Object

Representation ID: 4736

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Serena Solanki

I agree with the need for producing renewable energy, however Rutland is one of the smallest counties in England. The PV farms will be located on greenfield sites - how will biodiversity within these sensitive areas be protected? The energy generated will not be used to power local homes or businesses - local people won't see the benefit.
Vattenfall is one of the largest offshore windfarms off the coast of Norfolk and once completed, will generate enough energy for 1.95 million homes. The proposed wind turbines aren't going to be strategically located to maximize energy generation- should be located elsewhere

Comments noted. RCC has declared a Climate Crisis and has committed to taking positive action to achieve net-zero including by considering renewable energy generation. The Local Plan identifies areas suitable for wind turbine and solar thermal development, and provides a positive strategy for energy from these sources in accordance with the NPPF (para 160). The alternative, (ie not identifying any potentially suitable areas), would mean that applications could only be approved if an area was identified in a neighbourhood plan: this could result in no or very limited development, which would not be in line with Rutland’s Strategic Objective to take positive action to achieve net-zero and would be a barrier to the Local Plan making a legally required meaningful contribution to addressing the climate change crisis. An assessment to identify areas of opportunity for potential solar pv (and wind turbine generator) developments following a constraints-based approach was undertaken to inform the Local Plan. This evidence, together with the Rutland Biodiversity Assessment (2023), would be used to assess solar pv proposals together with the policy framework for the natural environment set out in national planning policy/guidance and Environment policies. Solar developments can provide an opportunity to deliver net gains for biodiversity.

Support

Representation ID: 4756

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lunn

I support the need for a policy. However, i do not support good agriculture land being used when we have good brownfield sites available, possible ex military sites (old runways) that would make more sense to use. Also if all new housing estates and warehouse roofs for example had solar panels as standard fitted this would reduce the need for large solar farms.

Support noted. Policy CC8 (with suggested changes) sets out a sequential approach to the siting of solar developments by encouraging the development of previously developed land before greenfield land. The Rutland Renewable Energy Study that identifies areas of opportunity for potential solar pv and wind turbine generator developments excluded Grades 1 and 2 in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). For solar pv developments Policy CC8 includes a criterion that sets a number of additional tests where the proposal is on Best and Most Versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a in the ALC.) Para 180 of the NPPF recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Policy CC8 follows national guidance (NPPF para 160) by providing a positive strategy for renewable energy generation that maximises the potential for suitable development……while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately. If solar pv developments were restricted only to brownfield sites this would limit such development (after taking into account all of the other constraints that may apply to such land) and would be a barrier to the Local Plan making a legally required meaningful contribution towards addressing the climate change crisis.

Support

Representation ID: 4949

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Robert Purves

In North Luffenham we have a unused airfield with 3 runways and a wide expanse of open area.
The airfield was sited on top of a hill to make use of the wind. The 3 runways would accommodate up to 100,000 solar panels and the airfield to the North East could take 2 wind turbines with the nearest dwellings being over 500m away.
It makes sense to use the existing runways to place the solar panels on. If the site was to be used for anything else, it would mean tons of concreate being dug up and then disposed of.

Comment noted. The Rutland Renewable Energy Study identifies areas of potential for renewable energy proposals based on a screening process that considers a wide range of constraints. Part of the airfield referred to in the representation (assumed to be St Georges Barracks) is already identified in the Local Plan as an opportunity area for ground mounted solar pv development. The Barracks are also subject to a number of other constraints/designations shown in the Local Plan that would determine the appropriateness of the site for renewable energy proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 4958

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Williams

Areas of land “identified” in the map quoted should not be supported without extensive scrutiny by RCC. It should not be a given that these proposals will be approved.
The document , in which the PV opportunity map appears has not been widely circulated for scrutiny by Rutland residents.
There is too little evidence to say that agricultural land could be returned unharmed after 40 years to farming. There has to be a guarantee that it will not become brownfield.
Site-specific soil assessments must be undertaken on all proposed sites and all ALC grade 1-3b protected.

