Support

Representation ID: 6052

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Roderick Morgan

Risk that policy will not be applied rigorously. Stavely Solar Scheme already in breach of this policy. Environmental Impact Assessment should be required for industrial solar schemes. Suggest a route for developing alternate schemes with community support. Policy requires targets, timelines and metrics to be capable of effective implementation.

Unable to comment about the current Staveley planning application. Policy CC8 sets a weight in favour for community renewable energy proposals. As national policy is to maximise renewable generation then it would not be appropriate to set a target or 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.’ Not all renewable energy schemes will be EIA development and this is determined by the EIA Regulations.

Support

Representation ID: 6069

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Lewis

I support this important policy. Rutland should aim to be self sufficient in energy production, generating more energy from renewables than is consumed across the County. This should be possible for domestic consumption, if not for all business use. I agree that solar panels should not be placed on BMV agricultural land. The policy should also aim to facilitate upgrades to the National Grid which facilitate renewable energy projects.

Support noted. Policy CC10: Wider energy infrastructure supports upgraded or new electricity facilities where part of, or necessary for, the transition to a net zero carbon sub-region.

Object

Representation ID: 6219

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Rubindar Singh

I agree with Dr Toby Walker. One only needs to see the scale of the proposed Stavely Solar Farm (I looked at their website) to realise that it is entirely disproportionate and a commercial venture for gain. Please stand firm RCC against these powerful commercial entities.

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.
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: 6296

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Great objective. But (I know - scratched record) we'll wait and see as we know that the Council currently approves developments where the impacts are to not acceptable in scale, siting and design, the consequent impacts on landscape character; visual amenity; biodiversity; flood risk; townscape; heritage assets, their settings, and the historic landscape; and highway safety.......

Not sure how "geodiversity" comes into it?

Support noted. Impact on geodiversity assets by a proposed development is a material planning consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 6347

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Philip Giles

The policy should be able to be relied upon by RCC to refuse applications for land based solar farms.

The policy should have regard to policies adopted in earlier Local Plans. The landscape is such a significant part of the character of Rutland.

The policies should not be superseded to meet the
demands of climate change when alternative options are available.

I would urge the Local Plan to identify those “Brownfield” sites at Cottesmore and North Luffenham MOD sites for solar farms and to preserve farmland for agricultural purposes and food production.

Policy must have regard to the total area of land identified for PV or solar power generation. The policy must include a LIMIT to the percentage (0.3% ?) land taken whether it is agricultural land or “brownfield”. The current plan addended to the draft Local Plan is too open to abuse and the sites should be significantly reduced to identify only those ideally suited.

Please strengthen the policy to include the mandatory installation of solar or alternative energy generation proposals on all residential and commercial development

Comments on landscape noted. Policy SC1: Landscape character (which would apply in addition to CC8 when assessing renewable energy proposals) refers to the Rutland Landscape Character Assessment (2022). 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 MOD sites will have been included in the constraints-based assessment for opportunity areas for solar farms in the Rutland Renewable Energy Study. Government guidance in the PPG advises that LPAs should encourage the effective use of land by focussing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non-agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value. Policy CC8 sets a weight in favour for community renewable energy proposals. As national policy is to maximise renewable generation then it would not be appropriate to set a target or 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 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: 6361

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Robert Bloomfield

Solar farms should not be erected on productive agricultural land especially productive arable land. Solar panels should be erected on industrial buildings and brown field sites. Solar farms have a negative visually impact on the countryside. Geographically Rutland's latitude does not give sufficient sunlight to make the solar panels efficient especially in winter. The Staveley solar farm would be visible from from the A47 between Morcott and Glaston. Anglian water have made no efforts to put solar panels on any of their buildings or their own land.

