Agenda item

(Councillor Andrew Lee joined the meeting at this point)

 

Authorisation was sought from the committee to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to approve and submit the Local Impact Report, enter into and finalise Statement(s) of Common Ground, agree the content of the draft Development Consent Order (DCO), and make all further necessary representations on behalf of North Yorkshire Council in respect of the Light Valley Solar Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) planning application.

 

Members were advised that for NSIPs applicants applied directly to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) for a DCO rather than to the local planning authority and the application was determined by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of PINS. Local planning authorities were statutory consultees and the relevant planning authority for the discharge of the planning requirements within the DCO.

 

The planning officer then outlined the application process and further details of this 500MW solar scheme. After acceptance of the application which was expected imminently, PINS had up to six months to undertake the examination. During the Examination stage, the local planning authority had to prepare and submit a Local Impact Report, participate in preparing a Statement of Common Ground and provide written representations if requested on particular topics. Discussions continued between the council and applicant during Examination and council officers would attend any hearings. The council’s planning officers and technical specialists had been involved in the project since the inception meeting with the applicant. The council’s submission of information was required in accordance with deadlines set by the PINS which resulted in tight timescales for officers to review information and prepare responses.

 

During their consideration of the officer report and presentation, members’ discussion centred on the following matters:

 

• The use of multiple sites linked only by a cable corridor. Members queried the rules around packaging several sites together when each individually fell below the threshold for decision by the Secretary of State. Officers confirmed this was a matter for the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). The developer had assured officers that the cable infrastructure was specific to this project and could not be used by others.

 

• Relationship with other approved schemes. Members noted that another solar farm at Hillam had been refused locally but approved on appeal. Officers confirmed that this was entirely separate and would require its own grid connection.

 

• Site maintenance strategy. Concern was expressed regarding long‑term land management, including whether land would be sprayed with herbicide or grazed. Officers advised that the strategy had not yet been provided and undertook to seek clarification from the developer, noting that grazing was commonly used elsewhere.

 

• Extent of solar panel coverage and size of battery storage. Members sought clarity on the proportion of land to be covered by panels versus battery storage. Officers explained that final layouts were not yet confirmed and that landscape and ecological mitigation might reduce panel coverage. Battery storage would be limited to one site (site 2). Technological changes could reduce its size over time.

 

• Rationale for the inclusion of the Escrick site. Members queried the logic of including a site located some distance from the others. Officers advised that the developer had secured that land and chosen to include it but had not provided a definitive justification. The entire scheme connected only to the National Grid substation at Monk Fryston. Members asked whether concerns about this selection could be raised; officers confirmed that the council could do so within its submission.

 

• Influence of the committee on decision‑making. Members expressed frustration at the limited role of the local authority in the Development Consent Order (DCO) process. Officers confirmed that if delegated authority were not granted, the Council risked missing statutory deadlines and losing the opportunity to comment.

 

• Site selection methodology. Members queried whether site selection was driven purely by willing landowners. Officers noted that land availability was one factor but others included proximity to substations and discounting of alternative locations.

 

• Residential amenity impacts. Significant concern was raised regarding homes that would be almost entirely surrounded by solar panels, and the effect on local residents’ living conditions. Members stressed that this issue was particularly important and asked that it be strongly emphasised in the Council’s submission. Officers agreed to raise this with both landscape and public health officers and to seek reductions in impact wherever possible.

 

• Location of examination hearings. Members asked whether PINS intended to hold examination events locally. Officers advised that this had previously been the case but that no decision had been made. Members stressed the need for accessibility for local residents.

 

• Cumulative impacts. Members discussed cumulative effects on landscape character, health, stress levels, recreation, and highway use, noting that multiple solar farms and battery storage schemes had already been approved in the area. Officers confirmed that cumulative impact on human health and local character was a central issue and would form part of the Local Impact Report.

 

• Public participation and representations. Officers confirmed that residents could submit representations directly to PINS and that any correspondence received by the council would be forwarded. A representation received about discrepancies in Light Valley Solar’s documentation—especially regarding highways, access, sensitive receptors, and impacts on Hambleton Hough—would be investigated and forwarded.

 

• Loss of agricultural land. Members expressed concern about using productive farmland for solar development, arguing that this undermined food security and local farming.

 

• Balance of benefits and harms. Members acknowledged the potential energy generation benefits but expressed concern about agricultural land loss, landscape change, and limited community benefit.

 

• Grazing under solar panels. Members emphasised the importance of grazing rather than chemical spraying, both to preserve agricultural use and avoid long-term herbicide impacts.

 

• Geographical spread of energy infrastructure. Concerns were raised that renewable energy infrastructure was disproportionately concentrated in the former Selby district, which had historically hosted major power stations.

 

Members welcomed the clarification given by officers at the meeting but remained concerned about residential amenity, cumulative impacts, inclusion of the Escrick site, loss of agricultural land, and long‑term land management. Officers agreed to incorporate these points into the Council’s response and seek further clarification where required.

 

Resolved

 

That the committee delegate authority to the Head of Development Management to approve and submit the Local Impact Report, enter into and finalise Statement(s) of Common Ground, agree the content of the draft Development Consent Order (DCO), and make all further necessary representations on behalf of North Yorkshire Council in respect of the Light Valley Solar Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) planning application.

 

Voting record:

A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried with 13 for and 1 abstention.