Comments noted. The Rutland Renewable Energy Study, identifying opportunity areas for solar pv and wind turbine generators, followed a constraints-based approach. This forms part of the evidence base for the Reg 18 Plan, is listed as such, and so is and has been in the public domain.
Policy CC8 accords with national planning policy: ‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy and heat, plans should: a) provide a positive strategy for energy from these sources, that maximises the potential for suitable development……while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately (including cumulative landscape and visual impacts); b) consider identifying suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources……. where this would help secure their development.’ (Para 160 NPPF).
Policy CC8 (with suggested changes) sets out a sequential approach to the siting of solar developments by encouraging the development of previously developed land before greenfield land. The Rutland Renewable Energy Study that identifies areas of opportunity for potential solar pv and wind turbine generator developments excluded Grades 1 and 2 in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). For solar pv developments Policy CC8 includes a criterion that sets a number of additional tests where the proposal is on Best and Most Versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a in the ALC.). This is in line with para 180 of the NPPF that recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.
In line with the PPG (para 013) solar pv developments are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can be used to ensure that at the end of the life of the development, that the installations are removed and the land restored to its previous state (if greenfield/agricultural) including any biodiversity enhancements if required.

Object

Representation ID: 4960

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Graham Tenneson

I note that medium-to-large wind turbines should not be sited within 500 metres of any settlement and would only be permitted within 2000 metres of residential property if there were clear evidence of no significant harm arising from noise, flicker, or their overbearing nature (characteristics which would appear intrinsic to any medium-to-large turbine). Two of the areas shown on the accompanying map as suited to wind turbines are within 500 metres of my property In line with your stated policy therefore, I ask that you reconsider the marked areas to the north and south of Whissendine Road (west of Ashwell.)

Comment noted. The Rutland Renewable Energy Study (2023) is a high level initial assessment showing options of areas for further investigation. Policy CC8 also sets a minimum buffer of 500m between medium/large wind turbines and residential properties.

Support

Representation ID: 5071

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

Ground mounted PV panels should not be located on agricultural fields. Returning them to agricultural use after 40 years might be difficult to justify as the area may then qualify as brownfield. Grade 3 agricultural land is what most of Rutland is, and can be very productive if farmed well. We should be producing as much of our food locally in line with CC1. The area to the S of Stamford Road, Ketton, is not suitable for ground mounted PV or wind turbines (as designated on the map) as it is at the entrance to the village and CA.

Comments noted. The Rutland Renewable Energy Study that identifies areas of opportunity for potential solar pv and wind turbine generator developments excluded Grades 1 and 2 in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). For solar pv developments Policy CC8 includes a criterion that sets a number of additional tests where the proposal is on Best and Most Versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a in the ALC.) This is in line with para 180 of the NPPF that recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.
Policy CC8 follows national guidance (NPPF para 160) by providing a positive strategy for renewable energy generation that maximises the potential for suitable development……while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately. If solar pv developments were restricted only to non-agricultural land this would limit such development (after taking into account all of the other constraints that may apply to such land) and would be a barrier to the Local Plan making a legally required meaningful contribution towards addressing the climate change crisis.
In line with the PPG (para 013) solar pv developments are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can be used to ensure that at the end of the life of the development, that the installations are removed and the land restored to its previous state (if greenfield/agricultural) including any biodiversity enhancements if required.

Regarding proximity of Ketton CA to area of opportunity for solar pv/area potentially suitable for wind turbines, the potential impact of a development on the setting of a heritage asset such as a conservation area is not typically something that can be shown on a map by applying a standard buffer. Every application will have site-specific constraints such as heritage assets and their settings and the impact of these may vary significantly depending on the specifics of the site and the nature of the proposal. As set out in the Local Plan such matters would be assessed against other relevant policies in the Local Plan (in addition to CC8) as well as policies in any relevant Neighbourhood Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5084

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: National Highways

Dft Circular 01/2022 paragraphs 65-70 set outs National Highways policy in relation to wind and solar farms adjacent to the Strategic Road Network. This identifies potential risks to motorists, what will/will not be acceptable, and what further information may need to be provided to support planning proposals.

Support noted. Policy CC8 sets out that the impacts of renewable energy developments must be acceptable…..with regards to highway safety. The DfT Circular 01/22 covers both wind turbines and developments with solar reflection.

