
Carrie Chan - Senior Planning Officer - 0:36:03
In short yes, we are confident because we have been working with the applicant for the past
Year almost a year six months with the agent for over four years now
And we have set realistic
trigger points for example
For landscape ecological management power. We're asking for submission within six months of the permission
So, preparation can start as soon as, you know, like say tomorrow.
But obviously, they just need to submit it.
I think the important point to note is that we are working with the applicant constantly,
trying to find a way so that to minimal any, minimise any delays.
And same with our consultees, i .e., ecology, officers and tree officers have been working,
you know day in day out on this proposal trying to make sure that the conditions
not only meet the test but also not restricting the applicant too much so
that they can't start certain work.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:37:09
Good thank you very much. Councillor Gough.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:37:13
Yeah I just have one excuse me I've got a froggy throat today.
To the applicant, they control the whole site because I just wanted to know a bit more, are they using the buildings?
Because as you come through the gate there, there's quite a big hall as you come in to the left.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's quite left.
Have they got control over that whole site? Are they using those facilities?
Carrie Chan - Senior Planning Officer - 0:37:42
That's my understanding because it's within the application red line.
It's just about interest. That's very politically answered that was, that was very good.
They're well trained Councillors.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:37:56
Thank you, thank you. I think we ought to do the technical rush to get through.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:38:03
I mean, page 39, fourth and third, 2024,
you reference archeological elements within the site,
the Roman and early Iron Age.
One of the aspects you'll find with Roman Iron Age,
you'll probably find early Anglo -Saxon crossover
from that period because quite frankly the Saxons moved back in as soon as the Romans moved out the
Saxons moved in. That said and then in the 10th or the 3rd, 10th or the 6th, 23rd, 4th, we acknowledge
that there was some retrospective work. Now what I need to understand is as the
retrospective work compromised the archeological works because that would be really unfortunate if
it has, I'm sure that officers have watched it.
And then you go on into further in the third proposal,
particularly the cabins.
So it's around the cabin area, I'm assuming.
I might be wrong.
So I am concerned that those work are retrospective.
I just need to have assurance that the archeological
information has been collated, and we
haven't lost any archaeology through the retrospective
nature of the application.
And I think it's important we know that, even though we may
the enthusiastic prince with it. Our heritage and whatever's only ever gained once and once you've
lost it you never get it back again. So if you can help me a little bit with that I'd be very
appreciative. In answer to your question Councillor Stuxbury, no there's been no significant archeological
Mark Aughterlony - Development Management Manager - 0:39:40
harm or impacts. I'd love to say that's through prompt action by our enforcement colleagues back
in the day sort of back in 2022 when this first started but there hasn't been any irreparable
damage caused and as you've alluded to 5 .64 and 5 .65 we're happy that with the the imposition of
a condition any further archeological works would be controlled and supervised so if there
are anything found it would be protected and retained. Yes I say that because he started
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:40:14
the office as a big fantastic actually protecting our heritage and all that to make sure that was
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:40:22
Thank you. Right, we've got no further technical questions. We did have a proposal to go with the
officer's recommendation. Does anyone else want to make a comment or support that?
Thank you very much, Chairman. I'm going to follow Councillor Lahoon on that one because,
Cllr Phil Gomm - 0:40:39
you know, I think the report that has been put together is brilliant. Personally, I would like
to say how exciting it is to hear that that area is going to be regenerated, you
know, for outside activity, which is a massive thing that we promote in Buckinghamshire.
So I'm very happy to hear that, very confident what I read, very confident to
understand that they more than likely are controlling the whole of that site,
which is even better. It does serve that area well and does serve... so the
the only condition that I would have, Chairman, to add to,
that if we do decide to hand it over to officers
to make that decision, I would like to make a proposal
that once they have done all the refurbishment
and the works there, that we pop up to have a look
to see what's achieved by them.
Because it's one thing that we do do is agree to this,
but we never see the outcome of some,
and I think this is quite exciting.
I'm sure the two gentlemen over there will invite you.
Right, let's go...that was a late one.
It wasn't, I planned it.
It's the enthusiasm for the applications office.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:41:53
The conditions elements of it, the office has worked very closely on.
There is an opportunity here to do much more biogame within this site.
Yeah, it is.
the officers content that once and if it's agreed which is that's going to be
the way it's not me already two strikes and you'll be out anyway so going back I
just want know that we feel we have enough oversight to put enough
conditions in because the nature of the site is extensive. There are meadows and such like around it which we could get some real biodiversity net gain in that site to offset other developments where that could come in because we don't get them opportunities very often.
and whether the officers can look at that where we get some offset by the first net gain money in there to increase it over above what the application says,
knowing that it's council land and it would be fortuitous for us to do that.
Carrie Chan - Senior Planning Officer - 0:43:14
To start off with, in terms of the buy -by first net gain, unfortunately we can't put a planning condition on it,
But there is an informative as part of the government's BNG mandatory 10 % net gain.
So it's number five on the informative that we will require the submission of a game plan.
We can't ask for money.
But hopefully with the informative that governments have put on to, for all applications
as well as condition 10 and 11, which asks for submission of planting, landscaping, ecological measures.
We are confident that with all the conditions and the informative, we are going to get more biodiversity enhancement,
more planting, more vegetation, we will get again.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:44:14
Just one further question for the Chair, it might not be relevant but I'll be advised.
The Council, there is in developments up and down the land there's this thing where
of environmental net gain is off -sourced and this belongs to Buckinghamshire Council, the land.
Is that something which could be looked at separately?
you saying quite rightly about not being able to put conditions of money on it.
This could be an area where that environmental net gain is offset from
other developments could come into play which wouldn't be fiscally challenging
to the applicant nor the council.
Mark Aughterlony - Development Management Manager - 0:44:55
I think what you're referring to Councillor Suchbury is kind of buying off -site credits and in the report,
Carriers report deals with the children's beechwood sack which requires
various kind of improvements and enhancements that's all based on visitor
numbers it's not a tax on per dwellings it's visitor numbers and as Carrie has
put in the report this is pretty much self -contained within itself so it's not
actually necessary for the applicant to seek any additional enhancements or
credits off site we are content as carries explained with the conditions
that the necessary B &G improvements can be secured through the conditions and
the mandatory informative that the government insist on.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 0:45:41
I didn't explain I meant the credits from other sites being put on to this site that's what I meant.
I didn't know whether that's appropriate.
This isn't an application of proposing.
No I know it's just something that could be considered.
Mark Aughterlony - Development Management Manager - 0:45:52
I know what you mean I mean we do have applications to create tanks.
Yeah, this is not one of them. Thank you. I just just wanted to clarify that
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:46:03
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:46:07
Thank you, I just wanted to point out principally for a councillor gums benefit or anyone else interested that
The map on screen now and on page 50 of the application papers in front of us
I should just show the blue line as well as the red line. So the land in ownership are in control
I think the wording is of the applicant is shown in full in addition to the application site.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:46:30
Thank you for that. Thank you for your help on that.
Right we got the proposal and seconded before us and so we go to the vote.
Those in favour of the officer's recommendation.
Hang on.
The condition changed as we were notified.
Yes.
All those in favour.
Thank you.
As you can see, we've had a change of staff.
Council Chilbrooke, I'm just checking that you are here, and that I know you know the
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:48:05
rules, but when we come to your presentation, colleagues will only be able to explore what
you have said as opposed to any other further directions.

6 25/02132/APP - Land to the South and North of Nash Road and Land to East of Thornton Road, Thornton, Buckinghamshire

So for this next application I'm joined by Zanab Hurd who is a Presenting Officer,
Senior Planning Manager Ross Herbert and David Marches from our Highways Department.
So, let me go for that.
Councillor Munger.
Cllr Llew Monger - 0:48:29
Thank you Chairman. I just wanted to raise a question which hopefully Mr Stubbs will be able to answer as our Legal Officer.
I wrote to you this morning and to the officer involved and
to Councillor Chilva pointing out that the report referred to
from the second response from Thornton Parish Council,
which is noted on page 105 of the report, that being the report dated
September 25 is indicated as being at Appendix B in the report but it was not.
All there is at Appendix B in the report is the site location plan and we are
here today having been submitted the report I'm referring to which runs to
eight pages and I for one don't have the capacity to read eight pages of a report
in the time available. Are we at risk therefore if we decide this application today of being
in any legal difficulty for members not having had adequate sight of a significant
response to the application? So perhaps a legal comment.
Katherine Stubbs - Planning Solicitor - 0:49:55
Thank you Chairman. Yes, I have considered that and on the basis that there are four
points really. The most recent representation from Thornton Parish meeting which was dated
January 2026 is in the agenda report. It's in Appendix A at page 99. The previous representation
has been available for members to view on public access throughout the application should
they have chosen to do so.
The parish meeting has a speaker registered
to address committee today.
And their concerns have also been dealt
with in the officer report.
So on the basis of all that information,
I am satisfied that there is not grounds
for a successful judicial review
should the application proceed to be determined today.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 0:50:39
Okay, thank you very much.
So the application before this is 25 stroke 02132.
to APP and I'll present an officer and her presentation case.
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 0:50:53
Thank you Chairman, hopefully you can hear me.
This application relates to land to south and north of Nash Road and land to the east
of Thornton Road, Thornton, Buckinghamshire.
The proposal is for the installation of a solar farm comprising of ground mounted solar
PV panels with an installed capacity of up to 49 .9 megawatts, alternating current including
amounting systems, inverters, underground cabling, fencing, CCTV, tracks, associated
infrastructure and this is for a temporary period of 50 years.
