Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Callum Wright and Mark Kelly, the applicants, and Mark Hetherington, the landowner.Mr Kelly explained that PACE is a UK headquartered clean infrastructure developer, builder, owner, and operator and he added that he is accompanied by Callum Wright, the Planning Manager at PACE and the landowner and farmer Mark Hetherington.

Mr Hetherington explained that he has farmed here since 2008 along with his brother and he added that his family have been farming the land that he owns in Fermanagh for over 200 years and his son is currently at Newcastle University studying agriculture and hopes to take over the land in due course. He explained that over the last 15 years, he has been operating an intensive beef finishing unit, predominantly growing maize and feed wheat on the proposed solar land which is then fed to the cattle, with the introduction of solar across his farm will see his business diversify from intensive beef production to extensive sheep production and as he comes from a beef and sheep farm in Ireland, it is something that his family and himself are very excited about.

Mr Hetherington added that he believes that he will see an overall increase in sustainable meat production from that land and the financial offering from solar will enable him to farm in a more extensive manner, grazing the land directly instead of intensively farming forage crops fed by artificial fertilizers and chemical sprays. He explained that farming in this way is a well-documented way to improve soil structure, fertility, and organic matter in the soil and not only will the solar income secure the financial viability of his business, but the regenerative approach that that extensive farming will offer will secure the long-term soil health for future generations.

Mr Hetherington asked the committee to recognize the perilous position very many small farms are in today as the supermarkets will not pay a sustainable price for his products and Government is offering farmers less support and without projects such as this, smaller farms like his will cease to exist with every large landowners such as pension funds hoovering up that land. He stated that this will mean far fewer jobs for local people as the land will be run for the benefit of corporations and not communities.

Mr Wright explained that the development of the scheme, Middle Fen Solar, has been an exercise of ensuring all material planning considerations are fully addressed to ensure there is minimal harm while still allowing significant public benefit in the form of clean renewable energy. He stated that the benefits will enable the powering of 24,000 homes and the displacing of enough CO2 to remove 13,000 cars off the road and he added that the proposal will also bring with it significant biodiversity net gain uplift.

Mr Wright explained that the application was submitted in May 2025 and has been subject to extensive review from the Planning Officer and statutory consultees, with the scheme being amended to include screening so that there is no open visibility of the site to provide finer detail of the construction access and the vehicle routes and to provide clarity on the site selection methodology which justifies the location in consideration of the current and surrounding land uses, with the current position beings that all policy requirements have been addressed, and the case officer is recommending approval on this basis. He added that due to the location of the site away from significant public receptors, the application to this point has only received one objection from members of the public notably from a dwelling in excess of 5km from the proposed site.

Mr Wright expressed the view that on many occasions members cite solar schemes as much needed development but only in the right location and he made the point that the current scheme is an example of a solar site in the right location. He stated that there is no objection from any members of public within 5 km of proposed site or from technical and statutory consultees.

Mr Wright added that there has been extensive work for officers to ensure minimal landscape visual impact and no potential for harm to neighbouring amenity in the form of noise, outlook or glint and glare, with the application presenting an uplift in biodiversity through securing a substantial net gain and the proposal will support the farmer by diversifying his business so that they can continue to support the economy and provide business rates to the council. He stated that he believes that the scheme is policy compliant and represent significant public benefit and asked members of the committee to recommend approval for this scheme.

