Agenda item

Land to the South-East of Remembrance Way, Kegworth

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.

Mr A Preistley, Chair of Kegworth Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  He highlighted the lack of justification to not use the nearby brownfield site at the power station, that would be more suitable for the development.  He raised concerns regarding the flood risk of the proposed greenfield agricultural site and the loss of amenity to residents and visitors that use the bridleway and footpath.  He believed there were too many unanswered questions in relation to the justification of using the proposed site and therefore requested that the application be refused or deferred.

Mr E James, agent, addressed the Committee.  He highlighted the benefits of energy storage and clean energy supplies, the flood mitigation measures proposed, and the considerations taken regarding the landscape impact.  He concluded that the proposal would have a positive impact on the Council’s zero carbon targets and the national plans for green energy.

Councillor C Sewell, Ward Member, addressed the Committee.  She acknowledged the importance of the facility proposed but expressed her main objection regarding the proposed location.  Concerns were raised regarding the location in open countryside, flood risks, potential pollution and the impact on local wildlife and residents.  It was also acknowledged that Long Lane was a designated quiet laneused by walkers, cyclists and dog walkers which would be impacted. 

As Councillor C Sewell was an appointed member of the Committee, once she had addressed the Committee, she left the room for the deliberation and voting on the application. 

In determining the application, discussions were had regarding the flood risks, visual impact, the importance of energy security for the future and the suitability of the site. The need for energy storage facilities was acknowledged, however the Committee felt there was no clear benefit from the development for the local community.  Some members felt that the visual impact on the landscape was too great and therefore a concern.

The Officers recommendation to permit the application was moved by Councillor R Morris and seconded by Councillor R Blunt.

The Chair put the motion to the vote.  A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.  The motion was LOST.

The Chair sought an alternative motion.

A discussion was had on the possible refusal of the application, and the planning reasons available to support the decision.  Officers gave advice on the ability to defend the decision and warned of the costs involved should the applicant proceed to the appeal process.

Councillor D Bigby moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed would be detrimental to visual impact and would fail to safeguard and enhance the appearance and character of the landscape, contrary to criterion (i) of Policy S3 and criterion (b) of Policy Cc1 of the adopted Local Plan.  It was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

The Chair put the motion to the vote.  A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds of the detrimental visual impact and would fail to safeguard and enhance the appearance and character of the landscape, contrary to criterion (i) of Policy S3 and criterion (b) of Policy Cc1 of the adopted Local Plan.