So just to put some geographic context to you, the application site is outlined in red
on this slide and so there it is outlined in red and the site lies
between Thornton to the northeast and Thornborough to the south. In terms of the
site's constraints the site itself is relatively unconstrained.
There is ancient woodland outlined in these darker shades of green.
The site does not lie in a flood zone.
There are no heritage assets affecting the site.
There is a Grade II listed building located here, which is Thornton,
which is covered in the report and the conservation area in Thornborough is located here.
There are some public rights of way that cross the site
and they're outlined in the dotted green lines.
So this is the site location plan.
So set out the context, there is solar panels that propose to be located in areas red identified here.
And then the connexion to the grid is taking place in this area to the south east.
This is a topographical plan which shows that the area along here is relatively flat and
there's some undulation in this section of the site.
In terms of site access there's proposed to be three points of access, one on the southern
side of Nash Road, second on the northern side of Nash Road and the third point of access
along Thornborough Road. And there are some internal access tracks within the site.
In terms of the construction route, the proposal is to come off the A4 -421 and then it will go down
Singelborough Road onto Nash Road and Thornton Road. But the key point here is that it avoids
routing through the villages.
So this is a slide showing the proposed layout of the solar panels
and it's noted that there's no panels proposed to be located in the area here
to the north western part of the site to avoid that direct relationship with the properties
along here and here. There's woodland blocks and proposed planting and additional planting
along public rights way. In terms of the substation, this is just a slide showing what that will
look like in that area to the south east and it will include a substation that will allow
stepping up directly into the grid as is illustrated here.
In terms of the cumulative impacts,
so the application site is outlined in red.
The colours represent solar farms consented nearby,
and as the report assesses, there is quite some distance
between the application site itself
and the surrounding solar panels or solar farm developments
so they're not directly associated with each other.
Moving on to images of where the solar panels are being located.
So this is a view of the site from Thornborough Road
where solar panels will be located in these fields.
Again, a view from Thornborough Road where solar panels are proposed to be located here
and the application seeks to strengthen this boundary along Thornborough Road to mitigate
against that visual impact.
There's going to be solar panels located on both sides of Nash Road along here.
This is a view from public right of way THB 15 -2, looking towards the site over here.
Here's some views from Crossbridge cottages. So this is taken from this area towards the site.
I think it's to be noted that the panels won't be located immediately around the cottages,
but beyond that and the land rises so the panels will be located beyond that.
Here's a view from public right of way TH21 and this is indicated as view point 8 which
is here looking towards the panels so these fields will be panelled and there will be
change so in this particular field you will see solar panels but what members should note
here is that there is no vegetation between the public right -of -way and the panels, which
the idea is to allow appreciation of those wider views and the wider landscape which
can be currently appreciated.
And this is a view from public right -of -way, THD 13 -1, which is viewpoint 12, and that's
taken from this location here, so you're looking towards the site and the solar panels will be located here.
And then this is the slide illustrating views towards the substation.
Earlier I illustrated what the substation would look like, so that will be seated in the context of the pylon
and it will be located in that far field beyond the hedge.
So I'm just going to turn to recent appeal decisions relating to solar farms in Buckinghamshire.
We dealt with an application in Kimballwick which was near the AONB and which had direct
views from Whiteleaf Hill.
So this was a view from Beacon Hill, there were direct views from Whiteleaf Hill and
also from Coombe Hill.
the inspector in that case found localised temporary harm to the landscape character and visual amenities.
For noting in that particular case there was a very dense network of public rights of way.
I think over, like around a dozen public rights of way were affected by that sort of harm.
And in that respect the inspector found harm to the users of the public rights of way,
both crossing the site and adjacent to the site.
And he recognised that it would introduce
prominent and discordant infrastructure into an
otherwise rural landscape, notwithstanding this and notwithstanding
the views from the Chiltern National Landscape. The inspector considered
the benefits of that proposal to outweigh the harm.
We've also had an appeal decision
in relating to Leadburn Solar Farm and this is a view from Ascot House.
So in that case the inspector identified the proposal had the potential to affect 22 heritage assets
of which the inspector found harm to eight designated heritage assets
and five non -designated heritage assets that included a medium level of less than substantial harm
to Ascot House and Garden, the parkland from Ascot House and Gardens.
And that harm was due to the introduction of large -scale solar development
into an otherwise agricultural landscape,
which formed the wider heritage asset relating to Rothschild's estate.
Notwithstanding this harm found, the inspector found,
the benefits of the solar farm development outweighed the benefits, sorry outweighed the
harm identified including to all of those heritage assets which he thought there were eight and some
of which were of higher significance. We've also had an appeal at Wood End Solar Farm,
This is opposite Hallward House, which is a Grade II listed building and visitor attraction.
In that particular case, harm was found to users of the public right -of -way.
Harm was also found to the setting of the heritage assets.
There were elevated fields, as you can see from that image, directly in front of the
listed building.
notwithstanding that the inspector found,
notwithstanding the harm, the benefits in the case of providing solar development would outweigh the harm.
So we've had three appeal decisions in Buckinghamshire itself of similar sized solar farm developments
and all of them have been allowed by the inspector.
And then outside of Buckinghamshire where heritage assets were engaged, there's a solar farm in Clumber Park in Bassett Law
and it's one of the most visited national trust properties and that's the relationship between the Grade 1 registered parking garden and the solar development
and even in that case, notwithstanding the harm to the heritage assets, the inspector allowed the appeal.
So I'm just going to turn to drainage matters on this application.
So the application has been considered by the lead local SUD authority,
and they have acknowledged that the applicant is proposing to manage surface water runoff
through permeable gravel sub -base and also access tracks.
So they found that the drainage is acceptable on that basis
but also the applicant has proposed
additional flood storage capacity
which isn't related to the development.
It's additional flood storage capacity to help
alleviate flood risk from downstream areas
rather than to just manage any flood risk from the development itself.
Now I'm going to turn to images provided by Thornton Parish meeting,
which was kindly circulated by the parish meeting,
just to make members aware that these are images circulated
and they're just flagging that these are the views of the proposal from Thonborough Road,
the public right of way THT21 overlooking the solar farm.
Views from Nash Road onto the field, which is close to Thornton Hall.
These are views from the entrance of Thornton Hall looking across the solar farm.
And this is a view from Thornborough Road which has that long and distant view of River
Great, Elsidner background.
So before I move to a recommendation, I just want to draw members' attention to a small
number of corrections in the officer report.
At section two, paragraph 2 .1,
the first line should refer to Nash Road
and Thornborough Road rather than Thornton Road.
At section five, at paragraph 5 .69,
reference to properties along Moreton Road
should instead read as properties along Nash Road.
And then just in terms of condition six,
there's duplication of wording.
So it's proposed to remove that at condition 17.
It is proposed to just add the words
after further mitigation secured by agreement
with the local planning authority.
So drawing this presentation to a close, the report recognises
that this proposal would result in a material change
to the character of the site and its immediate surroundings.
As set out in the report, there would be localised adverse effects to landscape character and
visual amenity, including moderate to major effects on some users of the public right
of way, where that experience would change from agricultural land to one influenced by
solar infrastructure.
There would also be a low level of less than substantial harm to the setting of Thornton
Hall, to which great weight has been applied in accordance with statutory duties.
These harms are acknowledged in the report and weigh against the proposal in the planning
balance.
However, set against this, the scheme would deliver significant quantum of renewable energy
for a temporary period of 50 years, after which it would be reversible, making a meaningful
contribution to climate change and energy security, which National Planning Policy Frameworks
advises us to give significant weight. The development would also deliver biodiversity
net gain and other enhancements, and technical matters raised by consultees are capable of
being addressed by condition. So having regard to the development plan as a whole, and in
the context of recent appeal decisions which demonstrate how harm is weighed in practise,
officers consider that identified harms do not amount to an unacceptable adverse impact
that is outweighed by the benefits of this proposal. So accordingly, for the reasons
set out in the report and recommendation, officers recommend that planning permission
is approved subject to condition thank you members thank you very much indeed
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:06:53
and so first week on this application is the local councillor John Chilburn
I know you know the score John the time comes up behind me when you're three
minutes. Thank you Chairman. As Buckinghamshire Councillor for Thornton, I have called in
this application on several grounds but can only highlight some of the most
Public Speakers - 1:07:26
significant in the time available. The first is flooding. Thornton is in the
Valley of the River Great Ouse and has suffered from flooding for many years
affecting Houses, Gardens and Thornton Girls' School. Following the severe
flooding of December 2020, a Section 19 investigation by Buckinghamshire Council noted that Thornton
is surrounded by agricultural land on the Great Ouse floodplain. There was concern that
placing the solar farm on this land will increase water runoff and the risk of flooding and
undermine established natural flood defences. The Environment Agency's 2011 flood report
said these agricultural fields are critical for holding back floodwaters that would otherwise
threaten over a thousand homes downstream.
On transport, the proposed access route from the A421 is very similar to the access route
to the new Beechhampton solar farm of 206 acres due to start construction shortly with
harmful cumulative effect.
This route involves poor and inadequate narrow country lanes unsuitable for HGV traffic
and includes Nash Brakes Crossroads, which is a notorious accident black spot.
In addition, the road from Thornton north to the A422 has been closed for many months,
adding to the volume of traffic on this proposed construction route.
On heritage assets, the harm to the setting of Grade 2 listed Thornton Hall has been mentioned,
but there is no mention of the Grade 1 listed Thornton Church in the grounds of Thornton School,
also subject to increased flood risk.
On archaeology, the Council's archaeology officer notes that the site is of high archeological potential
and that the applicant has provided insufficient evidence on this.
They note that a geophysical survey and trial trenching should have been done before the
determination of this application, and this hasn't happened.