Members asked the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French asked Mr Hetherington whether he owns the whole 109 acres and does he own land elsewhere? Mr Hetherington stated that he has 500 acres in a square plot, with the application being only for half of the farm, and he also has land in Ireland which his family have farmed for generations.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether Mr Wright has driven down the road recently? Mr Wright stated that he has undertaken two site visits throughout the determination of the application as well as visiting a couple of months ago. Councillor Mrs French stated that she visited the site and the road is atrocious and she referred to the County Council Highway’s report suggesting the introduction of passing places because at the current time there are no passing places. She stated that the road is appalling and in a dreadful state and she questioned whether the passing places will be implemented right from the top near the roundabout as you turn sharp left as the whole road is breaking up. Mr Wright explained that there was one passing place which was agreed with the Highways Officer that there is the intention to implement along the construction route. He added that he appreciates that the condition of the road is not excellent, but he has agreed with officers for a road condition survey to be undertaken before development and then maintained throughout. Councillor Mrs French added that the condition of the road is dreadful and is from the start near the Peas Hill roundabout all the way to the application site.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked that, with regards to connecting to the grid, is that connection going to take place underground or overground? Mr Wright stated that they are intending to connect to the point of connections mast via the connection tower and it will be overground.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked whether it will be a new pylon? Mr Wright explained that it is a tower adjacent to the existing pylon.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked why they are not looking to connect to the March grid instead of going to Peterborough as, in her view, the March grid is in desperate need of upgrading and UK Power Networks do not plan to do anything until at least 2028. Mr Kelly stated that they are intending to connect into a line that supplies to the substation which is what has been agreed by the distribution network operator and they have little choice into where they can connect. He explained that the benefit that they have with this application is that the point of connection is actually on the application site and, therefore, there does not need to be any cables running across land and roads to reach the connection point. Mr Kelly explained that ultimately there are substations that will be connected to which he believes are in March. Councillor Mrs French stated that is incorrect as it will be Peterborough.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked what benefit the application will bring to the residents of March with regards to the sequential test? Mr Wright explained that there is a community benefit fund that is offered to the local Town Council but is yet to be negotiated with them.

·       Councillor Marks asked Mr Hetherington whether he farms the land at the present time or is it contract farmed? Mr Hetherington explained that his family farms the land and they undertake most of the tractor work but for specialist works such as combine harvesting, they employ somebody do those works.

·       Councillor Marks asked Mr Hetherington to explain where his farm buildings are located? Mr Hetherington stated that they are all on the site along with his house, grain shed and beef yards.

·       Councillor Connor asked Mr Hetherington to clarify the point he had made with regards to using the ground to feed his cattle. Mr Hetherington explained that he built beef yards around 15 years ago and they operated for about 10 years but because the beef market has changed it has become difficult to make any money from that and as a result the yards are used when it looks as though they can make a financial return. He explained that they are not being used at the current time, and it is proving harder and harder to use the beef yards because of various pricing issues.

·       Councillor Connor referred to the officer’s report at 9.23 where it states that the land has been used for anaerobic digestion. Mr Hetherington explained that it as a result of him growing maize because of the cattle being on site and he built a large silage clamp which is quite unusual for the area, and it can hold up to 6,000 tonnes of maize which is needed to feed the cattle when the yard was full. He stated that when there are no cattle on the farm, the maize gets sold to biodigesters and it is a very good bread crop in terms of wheat.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that the Highways Team should be aware of the appalling state of the road which has been in poor condition for several years and it cannot be accessed in a normal car. She asked whether the Highways Officers are seeking passing places along the full stretch of the road or is just outside of the access point? James Stringer stated that, in terms of passing places, the only one being proposed is off of the public highway and is on the private track just as you go in the access and there are no passing places being sought on Whittlesey Road.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that if there is a HGV using the road there are no passing places for other road users. She added that if the application is approved there will be nothing left of the road which is a County Council highway, and it needs updating as a matter of urgency.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows: 

·       Councillor Mrs French made reference to the March local grid, and added that she has had a farmer contact her a few months ago with regards to seeking assistance as he wishes to site further wind turbines on his land, with the farmer advising her that he has contacted UK Power Networks who has advised him that they will not consider looking at the March grid as it has no capacity to take anything further until at least 2028. She made the point that had the application offered to assist with upgrading the March grid instead of the Peterborough one then she may have considered the application more favourably but, in her opinion, that she cannot see any benefits whatsoever to the residents of March which accompany the application.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he cannot understand why applications keep coming forward which mean that good farming land is being lost. He agrees that farming is in a terrible situation, but the application will remove more agricultural land whether that be for maize or crops and, in his view, it cannot be environmentally correct to cover Fenland in glass and instead the land should be used to grow produce. Councillor Marks stated that if approved it will mean the land is not used for up to 40 years and there can be no guarantees that the company will continue and not fall into administration, meaning that an eyesore will be left, leaving a financial implication for somebody to deal with. He stated that in other areas there are solar farms on land where crops cannot be grown such as hillsides and whilst he does have sympathy with Mr Hetherington due to the poor state of farming, he does have concerns about giving up good land where crops can grow to just implement a glass farm and the land should be left as it is.