Support

Representation ID: 5093

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England generally welcomes this policy and the provisions it includes for the protection of local landscapes, biodiversity, geodiversity, nature recovery, soils and other natural resources. We note that in the section Additional considerations for solar based energy proposals the recognition of the need to consider BMV soils and the Nature Recovery Strategy which is welcome. In the section on Additional matters for wind-based energy proposals we suggest that impacts on protected species particularly birds (including migration routes) and bats should be considered.

Support noted. Agree. Reference to be made to priority habitats or species in the policy and further defined in the text accompanying Policy CC8.

Support

Representation ID: 5138

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Aukera UK

We are supportive of the presumption in favour of such developments on the condition that key criteria and tests are met to ensure a scheme’s acceptability. Areas identified for solar development potential should not be applied in an exclusive way so as not to eliminate development in other areas which may be suitable and satisfy the key policy tests. As a conscientious developer we welcome support for projects that offer significant benefits but would appreciate further clarity on what this includes. The additional solar requirements could be clearer to distinguish BMV and carbon sink considerations.

Support noted. The wording of CC8 would not preclude support for ground mounted solar projects that lie outside the opportunity area designation on the Proposals Map. Agree clarification required for assessment of proposals outside of opportunity areas.

Disagree on point 5. All of the second bullet point under Additional Considerations for solar based energy proposals refers to proposals on BMV so cannot be split into two as suggested.

Object

Representation ID: 5151

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Objection to wording re Landscape Character. A need to support renewables in Conservation Areas. Community Energy schemes should be future-proofed.

Test a) Disagree. The policy is positively worded ‘will be supported’ seeking to maximise appropriately located renewable energy schemes whilst taking account impacts of the development, including on landscape character. Policy CC8 accords with national planning policy: ‘To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy and heat, plans should: a) provide a positive strategy for energy from these sources, that maximises the potential for suitable development……while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately (including cumulative landscape and visual impacts); (NPPF para 160). The Wind Turbines SPD no longer forms part of the Local Plan, and will be replaced by Policy CC8, and/or will be updated.
Disagree with listing the policies as this would make the policy very unwieldy. Chapter 1 of the Local Plan makes it clear that the policies should not be read in isolation from each other and explains why the Plan does not normally include cross-referencing between policies.
Disagree as the presumption in favour of solar panels on buildings is a County-wide policy, including within Conservation Areas, although weight would have to be given to the impact of such a proposal on the heritage asset.
Government guidance on community energy schemes is available from the Dept for Energy Security and Net Zero (2024).
Agree typo under the heading ‘Additional matters for wind-based energy proposals’: substitute a) – c) for (i) – (iii)

Object

Representation ID: 5270

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Dr Toby Walker

Applications to install large commercial solar energy sites in the county cover a huge area of agricultural land to the detriment of the local countryside. The area proposed is 3% of the county which is ten times the national guidelines of 0.3%. The Staveley Solar Farm proposal covers a large area of open countryside and will provide no significant benefit to local communities nor is there any element of local ownership. This is clearly a purely commercial venture and an attempt to use a totally disproportionate area of agricultural land in Rutland for the sole benefit of the developers.

Comments noted. Policy CC8 follows national guidance (NPPF para 160) by providing a positive strategy for renewable energy generation that maximises the potential for suitable development……while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately. CC8 supports proposals where the impact on landscape character is acceptable, or can be made so. Cumulative impacts would be assessed as part of the planning application process. If solar pv developments were restricted only to non-agricultural land this would limit such development (after taking into account all of the other constraints that may apply to such land) and would be a barrier to the Local Plan making a legally required meaningful contribution towards addressing the climate change crisis. As national policy is to maximise renewable generation then it would not be appropriate to set a limit on area for ground mounted solar. In terms of targets, para 003 of the PPG states that ‘The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.’ It also states that: ‘The UK has legal commitments to cut greenhouse gases and meet increased energy demand from renewable sources. Whilst local authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, there is no quota which the Local Plan has to deliver.’
It would not be appropriate to respond to the objection to the Staveley solar farm proposal as part of the Local Plan process.

Support

Representation ID: 5295

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Joanna Burrows

An important policy that I support 100%

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5340

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Nicholas Leeming

I note with concern that two areas close to our property at Ashwell Grange are highlighted as being suitable for large scale wind turbines or different types of large scale renewable energy.