Finally, there's the impact of this massive industrial development, magically just under
the 50 megawatt threshold, which would have made it an NSIP, on local views right of way
and the rural agricultural landscape, particularly when considered cumulatively
with all the other solar farms in the Jashon parishes, such as Beechhampton, Wadden, and Thornborough.
There are already eight sites within three kilometres and 11 sites within five kilometres.
So I urge the committee to reject this application.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:10:15
Thank you very much indeed.
Any point of clarification?
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:10:36
Councillor Sussbury. Firstly Councillor Chilwell thank you for coming and thank you for representing
your ward. The questions I want to address to you is I'm unfortunately knowledgeable
about flooding having filmed it in Buckingham up to my waist in waders and that water will
come through Buckingham comes to Thornton, your river can only flow one way which is
downhill. I will have some other technical questions which I can't ask
you later but if you've got any extensive knowledge of the extent of the
flooding in the Ouzil Valley in relation to the area which the Ouzil Valley also
contains near Thornton the structural right -of -way for the canal, it also
contains as part of the mineral waste strategy of Buckinghamshire Council. But have you got
more knowledge of it Alf? Because I when flooding takes place I'm primarily looking at Buckingham so
how far it goes out whether this actual area is part of the Stenia 18 flood plain
which takes the water before it gets to pass them and before it then drifts back through
Stony Stratford and makes its way to Olney because the river only flows one
way and 60 square miles of water coming from Northamptonshire has to go
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:12:02
somewhere and it passes through North Berks. You're asking a lot of Councillor
Public Speakers - 1:12:05
Dilgert. Thank you Councillor. Well I have read the section 19 report on the
flooding in Thornsman in 2020 when there was internal flooding of at least seven
properties in the village.
And also the school was flooded, and its grounds
are very regularly flooded because it's
adjacent to the River Ouse.
But I think one of the concerns is
that there was runoff from the adjacent fields
into some of those properties along the main road
in Thornton, which is exactly where this solar farm is being
proposed and whether that would actually increase future runoff.
I completely agree with the officer's mention
of the need for more downstream flood mitigation work.
It's not just the site itself,
it's the impact downstream,
all the way down to Stone and Stratford.
So, the other area which tends to get flooded
is Crossbridge Farm and Crossbridge Cottages
to the west of this site.
And we've already looked at those recently
to see what flood mitigation work can be done.
But I think the representative of Thornton Parish meeting
can probably talk about that a bit more.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:13:24
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Smith.
Thank you for that, John.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:13:27
I just for background, remember standing there
looking at the flood water, it's as wide as a Thames.
Councillor Smith.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:13:35
Thank you, thank you, Chair.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:13:39
I was also curious about flooding.
In particular, from your perspective really in this objection,
I'm trying to understand how it is that solar panels can increase the likelihood of flooding on up piece of land.
So could you explain that a little bit more, given that it's still open land, it's not changed.
But also slightly related, similar, is that you mentioned a bit about archeological harm as well.
And I'm just wondering how solar panels on a field can affect what's not known to be
beneath them in the same way that if it's farmed, we accept that there's a field.
A few points.
Public Speakers - 1:14:25
As I mentioned before, there's runoff capacity beyond the site boundaries into existing water
courses which would have an impact on downstream.
Sorry, I was trying to get at why there is additional runoff.
Usually permeable panel surfaces and also the proposed concrete footings that they are
intending to instal and the impact that they would have.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:14:49
Let me just stop there because that was not something that was mentioned in the presentation.
Just a moment.
It may be something you could pick up in technical or in 3D talking if the developer talks about it.
but the technicality of run -off from a solar panel is not within the gift of our cancer.
Public Speakers - 1:15:11
And I think that given the fact that there have been extensive floods in Thornton recently,
that overall it would undermine the established natural flood defences which have been referred to in the reports which I mentioned.
Yeah, and indeed they are dealt with under the section 19 investigation.
Councillor Gough?
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:15:32
Councillor Chilwell, you mentioned about the other sites nearby that flood or and then
there's the Beach Hampton one that's like you say not constructed yet where I remember
that all of us were very concerned about water runoff there off of the panels because of
the way the water would flow off into the system so to speak.
I'm just this is clarification please Chairman bear with me did you mention
the solar site just up the road on on the is it there for 21 it's just up the
road a little bit as well that's part the accumulative of different solar
places in that area you know yeah I'm just trying to get to clarify the
the acumenism of what's in that actual area into that flood zone.
I, you know, we know.
Thank you, thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:16:30
Chancellor Chilber, thank you for your time.
Right, can I call Professor Andy Lane, please?
Public Speakers - 1:16:48
Again, so you've got three minutes for your presentation.
Thank you.
Our objections have always been on the adequacy
of the documentation for making a decision
in the size and duration of the solar farm.
The inadequacy of the documentation is highlighted
by the fact that so many of the conditions proposed
are about providing improved plans,
such as the construction traffic management plan,
or providing plans that were hinted at or not provided,
such as a hedgerow management plan.
We've also noted a wider habitat management
and monitoring plan is needed,
as noted in their own ecological assessment document.
This could be an additional condition,
but equally we are bemused that approval is recommended
before such improved documentation has been submitted
rather than afterwards.
Then there are interrelationships between documents.
Any archeological assessment finding near surface
archeological remains will be mitigated by having
the supports of panels mounted on concrete pads
rather than driven into the ground.
If this was a substantial number of panels,
this would change the amount of permeable surface
on the site and change the surface water drainage calculations.
Condition 25 does not mention this as a consideration.
The Planning Officer notes that some of the local harms reduced are outweighed by the
wider public benefits supported by national and local policies.
This balance is a matter of judgement how such harms are framed. For example, the cumulative
visual impact of this proposal alongside neighbouring solar farms is framed as the
intervisibility of one solar farm to another. Rather than be based on people moving
through this landscape character area in a car,
on a bicycle or on foot, which is how most people,
not resident in Thornton, will experience it.
An unquestioned aspect of this proposal
is why it requires 88 hectares to provide
an export capacity of 49 .99 megawatts.
None of the documentation indicates
how many panels are proposed to achieve this.
A quick calculation using industry figures
indicates that 70 hectares or even less might suffice.
If that is the case, then it would not be necessary
to include the field south of Slalombe Road
that abuts the local landscape area to the north,
and in whose inclusion encapsulates a footpath,
both elements providing a visual harm.
It also eliminates the need for one of the three access points
and construction compounds.
Or perhaps it could also include the field east of Nash Road
that immediately abuts Thornton Hall,
that creates harm to the landscape character
around the hall.
Removing that field from the proposal will reduce these harms
and eliminate the need for yet another of the access points proposed.
Lastly, there is the 50 -year timeframe
for the operation of this solar farm.
While there are plans and conditions
dealing with construction and conditions
for decommissioning after 50 years,
nowhere is there any mention
of the likely need to replace equipment.
Solar panels mostly have a guaranteed life of 25 years.
More importantly, inverters need replacing
every 10 to 15 years.
Where is the condition to say
the replacement construction plan will be required?
To recap, we object because we do not believe
that the case for the proposal has been adequately made.
We would expect a better case to be made
before approval, including the necessity of requiring 88 hectares and a site visit to
better understand the landscape and visual impact.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:19:54
Thank you. Thank you very much. Any points of clarification?
Yes, Chatterley.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:20:04
Firstly, thank you. Thank you for your points. I'd like you to clarify because your local
knowledge would be great at the mind of the rights of way aspects of this.
People fought a long time to get rights away and rights to Rome and
they've been very successful. I used to roam down there and swimming
for and wear when I was younger until they stopped me. But the rights
to access the land and your understanding around that and your view
I'd be interested in understanding that you mentioned it.
This would not remove the public rights away that already exist there,
Public Speakers - 1:20:45
most of which run round the edge of the site.
But there is one, THT 2 -1, which actually would be encapsulated by fields on either side with panels in them.
That site, that public right away, already has quite good views across the whole site,
which is currently agricultural in aspect.
It also has clear views across the Uze Valley
to the local landscape area that is there.
So that particular public right -of -way,
they say that there could be hedgerows or trees planted
to screen panels, but it would fundamentally
change the views from that particular public right -of -way.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your time, sir.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:21:35
Right, could I now call Caroline Moore, who's an objector?
As you've seen, Caroline, you've got three minutes, we will make your presentation.
Public Speakers - 1:21:58
Just press the button and the red light will come on and I will be able to hear you.
Okay, thank you. Hello.
I live in one of the lodges at the entrance of the drive to Thornton Hall.
Most of the fields for this proposed solar installation are very close to my house and very visible, particularly in winter.
I wanted to speak today as I feel strongly that the landscape and visual impact assessment does not correctly reflect the actual impact.
The assessment appears to have been done on a computer using maps and not on site.
Anyone visiting me or neighbouring properties or moving through Thornton would see that clearly for themselves.
All these fields are far more visible than claimed.
A landscape architect who lives in Thornton argues that this assessment has not been carried out according to best practise.
For example, many of the photos included are taken from Google Street View and are not recent.
Ironically, one neighbour in the stables beside Thornton Hall wanted to erect solar panels on the rear of their roof and were refused because of the visual impact, even though it is over 400 metres to the nearest footpath.
This proposal puts hundreds or even thousands of panels within 300 metres of Thornton Hall.
All of us in Thornton are in no doubt that a solar installation of this size and duration would completely change the character of an unspoiled agricultural area surrounded by country lanes and farms and with public rights of way through it and by it.
The fact the officer feels there should be so many conditions attached to this proposal surely shows that this is not really a good plan.
If this proposal is agreed, I am worried about how such conditions will be enforced, not just during construction but over the many years it is operating.