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.
Unable to comment about the current Staveley planning application as part of the Local Plan process. It would not be appropriate or legal to require applicants/landowners 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: 6446

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jenkins

No groups of medium or large size wind turbines should be allowed within the plan. This is because due to the topography of Rutland their visual impact will affect most of the County. As a principle offshore wind is the most efficient in terms of energy generation and environmental impact
Ground based solar should be restricted to small scale ( < 1 ha), brownfield sites and on buildings / over car parks. The adverse impact of battery storage should be taken into account

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. 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. 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 and also has an important role in delivering the government’s goals for greater energy independence. An additional paragraph regarding the safety aspects of batteries for storage under Policy CC10 has been suggested.

Object

Representation ID: 6455

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Rob Bolton

Applications to install large commercial solar energy in the county cover a huge area of agricultural land, detrimental to the local countryside. The area proposed is 3% of the county, 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; the energy is stated to be used by Anglia Water predominantly.
St George's Barracks is a mile away - secure, flat and contaminated, not suitable for residential development and will only be after considerable time and money is spent on it.

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. 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.
Further sites such as that owned by Anglian Water may be identified as suitable when further work on the Renewable Energy Study is carried out.
Unable to comment on the current Staveley solar farm planning application as part of the Local Plan process.

Object

Representation ID: 6540

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Susan Shepherd

There should be recognition that Rutland, as the smallest county, may not be able to facilitate both in land space and infrastructure, the large scale energy proposals of other county councils.

Comments noted. As national policy is to maximise renewable generation then it would not be appropriate to set a limit on area for renewable energy proposals. 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.

Support

Representation ID: 6556

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Econergy International Limited

We support the principle of a presumption in favour of solar and renewable energy. We do not object to individual sites being identified as 'ground mounted solar PV opportunity areas' in the Local Plan. However, it is important to recognise that, following detailed consideration, some of these sites may not be suitable due to environmental factors or grid connection proximity/capacity for example. It is therefore essential that the identification of potential sites does not exclude other sites from coming forward. Indeed, policy should be worded positively to encourage/support renewable energy development on unallocated sites subject to meeting key policy tests.

Comments 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.’

Object

Representation ID: 6564

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Policy CC8 is supported in principle, including the need to engage with relevant stakeholders in relation to the potential impact upon aviation and defence navigation system/communications. However, not all renewable energy technologies would give rise to the issues that the policy is requiring developments to assess, for example solar and battery electrical storage systems (“BESS”) has no impact upon radar. Part B of the Emerging Policy should be amended to remove the “and” which would allow matters to be addressed only where the scheme is likely to give rise to such issues. The Policy should be reduced in length.

Comments noted. Disagree regarding part b) as the policy goes on to state that: ‘Compliance with part (b) above will require, for relevant proposals, the submission…….
Agree that the policy is somewhat long but it benefits from covering all types of renewable energy proposals. If broken up the separate policies would contain a lot of repetition and there would need to be several policies for each of the energy types.

Object

Representation ID: 6654

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Gina Hacker

Large scale solar farms should not be allowed on farmland. Instead, solar panels should be a mandatory requirement for all new dwellings and industrial buildings – and encouraged on existing domestic and commercial buildings.

Comments noted. Disagree. 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. 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: 6658

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Phil Taylor

I oppose development of large scale solar farms in Rutland. Such farms should not be allowed on farmland.
Instead, solar panels should be a mandatory requirement for all new dwellings and industrial buildings – and encouraged on existing domestic and commercial buildings.
Once they begin to be permitted, developments such as these will quickly escalate and it will be impossible to restore lost farmland, rural settings and beautiful views.

Comments noted. Disagree. 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. 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. Policy CC2 seeks to maximise renewable energy generation on new build.
The cumulative impact of solar farms on landscape would be assessed as part of planning application process for further schemes. 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: 6681

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Robert Amphlett

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

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.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 6703

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Holland

Large scale solar farms should not be allowed on farmland.