1. A significant part of both areas lie within 500m of our settlement which comprises individual, residential properties and so does not comply with policy CC8 which states that “Medium to large scale wind turbines should not be within 500m of any settlement or individual residential property…”.
2. Wind turbines need to be located on high ground where the prevailing, westerly wind are strongest, not in sheltered, east facing locations such as these areas which are totally inappropriate for such use.

Comments noted. The Rutland Renewable Energy Study (2023) is a high level initial assessment showing options of areas for further investigation. Policy CC8 also sets a minimum buffer of 500m between medium/large wind turbines and residential properties. Comments noted regarding unsuitability of area near Ashwell Grange for the siting of wind turbines. Such considerations would be taken into account by a potential developer: the areas identified on the Proposals Map are only described as ‘potentially suitable for development’.

Object

Representation ID: 5413

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: North Luffenham Parish Council

Can you advise who will pay for the "Independent Assessment of the Proposals" commissioned by the County Council

Policy CC8 states that the County Council may commission its own independent assessment. This would be paid for by RCC.

Object

Representation ID: 5473

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Janet Taylor

Object to siting any PV arrays on agricultural land or open countryside. There is no need while there are acres of unused roofs, car parks etc to be covered. These schemes are generally proposed by commercial enterprises whose only aim it to profit from the desecration of locations that they don’t live in.

Policy CC8 follows national guidance (NPPF para 160) by providing a positive strategy for renewable energy generation that maximises the potential for suitable development……while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately. If solar pv developments were restricted only to non-agricultural land this would limit such development (after taking into account all of the other constraints that may apply to such land) and would be a barrier to the Local Plan making a legally required meaningful contribution towards addressing the climate change crisis. The Rutland Renewable Energy Study has calculated the amount of potential energy that could be generated by solar pv on carports to be 2.1 MWp (Megawatt peak). This is a fraction compared to the potential from ground-mounted solar panels of 649 MWp. There is a presumption in favour of granting permission for solar panels on existing buildings set out in Policy CC8 and this is also supported and encouraged in policy documents such as the NPPF and PPG, the National Design Guide (2021), Design Guidelines for Rutland (2021) and also in Local Plan Policy CC7.

Object

Representation ID: 5495

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Nigel Cooper

My property is located about 0.8 miles to the west of Ashwell. To the south of my property, is a yellow area on the Proposals Map. A further yellow area is located to the north . The yellow denotes “Areas Potentially Suitable for Development of Wind Turbine” to which policy CC8 applies. The policy includes the wording Both the yellow areas are within 500m of our group of houses. By the Council’s definition they are not suitable for wind turbines. Accordingly, I object to their inclusion and request that the 2 yellow areas be deleted from the Proposals Map. Plenty of alternative sites which comply with the policy CC8 are identified on the Proposals Map.

The Vale as dissected by Whissendine Road is not suitable for wind turbines nor for solar panels due to the quality of an important landscape. There are more suitable locations for both in other parts of Rutland

The Rutland Renewable Energy Study (2023) is a high level initial assessment showing options of areas for further investigation. Policy CC8 also sets a minimum buffer of 500m between medium/large wind turbines and residential properties.
In Appendix 1, CC8 is identified as a Strategic Policy that meets Strategic Objective 1. In referring to ‘different types of large-scale renewable energy proposals that may be acceptable’ it means the two designations shown on the Proposals Map for wind energy and ground mounted solar pv developments. It does not follow that solar would be acceptable in the wind energy areas and vice versa.
Regarding the comments on the Vale of Catmose, such considerations would form part of the Landscape and Visual Assessment that would accompany a planning application for ground-mounted solar pv or wind turbine development.

Support

Representation ID: 5568

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs laura alcock

I support this policy. I do not think agriculture land should be used, ( we need local farming / food source) . . All new housing estates and warehouse should have solar panels as standard, but then the national grid needs to support this and currently it cannot!