Two of the access points and compounds are close to my house, as is the designated access road,
a road heavily used by parents taking their children to Thornton College.
My household and several of my neighbours frequently hack horses up and down this road.
Local recent experience of the Thornburgh grounds solar farm construction is that
despite conditions specifying what times and by what route HGVs could access the site,
no one bothered to tell the contractors.
Drivers delivering the panels followed Sat Nav,
which took them over the Grade 2 listed bridge on Wolf Lane
rather than the stipulated route.
Although reported, nothing was done to enforce the condition.
So how will this much larger proposal
that threatens much greater inconvenience and damage
be monitored?
What sanctions are there for not complying with the conditions?
Given the lack of care and attention in much of the paperwork that has been submitted,
I have no faith in the proposers to do a good job during their construction nor operation. Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:25:10
Thank you very much. Any points of clarification? Councillor Gough.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:25:17
Yeah, I'd like to come in because you said you experienced like the horse riders and that in that area,
you mentioned Thornton College.
So with the rights of way, I would, with the rights of way
that go across that land and in the vicinity of that land,
do horse riders use that area as well on the land
and the farms in that area?
And also, this might be digging a little bit deeper,
Chairman, if you'd oblige me, but you mentioned Thornton College.
Do they, do the young ladies there from there,
do they use those rights of way in that area?
Public Speakers - 1:25:53
I can't comment on what the college girls do or don't do when I've been walking them I have met
The nuns and people walking those routes in terms of horses. There are several
livery yards and private homes
around
the sort of circumference of this proposal and
Although we don't have any bridleway access over we frequently use
It's a nice kind of like five mile route around the circumference of this proposal
and is a quiet country lane, single track in many places.
Thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:26:33
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Can I call Antonia and support her please?
Again, you have three minutes for your presentation.
Public Speakers - 1:27:05
Please remain seated for any points of clarification.
Good afternoon.
My name's Antonia Debo.
I've lived in Buckinghamshire for 13 years.
I live here with my husband and my two teenagers.
I'm here in support of this solar farm today.
I support it partly because it's financially good
for our country, for our county as well.
This project would bring in around £128 ,000 per annum
in business rates to Buckinghamshire Council,
money that can go directly to our local services.
I also support it because I care deeply about climate change and the future generations
who will live with its consequences.
Powering 12 ,000 homes with clean energy is exactly the kind of local action that adds
up.
The project would achieve that, offsetting 1 .1 million tonnes of CO2 across its lifetime.
I've heard concerns about loss of farmland, but almost all of this site, 92 % of it, is actually lower quality agricultural land, not prime farmland.
And grazing can still continue beneath its panels.
On the local impact, we've heard quite a few things
about people opposing on that scale.
But there are very few real local homes close to the site.
And extra planting and screening should help it sit naturally
in the countryside.
The solar farm would actually improve nature in the area with new planting and larger hedgerows
to improve biodiversity.
Natural England has reviewed the plans and raised no objections.
All of the points I've raised today are from the reports that have been written and the
So in conclusion, I can see why there may be some cause for concern, but when I looked
at the details, I found plenty of reasons to support it.
This looks to me like a well -designed, low -impact project that would make a real contribution
to our energy security and our climate.
So from me and other local supporters who couldn't come today,
I ask the committee to please support this.
Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:30:00
Thank you very much indeed.
Any point of clarity?
Councillor Smith.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:30:14
Thank you, Chair.
You made much of the kind of visual, or we've heard a lot
about visual appearances and you mentioned that yourself.
Do you walk the footpaths around this area?
And given what you have said and other people
that you've spoken to who live in this area,
can you see that the visual appearance of those walks
would be affected or negated in some way by the farm
as it's proposed at the moment?
Public Speakers - 1:30:50
I think it would be a short -term impact while we're waiting for the hedgerows
which are going to be planted to grow. So yes I can see that would
be impacted on a short -term basis but not on a long term because in a long
term it's going to increase opportunities for biodiversity in
hedgerows and so on and that's the idea that's in the planning.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:31:15
Councillor Sargent. Thank you for coming and speaking and giving
a view. I'd like to understand you referred to, but I don't necessarily know those figures
are in the report, about the net gain energy and the support for housing numbers. If it's
in the report, and I missed it, I apologise, it was quite a big factor of what you were
saying in your reasons for supporting it as a supporter about how it would offset
itself by, was it 1 ,200 homes or something? I can't quite remember what you said, I apologise.
Which is a big factor there and whether you could elaborate a little bit more on
what you thought about it so we are able to consider these things in balance.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:32:05
The ladies are 1200 houses, 12 ,000 houses.
Public Speakers - 1:32:12
12 ,000 houses. I just took that from one of the reports.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:32:16
Okay, thank you. Councillor Paul.
Cllr Chris Poll - 1:32:23
Thank you Chairman. I'd just like to ask the Speaker if she has any connexion to this application or to the solar industry in general
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:32:37
and therefore should declare an interest? No, no, no, no. It's all about the presentation she made.
She's registered as a supporter. Thank you very much. Councillor Monghan.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:32:47
Thank you, Chair. I just want to follow up on a point that Councillor Smith made, which you didn't actually respond to.
and that was he asked if you know the area and walk those footpaths,
which led me to wonder if you actually live in the area
and therefore do have that additional knowledge.
I don't live in that area.
I do live in Buckinghamshire.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:33:14
Yep. In fact, for 13 years, if I remember.
OK, thank you very much.
Councillor Gormley.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:33:24
Living in Buckinghamshire for 13 years doesn't say that you live in that area and understand
that area, but hey -ho, that's the way it goes.
No, I will be to the point, Chairman, because my colleagues have asked that question over
there.
But anyway, you said that the farmland is low -grade farmland.
How is it low -grade farmland?
Okay.
Public Speakers - 1:33:48
I have a quote here from one of the reports, which I can read to you.
Okay. This is page three in the officer report, which I believe is a council report.
An agricultural land classification survey undertaken shown that the land comprises,
and it comprises a mix of grade 2, 3A, and 3B.
Of the 88 .8 hectares assessed,
approximately 3 .5 hectares are grade 2
and 3 .8 hectares are subgrade 3A.
That's all that I can tell you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:34:36
So, OK, the officer's report is the officer's report,
but looking from above on Google, Chairman, oblige me,
is that the ground looks quite good pasture land and arable land.
So it's down to the farmer what's put there.
So you don't know the land and you wouldn't be able to verify that yourself.
No, I'm just going on the reports that I've seen.
Public Speakers - 1:34:58
I mean, what else can I do?
Unless I take some legal advice on it.
I can only look at the reports which means action.
Okay, Chairman, thank you.
The officer's report indicates it's 3B.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:35:10
I get that Chairman, but the lady is pointing to us.
No, no, no.
She's not really aware of the land around there, but anyway.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:35:22
Chair, I think I ought to object to the tone that Councillor Lecombe's taking to the individual
who's just giving her own view.
She's not an expert and isn't claiming to be.
She's quoting from the Officer Report and I think Councillor Lecombe should have read it.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:35:32
Okay, let's leave it at that.
Thank you.
Is there any further points of clarification?
No, thank you for your time.
Right, can I now call Nick Billington?
Mr Chairman.
Again, so you've got three minutes for your presentation.
Public Speakers - 1:36:05
If you remain seated we can go through any points of clarification with you.
Good afternoon my name is Nick Beddow, agent acting on behalf of the applicant
and member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. This application has been
subject to an extensive and thorough determination process. The proposals have
been assessed, refined and improved in response to that consultation and we
welcome the officers recommendation for approval. The site has no statutory
landscape designations, assessed visual effects are localised and primarily experienced at
close range. These effects would reduce over time with mitigation planting and hedgerow
management proposed as part of the scheme. The landscape and heritage context of the
site has been considered in detail, including the relationship with Thornton Hall and other
solar developments within the wider area. Officers conclude that the scheme would not
result in a significant cumulative landscape effect and that the public
benefits outweigh the assessed impacts in the setting of Thornton Hall. While
concerns have been raised locally in relation to flood risk, the lead local
flood authority is satisfied that the scheme will not increase flood risk
either on -site or elsewhere. Indeed the council's drainage officer acknowledges
that the proposed drainage strategy would in fact provide additional flood
storage capacity beyond that required for the development itself.
The proposed development...the proposals...the proposed...the archeological objection is...no
archeological objection is raised subject to appropriate conditions, and the proposed
approach to archaeology has recently been endorsed by a planning inspector on the Kimballwick
Solar Farm Appeal that we've heard about, and that approach is now enshrined in best
practise guidance that has been published in April 2026.
The relevant highway ecology and rights of way specialists
also raise no objection subject to the recommended conditions.
National policy requires significant weights
to be given to the benefits of renewable and low carbon energy
generation.
And in this regard, the proposal would
make a substantial contribution in terms of generation
and energy security.
It increases our generation capacity
at a time when demand is set to at least double by 2050, and it generates business rates and
economic activity during the construction and operational phases.
The scheme would deliver important environmental enhancements.
Existing woodland hedgerows and ponds would be retained alongside new habitats and planting
delivering biodiversity net gain above the statutory requirement of 10%.
To conclude, the application has been robustly assessed against policy.
Officers are satisfied that it complies with the development plan and there are
no technical objections from statutory consultees to justify refusal. The solar
farm is time limited with decommissioning and restoration of the
land secured at the end of its operational lifetime. Given the
substantial benefits of the proposal the planning balance tips overwhelmingly in
favour of granting consent. We therefore respectfully ask members to follow the
a recommendation and grant planning permission.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:39:14
Perfect timing, thank you. Any points of clarification?
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:39:34
Professor Gibbons. I have quite a few questions, would that be all right?
