URL: https://democracy.n-kesteven.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=9753

Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Application No. and Type: 23/0325/NSIP - Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project – Local Impact Report (LIR). Proposal: Application by Fosse Green Energy Limited for a Development Consent Order for the installation of solar (PV) generating panels and on-site Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and associated infrastructure with electrical generation capacity of 342 to 385 megawatts (MW) with storage capacity anticipated at 480 megawatt hours along with grid connection and associated infrastructure Location: Fosse Green Energy Solar Park – 9km south-west of Lincoln near Thorpe On The Hill, Morton, Witham St Hughs, Haddington, Thurlby, Norton Disney, Bassingham and Boothby Graffoe. Applicant: Fosse Green Energy Ltd - a partnership between Windel Energy Ltd and Recurrent Energy. Agent: AECOM Ltd. Reason for Committee Consideration: Officer referral as the proposed Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project raises significant environmental impacts in terms of national and local planning policy.   Councillor Pennell stated for openness and transparency purposes that he had attended Coleby and Harmston Parish Council meetings, where this item had been discussed, but that he had not expressed an opinion. He also stated that he had received communication this afternoon about the application and that this had also been sent to Members of the Planning Committee.    Councillor Carrington stated for openness and transparency purposes that he had attended Coleby and Harmston Parish Council meetings, where this item had been discussed, but that he had not expressed an opinion. He also stated that he had received an email this afternoon about the application but that he had not read it. He was also a Member of Lincolnshire County Council but he had had no involvement in the application or the County response.   Councillor Smith stated for openness and transparency purposes that he had received two emails this afternoon about the application.   Councillor Mrs Green stated for openness and transparency purposes that she had attended Parish Council meetings and the Fosse Green local group but that she had an open mind to consider the application.   Councillor Cawrey stated for openness and transparency purposes that she had not been able to access the email. She was also a Member of Lincolnshire County Council but had had no involvement in the application and had an open mind to consider it.    Councillor Wright stated that he had received emails from Councillor Mrs Overton about the application.   The Development Manager presented the application using maps, plans and photographs to demonstrate the location and character of the site, as well as the material issues identified in the agenda report. He also drew Members’ attention to the relevant national and local planning policies.   The proposal was for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the installation of solar (PV) generating panels, on-site Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and associated infrastructure, with electrical generation capacity of 342 to 385 megawatts (MW) and storage capacity anticipated at 480 megawatt hours along with grid connection and associated infrastructure.   As this application was a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), it would be administered by the Planning Inspectorate who would make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who was responsible for determining the application under the Planning Act 2008.   The role of the District Council at this point in the examination process was the submission of the Local Impact Assessment (LIR), which the Planning Act 2008, Section 60(3), defined as a ‘report in writing giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on the Authority’s area (or any part of that area). The LIR framed the Council’s position on the positive, neutral and negative effects of the proposed scheme following the pre-application process, professional review of the scheme and the accompanying documentation.  The examination process was currently at Stage three of six (the pre-examination stage).   The Development Manager advised the Committee that after the agenda had been published, the Planning Inspectorate had published its draft examination timetable, and the key dates and deadlines were: ·  Preliminary meeting on Tuesday 6th January 2026 (AM). ·  First Issue Specific Hearing (Environmental matters) on Tuesday 6th January 2026 (PM). ·  A Compulsory Acquisition Hearing on Wednesday 7th January 2026 ·  Second Issue Specific Hearing (Environmental matters) on 8th January 2026.   There were seven examination deadlines and the Council’s LIR and the follow-up written representation was due by deadline one (20th January 2026). The whole examination process was scheduled to finish on 15th June 2026. The seven key topic areas of most concern as set out in the LIR (and with an associated recommendation that Officers formally object on those grounds through their Written Representation) were:   ·  Impacts on Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land. ·  Landscape and Visual impact including residential visual amenity. ·  Cultural Heritage impacts (above and below ground). ·  Ecology, Biodiversity and Biodiversity Net Gain (specifically BNG). ·  Rights of Way/Recreation. ·  Grid Connection Deliverability. ·  Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and Fire Safety.   The Officer assessment was contained within the agenda, and the recommendation was for Authority to Deal to be granted and for Officers under delegated powers to update as necessary and submit the LIR and subsequent Written Representation (WR) to the Examining Authority and thereafter to engage with further stages and deadlines of the examination process; all also delegated to Officers. This was in relation to the Fosse Green Solar Farm noting specific impacts and with particular focus, and raising objections, in relation to the seven key topic areas.   In line with the Council’s Constitution, the public speaking scheme was not applicable on applications such as this one where the District Authority was a consultee and not a decision maker. However, the relevant Local Ward Members were able to speak on the application.   