Support noted. Policy CC8 follows national guidance (NPPF para 160) by providing a positive strategy for renewable energy generation that maximises the potential for suitable development……while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately. If solar pv developments were restricted only to non-agricultural land this would limit such development (after taking into account all of the other constraints that may apply to such land) and would be a barrier to the Local Plan making a legally required meaningful contribution towards addressing the climate change crisis. Policies CC2 and CC4 seek to maximise renewable energy generation on new buildings. Policy CC10 supports proposals for upgraded or new electricity facilities such as transmission facilities.
In terms of protecting food sources, the NPPF (footnote 62) advises that the availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered when deciding what sites are most appropriate for development. It would be appropriate for the council to monitor the cumulative impact of permitted large-scale solar developments on the supply of agricultural land across the county. The council could then collect and utilise this information to help inform policy development and decision making.

Support

Representation ID: 5616

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Strutt & Parker (Cecil Estate Family Trust)

Agent: Strutt & Parker

We are supportive of the presumption in favour of solar and renewable energy developments. However the policy needs to be reflective of the impact electricity grid connection capacity constraints (a necessary upgrade works) have on the size and location of areas identified for solar development. The policy must not eliminate development in other areas which may be suitable and satisfy the key policy tests. For areas identified as ground mounted solar potential there should be flexibility in the size of the areas provided they satisfy other policies of the plan.

Support noted. The wording of CC8 would not preclude support for ground mounted solar projects that lie outside the opportunity area designation on the Proposals Map. Para 005 in PPG on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy states, however, that: Identifying areas suitable for renewable energy in plans gives greater certainty as to where such development will be permitted. For example, where councils have identified suitable areas for large scale solar farms they should not have to give permission outside those areas for speculative applications involving the same type of development when they judge the impact to be unacceptable.

Support

Representation ID: 5617

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Strutt & Parker (on behalf of Exton Estate)

Agent: Strutt & Parker

We are supportive of the presumption in favour of solar and renewable energy developments. However the policy needs to be reflective of the impact electricity grid connection capacity constraints (a necessary upgrade works) have on the size and location of areas identified for solar development. The policy must not eliminate development in other areas which may be suitable and satisfy the key policy tests. For areas identified as ground mounted solar potential there should be flexibility in the size of the areas provided they satisfy the criteria of other policies of the plan.

Support noted. The wording of CC8 would not preclude support for ground mounted solar projects that lie outside the opportunity area designation on the Proposals Map. Para 005 in PPG on Renewable and Low Carbon Energy states, however, that: Identifying areas suitable for renewable energy in plans gives greater certainty as to where such development will be permitted. For example, where councils have identified suitable areas for large scale solar farms they should not have to give permission outside those areas for speculative applications involving the same type of development when they judge the impact to be unacceptable.

Support

Representation ID: 5657

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton Parish Council

Agent: Mary Cade

But the area identified as a "ground mounted solar PV opportunity area" on the Policies Map to the S of Stamford Road, Ketton, is not suitable for ground mounted PV, or wind turbines. It is at the entrance to the village and its Conservation Area. It is the very site where, last year, a tall metal fence was erected for railway safety, without planning permission, and then had to be replaced with less visually intrusive, and reflective (re road safety) deer fencing.

Support noted. Regarding proximity of Ketton CA to area of opportunity for ground-mounted solar pv, the potential impact of a development on the setting of a heritage asset such as a conservation area is not typically something that can be shown on a map by applying a standard buffer. Every application will have site-specific constraints such as heritage assets and their settings and the impact of these may vary significantly depending on the specifics of the site and the nature of the proposal. As set out in the Local Plan such matters would be assessed against other relevant policies in the Local Plan (in addition to CC8) as well as policies in any relevant Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5760

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Billsdon

The interactive map shows potential areas for wind turbines close to and south of Whissendine. Sites close to the south of the village would cause flicker which may trigger seizures in some epileptic people and challenging behaviour in some autistic people. The village is downwind of the prevailing wind thus noise would intrude. Whissendine has good tranquillity away from major roads, railways, industry and aviation. The study by AECOM shows potential turbine sites . Their sites are in higher wind speed area and away from large settlements and provide benefit without the detriment from the sites on the interactive map.

Comments noted. Issues relating to noise and flicker would be assessed as part of a planning application for wind turbine development. The areas shown on the interactive/proposals map as potentially suitable for development of wind turbines are based on the Rutland Renewable Energy Study by AECOM. The study is a high level initial assessment showing options of areas for further investigation. Policy CC8 also sets a minimum buffer of 500m between medium/large wind turbines and residential properties.