Okay. First of all, I'm a bit unsure of what's actually going underneath the solar panels
because it's being talked about, vegetation, sheep or flowers to improve net gain. But
if you have sheep and flowers, then I guess the biodiversity could be removed because
the sheep eat the flowers.
Sorry, sorry. That was not mentioned in the presentation.
Oh sorry, I'll put that technical in. Sorry, okay.
All I can do is permit clarification of points that the presenter made.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:40:11
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:40:13
You can take those up in technical.
Okay, I'll take all those in technical then.
Alright, I'll ask you about flooding because you did mention flooding.
I'm quite concerned about this because, look at your diagrams,
A lot of them go, the drainage flows go sort of north towards Thornton and then is an old
I think drainage channel that goes east -west.
So you're going to be putting more water into there which could then go down to the River
Ouse and flood Thornton, the houses in Thornton or Thornton Hall.
and it seems to me that have you in your sort of assessments taken into account
years like 2020 where there was a lot of extra water because I know the solar
panels over years compact the soil so it has your plan really fully taken into
account where this water is going and for years where there is a lot of
I am very concerned about this.
Yeah, happy to take that one.
Public Speakers - 1:41:20
So during the consultation that we did, flood risk was raised repeatedly.
And so we recognised that as a significant concern locally.
And if you look at the drainage strategy that we have on screen there,
the green lines that you can see are drainage channels that are proposed running perpendicular to the panels themselves.
Then where we have the additional attenuation storage,
that is in line with the topography of the site so that it captures that runoff.
And as we've heard through the officer's presentation, that is to provide additional
storage beyond the baseline condition. So we're dealing firstly with a baseline.
We're trying to mitigate the impacts of the panels. Now the panels themselves are to be
mounted on steel frame foundation. So direct impacts on the ground is very small. Where we
have things like access tracks, inverters, and the substation, we're proposing a gravel base,
which itself is permeable.
So essentially all elements of the scheme are accounted for
and in terms of the arrays and that runoff response,
which I think has been raised in this room
through the consideration,
the panels themselves would be spaced
with a small gap between them
so that you don't get a full accumulation
of that surface water runoff just to the edge of that array.
It breaks up.
Then beneath that you have the vegetation as well
so that that water can dissipate beneath the panels.
And then obviously we have the drainage channels as well.
So as I say, the lead local flood authority
have assessed this in full.
The drainage strategy itself takes account
of the available data that projects into the future
the risk of a flood event,
including accounting for climate change data.
So I think it's fair to say
that that issue has been robustly assessed
and that the scheme itself genuinely attempts
to provide betterment over the baseline conditions that exist on the site today.
Great, thank you.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:43:13
If say, I mean this is a 50 year project, so if something happens, I don't know,
things can change or ground gets harder than you assumed, I think this is quite clay soil,
would there be a plan to sort of rectify or to improve culverts or drainage,
say 25 years in the future if that was a requirement?
Public Speakers - 1:43:34
I can't envisage something that would happen on the site itself that would entail a site -specific
intervention or change to the drainage strategy. I don't think, I just can't envisage something
that would trigger the requirement for that type of response. The scheme has been assessed
as is proposed, taking account of the fact that it will be in situ for a 50 -year operational
period and all elements of the scheme have been assessed on that basis I think
I can't really add to that in a way that would address that concern I don't think.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:44:15
Cllr Gregory Smith - 1:44:18
Okay thank you. Councillor Smith. Thank you, thank you chair. You've largely answered this in
answering Councillor Gibbons' inquiry but I am still a little bit kind of confused and so I'd
like your help really in understanding the concerns
that we have around flooding.
And that's a big concern everywhere
for all sorts of reasons.
Can you explain what the industry standard
is in terms of the additional or the reduced permeability
of land when you have solar panels compared
to when you have a field of corn or wheat or some other crop?
Public Speakers - 1:45:03
Yes, a good question. So I think there are some significant variables that do vary on a site -by -site basis, including the baseline conditions as to how that land is used.
But generally speaking, if you look at the applications that have been approved in this district, indeed, this issue has been assessed time and again.
And I think the conclusion is that the impact in terms of that impermeability or the increase,
just as a result of the development itself, notwithstanding any additional mitigation,
is that it would be negligible.
And that is because if you actually look at the site area, I mean, I think where, what
are we, 88 hectares, the direct impacts of the foundations on which the frame of the
panel sit is tiny.
It's something like 0 .03 % on average.
So that direct impact is really small and even then you still have the permeability of the soil around those foundations.
Essentially when we look at our site we almost start from an assumption on this drainage strategy that the land is effectively impermeable.
And that's why the access tracks and all of those other elements of the infrastructure associated with it are then on a gravel base.
so that that would then drain into the land beneath.
And so irrespective of the permeability of the land itself,
our development that sits on top of it
effectively mitigates that,
the impact of the units and so on.
So I don't think there's necessarily
a written industry standard
because there are some variables,
but I think it's fair to say it's a well trodden path
in terms of how it's resolved.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:46:39
Just picking up on that point is the soil, because if I understand it correctly, you're
going to have sheep on the field, and that will break up the soil, so break up the surface
of the soil to allow greater absorption.
Is that right?
Public Speakers - 1:46:53
Yeah, so one thing I would say is that sheep grazing can occur alongside solar farms, and
we've seen that including at the Worldbush Solar Farm that we've...
that will have a group of the land use?
That land use, that agricultural land use,
we seek to preserve that.
Essentially, what we're trying to do
is optimise all elements of the land use here.
So we're trying to deliver biodiversity gains,
we're trying to deliver the energy generation,
and also maintain an agricultural use.
The planning permission itself would not control
that agricultural use, but the implementation
of the landscape and ecological management plan
would be tied to it.
So the areas that sit within the stock proof fence,
i .e. the panels, which still be subject to a seed mix that can be controlled by the council.
And its compatibility with grazing would be considered alongside that.
So that kind of change in agricultural regime can occur in the same way that it can today.
And I think the main point to make is that the control for how that land is sort of managed
is really through the landscape and ecological management plan.
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Fordham.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:47:56
Thank you, Chair.
Mine is because there's two.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:48:02
I have read that these solar panels,
when they're rained on a lot,
they leach off into the ground
some of the chemicals that are used on them.
And that then will make the ground
unsuitable for agricultural afterwards.
So in the end, in 50 years,
I presume a lot of us here will be dead.
How are we going to make sure
that somebody's looked after that
and will actually put it back to farmland?
How are they going to do that?
And also those roads are very narrow.
So how long would it take to construct this?
And have you got lorry roots in mind?
OK.
I'll do the first one first, which
I think is about leaching and the quality
Public Speakers - 1:48:36
of the agricultural land through the consent
and at the end of the period.
So I don't believe that there is any sort of consensus
on that at the moment.
We now have schemes which are 15, 20 years in operation.
So I don't think that is a scientific consensus.
What I would say is that at the end of that period, obviously we have the planning condition
itself requiring decommissioning of the scheme and that condition is very carefully worded.
Failure to comply with that, I think this was an issue raised earlier around enforcement.
Now ultimately if any enforcement notice is issued, failure to comply with that is effectively
criminal and the condition itself runs with the land irrespective of who the operator
is.
Now, the operator will have a legal agreement with the landowner to operate the site for
the duration and they will have an agreement in place requiring the removal of all of that
infrastructure at the end of it.
And if necessary, you know, the way that the condition is worded is that it must be restored.
So if there were anything, you know, I can't envisage that that would happen, but anything
damaging to that effect, it would be almost like a decontamination type approach that
would be required.
Cllr Caroline Cornell - 1:49:49
Before you go on, can I just ask what happens to the panels when you finish with them?
Where do they go?
So the majority of the materials now involved with a panel, glass, steel frame, aluminium,
can be recycled.
Public Speakers - 1:50:01
And there is a burgeoning and ever developing industry for the recycling of panels, especially
panels which are now approaching 20 years old, things that have been on rooftops for
a number of years.
There was another question on access.
So the construction access route has been assessed in full.
Tracking analysis on all of the HGVs and the vehicles has been done to make sure the turns can be made.
Passing places are proposed as part of the development and a construction traffic management plan is proposed to be secured by condition as well.
And the roads are renewed? Any potholes you make that are set to be put back in?
there would be a pre -commencement inspection of the road.
Any damage resulting from the construction process itself
would then be rectified.
And I think that's quite standard practise
for large scale development,
not just solar residential as well.
Okay, thank you.
Council Gough.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:50:54
Thank you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:50:56
So one of the major concerns is the flooding.
And I've listened to you over there,
but what I'd like to sort of explain.
So for my colleague over there,
that Councillor Smith just to help
with what you were asking earlier on about rainfall.
So when it rains, the land over 20 acres
is spread and diverse all over that land.
Whereas when you get solar panels,
it then lands on the panel.
And if they're in a low, it alters the line of the water.
So that all drops down in a line.
So it's altering how the water course would actually work.
That's what, you know.
So how are you adjusting for that to happen?
because if the water's coming down, you see my point,
I can see, and it comes down, hits that water course,
travels, there's no extra water,
but it will travel a different direction
or more speedier as it goes through.
So how are you counteracting that?
So the point I guess I'm making is
when we talk about an array,
Public Speakers - 1:51:52
we're talking about the line of the panels
mounted on the frame.
Now each array itself may have two or three panels on it.
And with the gap that's between them,
that runoff of the water
only ever accumulates for a single panel.
So even if you have a field of a thousand panels,
the rainwater falling on it will hit those single panels
that they land on.
It will fall with the direction of the panel
and then basically fall beneath the array.
Yeah.
So yes, a slight change from currently,
you know, you may have, you know,
if you can imagine on a mic. A slight change.
