At its meeting on 10 July 2012 Cabinet
approved the outline strategy for the
development of renewable energy parks at three council owned
agricultural sites to include Ground Mounted Solar PV (farms), wind
turbines or other types of renewable energy schemes. Cabinet noted that the outline strategy was
subject to further due diligence and studies around planning,
environmental, technical and financial issues. As agreed, this matter was now being taken back to
Cabinet for further consideration, following completion of those
studies, and prior to any planning application being
submitted.
At
its meeting on 10 October 2012, Council asked Cabinet to review its
decision made on 10 July 2012, in consultation with the Sustainable
Growth and Environment Capital Scrutiny Committee. That committee
agreed to work with the Scrutiny Commission for Rural Communities,
because of the importance of this issue to rural
communities.
Cabinet was now being asked to approve moving to public
consultation and final preparation stage culminating in the
submission of planning applications for solar farms for all three
sites. The development of wind turbines and possibly other
technologies would be reported back to Cabinet at a later date,
probably in or around October 2013 before progressing to the
planning application stage in 2013. Therefore, the report being
considered did not detail any potential proposals for wind
turbines, and made recommendations solely in relation to solar
farms.
The
Executive Director Strategic Resources made the following
points:
- There had been a lot of recent press around the
Government’s position on on-shore wind farms. Ed Davey, Secretary of State for Energy and
Climate Change had reiterated the Coalition’s position that
they still believed that on-shore wind would play a part and their
policy had not changed.
- Cabinet would be considering a separate report on collective
energy switching and that report was not part of this
decision.
- On
school roof developments would not be able to meet the energy needs
of the council.
- The council as part of its Environment Capital agenda was
seeking to produce ‘green energy’ thorough it’s
Energy Services Company – Blue Sky Peterborough Limited and
was hoping to become self-sufficient.
- The proposals in the Cabinet report would impact on agriculture
in the area.
- It
was accepted that initial consultation and engagement had not been
as good as it could have been and the council was looking to
improve this going forward.
- This was not the end of the process and further reports would be
presented going forward.
At
the invitation of the Chairman, John Bartlett of Thorney Parish
Council addressed the joint meeting and made the following
points:
- The Parish Council were annoyed that they had not been involved
in this process from the beginning.
- He
had read the report and it had made no reference to security
fencing at the sites especially as the panels were quite
valuable.
- When would the planning application be submitted?
In
response, the Executive Director apologised to the Parish Council
on the level of engagement to date. The
planning application would be submitted in early December
2012.
At
the invitation of the Chairman, Dawn Clipston of Newborough Land Protection Group
addressed the joint meeting and made the following
points:
- The proposals were morally and ethically wrong.
- There would be a loss of good agricultural land.
- The land had been provided to support returning service
personnel from World War One.
- There had been a total lack of consultation.
- The proposals would have a devastating effect on
wildlife.
- The land had always been farmed.
The
Joint Meeting made the following comments and
observations:
- How would the proposed developments work with Blue Sky
Peterborough as members had been told that it was not an energy
company but its website states that it was? The Solicitor to the Council clarified
that there was a difference between Blue Sky and the larger energy
generating companies.
- How would the proposed structure work? If solar panels were placed on a roof
then the energy produced could only be used at that
site. If panels were placed off-site,
then the council had to have the ability to trade the energy.
The energy would be generated and we
would negotiate with a supplier on how to use it and also take
energy out as supply to the council. It
was not about generating energy and just putting it straight into
the grid but the energy would go into the grid but come out for
local supply. It was more valuable to
use ourselves than just to add it to the grid as we were able to
keep control of our exposure and get a better deal for both the
council and local residents.
- Councillor Sanders stated that he believed that officers had
gone against Standing Orders as they had not consulted with local
ward councillors. Councillors North and
Seaton had also visited other wards without notifying the local
ward councillors. The
Solicitor to the Council advised that consultation had taken place
with ward councillors and the Executive Director had invited all
ward councillors to a meeting, however Councillor Sanders had been
unable to attend.
- Councillor Sanders reiterated that he had not been
consulted. A public meeting had been
held at Thorney Golf Club but he had not been consulted as a ward
councillor prior to that meeting. The
first proper briefing he had received had been 21 days ago and this
attitude showed arrogance and bulldozing the issue through by
keeping quiet until the last minute. He
confirmed that he had been very well briefed by Michelle Drewery
and Lee Collins but consultation had been poor and
premeditated. It was important to learn
from this for future developments to make sure this was not
repeated in future. The
Executive Director was pleased that Councillor Sanders was happy
with the briefing he had received. He
was not aware of Cabinet Members visiting the sites. The meeting at Thorney Golf Club was not a council
meeting and the council were only invited to the
meeting. He refuted the allegation of
premeditation.
