Ground based solar arrays in the Green Belt and ANOB

There is hope beyond Permitted Development and limited development rights

A snapshot of a design and access statement for a successful planning application for carbon free living

LOCAL CONTEXT
I.
The property Little Orchards is situated to the East of Browns Road in Hyde End. A detached
bungalow is situated to the west with ancillary buildings to the South. The site occupies a relatively flat
parcel of land with a gentle fall to the South. To the East and North are a mixed pattern and
framework of mature trees, bushes and other planting and mature hedgerows to the South. The site is
well defined and contained.
THE DEVELOPMENT
I.

The proposed development consists of the installation of 30 no. ground mounted 12k/W Photovoltaic
Solar collectors to provide a non-polluting and sustainable energy source to the applicant’s property
as well as serving local communities and the National Grid.

II.

The proposed development is ground mounted solar installation. The unit dimensions are included in
the additional information. The attached Block Plan, Site Location Map, Frame Specification and
Elevation Drawings provide additional information in order for the council to assess the application.

The proposed development consists of the installation of 30 no. ground mounted 12k/W Photovoltaic
Solar collectors to provide a non-polluting and sustainable energy source to the applicant’s property
as well as serving local communities and the National Grid.
The proposed development is ground mounted solar installation. The unit dimensions are included in
the additional information. The attached Block Plan, Site Location Map, Frame Specification and
Elevation Drawings provide additional information in order for the council to assess the application.
THE OBJECTIVES
1) Reduced carbon emissions
2) Fossil fuel negation
3) Increased bio-diversity
4) Reduces environmental pollution avoiding adverse health impacts
5) Contributes to the development of innovative, local, integrated, clean energy systems
6) Enhanced grid capacity
7) Contributes to energy security
8) Supports the development of Community Energy Solutions as identified by the Energy Saving Trust.
Page 2 of 6
Landscape and Visual Proof of Evidence
THE SITE
I.

The Landscape Visual Assessment, local character (NPPF/PPGRLCE P5 9) and topography (NPPF/
PPGRLCE P6 15) played an important role in selecting the correct site and represents the applicant’s
commitment to reducing the visual impact of this green energy solution whilst supporting low carbon
energy generation, the reduction of greenhouse gas and general pollution.

II.

The location was chosen because of its low visual sensitivity. The site is South facing and the
installation will have no adverse visual impact affecting public viewpoints, with woodlands shielding
views from the North and East and mature hedgerows shielding views from the South. The installation
will have no associated adverse impacts on existing trees, hedgerows, or other habitats of ecological
relevance.

III.

The installation methodology ensures that there are no foundations required and as such this system
is deemed non-permanent in design. There is no requirement for HGV’s onsite, soil or subsoil removal
or concrete foundations. allows for the immediate removal upon decommissioning without harm or
leaving unwanted foundations.

The Landscape Visual Assessment, local character (NPPF/PPGRLCE P5 9) and topography (NPPF/
PPGRLCE P6 15) played an important role in selecting the correct site and represents the applicant’s
commitment to reducing the visual impact of this green energy solution whilst supporting low carbon
energy generation, the reduction of greenhouse gas and general pollution.
The location was chosen because of its low visual sensitivity. The site is South facing and the
installation will have no adverse visual impact affecting public viewpoints, with woodlands shielding
views from the North and East and mature hedgerows shielding views from the South. The installation
will have no associated adverse impacts on existing trees, hedgerows, or other habitats of ecological
relevance.
The installation methodology ensures that there are no foundations required and as such this system
is deemed non-permanent in design. There is no requirement for HGV’s onsite, soil or subsoil removal
or concrete foundations. allows for the immediate removal upon decommissioning without harm or
leaving unwanted foundations.

The approach to assessing cumulative landscape and visual impact of ‘large scale’ solar farms is likely to be the same as assessing the impact of wind turbines. However, in the case of ground-mounted solar panels it should be noted that with effective screening and appropriate land topography the area of a zone of visual influence could be zero. (NPPF/PPGRLCE P9 28).

IV.

This is a well planned and well screened proposition that has been properly addressed within the
landscape and planned sensitively. An award-winning landscape designer has already been engaged
and has designed a planting scheme that will assist in screening and offsetting any minimal
environmental impact this installation may have.