So we're talking about a very micro scale,
but we're extrapolating that across the whole site, right?
So essentially, yes, there will be some runoff for a single panel for the whole site.
But then ultimately the fall on the topography of the land beneath is unaffected.
We have the drainage channels that are proposed through the drainage strategy
and the positioning of the ponds that are shown on the site there.
There's one at the very north, one down to the very west of the site as well.
And those are sized to provide additional storage capacity.
We're trying to provide betterment here to alleviate the concerns that we have heard about through the consultation and today
Just let me dig a little bit deeper. So you're saying to me that you would just use this like
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:53:13
Six foot by four foot panel that's there
The water runoff will come down off that panel and then come off the end and then dread
Whereas if the panel wasn't there the water would be spread over the floor area of six by four
So you are condensing the way that water flows?
Yeah, but on a very essentially micro scale,
the size of a panel.
Public Speakers - 1:53:34
OK, I've asked my questions.
And I would just say that I'm not the drainage engineer.
I'm a panel consultant.
I'm sorry I argue because originally when
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:53:43
we used to get these, they were linked together.
So three panels were joined and it'd go right to the bottom.
But most now, what we're hearing is a gap between them.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 1:53:53
But Chairman, even a row of 200 panels in a row dropping out, they're on to the water course.
That's what I'm just trying to alleviate.
So I'll push the water out.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:54:00
Okay, thank you.
Councillor Givens.
Are your panels fixed?
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 1:54:06
Are your panels fixed or do they rotate with the sun?
Public Speakers - 1:54:10
These panels will be fixed.
Okay.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:54:13
Right, thank you for your time.
Oh, you sneaked in there, Councillor Starchway.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 1:54:21
Thank you very much for coming. You referred in your statement, which was a reasonable statement, about your intentions about seeking for a gravel bed.
Did you look at the minerals and waste strategy from 2016 to 2036? The whole site is on a gravel bed.
It's part of the site.
So you say about the gravel bed and fixing your...
Bernard on it.
Did you look at all those elements of the...
Sorry, go on, sorry.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:55:02
What we actually say is there'll be a gravel bed
for the buildings, for the inverters.
Am I not correct?
That's correct, yeah.
Thank you.
No, it wasn't about gravel generally.
No, no, it's just I was curious.
Just so you know, yes.
No, no, thank you, thank you, Chair.
I mean, it's just the way that you mentioned gravel bed.
I thought there was lots of gravel there anyway.
Okay, thank you.
Public Speakers - 1:55:25
Yeah, yeah, is that, yeah, basically that's a clarification.
It's just the buildings that would be on a gravel bed
and I think the minerals issue is a separate planning issue.
Okay, thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:55:36
Mike Kentford, can we go to technical, any technical questions?
Okay, um, Councillor Munger.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:56:00
I don't think you can. Two or three points that the officer may be able to help with.
Do we have a slide showing the blue edge of the application under the applicant's control?
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 1:56:22
Yes, we do. This is the site location plan and it outlines the area in blue that's under
the applicant's control and then the red line within it.
Cllr Llew Monger - 1:56:33
I think that satisfies my need there. So in actual fact, there's significantly more land
available to the applicant than is in the application site. Which leads me on to my
next point and that is what what was the reason given by the applicant for
limiting the application to 49 .9 megawatts rather than and thereby
avoiding having to it to be considered as a national infrastructure it concerns
me chairman that at a stroke this site could be expanded by a second
application again within the 50 megawatt limit constantly building this up it's
already the size of a potentially around about 120 football pitches this is very
big site and it's very important that we get to the bottom of some of this detail
so the my other point is I don't recall us ever having an application come to us
and heaven knows we've had many for solar farms, with a,
sorry, for a period of 50 years.
50 years is not, what was the actual description here
of the 50 years?
A temporary period.
50 years isn't very temporary in my book.
Two generations.
So I'm extremely concerned that we are looking at something for 50 years and again in relation to that I have a question about one of the conditions and that is the return of the land to its current state or such agreed state at the end of 50 years.
I think that condition should be altered to include a reference to such earlier time as may be determined,
dependent on the actual use of the site. It's quite possible.
Condition 7 says that.
It says decommissioning, no exports to good.
Can you point me to the right page?
Condition 7.
Page 88.
page 88 is where decommission because there's no exports to grid.
I won't read it all, I'll take your word for it Chairman because I trust you.
Yes it is. So if it's not been used for more than six months continuously not exporting any energy to the grid.
Thank you, my apologies for missing that.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 1:59:26
Okay.
Do you have another one?
No, that's fine.
Okay.
Is there anyone who wants to go back on?
Yes.
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 1:59:39
So with regards to the application,
we're obliged to look at what is before us
rather than determining what may or may not happen on this site.
So the application has been made for up to 49 .9 megawatts, and that is the application
we have assessed.
Just for members' reference, the national – the threshold for nationally significant
infrastructure projects has been changed by this Labour government more recently.
It's no longer 50 megawatts, it's 100 megawatts.
But the application before us is 49 .9 megawatts, and that's what we're considering.
we've made an assessment on what has been submitted.
Hopefully that addresses that question.
Thank you.
OK, Councillor Gibbons.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:00:29
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:00:30
I have a few questions, if that's all right.
Right.
With the recommendations, for recommendation 7,
This is to do with if they stop decommissioning it if it's not used for six months or whatever.
It doesn't mention about restoring the land in there.
Will they also do that if they stop using it prematurely?
Yes, there's a requirement that they would because it would trigger the requirements
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:01:08
of decommissioning.
So, if it's not clear enough, but it requires a method statement, etc.
And it does require any restoration works following the removal,
so that it is covered by that condition.
Okay, thank you. Just, it wasn't explicit, so I was just checking.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:01:32
The other one was with Recommendation 14.
Will the roads be... Oh, I think I found with a later notice they will repair the roads during...
That was recently, wasn't it?
That was covered, yeah.
Again, because the solar panels only last 20 to 25 years and the inverter's only 10
to 15 years, so is there a plan there for any disruption that might be caused?
They've got this plan for when they start doing the work and the roads and everything
and passing places and whatever, would there be the same sort of thing if they had to replace
the panels or the inverters? Is there a proper plan for doing that?
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:02:29
So with regards to operational management, that's what we refer to it as, we're expecting
that on a regular basis they will be looking at the lifetime of the panel, how it's performing.
My understanding of our experience of where solar panels have come forward, they don't
all switch off at or decline at the same time.
I suppose it's where the sun hits and so on.
So I think there's an expectation
that this would be regularly monitored,
perhaps not in an intense way
that the initial construction would be.
And that has been accounted for in the overall assessment.
And we expect that there'll be some movement,
but it will not never be as intense
as the actual construction phase.
So I think that is covered and I think we're content that once it is operational,
whilst there may be some replacement of panels, it won't be a wholesale replacement at 20 years.
That's very helpful, thank you. I hadn't appreciated that they...
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:03:29
I sort of have this vision that they don't sort of stop working after 20 years, but yeah, thank you, that's very helpful.
I've got another question really.
I'm a bit confused about the reasoning behind all of this, and also to do with the cumulative
effect as well, because we're producing loads and loads of solar farms now.
When this one is produced, is there actually capacity for it to be connected to the national
grid, or will the national grid need upgrading before it can be connected?
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:04:04
That's a matter that is with the national government and the licences provided by the
National Energy Systems operator.
One thing that the National Planning Policy Framework does give us very clear directions
of is not to question the need for it.
Yes, there's a paragraph in the NPPF which is, if I can, I think it's 167.
But essentially, it says we mustn't, we're not to question the need for it.
And I know that separately, NISO are looking at how these are connected to the grid, etcetera.
But it's not for us to determine as a local planning authority.
we are to look at the application before us
and understand its impacts
and make a decision on that basis.
But obviously, one would assume that if an application
has been made of this nature,
there is a connexion to the grid
because there is a condition very clearly in here
that says if you're not exporting,
it would need to be removed.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:05:17
Okay, because it's interesting because we are producing
or creating more generation capacity than we need.
So that's interesting.
Thank you.
OK, thank you.
Councillor Powell.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:05:26
Thank you, Chairman.
So I guess that's the section written by the Energy Secretary
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:05:33
we were just discussing there.
Thank you for much of the explanation in number seven,
condition seven.
So that's where my question was.
I think it's clear that the weighted benefit,
if Clonbro Park can't object on visual amenity,
then I think that'll never apply anywhere again.
But my question is, about after the life of the development.
So, you know, 50 years is a long time.
And I appreciate everything that I've read here.
I think that's a really good condition about,
you know, no export in a 12 month period.
But have we, again, as my earlier question,
have we got the capacity in 50 years time
to ensure that all this happens?
you know we're promising that our descendants will be able to take care of
this if I think it's entirely possible that these people could walk away and
somebody else will be left to clear up the mess so I appreciate the condition
is there so that's the point I make and if I if I may yeah I've got a couple of
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:07:07
others I'll just take this one first so the conditions one with the land and
and that's it, this is attached to the planning permission.
So should there be a change, that would probably come back
to the local planning authority for determination.
It would be because it would be a change to the condition.
So in 50 years time, that's it.
Once it's got to that point where it's been exported
to the grid for that period, if that planning permission
is not renewed, then there would enforcement action could be taken by this planning department
to remove. And I think the most important part of this is this is not a change of use
of land. This is just for the installation of the panels. The use of the land remains
agricultural.
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:08:01
I appreciate that and I think it's a very thorough explanation and I welcome that.
Now, just then, the construction management,
are we sure that is robust enough?
And it was mentioned by the speaker speaking in support,
about 128 ,000 pounds in business rates.
Do we get all of that?
Does Planning get all of that?