Comments noted. Disagree. 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. 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: 6708

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Tracey Blackmore

Large scale solar farms should not be allowed on Rutland’s farmland. All solar farm proposals should be examined carefully making sure that projects meet with community approval, serve Rutland’s energy needs and do not attribute to loss of amenity or landscape character in a local area. Solar companies should be scrutinised for best practise, sustainability and have proven environmental credentials that show long term responsibility.

Priority should be given Rutland’s landscape character over temporary renewable energy projects.

Comments noted. Disagree. 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. 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.
With regards to community approval, unlike wind turbine proposals, the support of the local community is not material to the consideration of a planning application for a solar farm, although Policy CC8 does state that weight in favour will be afforded to renewable energy proposals where significant benefits to local communities are demonstrated.
The scrutiny of the sustainability credentials of renewable energy developers is not a material planning consideration and so cannot be taken into account in the assessment of renewable energy proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 6711

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Leech

Large scale solar farms should not be allowed on farmland.

Developers of commercial solar farm must be made to pay a community levy to the communities most affected by the scheme.

Comments noted. Disagree. 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. 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. Policy CC2 seeks to maximise renewable energy generation on new build.
Community funds do not meet the criteria set out for planning obligations, and as such cannot be considered as part of the decision making process on planning applications. They should be encouraged but a matter for discussion between the developer and the community.

Object

Representation ID: 6714

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Steven Tattersall

Solar panels should be installed solely for the benefit of the county by utilising more suitable small scale sites close to electricity transformers with available capacity.

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.
Unable to comment about the current Staveley planning application as part of the Local Plan process. It would outside the scope of national planning guidance to limit the amount of energy generated for use only by Rutland residents. 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. Policy CC2 seeks to maximise renewable energy generation on new build.

Object

Representation ID: 6718

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Williams

Please register my objection to an item that appears in the Local Plan Proposals Map. This map contains details of "Ground Mounted Solar PV Opportunity Areas", within the county. There should not be any more ground mounted solar opportunity areas because Rutland has enough already to fulfil its national commitments and the requirement should be that solar panels must to be fitted to all new buildings and retrofitted where possible.

Comments noted. Disagree. 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). The Rutland Renewable Energy Study identifies areas of opportunity for potential ground-mounted solar pv. 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.’

Object

Representation ID: 6729

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Lucy Thompson

I am all for environmentally sound ways to provide energy but not at the cost of large areas of countryside.

1: solar panels dramatically alter the countryside views and aesthetics. Surely we should be promoting Rutland as an area of natural beauty, and therefore increasing tourism?

2: solar panels last 25 years. Are they recyclable? What happens the them then? Are they even eco friendly?

3. EFFICIENCY - a 140 acre solar farm can supply around 9000 homes. One offshore wind turbine can supply 16000 homes.

4. Slippery slope - If we say yes to every solar farm in Rutland, what next? The floodgates will open for increasing industrialisation.

5. Wildlife - Rutland Water hosts global Bird Fair. We have extremely diverse species in our county. As a nation we have spent years trying to increase hedgerows back to their pre war state. I fear that swathes of solar panels are taking us backwards not forwards.

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 solar pv development, and provides a positive strategy for energy from these sources in accordance with the requirements of national planning policy (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 crisis. Evidence in the Rutland Renewable Energy Study (2023), 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 Local Plan policies. There is also scope for enhancement of biodiversity through planning conditions on solar pv sites (in accordance with Policies EN2 and EN3 including Biodiversity Net Gain) and the Ecological Survey submitted with a planning application would consider the impact of the development on nature conservation and on protected species/sites. Policy CC8 requires an assessment of the impact of solar pv proposals on landscape character (including cumulative impacts).
Requiring details of disposal/recycling of the solar panels, this would be required under Policy CC8 and CC1. Given the value of solar panels and related material, there is likely to be a strong financial incentive for developers of commercial scale solar farms to sell on materials for reuse and recycling.
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. Policy CC2 seeks to maximise renewable energy generation on new build.

