Agenda item

David Wimble (Cabinet Member for Economic Developments and Special Projects), Stephanie Holt-Castle (Director of Growth and Communities) and Tom Marchant (Assistant Director Strategic Development and Place) were in attendance for this item.

1.Mr Wimble presented the following:

a)    The Committee was advised that the proposal formed part of the Council’s wider energy policy, originally established in 2014, and reflected a position consistent with national policy principle.

b)    Support remained for solar energy development in appropriate locations, such as rooftops and brownfield sites. However, it was emphasised that protecting the county’s food economy was also a key priority.

c)    A position statement had been developed opposing large scale solar developments and battery energy storage systems on high grade agricultural land (Grades A1 to A3). It was noted that this approach reflected the Council’s stated policy position and would inform the development of the emerging energy policy.

2. In response to comments and questions from Members, the discussion covered the following:

a)    Members raised concerns on the legal status and scope of the position statement, as set out within the report. Members highlighted that the document was non statutory, did not constitute formal policy, and would not be binding or determinative in planning decisions.

b)    Additionally, Members suggested that the statement appeared limited in scope, with no clear consideration of a wider spatial strategy for solar development, community involvement or ownership models, or the overall role of solar in supporting local energy resilience.

c)    Members also highlighted the lack of reference to the economic implications for farmers, particularly the potential loss of income from land use diversification, and the absence of detail on how such impacts might be mitigated. Additionally, Members highlighted that there was limited discussion of long term protections or strategic planning considerations.

d)    The Cabinet Member introducing the item explained that the proposal had been brought forward in line with a policy commitment on which Members had been elected and was intended to form part of the Council’s emerging energy policy, with the aim of strengthening its influence.

e)    Concern was raised on the long term impact of large scale solar arrays, particularly in areas such as Romney Marsh, and had included potential environmental consequences at the end of the array’s operational life and uncertainty over responsibility for remediation and clean up costs.

f)      It was suggested that the use of agricultural land for solar development should be considered only as a last resort, and that stronger opposition to such development within the county should be articulated. Reference was made to the importance of protecting the county’s landscape and wider economic interests.

g)    In response it was explained that the original proposal submitted to officers had been amended following advice that it could not be implemented to the extent originally envisaged.

h)    Members additionally raised the political nature of the decision and noted that the purpose of the item was unclear, as the report lacked key definitions, including what constituted a large scale solar array, and therefore lacked practical clarity although there was general agreement on prioritising rooftop solar and suggested that the Council should take greater action by installing solar panels on its own estate, including schools, with potential financial benefits.

3) It was proposed by Mr Thomas that the Committee simply note the Statement.  This was seconded by Mr Prater and the Committee agreed

The meeting was adjourned for a comfort break

a)     Upon resumption of the meeting and before moving on to any other item of business, the Chair sought clarification from the Committee in relation to the proposed decision by the Cabinet Member to adopt the Solar Farm Position Statement.  Specifically, with technical advice provided by the Clerk, the Chair explained that it was necessary to be clear as to whether the Committee was endorsing the decision, making specific recommendations or refusing to endorse the decision, providing instead only a comment that the proposed Statement was noted.

b)    Following discussion by the Committee, including points of procedure raised by Members regarding the prior agreement to note the Statement, the Chairman continued the item, allowing Members to discuss the Statement further and to make any specific recommendations

3)A recommendation was proposed and seconded that consideration should be deferred   until further detail was available within the forthcoming policy document, noting that the current paper was a high level position statement with limited detail. It was recommended that a more comprehensive policy statement be brought back to the Committee for consideration and decision.

 The recommendation was put to the vote and unsuccessful.

4) A Member proposed that the paper be endorsed, noting that any additional detail or granularity arising through subsequent policy development could be considered and scrutinised by the Committee at a later stage, thereby enabling progress to be made at this time. The recommendation was seconded.

RESOLVED by majority vote, that the proposed Cabinet Member decision, set out below, be endorsed:

a)    ADOPT the Solar Developments Position Statement.

b)    DELEGATE authority to the Corporate Director to take all necessary actions and make all consequential decisions to give effect to and implement the position statement.