Does the Council get all of that?
Or is that shaved by somebody else
that we don't in fact get 128 ,000 pounds a year.
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:08:40
I don't, obviously the business rates is,
the reason I haven't included that particular benefit
within my consideration of this application
is because the valuations vary.
I know there's a significant proportion that can be taken,
but I don't know if that is the correct amount.
And the valuation is done once a development is on site,
and then the valuation office agency will come out and assess what that business rate is.
I know that there are business rates being attracted on other solar farms and there is money being collected.
I also understand that the arrangement with the government, having discussed this with business rate officers,
is that we retain half and half is given away to the government.
So don't quote me on it because this is based on the conversations with business rates officers.
but there is some income that will come to the local authority, not local planning authority.
I just don't know what that would be.
Thank you, thank you very much.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:09:45
There's been various experiences of benefit to the local community.
I've seen some in villages where they set up a part of the solar farm as a commercial solar farm,
and another part as a community solar farm.
That means that some of the local benefits come back to the parishes to help them in the future.
Just to be clear Chairman, that's not what we're talking about here.
No it's not, but it's another benefit.
I just want to clarify on that as well.
Sometimes solar farm operators offer something called a community benefit fund.
That is not a material planning consideration and we have certainly not taken that into account in recommending this for approval.
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:10:24
That's true.
Councillor Smith.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:10:28
Thank you, thank you chair. I wonder if you can just clarify just so I could be
completely clear. We heard from the applicants that the water runoff from
this site would be less than if it was left as a greenfield site and in
your report you talk about mimicking greenfields drainage. So can you just
confirm that that is actually the case but also we heard that there isn't an
the water permeability of fields underneath solar panels.
If you can help us to understand how you work out
whether this changed arrangement above the fields,
how that can affect the water runoff,
and how that's dealt with.
I had a couple of other ones, really short ones as well.
And that's that in the reports, there's a bit old.
The objections, there's a bit about noise.
But none of the speakers mentioned that.
I'm imagining, I'm expecting that that's something to do with the inverter shed, is it?
Can you just clarify what sort of noise you would expect from that sort of thing,
and how far that would travel?
And the final thing has gone completely from my mind, so forget that.
It can't be important.
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:11:49
So I'll start off with the flooding point.
So the LLFA, the Lead Local South Authority, I just want to start off by saying this is in Flood Zone 1.
So if we just go back to the constraints map, that clearly illustrates that this site itself is not subject to flooding.
I appreciate that there's flooding issues within Thornton.
Now that has been raised time and time again and as a result in the amendments
received as part of this application the applicant has proposed additional flood
storage nothing to do with the proposal itself this is to just you know this is
a betterment provided in addition to managing their own flood risks which the
the LLFA satisfied with and I suppose without this development you wouldn't have that additional
benefit. So that has been given some positive weight in the planning balance because that
is creating an environmental improvement as such and that's going to be in the northern
section and the very western section of the site. So that's that point in terms of how
it's going to be managed. I think the applicant was trying to explain it in the
past. I apologise I didn't include it this time. I have included an image of
what the solar panel looks like. It's not just one sheet of panel. It is broken
up into different panels and then the water can philtre through. So it's not
just running off and then creating these pools or puddles of water but
notwithstanding that they have provided traps, drainage channels to manage
any surface water surface from the development
and the LLFA is satisfied with the approach they've taken.
There is permeable gravel where there's any sort of
hard surfacing, et cetera, around the substation, et cetera.
So on that basis, there's no objection on flooding
and drainage grounds and there will be a betterment
as a result, so that hopefully explains that point.
So you had another question about noise.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:14:08
Just about noise only because it was mentioned in some of the objections.
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:14:12
So the noise is from the inverter panel, sorry, inverters.
But it is a very low level sort of background noise.
I suppose it would be like when you're walking under a pile on you,
sort of hear a little bit of buzzing.
And I suppose the ones most impacted by that would be users of the public right of way.
it wouldn't affect residents or any businesses.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:14:41
Thank you Mr. Chairman. There's been a lot said about conditions and I have to
say in my humble opinion the conditions that the officers put in here are very
robust. But I want to ask the question, so I have two questions really, if this
application went to appeal, has the inspectorate got the authority to remove some or all of
those conditions, i .e. the authority won? And in the three examples that you gave where
we lost an appeal, did the inspector, if he has the authority, did he remove some of those
conditions?
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:15:26
Yes, I can confirm that if the application was before an inspector, I can't guarantee
that all 31 conditions would be put forward because it's a planning judgement as to whether
or not they're considered necessary and meet the six obligations. Now we have considered
them. In our view, it warrants that and the applicant has agreed to these conditions,
but I can't guarantee that when it goes to appeal that would be the case.
In my experience, because I don't know, I haven't done a side -by -side comparison,
but based on being the case officer at one of them, or two of them rather, yes, we have had
remove some conditions where the inspector found they were not in his
view or you know they have the discretion to change and remove
conditions and I know from all the appeals I've worked on I've had to
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:16:32
compromise on some. Okay so we're now between a rock and a hard place. We are
because from what you're saying, and I've no reason you're the expert, not me,
basically what you're saying is that if this went through appeal, we as a local
authority could lose all control of these conditions and therefore it could
be a free -for -all and our residents wouldn't be protected. As I'm sure the
as I read it, has considered the impact on the local community and local residents.
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:17:11
We could argue our best case but I can't guarantee what the inspector would or would not agree with in their judgement.
Okay, thank you for that. Council Treasury.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:17:21
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:17:25
Thank you officers for the general report. One of the things not very
determined when the viewing an application is not compared to text but
trying to assess it as you go through the meeting. Sat here listening to it and
looking at the topography, the geography and the other of the site which I think
is quite reasonable and technical to take up and I need to understand these
things and forgive me if they irritate. That's the map which I wanted
actually, that's really good. The Bookingship Council, Booking County Council, set
parameters around its mammals and waste extraction which it gave legal rights to
extract gravel and stuff out of that which are something that we've agreed
the policies are out there in the local plan 2016 to 2036. So I need to understand
the first question around that is, is any of this area part of that defined site
which has already been gifted by the council, the local authority, to meet the
obligations that we have to meet our minerals and waste strategy which we
can't double use a site that's what my concern I'm asking in technical if you
get because I need to see what I've got the it up on my screen but it's not it
shows definitely gravel there and it shows it's part of our holdings of
gravels and waste which will be called upon with the future growth and that's
one question I've got another one round prevent whether it's harm against
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:19:17
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:19:34
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:19:38
benefits. So there's no immediate, my colleague is just checking like to the extent minerals is applied, but there's no immediate plan for this particular site to be extracted for minerals and waste, otherwise would have had an objection from the minerals officer. But what, you know, the point with this site compared to say a housing site, for example,
is that this is temporary and reversible.
So once the application comes to the end of its life,
if that mineral needs to be drawn upon,
it can be done at the appropriate time.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:19:54
Thank you.
I'm not sure that's right.
There are discussions about extracting
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:20:07
between Stony Stratford and Buckingham
in the mineral waste that's been cited in other places so I'm not sure that's
that's right I think we need to understand that. The second question was
I can't work out for your map and I tried to look at the other map because
you're in loads of conversations as a local council and not all of them are to do with
planning and I look at where Thornton is and I can't see on your map there's a
permanent legal right of way through that land which is enshrined in
law which is for the canal. The canal doesn't exist there but there is a right
of way for that and I can't work out for any of the mapping whether this is in
that area compromises it or not because the mapping doesn't show what the rights
of way in that state and this is my understanding of it through other
conversation nothing to do with this application is that as soon as the the
gravel is extracted, that immediately means that the canal has to be instated because
it's in legal agreements.
So I'm not sure...I'm about the harm against benefit here.
I want to understand whether we know whether it's going over the top of the canal route,
in which case it's blocking a legal right -of -way.
So if we can answer that, and then I've got some questions on the other side of the argument,
which I'm trying to be balanced in my approach
and these are two extensive matters that sat in my head.
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:21:39
I can't answer, this application in terms of rights of way
retains all of the rights of way.
I perhaps haven't understood the question.
I thought that was an understanding of the question.
I'll try again.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:21:55
Now, what I'm trying to establish before deciding an opinion on this,
and I've got a legal right to try and see this in balance,
and I'm trying to be balanced, is I'm aware that there's in the Council's own policies
that there's a mineral rights extraction there, that once you can't use a site with solar panels on,
and it blocks that extraction for development.
And the other point that I'm aware of, which I can't see in our mapping, and maybe it's
because I'm just aware of it, is that there's a right of way across there, legal right of
way in statute in law and has been searched and was agreed in law that it would even go
so far as to restate the entrance under the A421 at Stony Stratford for the right of way.
It's all wrote down.
It's all connected to the memorandum of way strategy.
It's all connected to the once the waste and minerals is distracted that automatically has to reinstate the canal now
I can't see that in there, but I need to know this as a local member because it's come up to me
I was that listening to it, and I can't see any mention of those
Elements within the report so I have to see it in balance
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:23:25
Okay, that part answered. The other point we need to ask is the rights of way question.
This is a different to the rights of way whatever that there is a I need to understand because the mapping doesn't show it.
And the mapping I'm looking up here for the Fortin area shows the canal route going very close to Fortin.
I can't work out for the two maps if we know where the direct route for the canal is and where it will go.
Because I need to understand that because we can't construct something over right -of -way
because it's still got a legal right -of -way and it's a highway and it's got the same rights as any highway in law.
So I just need to understand that, you know, whether that is the case.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:24:08
While, you know, as I've been checking the minerals and waste map, and the application
site is largely slightly outside of areas identified for minerals and waste extraction.