The meeting adjourned to allow the registered Local Ward Members/Strong Community Advocates to address the meeting.   Councillor Mrs Overton spoke as the Ward Member for Navenby and Brant Broughton and she raised the following points: ·  She had circulated information to the Committee and thanked any Member who had read it within the timescales leading up to the meeting. ·  The LIR was a comprehensive report reflecting many of the local issues, however as a draft document it could be changed and improved by Members. ·  She felt that there was strong local feeling against these types of applications and that was reflected in the number of letters being sent to the Prime Minister. ·  In general, she was supportive of the Net Zero and Renewable Energy Policies and ‘appropriate’ schemes. ·  The inclusion in the LIR that the Council ‘supports’ the application in principle undermined the objections raised and it should be amended to ‘the Council supports appropriate renewable energy’.   Councillor Mrs Overton had also submitted a presentation, which was displayed on the screen and included these topic headings: ·  Wrong location. ·  Site selection limited to 15km radius. ·  Use of good farmland/impacts on Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land.   Councillor Peter Overton then spoke as the Ward Member for Witham St Hughs and Swinderby and he highlighted the following matters: ·  There had been a motion at Council in January 2024 against large scale Solar developments. ·  He acknowledged the Government’s position in supporting large scale Solar developments but felt that it was important for Members to look at it from a different angle and ensure that objections were voiced. ·  The proposal was not in the right location and other sites should have been considered. ·  NSIPs equated to ten per cent of the Council’s area and Members should use their influence to block these developments. ·  The Planning Committee should be mindful of the scale of strong feelings against the application.  ·  He did not agree with the inclusion in the LIR of the Council supporting the application ‘in principle’ and felt that it should be changed and should not be supported.   Councillor Mrs Overton and Councillor Peter Overton both answered questions from a Member of the Committee and the meeting then resumed formal session.   Members thanked Officers and the team for the comprehensive report on a complex and challenging area of Planning. The Committee debated the application in detail, considering the Officer’s report, presentation and statements from the Local Ward Members/Strong Community Advocates.   Members discussed and raised the following considerations: ·  It was important to note and acknowledge that applications resulting in the loss of BMV land did not quantify the potential impacts that such losses had on the UK’s food productivity capabilities. There was a balance between carbon reduction and the impacts on food production. In Lincolnshire, agriculture represented 21% of employment and 24% of the economy. ·  Members had previously requested that Solar PV applications were subject to a sequential test and queried how this was demonstrated within the LIR. ·  There were other sustainable alternatives available rather than using agricultural land. ·  Concerns about the inclusion in the LIR of the Council ‘supporting in principle’ this development. ·  Impacts on landscape and visual harm and the scale and size of the proposal in this particular location. ·  The Council’s role in terms of submitting the LIR conveying the positive, neutral and negative impacts, as well as any other information to be shared with the Planning Inspectorate.  ·  The use of the safest rather than the most efficient battery technology for the BESS to reduce the risks of any incidents. ·  There had not yet been a planning application submitted for the proposed Navenby Substation, which was intended to be the point of connection.  ·  Some concern about electromagnetic fields/exposure limits (EMF) from BESS and associated ecological impacts specifically on bees. ·  A financial bond/security was required to mitigate the risk and cost of early decommissioning falling to the District Council in the event of a cessation of energy production or the applicant/operator going out of business. ·  Concern about the impacts, intensity and effects on the economy and the land from potentially sixty years of use through this development. The unknown factors and long-term effects of losing the agricultural land for the solar development and the outcome after sixty years; Members were concerned that there was no certainty that the land would have retained BMV land quality at the point of decommissioning.  ·  Acknowledgement that a high percentage of solar panels could be recycled and that some of the BMV land being lost was not currently being used for human food production purposes but there was the potential for it to be used by the food sector. The lack of evidence for or against the impacts of the solar development on the land. ·  Whether a BESS was compatible with areas of flood risk. ·  There was little opportunity for the Planning Committee to explore the wide scale cumulative impacts in the District and the County of this application, whereas the Planning Inspectorate was able to take this on board. ·  There was clear harm associated with the negative impacts detailed in the LIR. The Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP) stated that in principle renewable energy schemes would be supported in the ‘appropriate location’. However, it was not possible to give support for this proposal, as it had not been determined that it was appropriately located, nor had the negative impacts been addressed yet by the Applicant and that appropriate mitigation or compensation for those impacts could be secured.  Therefore, Members noted that it was premature and without basis at the present time to ‘support in principle’ the proposals (including that they were ‘appropriately located’) in particular in light of the seven key points of objection proposed to be raised in the Council’s Written Representation. On that basis Members opined that the scheme did not align with the general ‘presumption in favour of development’ principles contained within CLLP policy S14 ‘Renewable Energy’.   