News: Rotherham Council raises issues with Whitestone solar proposals
Rotherham Council's issues with a massive solar farm proposed in the borough have been published.
Plans have moved to the next stage for Whitestone Solar Farm - a generating station with an estimated capacity of up to 750MW connecting to the National Grid Brinsworth Substation in Rotherham.
Whitestone is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), which means that it is applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to authorise its construction, operation and decommissioning. The final decision on a DCO application will be made at the national level by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Local councils are statutory consultees for NSIPs and a report on Rotherham Council's issues with the proposals has been published with the application documents.
At the earlier stage, the council has commented on 18 separate issues. Proponents of the scheme, Green Nation, address how the latest submission relates to the earlier issues raised.
On the use of Green Belt land, Rotherham Council set out that the solar farm conflicts with the Rotherham Local Plan and national policies, in that "the development would introduce substantial built form and industrialising features into land intended to remain open and to safeguard the setting and separation of settlements."
In response, promoters of the scheme say that the proposed development is located on "grey belt land because the site does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes" and go on to say that "even if this position is not accepted, there are Very Special Circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm identified in terms of the five Green Belt purposes."
Advertisement
Rotherham Council has also raised issue with the loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land which it says is "valuable not only because of its productive capacity for food and other crops, but also because it forms part of a finite soil resource and supports the long-term resilience of rural land use within the Borough."
Applicants argue that the scheme is set to operate for 60 years so any loss is temporary.
On the issue of lifespan, Rotherham Council has raised the issue of the 60 year timescale given that national policy is 40 years. The council said: "Even if the development is technically reversible at the end of its life, the Council considers that reversibility after 60 years substantially reduces the practical weight that can be attached to "temporary" effects in the planning balance.
The council adds that the operation is likely to span more than one generation and that a more nuanced approach would be needed, It said that the "applicant has not yet demonstrated why a 60-year operational life is justified."
Applicants say that in "recent decisions the Secretary of State has confirmed that the 60- year consent lifespan is ""temporary and reversible for the majority of the land.""
Concern has also been raised relating to the "scale, concentration and persistence of significant landscape and visual effects", particularly the impact on settlements such as North Anston, Wickersley, Ulley and Harthill, and various public rights of way and recreational routes. Issues have also been raised with the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).
Rotherham Council is also concerned about the harm to the setting of heritage assets and have asked for a robust assessment of setting impacts, including cumulative effects.
The authority is also unhappy with the inclusion of the Local Wildlife Site at Brampton Common within the limits of the scheme. Though applicants say that it is "not being managed to achieve the objectives for which it was designated," a strategy for enhancements has been drafted.
On Biodiversity Net Gain, a way of creating and improving natural habitats, Rotherham Council said that "expressing an intention to achieve a 10% minimum gain does not go far enough." BNG is not currently a legal requirement for NSIPs but applicants say that updated plans show that BNG metrics have calculated that area habitat units would see a 42.52% gain, hedgerow units, a 44.47% gain, and watercourse units, a 10.11% gain.
Rotherham Council has also raised concerns regarding the suitability and capacity of the proposed substation and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) location, along with issues regarding highways, drainage, glint and glare effects arising from solar panels, noise, and how the proposed cable corridor would interact with areas of landfill and potentially contaminated land.
Rotherham Council will now need to digest the 159 planning documents published with the application.
A three month pre-examination stage has now begun looking at the issues which will need to be discussed at the examination stage. This next stage is where the applicant, anyone who is registered to have their say, official bodies, and people whose land is directly affected, can comment on the proposed development or answer any of the questions at each deadline.
Images: Pexels / Vitaliy Bratkov
Plans have moved to the next stage for Whitestone Solar Farm - a generating station with an estimated capacity of up to 750MW connecting to the National Grid Brinsworth Substation in Rotherham.
Whitestone is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), which means that it is applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to authorise its construction, operation and decommissioning. The final decision on a DCO application will be made at the national level by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Local councils are statutory consultees for NSIPs and a report on Rotherham Council's issues with the proposals has been published with the application documents.
At the earlier stage, the council has commented on 18 separate issues. Proponents of the scheme, Green Nation, address how the latest submission relates to the earlier issues raised.
On the use of Green Belt land, Rotherham Council set out that the solar farm conflicts with the Rotherham Local Plan and national policies, in that "the development would introduce substantial built form and industrialising features into land intended to remain open and to safeguard the setting and separation of settlements."
In response, promoters of the scheme say that the proposed development is located on "grey belt land because the site does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes" and go on to say that "even if this position is not accepted, there are Very Special Circumstances that clearly outweigh any harm identified in terms of the five Green Belt purposes."
Advertisement
Rotherham Council has also raised issue with the loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land which it says is "valuable not only because of its productive capacity for food and other crops, but also because it forms part of a finite soil resource and supports the long-term resilience of rural land use within the Borough."
Applicants argue that the scheme is set to operate for 60 years so any loss is temporary.
On the issue of lifespan, Rotherham Council has raised the issue of the 60 year timescale given that national policy is 40 years. The council said: "Even if the development is technically reversible at the end of its life, the Council considers that reversibility after 60 years substantially reduces the practical weight that can be attached to "temporary" effects in the planning balance.
The council adds that the operation is likely to span more than one generation and that a more nuanced approach would be needed, It said that the "applicant has not yet demonstrated why a 60-year operational life is justified."
Applicants say that in "recent decisions the Secretary of State has confirmed that the 60- year consent lifespan is ""temporary and reversible for the majority of the land.""
Concern has also been raised relating to the "scale, concentration and persistence of significant landscape and visual effects", particularly the impact on settlements such as North Anston, Wickersley, Ulley and Harthill, and various public rights of way and recreational routes. Issues have also been raised with the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).
Rotherham Council is also concerned about the harm to the setting of heritage assets and have asked for a robust assessment of setting impacts, including cumulative effects.
The authority is also unhappy with the inclusion of the Local Wildlife Site at Brampton Common within the limits of the scheme. Though applicants say that it is "not being managed to achieve the objectives for which it was designated," a strategy for enhancements has been drafted.
On Biodiversity Net Gain, a way of creating and improving natural habitats, Rotherham Council said that "expressing an intention to achieve a 10% minimum gain does not go far enough." BNG is not currently a legal requirement for NSIPs but applicants say that updated plans show that BNG metrics have calculated that area habitat units would see a 42.52% gain, hedgerow units, a 44.47% gain, and watercourse units, a 10.11% gain.
Rotherham Council has also raised concerns regarding the suitability and capacity of the proposed substation and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) location, along with issues regarding highways, drainage, glint and glare effects arising from solar panels, noise, and how the proposed cable corridor would interact with areas of landfill and potentially contaminated land.
Rotherham Council will now need to digest the 159 planning documents published with the application.
A three month pre-examination stage has now begun looking at the issues which will need to be discussed at the examination stage. This next stage is where the applicant, anyone who is registered to have their say, official bodies, and people whose land is directly affected, can comment on the proposed development or answer any of the questions at each deadline.
Images: Pexels / Vitaliy Bratkov
0 comments:
Post a Comment