So it is, here's the map, sorry.
So you're looking at the area around Thornton, which is, but this lies outside, this application
site lies outside that area and clearly on this map it says Crossbridge
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:24:44
Farm and this application is avoiding areas of minerals extraction. Thank you
thank you and you can't answer the canal thing because the mapping
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:24:58
doesn't show it that that's what I'm getting and I need you know that's
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:25:08
There's no, this application doesn't affect any canal, there's no canal affected by this application.
It doesn't come near a canal or doesn't go.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:25:13
Okay, thank you. So we'll go on to the next questions.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:25:17
So when, this is on the distance side, when the application,
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:25:26
You quantify in your report the benefits of the application
against what it will, the balance against how we
consider an application in balance.
So the balance of it, you place quite a lot of balance on the
benefits to reducing the carbon footprint stroke on whatever the application.
You put quite a lot of weight on that.
I'm not going to retouch all the drainage areas with it
because I think those questions have been answered.
But when the council considers this thing in balance against the negatives
and against the positives, which I'm trying to do in this,
determining my mind on it, as I said, I've come in April,
prepared text and I haven't read from anything
while I've been in the meeting department, what I can see online.
Are you secure that these benefits will sustain and that there will be a notable uplift in the
blowing of the carbon for Buckinghamshire's carbon footprint through this development if
agreed today and not challenged because I think it's important that we know that's a sustainable
uplift because 50 years bit it's sustainable into the future and not
going to be diminished because what happens and I'm not an expert but you
read about panels lose their ability to generate over time and so on and so on
so I'm presuming yeah that thank you no I'm sorry I'm not meaning to be awkward
I've got these questions in my mind.
I will answer them.
I need them answered.
So the NPPF at paragraph 167 states
Zenab Hearn - Principal Planning Officer - 2:27:23
that local planning authority should give significant weights
and need to support energy efficiency,
local and domestic, both domestic and non -domestic.
So that's set out in paragraph 167.
And then it goes on to explain in paragraph 168,
when determining planning applications
for all forms of renewable low carbon energy development,
We should not require the applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable and low carbon energy
and give significant weights to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation
and the proposal contribution to a net zero future.
So this is the weight we've been advised by paragraph 168 of the NPPF to give.
You will have heard the applicant make mention of substantial, that's not language that I've used.
I've looked at the NPPF, taken the guidance from the NPPF, which is a material consideration,
and applied the weight accordingly.
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:28:21
Okay. Thank you, that's what I wanted. I wanted you to explain that.
We'd heard the Pope for it, I wanted to hear the officers.
Cllr Andy Huxley - 2:28:31
Take my answer, thank you Chairman.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:28:34
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen. Mr Chairman, is technical finished now?
Could we have just a short comfort break please?
You can. Five minutes. Thank you.

6 25/02132/APP - Land to the South and North of Nash Road and Land to East of Thornton Road, Thornton, Buckinghamshire

Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:28:54
Welcome back. Thank you. Now we're going into open debate.
I don't know who's going to start me.
Councillor Stroud.
This has been one of those applications, Chair, that we've heard both sides of the argument, both put very well,
Cllr Robin Stuchbury - 2:29:29
and the report which has been drafted in letter with the MPPF, the law, and the way we do it.
my substantive questions which I asked, which was taking me one way, were dismissed by the
officers and they answered those two questions which were elements not in the plan. My view is
that we, listening to the officers join the meeting and the discussions around the harm
against the benefit of this application.
The benefits probably outweigh the arm.
And if we do, and we were minded to turn it away,
it would probably most likely happen anyway.
And then we wouldn't have the protections which was mentioned
by my colleague put into it.
So unless anyone's got a substantial reason against it,
I think we have to agree this application
because not to agree it throws up more questions
of environmental harm, how we manage the site thereafter
and not being able to have control over the development
and leaving control of the development
to the appeals process, which I would fear would be negative.
So I'm gonna have to propose we support the application
just to be responsible in the round.
I still in saying that have recognised all the concerns
being expressed.
But we have to make a decision based upon the information
of the report we've got, not information we intercede with
and the information of discussion
that we had in this meeting.
And it isn't the only application we're likely
to get like this.
And we've had ones in previous meetings in the,
which have been agreed.
so I'll make that as an opening gesture to start the debate because to refuse it you've got to come up with actual legal reasons to refuse it not just to get you.
Councillor Mahone.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:31:34
Thank you Mr Chairman.
It's widely known in the public domain that I am no fan of ground mounted solar.
Cllr Frank Mahon - 2:31:45
However, after the answers from the officer, I think it would be wrong of me to risk the
31 conditions which are there to protect the residents and the community.
Because if it went to appeal, as the officer stated, all those conditions could be removed.
and I don't think as an elected member I will be doing this application all my
residents or other residents for that matter just as by refusing this
application so I will be supporting this application. I will second what
Councillor Stutsbury has just proposed.
Cllr Raj Khan - 2:32:44
I think it's been a very well report by the way, I have to say.
I'd like to thank the officers for putting such a well represented case.
Having listened to the parish council and the local member, you obviously
see a different side and you get opinion.
But what is weighing me now?
We've had a very healthy debate on this and rightly so,
because we are making a decision that is going to affect us for the future.
And I am now of the opinion not to support it could cause us issues
where my colleague has said not having any protection for the residents.
Therefore, I would like to, I mean it's already been seconded,
I would have happily supported the officer's recommendation on this occasion.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:33:39
Thank you, Chair, and I would just echo what's been said, really.
I think we're in a position where to go against our officer's recommendation
would really be harmful to ourselves and harmful to the residents.
And it seems to me that the two major objections that have been put forward
by the people that contributed today are the visual impact
and the impact of drainage and water runoff.
Both of those I think have been addressed certainly
to my satisfaction and certainly in visual appearance
that tends to be in the eye of the beholder.
Some people really don't like the way that solar farms look.
I know the area, I've walked it, I've cycled around there
And I'm sure when they first put up the electric pylons,
that was seen as an outrage in terms of the countryside.
But now, would you notice it?
Would you know that they were there?
And that's just simply what happens.
There is an argument that is frequently put forward
about the loss of agricultural lands.
And yet we know that in this country,
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:34:50
maybe 2 % of agricultural land is used for golf courses.
I've got nothing against golf.
I quite enjoy a round of golf myself.
But we're far from being at a crisis of agricultural land
when we know that solar farms are something like 0 .6%.
Cllr Gregory Smith - 2:35:09
So a tiny, tiny proportion of the amount of land
that's used for golf.
So it feels as if the main reasons for objecting really
are don't hold enough weight to be
to be able to go against the recommendation of our officers.
Cllr Kathy Gibbon - 2:35:29
Yes, recently the chief executive of EDF has asked
for a pause in solar farm approvals
as we're creating more electricity generation capacity
than needed, so I think this is the purpose
to requirements, personally.
Thank you, Chairman.
Cllr Chris Poll - 2:35:46
I think we're at the point where I can ask
that the question be put.
Cllr Llew Monger - 2:35:55
I continue to have concerns in relation to some of the aspects I raised in technical
questions. The scale of the application, it covers 16 % of the parish, of the ground in
the parish. The capacity for future expansion given the vast area beyond the application
site that is in the control of the applicant, the length of time of the permission, 50 years
seems an absolutely staggering time to try to look ahead for something like this and
I appreciate that conditions have been explained which will mitigate some of my concerns in
that regard. There's the escalation across the wider area, not just the area shown on
on the map that we had in the immediate area, but right down to beyond my ward into the Rosefield site,
which in itself is 2 ,000 odd acres.
I particularly, although I didn't ask the question on this, when David Marsh was here,
concerns about highways impact during construction.
not just that period but the fact that as the panels only have a lifetime of 15 to 20 years or so,
the likelihood is that the panels would have to be changed twice within the permission period.
Given that there's likely to be up to 40 ,000 panels on the site,
that's 40 ,000 panels that might have to be changed within the permission period on two occasions.
That's too, again, we are committing to something that we don't know enough about in that regard.
I take the points about the potential removal of conditions, but no planning inspector worth their salt
is going to remove conditions simply for the sake of it. They're going to consider them appropriately
and leave them in. And even at this late stage, therefore, I have to say I'm absolutely on a knife edge
as to whether at the end I want to support this application or not.
I would much rather see this sort of electricity generation coming on anything other than farmland.
I'd like to see it on the rooftops of commercial buildings, even residential buildings, but that's not the issue that's before us today.
I'm going to ask you to go to the mobile.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:38:33
I want to ask you to go to the mobile.
I'm going to ask you to go to the mobile.
Sorry?
I have my hand up before you said that.
No, no, no.
Everyone else said their opportunity to speak.
But I did have my hand up.
Sorry?
Thank you.
Cllr Phil Gomm - 2:38:55
I understand colleagues, you know, we're in a position about should we or shouldn't we?
I feel that our hands are behind our back a little bit because we have to go, you know,
the conditions are there, the conditions are there to protect the area.
But, you know, with them going to a PLI, I understand that,
and they seem to be winning through.
So we're losing anyway.
So what's the point of us going yes or no as it goes through?
although they're there to protect us.
I have my opinion, Councillor Mungo must have been reading
some of my files in my office because I feel
that solar energy should go more on industrial buildings
in the area, but it is what it is.
I know that area extremely well.
It does flood it as it's issues,
but the officers have put their report together.
So I won't be supporting it, but I won't be objecting to it.
I'll abstain because my vote's not worth it.
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:39:52
Harry Thomas - Democratic and Electoral Services Officer - 2:40:05
Cllr Patrick Fealey - 2:40:08
So it was seven in favour, three against and one abstention. So the motion passes.
Thank you.