In response to questions from the Committee, the Development Manager advised that: ·  The LIR was not a mandatory document, and the District Council had chosen to submit the report which was a statement of positive, neutral and negative impacts, as well as any other information that was relevant and the District Council wished to highlight to the Planning Inspectorate. The report would form part of the decision-making process by the Planning Inspectorate and that once submitted PINS and the Secretary of State had to have regard to it in their recommendation and decision. ·  Nationally there had been two examples through decommissioning documents where the Applicant had either made a commitment or set aside monies for a bond to be paid when a site was to be decommissioned early. The need for a similar bond was included within the LIR report.  ·  As raised during the Member debate, there was more opportunity to consider cumulative impacts on NSIP applications due to the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations’ requirement for cumulative impacts to be addressed; and which the Applicant had done and where the Council had provided input at the pre-application stage. ·  The conclusion in paragraph 29.5 of the LIR did state that the Council therefore supports the principle but there were a number of tensions with Policy, including the CLLP and the three Neighbourhood Plans, which was included in the LIR.  ·  There were also a number of Council Policies, Strategies and Plans that aligned and supported the principles of transitioning to a zero-carbon future and carbon reduction by 2030. ·  As discussed by Members S14 of the CLLP did support ‘appropriately located development’ however within S14 there was also support for all principles of renewable energy and a presumption in favour of solar developments, including the use of BMV land. The word ‘support’ used within the LIR conclusion could be seen as premature at this stage and could be removed due to the seven areas of objection. The approach could then be to see how the seven areas of objection progress through the examination stages and where these matters would be delegated to Officers in line with the recommendation. ·  Most solar developments had a forty-year lifespan, and the Applicant would need to justify a higher timescale and provide mitigation measures as the negative effects and harm identified would be present for a longer period (60 years). This would form part of the examination process and was a requirement of the National Policy Statements for energy. The site would however be considered ‘temporary’ and reversable by the Planning Inspectorate, and it would be decommissioned after its lifespan. ·  Biodiversity Net Gain was not currently mandatory for NSIP applications and so when offered voluntarily by an Applicant it gained planning weight. The Applicant for this development was looking to exceed the usual 10% figure applied to other developments. ·  The Officer advised in relation to electromagnetic fields/exposure limits (EMF) from the BESS and associated ecological impacts specifically on bees that he was not aware of UK ecological publications or guidance specifically in relation to impacts on bees, and that the LIR should not introduce matters that could not obviously be supported by associated guidance. The Officer advised that he would address this matter with Cllr Elliott separately. Furthermore, it was confirmed that citing concerns on EMF impacts as akin to those associated with phone/telecommunications masts could not be pursued as masts were subject to specific regulation via the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) protocol.    It was therefore proposed and seconded that Authority to Deal be granted in line with the Officer recommendation, but with an amendment to paragraph 29.5/the overall LIR conclusion to reflect that the Council could not support the principle of the development nor confirm the presumption in favour of development with reference to the strategic renewable energy policy CLLP S14. This was due to the objections lodged and therefore that the direct, indirect, individual and cumulative impacts of development had not yet been proven to be acceptable.   Officers would also undertake background research on electromagnetic fields/exposure limits from BESS and associated ecological impacts specifically on bees but this was not for inclusion in the LIR.   Vote:   Unanimous   RESOLVED:   That Authority to Deal be granted to Officers for authority under delegated powers to;   A. Update and thereafter submit the final version of the North Kesteven LIR for Fosse Green energy solar farm, incorporating any minor changes as necessary, to the Examining Authority in accordance with examination deadline/s.   Paragraph 29.5/overall LIR conclusion to be modified to reflect that the Council cannot support the principle of the development nor confirm the presumption in favour of development with reference to the strategic renewable energy policy CLLP S14 given that there are objections lodged and therefore that the direct, indirect, individual and cumulative impacts of development have not yet been proven to be acceptable.   (Officers to also undertake background research on electromagnetic fields/exposure limits from BESS and associated ecological impacts specifically on bees – nb not for inclusion in the LIR)   B. Submit ‘written representations’ to the Examining Authority by the specified deadline addressing the specific impacts set out under the chapter headings in the LIR, with particular focus, and raising objections, in relation to:   ·  Impacts on Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land. ·  Landscape and Visual Impact including Residential Visual Amenity. ·  Cultural Heritage impacts (above and below ground). ·  Ecology, Biodiversity and Biodiversity Net Gain (specifically BNG). ·  Rights of Way/Recreation. ·  Grid Connection Deliverability. ·  Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and Fire Safety   C. Prepare and submit further responses, information, documents, reports and statements as requested by the Examining Authority into the procedural deadlines to be confirmed by the Rule 6/Rule 8 letter.              

Date of Decision: December 16, 2025