Object

Representation ID: 5770

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Langham Parish Council

We are concerned about the presumption of permission for land based solar energy installations. Planning permission has already been granted for a solar energy farm in Langham, which makes a strong contribution towards the Government's targets.

Comments noted. The wording of CC8 follows national planning policy. Para 163 of the NPPF states: "When determining planning applications for renewable and low carbon development, local planning authorities should: a) not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy, and recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to significant cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and b) approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable….”
In terms of targets, para 003 of the PPG states that ‘The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.’ It also states that: ‘The UK has legal commitments to cut greenhouse gases and meet increased energy demand from renewable sources. Whilst local authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, there is no quota which the Local Plan has to deliver.’ Cumulative impacts would be assessed as part of the planning application process.

Object

Representation ID: 5789

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sue Scarrott

I compeletly with increasing renewable energy but agricultural land should not be used for producing solar energy. In addition to the obvious palces - all houses and commercial/industrila buildings, RCC should be thinking more creatively about positioning solar panels. Agriculture needs to become less intensive to be sustainable so there is no scope for using existing agricultural land for other purposes.

Comments noted. Policy CC8 follows national guidance (NPPF para 160) by providing a positive strategy for renewable energy generation that maximises the potential for suitable development……while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately. If solar pv developments were restricted only to non-agricultural land this would limit such development (after taking into account all of the other constraints that may apply to such land) and would be a barrier to the Local Plan making a legally required meaningful contribution towards addressing the climate change crisis. There is a presumption in favour of granting permission for solar panels on existing buildings set out in Policy CC8 and this is also supported and encouraged in policy documents such as the NPPF and PPG, the National Design Guide (2021), Design Guidelines for Rutland (2021) and also in Local Plan Policy CC7.

Support

Representation ID: 5846

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

Replace “Weight in favour will be afforded..” with “Proposals will be actively supported for renewable energy systems…..”
Also add “This may include partnerships with local companies or landowners, especially in terms of heat recovery or the siting of renewable energy systems.”

This is a welcomed policy, especially in terms of wind energy. Relatively more emphasis should be placed on solar energy. The interactive map identifies nearly as much area for solar as wind energy.

Support noted. The wording under the heading ‘Community renewable energy proposals’ accords with Government guidance in the PPG which states at para 004 that: ‘Local planning authorities may wish to establish policies which give positive weight to renewable and low carbon energy initiatives which have clear evidence of local community involvement and leadership.’ Agree to add in: ‘This may include partnerships with local companies or landowners, especially in terms of heat recovery or the siting of renewable energy systems.’
Agree more emphasis should be given to solar energy. Add to 5th para on page 42: Ground-mounted solar pv farms are one of the most established renewable electricity technologies in the UK and the cheapest form of electricity generation. Solar pv offers the potential for the greatest generation of renewable energy in Rutland. Solar is a key part of the government’s strategy for low-cost decarbonisation of the energy sector. Solar also has an important role in delivering the government’s goals for greater energy independence and the British Energy Security Strategy states that government expects a five-fold increase in solar deployment by 2035 (up to 70GW). The Government is supportive of solar that is co-located with other functions (for example, agriculture, onshore wind generation, or storage) to maximise the efficiency of land use. Solar farms can be built quickly and the generation of renewable electricity and associated reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would make a positive contribution towards achieving the UK Government's legally binding emissions reduction targets as well as contribute to achieving Rutland County Council’s objectives related to the declared Climate Crisis.

Object

Representation ID: 5874

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Brian Grady

The objection is that (i) no consideration is given to protecting communities from the risk of fire and contamination caused by thermal runaway in Li-Ion battery storage units (ii) no assessment is made of the requirement for renewable energy in Rutland (iii) opportunity areas for wind and solar installations vastly exceed the renewable power needed by Rutland (iv) priority should be given to previous industrial, brownfield and military sites before consideration of any productive agricultural land, (v) the policy woudlead to an uncoordinated approach to the establishment of renewable installation and threaten Rutland's outstanding beauty and revenue from tourism.