Support

Representation ID: 6782

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wendy Dalton

Solar panels - if the estimated life of a solar panel is 20-25 years and the estimated solar farm project is 40 years can de-commissioned solar panels be offered free to local communities/industry for re-use.
Currently there is only one company in France that recycles solar panels but this will not be the case in 25 - 40 years. A clause to say all solar panels if not reusable must be recycled in an environmentally appropriate way.

Carbon offset - a cradle to grave policy where all parts of the development, planning, building, running and decommissionng of solar/wind farms are carbon offset within Rutland directly to the benefit of local communities.

Energy - communities adjacent to wind/solar farms to be given free energy or a negotiated payback every year for the entire life of the project.

Comments noted. Such a cradle to grave approach, provision of electric buses, free energy for communities/industry, panels offered free for re-use and specifying method of recycling of panels would all go beyond the scope of national planning policy and guidance on renewable energy and so could not be reflected in local plan policy. Policy CC8 does, however, require details of the decommissioning of the infrastructure in accordance with Policy CC1.
It would not be appropriate to mandatorily require all new buildings to have solar panels through a prescriptive local plan policy as this would be beyond the scope of national planning policy and 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. 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. RCC unable to introduce own permitted development rights for fitting of solar panels and not the role of the Local Plan to consider waiving business rates. Impacts of solar farm proposals on biodiversity (including designated sites) would be assessed as part of the planning application process.

Object

Representation ID: 6804

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Williams

I presume that these “opportunity areas” are located on farmland, which should never be used for ground mounted solar on an industrial scale. Using a finite resource like agricultural land should not be a consideration. I object to any suggestion in the plan that large scale solar PV plants should be considered on farmland.
I object to the statement that where proposals are in “opportunity areas” they will be supported. Who has decided that these proposals should be supported? They should be scrutinised like any other proposition.
Also the same policy states, “For meeting the above criteria a-c, the County Council may Commission its own independent assessment of the proposals, to ensure it is satisfied what the degree of harm may be and whether reasonable mitigation opportunities are being taken.”
I object to the use of the words “may commission”. Independent assessments should always be commissioned and this should be written into the policy document. Use of the word “may” provides a get out clause for Developers; good land will be lost.
On one of your maps you identify areas of land that could accommodate wind turbines. Have you consulted with residents who live near these potential sites?

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. 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. Policy CC2 seeks to maximise renewable energy generation on new build.
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);
Disagree on independent assessments always being commissioned as decision whether to commission an independent assessment should be kept flexible.
Consultation on the Reg 18 Plan is in accordance with the Local Plan Regulations and the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

Object

Representation ID: 6821

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Maureen Somers

Object to area of land to the South of Whissendine (along Pickwell Road and Melton Road) as potentially suitable for wind turbines for following reasons:

Low ambient noise level and good level of tranquility in Whissendine would be lost.

Afternoon and evening light would cause flickering.

Wind turbines to the south of villages have a far greater negative impact than areas to the north. The visual impact has to be considered.

Solar generation is shown coinciding with some of the areas, but this has a far lower visual and audible impact.

Some of it is on arable land thus affecting food production.

Comments noted regarding unsuitability of area south of Whissendene 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’. Issues relating to impacts on noise, flickering and visual impact would be assessed as part of the planning application process in accordance with the requirements of national planning policy, Policy CC8 and other relevant policies in the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6852

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Provisions for biodiversity, geodiversity and nature recovery/Local Nature Recovery Strategies within this policy are welcomed. However, adequate protection for protected species, namely for bats and migratory birds should also be included in relation to wind-based
energy proposals. This is a particularly significant issue given the proximity of any proposed sites within the vicinity of Rutland Water SSSI/Ramsar Site, which is designated for its nationally/internationally important bird assemblages.

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

Support

Representation ID: 6878

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Graham Baker

Whilst renewable energy is required to offset the reduction in fossil-fuels, policies need to ensure that approval is not misplaced as we seek achievements in the pursuit of Net Zero.