·       Councillor Connor stated that he does not see the relevance with this application and whilst he appreciates the Government has a policy for green energy, the land is Grade 2 and Grade 3A agricultural land which is good farming land. He added that the land will be taken out of production for the next 40 years and whilst it is unlikely that the committee will be around when the site is decommissioned, members of their families may well be. Councillor Connor stated that if it was scrub land then he could possibly understand the application but in Fenland with high productive fertile Grade 2 and Grade 3 land he cannot see the relevance of the application.

·       Councillor Marks stated that he also has concerns about vehicles as it now appears that electric vehicles are the way forwards as opposed to diesel and petrol. He made the point that in the last 18 months it has been put forward that hydrogen is coming forward and appears to be taking over from electric and if that is the case then there will not be the requirement for as much electricity as hydrogen has a lot less by product and will not remove farmland. Councillor Marks stated that he cannot support the application at the present time and especially as it is in the Fens.

·       Councillor Connor stated that high grade agricultural land is being taken out of production and whilst it is up to Mr Hetherington where he sells his produce, he could be growing maize for human consumption rather than sending it for biogas which, in his opinion, is not environmentally friendly at all.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the officer’s report where it clearly states at 5.7, pollution, noise and dust as well as the possibility of vibration impacting occupiers of nearby properties and she added that she does not see why those residents should be made to suffer for this type of development. She further referred to 5.9 of the officer’s report and she is impressed that the 9 metre buffer strip for maintenance has been considered for the Internal Drainage Board access requirements. Councillor Mrs French referred to the habitat and added that there several badgers in Fenland and should the agent or applicant need to move a badger set the cost implication is around £30,000 and it is a criminal offence not to undertake those works correctly. She referred to 5.14 of the report where it states that the Police have concerns with regards to lighting and they have suggested that there is CCTV and lighting. She made the point that if there is lighting in the open countryside then that will result in light pollution which, in her opinion, is not acceptable.

·       Councillor Marks stated that Welney is approximately 8 miles away as the crow flies and he has concerns for migratory birds because if the solar panels are caught by light, it will look very shimmery and resemble a lake or a pond. He added that the committee have been provided advice recently from Natural England who have concerns with regards to the flight path where dwellings were being considered and, in his view, this is more of a concern especially as the Ouse Washes are located nearby.

·       David Rowen stated that with regards to ecology, the application has been accompanied by significant information with regards to ecology and there are comments within the report from the Council’s own Ecologist addressing the issues. He added that a Habitat Regulations Assessment has been undertaken as part of the application and as part of the consideration of the application and comments from Natural England have been provided raising no objection. David Rowen stated that several issues were raised with regards to how the farmland could and should be used differently which are not really material to the determination of the application and that the material considerations are set out in the report which is very balanced in terms of how it identifies areas of harm and ways that harm is weighed against the benefits of the application in terms of the overall contribution to renewable energy nationally rather than identified immediate vicinities.

·       Danielle Brooke stated that with regards to best and most versatile land (BMV), the site only represents 0.5% in respect of BMV land out of the entire district and 0.01% of BMV land nationally., with the impact of removing the land from arable production being negligible in respect of the overall food production within the district and nation. She stated that the land currently has not been used for some years for food production and, therefore, food security matters are not a material consideration.

·       The Legal Officer stated that members need to be mindful of the material considerations when determining the application and should be aware of any reasons for refusal should they go against the officer’s recommendation in terms of any potential appeal and any possible cost implications if there is any unreasonable conduct in terms of the reasons should the application be refused.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be REFUSED against the officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of approval of planning permission as they feel that the application will mean a loss of agricultural land and will be detrimental to Fenland’s landscape.

(All members of the committee made an en bloc declaration, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had all lobbied on this application)

(Councillors Mrs French and Purser registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they are members of March Town Council but take no part in planning)