Comments of risks from batteries noted. More applicable to Policy CC10. Agree to add in a paragraph at end of Why is this policy needed? on page 47.
Disagree as decision whether to commission an independent assessment should be kept flexible.
Disagree. Developers are encouraged to consult with the fire and rescue service prior to submitting a planning application and any issues raised would be addressed as part of the planning submission.
Policy CC8 follows national guidance (NPPF para 160) by providing a positive strategy for renewable energy generation that maximises the potential for suitable development……while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately. CC8 supports proposals where the impact on landscape character is acceptable, or can be made so. Policy CC8 (with suggested changes) sets out a sequential approach to the siting of solar developments by encouraging the development of previously developed land before greenfield land. If solar pv developments were restricted only to non-agricultural land this would limit such development (after taking into account all of the other constraints that may apply to such land) and would be a barrier to the Local Plan making a legally required meaningful contribution towards addressing the climate change crisis. As national policy is to maximise renewable generation then it would not be appropriate to set a limit on area for ground mounted solar. In terms of targets, para 003 of the PPG states that ‘The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.’ It also states that: ‘The UK has legal commitments to cut greenhouse gases and meet increased energy demand from renewable sources. Whilst local authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, there is no quota which the Local Plan has to deliver.’
Comments noted regarding 500m buffer. Advice from the fire and rescue service as part of the planning application process would determine whether the location of batteries within 500m of residential properties would cause a risk to safety. The existing Wind Energy Development Guidelines published in 2006 do not have a prescribed setback distance but do indicate that a 500m setback distance should be sufficient to prevent any significant noise impact arising from the operations of wind turbines. The 2019 Draft Wind Energy Development Guidelines propose a “visual amenity setback of 4 times the turbine height between a wind turbine and the nearest residential property, subject to a mandatory minimum distance of 500 metres”. For the Rutland Renewable Energy Study, a typical buffer of 500 m between wind turbines and residential dwellings has been implemented to mitigate noise, amenity, and safety issues. This is also reflected in the wording of Policy CC8.
Comment noted regarding bond. Disagree. The permission runs with the land and conditions would require the land to be restored once the turbines have been removed.
Comments noted. Issues relating to contamination and impacts on nature conservation would form part of the supporting documents accompanying a planning application for renewable energy development.

Object

Representation ID: 5909

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jane Lucas

In respect of ground-based solar panels, the policy should incorporate a requirement, when assessing applications, to take into account the aggregate land area in the county already or potentially devoted to solar farms. This should ensure this remains in line with national guidance/averages. Priority should be given to proposals which demonstrably and substantially benefit the local community to discourage the use of farmland to “export” energy outside the immediate locality. Commercial applicants should make every effort to use their own premises or land at their sites to install panels before making proposals to site these elsewhere.

Comments noted. As national policy is to maximise renewable generation then it would not be appropriate to set a limit on area for ground mounted solar although cumulative impacts of such development would form part of the assessment of a new proposal. In terms of targets, para 003 of the PPG states that ‘The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.’ It also states that: ‘The UK has legal commitments to cut greenhouse gases and meet increased energy demand from renewable sources. Whilst local authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, there is no quota which the Local Plan has to deliver.’ Policy CC8 already states that weight in favour will be afforded….where….significant benefits to local communities are demonstrated. This accords with Government guidance in the PPG which states at para 004 that: ‘Local planning authorities may wish to establish policies which give positive weight to renewable and low carbon energy initiatives which have clear evidence of local community involvement and leadership.’
It would not be appropriate or legal to require applicants to install panels on their own buildings or land before making an application elsewhere. Policy CC8 does set out a presumption in favour for the installation of solar panels on existing buildings.

Object

Representation ID: 5914

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jo Giles

Whilst recognising and supporting the need for more sustainable energy I am concerned at how RCC is proposing going about it, particularly with regard to solar farms. Current applications by developers in Rutland and Lincolnshire, if successful, would make up 50% of the total national land area given over to solar farms. How can that be? If all current proposals in Rutland were granted 2-3% of our land would be occupied by solar farms, way beyond the 0.3% national target set by government to meet net zero climate goals.

Comments noted. Disagree. As national policy is to maximise renewable generation then it would not be appropriate to set a limit on area for ground mounted solar. In terms of targets, para 003 of the PPG states that ‘The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities.’ It also states that: ‘The UK has legal commitments to cut greenhouse gases and meet increased energy demand from renewable sources. Whilst local authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy development, there is no quota which the Local Plan has to deliver.’ Cumulative impacts would be assessed as part of the planning application process.