V. I

Installation of this small-scale system will be followed by the sowing of a 2,000 square meter
wildflower meadow complementing and enhancing plant, insect, bird, and other animal species
diversity and carbon absorption.

VI.

Great care and considerable consideration have been given this proposal, its environmental benefits
to the vendor, the environment, and the future of the Green Belt and ANOB whilst ensuring that there
is no adverse impact on the protected area. (NPPF/ PPGRLCE P6 15)

VII.

The social, financial, and environmental benefits of this installation including the reduction in
pollutants, greenhouse gasses and green energy production far outweigh any ‘visual effect’ deemed
detrimental to this proposal.

This is a well planned and well screened proposition that has been properly addressed within the
landscape and planned sensitively. An award-winning landscape designer has already been engaged
and has designed a planting scheme that will assist in screening and offsetting any minimal
environmental impact this installation may have.

Installation of this small-scale system will be followed by the sowing of a 2,000 square meter
wildflower meadow complementing and enhancing plant, insect, bird, and other animal species
diversity and carbon absorption.

Great care and considerable consideration have been given this proposal, its environmental benefits
to the vendor, the environment, and the future of the Green Belt and ANOB whilst ensuring that there
is no adverse impact on the protected area. (NPPF/ PPGRLCE P6 15)
The social, financial, and environmental benefits of this installation including the reduction in
pollutants, greenhouse gasses and green energy production far outweigh any ‘visual effect’ deemed
detrimental to this proposal.

VISUAL SUMMARY
In assessing the visual effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt it is not
surprising that there is some contradiction with the current policy This is because the effect of the proposed development on the char cter and features of the available views, including openness, is considered as part of the visual impact assessment. The site is surrounded by mature trees and hedgerows away from major roads and transport corridors. This is sheltered location without being overlooked.
I.
The existing site is also visually interrupted by trees and hedgerows and does not form part of a wider,
more open, and cohesive landscape. In visual character terms, it is quite secluded from the more
open farmland landscapes that exist nearby to the south.

II.

The existing site is also visually interrupted by trees and hedgerows and does not form part of a wider,
more open, and cohesive landscape. In visual character terms, it is quite secluded from the more
open farmland landscapes that exist nearby to the south.

III.

There will be limited visibility of the proposed development from its surroundings (as demonstrated by
the satellite image on page 2.

IV.

In the majority of the reviewed representative viewpoints, the proposed development will be barely
discernible and will give rise to no more than a negligible visual effect.

Existing buildings, structures and features further restrict views of the proposed installation.
There will be limited visibility of the proposed development from its surroundings (as demonstrated by
the satellite image on page 2.

In the majority of the reviewed representative viewpoints, the proposed development will be barely
discernible and will give rise to no more than a negligible visual effect.
Where the proposed development will be seen from its surroundings, it will be heavily filtered and screened by a combination of mature trees and planting, landform variations and existing built development. Where visible, the proposed development will not curtail or obstruct any existing longer ranging views and it will also not be seen projecting into the countryside. It will sit visually well related to the existing adjoining house, outbuildings and within an established mature landscape. The visual effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt has been assessed to be negligible. The overall visual effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt will be very limited

LOCAL AND NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
The NPPF policy guidance outlines the five purposes of the Green Belt (NPPF P39/138):
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
In short, the purposes of including land within the Green Belt and the policies governing its policing is
to prevent the merging of neighbouring towns and impact upon historic towns none of which are
relevant to this site or planning application.
The policy became an Act of Parliament in 1947, a time without climate change, without limited resources, or knowledge of greenhouse gasses and rising global energy prices. This guidance is still governing policy and driving decision making. And there are major challenges ahead, the alignment of historic national and local planning policies with the needs of the environment and future generations is just one such challenge. A balance has to be found. As guardians we have an important role to play in protecting the Green Belt and ANOB whilst confronting the long-term environmental impact these planning policies are having. Are we really protecting the environment and in support of the reduction in greenhouse gasses and an increase renewable energy production if the National and Local planning policies prohibit this?
NPPF GUIDANCE
I. 133 The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt
policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of
Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

II. 144. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that
substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances will not exist
unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm
resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”

III. 145. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the
Green Belt.

133. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt
     policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of
     Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
134. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that
     substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances will not exist
     unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm
     resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”
135. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the
     Green Belt.
     