The installation of PV solar panels on new builds and the retro-fitment to existing residential and commercial buildings should be encouraged. Suitable brown field sites should also be considered for solar arrays.

Comments noted. 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. Policy CC2 seeks to maximise renewable energy generation on new build.
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.
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.

Object

Representation ID: 6891

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Neil Harding

Renewable energy development should not have a negative impact upon the landscape and should be appropriate in scale to its surroundings.

The unique character of the countryside and views experienced when walking from Morcott to Rutland Water via Lindon and Pilton, this is an example of a particularly fine Rutland landscape that might be threatened by intrusive schemes of inappropriate scale .
Rutland Landscape Management Strategies’ would benefit by showing more evidence of intention to value and protect the unique character of Rutland countryside
and to fully realise its value to future generations.

Comments noted. The Landscape Sensitivity Study (2023) considers the sensitivity of settlement fringes around the two towns of Oakham and Uppingham, together with the fringes of the seven villages referred to in the settlement hierarchy in the adopted Local Plan as Local Service Centres, the sixteen further Smaller Service Centres in the adopted plan, and one Restraint Village (Braunston-in-Rutland) where housing or employment development is more likely to be considered acceptable in principle. This is why it does not include Lindon or Pilton. The Rutland Landscape Character Assessment (2022) covers the whole of the county and would be used, together with Local Plan Policy SC1, to assess renewable energy applications. An assessment of impacts on landscape character would be carried out as part of the planning application process for renewable energy schemes. A Landscape and Visual Assessment would accompany a planning application for ground-mounted solar pv or wind turbine development.

Support

Representation ID: 6918

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

The Estate SUPPORTS the principle of a policy focused on renewable energy within the emerging local plan.
It COMMENTS however that an additional bullet point consideration should be added to the existing text, to
state “… the use of and for this purpose would not be compatible with existing heritage or environmental
designations”. This is important to ensure no existing built or natural heritage is negatively impacted as a result.

Support noted. Disagree as these would be encompassed within part a) of the policy and with other policies in the Local Plan such as EN1, EN12 and EN13.

Object

Representation ID: 6925

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Michael Blank

I support the overall aim but would like the Councils policies to balance the need to produce renewable energy, with protection of the natural beauty of our County’s landscape, and the conservation of important wildlife habitats. I do not support widespread use of productive farmland for solar energy projects. To cover many acres of farmland with solar panels would be damaging to our nations’ food security, and it is debatable how much benefit can be derived from solar energy, since the manufacture and installation of the panels is itself detrimental to the environment, and it is my understanding that the panels themselves have to be sent to landfill at the end of their working life and cannot be recycled.
I believe that there are disproportionate number of solar schemes currently under consideration in Rutland, given the small size of our County.

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. 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.’
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.
Requiring details of disposal/recycling of the solar panels would be required under Policy CC8 and CC1. Given the value of solar panels and related material, there is likely to be a strong financial incentive for developers of commercial scale solar farms to sell on materials for reuse and recycling.

Object

Representation ID: 6999

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Stoke Dry Estate

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

The policies map proposes the inclusion of a new designation (yellow) which is said to define
“Areas potentially suitable for the development of wind turbines” which is then linked to Policy CC8.

We specifically highlight two sites that are larger areas which would be very visible from the reservoir and
also from Stoke Dry and the village of Caldecott located just to the east.

Whilst it is recognised that it may be helpful to include these designations to provide guidance to landowners and that the designation does not absolutely guarantee a future planning permission, once included on a policies map in this way it will be difficult to resist.

We therefore ask that the yellow areas highlighted in accompanying info are removed. This would not of course
preclude applications coming forward in these locations but would lessen what will otherwise be seen as a presumption in favour.

Comments noted. To be considered at the next more detailed stage of the Renewable Energy Study.

Object

Representation ID: 7023

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Susan Henson-Amphlett

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

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. 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.