Object

Representation ID: 5934

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr John Ferry

Whilst l am fully in agreement and support the aim of becoming carbon neutral by 2050 l wish to register my strong views against using agricultural land such as that between Morcott and Pilton. Not only because of its agricultural value but of its significant landscape character so important for Rutland. There are more suitable alternative sites I.e Cottesmore and North Luffenham MOD sites. Additionally, all commercial and residential new developments should be mandated to install solar panels.

Comments noted. Policy CC8 follows national guidance (NPPF para 160) by providing a positive strategy for renewable energy generation that maximises the potential for suitable development……while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed appropriately. CC8 supports proposals where the impact on landscape character is acceptable, or can be made so. If solar pv developments were restricted only to non-agricultural land this would limit such development (after taking into account all of the other constraints that may apply to such land) and would be a barrier to the Local Plan making a legally required meaningful contribution towards addressing the climate change crisis. The Rutland Renewable Energy Study that identifies areas of opportunity for potential solar pv and wind turbine generator developments excluded Grades 1 and 2 in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC). For solar pv developments Policy CC8 includes a criterion that sets a number of additional tests where the proposal is on Best and Most Versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a in the ALC.). This is in line with para 180 of the NPPF that recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.
Regarding the comments on the land between Morcott and Pilton, such considerations would form part of the Landscape and Visual Assessment that would accompany a planning application for ground-mounted solar pv or wind turbine development.
Disagree as it would not be appropriate to mandatorily require all new buildings to have solar panels through a prescriptive local plan policy as there are a number of factors that would need to be taken into account such as location, efficiency, viability and whether other forms of renewable energy are more appropriate. This would also go beyond the scope of national guidance. Such provision is, however, supported and encouraged in policy documents such as the NPPF and PPG, the National Design Guide (2021), Design Guidelines for Rutland (2021). Local Plan Policy CC2 seeks to maximise energy generation from on-site renewable sources and CC8 sets a presumption in favour for solar panels on existing buildings.

Object

Representation ID: 5942

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Tunstall

When the solar project in Exton/Barnsdale was submitted for a waiver for an Environmental Impact Assessment the local community were strongly against this development at the proposed sites submitting many objections based on proximity to residential properties and businesses, detrimental impact on tourism especially Barnsdale Gardens which is adjacent to the proposed area. Also the documented presence of protected species in the specific area. The Avenue is a Heritage site and Rutland Wildlife Centre is along the boundary and the animals will be impacted by noise pollution. Please take this existing community feedback into account.

Comments noted but unable to comment as does not refer to part of the Reg 18 Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5950

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

A key concern for the UK is energy security. Wind and solar power are not reliable energy sources. Parts are manufactured in China. There is an environmental cost when dismantled. In Rutland, there needs to be caution about net zero, regarding impact on the landscape and environment (solar and wind power) and the cost to the tax payer. Green energy development has been funded by tax payer subsidies and appears, in the majority of cases, not sustainable as a stand alone business model.

The UK needs more food security. Removing agricultural land from production (solar farms) does not make sense.

Comments noted. Solar also has an important role in delivering the government’s goals for greater energy independence and the British Energy Security Strategy states that government expects a five-fold increase in solar deployment by 2035 (up to 70GW). Solar farms can be built quickly and, coupled with consistent reductions in the cost of materials and improvements in the efficiency of panels, largescale solar is now viable in some cases to deploy subsidy-free (NPS for renewable energy infrastructure 2023). The generation of renewable electricity and associated reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would make a positive contribution towards achieving the UK Government's legally binding emissions reduction targets as well as contribute to achieving Rutland County Council’s objectives related to the declared Climate Crisis. In terms of food security, the NPPF (footnote 62) advises that the availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered when deciding what sites are most appropriate for development. It would be appropriate for the council to monitor the cumulative impact of permitted large-scale solar developments on the supply of agricultural land across the county. The council could then collect and utilise this information to help inform policy development and decision making. (extra sentence to be added to text accompanying CC8). If solar pv developments were restricted only to non-agricultural land this would limit such development (after taking into account all of the other constraints that may apply to such land) and would be a barrier to the Local Plan making a legally required meaningful contribution towards addressing the climate change crisis.