     
     IV.
     I.
     II.
     145.g limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would:
     a. not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development;
     or
     b. not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would
     re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing
     need within the area of the local planning authority
     Open relates to urban spawl and generally recognised as not a landscape designation [Landmark
     Chambers HGL Samuel Smith Planning 2018]. However, any change to an environment will have an
     effect on openness, the sheltered location chosen along with the scale, specification and installation
     methodology of this proposed installation will have little impact on the landscape and vista.
     Is not the protection of the environment, the positive actions of reducing carbon emissions, of
     increasing our use of green energy whilst reducing our reliance on nuclear and fossil fuels ‘very
     special circumstance’? Does this not outweigh the visual impact of a small domestic solar array in a
     sheltered location?
136. 
     When considering any planning application authorities should ensure substantial weight is given to
     any harm to the Green Belt. This application proposes a system that is non-intrusive in addition to a
     landscaping and planting scheme that is aimed at rejuvenating and replacing the thousands of miles
     of natural hedgerows lost over the past decades due to local policy, infrastructure building and
     changes to agricultural practices and highways management. One must also argue that ‘very special circumstances’ does exist for the acceptance and approval of a temporary non-intrusive ground based solar array a key objective set out in the Buckinghamshire Energy Strategy that must align with current planning policy to succeed. The National policy explicitly states that ‘the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources can contribute to the very special circumstances put forward to justify development in the Green Belt.
     III.
     IV.
     Indicates ‘construction and buildings’ as inappropriate development, structures responsible for the
     increase in urban sprawl. There is no reference to the temporary installation of green energy solutions in particular small domestic ground-based arrays of minimum height and limited visual impact. Relates development to that of existing or previously development, one that includes buildings.
137. 
     THE NEED FOR CHANGE IN APPLYING THE TERM OPENNESS TO THE GREEN BELT
     I.
     II.
     
138. NPPF
     The planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve resilience;
     encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. (152) Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council 2020 NPPF 153.
     
     Landscape and Visual Proof of Evidence
     The Supreme Court [The application of] held that for the purposes of the NPPF, the visual quality of
     the landscape was not in itself an essential part of the “openness” for which the green belt was
     protected (see para.5 of judgment). The concept of “openness” in para.90 was a broad policy
     concept. Naturally read, it referred back to the underlying aim of the green belt policy “to prevent
     urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open”. As the former Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)2
     made clear, it was not necessarily a statement about the visual qualities of the land, though in some
     cases that might be an aspect of the planning judgement involved.
139. 
     ‘The concept of “openness” in para 90 of the NPPF seems to me a good example of such a broad
     policy concept [3]. It is naturally read as referring back to the underlying aim of Green Belt policy,
     stated at the beginning of this section: “to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open’.
     ‘Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and is also linked to the purposes to be served by the
     Green Belt’. [Lord Carnwath] This confirmed that “matters relevant to openness in any particular case are a matter of planning judgement, not law” (para 39). Most of the recent discussions and comments following this judgment have focussed on the point confirming that planners are not obliged by law to consider visual impact in the preservation of Green Belt openness. As was the judgement in this case regarding a quarry. It may not be visually attractive but the visual impact temporary, and views subject to restoration.
     III.
     IV.
     Timmins v. Gedling Borough Council [2014] EWHC 654
140. “There is a clear conceptual distinction between openness and visual impact” “it is wrong in principle to arrive at a specific conclusion as to openness by reference to its visual impact”
     Buckinghamshire Local Energy Strategy
     Our Vision is that “By 2030, Buckinghamshire will have an Emissions Intensity Ratio (EIR) of 100
     tonnes/£million to meet national and local clean growth ambitions.
     a. Promoting the development of innovative, local, integrated, clean energy systems
     b. improving Grid Capacity
     c. Encouraging the development of Community Energy Solutions.
     d. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
     e. The current energy model impacts negatively on the environment and people’s health.
     f. Overly high energy costs can serve to suppress productivity; and
     g. Our energy security is coming under increasing scrutiny.
     REFERENCES
     Planning_Practice_Guidance_for_Renewable_and_Low_Carbon_Energy.pdf
     National Planning Policy Framework.pdf
     Buckinghamshire Local Energy Strategy 2018-2030.pdf

Privacy Policy   Terms and Conditions   Service Agreement  Cookie Policy