- Did the council have a rural strategy in place and what was its
view of the rural areas as 20% of the population lived in rural
areas? The rural communities were
currently feeling that they were being attacked, it was confusing
to people and had caused a huge amount of anger. Why were the local communities not brought in and
consulted earlier? The
Executive Director was not aware that this proposal was directly
against any rural policy. It was
accepted that this was a difficult decision for the Cabinet to
make. There was no intention to exclude
local communities and it was accepted that consultation could have
been better.
- Councillor Sandford stated that the proposals would create large
amounts of renewables. Councillor Cereste had previously stated that he
wanted Peterborough to be self-sufficient so what proportion of
Peterborough’s energy would the proposals cover? The proportion of energy was not known
but the proposals did not take into account other types of
interventions such as schools, however it would be a significant
amount.
- Why were the proposals for predominately solar power as this
brought problems with taking farming land out of
production? Due to our
location we are unable to undertake off-shore generation however it
was acknowledged that wind had greater opportunities. However there
were concerns around grid connections and the costs might be
prohibitive.
- The former Freeman’s site had been discussed as an option
for solar panels previously. The proposed Freeman’s development had got to the stage of
being approved by the Cabinet but four days before it was due to
commence the Government had changed the rules and the application
was refused.
- How would the views of local people be able to influence the
decision making process? If the outcome
of consultation was no will the council listen? That would be a matter for the
decision makers
- Had the Council any previous plans to dispose of the farm
estate? The Executive
Director clarified that the estate was not being disposed
of.
- A
member stated that they were alarmed to be told that the value of
the land was not good, officers needed to be cautious about what
they were saying about land values.
The values contained in the report were around what the
value of the land would be if it was sold. In 20 years time the council would have to make a
decision about whether to turn the land back to agricultural use as
part of an exit strategy. The majority
of the land being proposed was Grade Two with some Grade One and
produced a good yield of crops. The
land was seen as a secure investment with vacant pocession land having double the value of tenanted
land.
- It
needed to be remembered about the heritage and culture of the land
and that generations of families had farmed it. We needed to consider if the needs of
100 years ago were the same as now.
- How much had been spent on this project already? £300,000 had been spent so
far.
- What was the current condition of the land and why had this land
been chosen? The
professional opinion was that the majority of the land was Grade
Two. The livelihood issue was a major
consideration and we were trying to deal with this individually
with each of the tenants.
- Had the security costs been included within the financial
model? The costs around
security needed to be refined but we were currently dealing with
very broad estimates however there was an allowance for
security.
- The proposed community fund from another company in the area was
£4,000 per mega watt of power, had the council included this
in the financial model? £336,000
per annum, equating to £6.7m over 20 years was a significant
figure to have missing from the estimates. There was no specific allowance
included at this stage. The level was
open for further discussion and the next stage would include
specific amounts. Officers had views on
the level but a separate discussion was needed. The aspiration of £400,000 was understood
and the figures were robust enough to cope with that
level.
- There had been very little publicity about Blue Sky
Peterborough. The Cabinet
took the decision to establish Blue Sky Peterborough in June 2011
and a presentation on the ESCO was considered by the Environment
Capital Scrutiny Committee earlier this year.
- Officers stated that the farms were not as productive as they
could be but how could that be evaluated if you did not know what
crops were grown. What was
stated was the professional opinion; we could go back and revisit
that position.
- Councillor Sanders stated that in his opinion the report was
bordering on false material and he believed it had been pulled
together in a rush as the council was running out of money. He was
not convinced sufficient groundwork had been done on the value of
the land. More detailed figures were
needed as he was not convinced they had been verified.
- Councillor Sanders also stated that the land had been given to
soldiers returning from fighting in World War One and some people
believed that there was a document in existence which stated that
the land could only be used for farming. He was concerned that the council had not
investigated this properly. The Solicitor to the Council confirmed that her staff had looked
at the title deeds for the land and there was no mention of such a
clause, they had also visited the Central Library to look at the
minutes from the time and again, no such clause was
mentioned. If anyone had any evidence
of such a clause then they should bring it forward.
- Councillor Sanders asked for it to be minuted that he would be concerned if someone found
a document after a large amount of taxpayers’ money had been
spent. More research was needed and he
was concerned that any document may be found further down the
line.
- The Executive Director registered his concern that members
believed the report contained falsehoods and members should raise
tonight if they believed there were errors. The information in the report was the best
available as of now. The estimates in
the report were best estimates. There
was not an open cheque for the consultants and a clear set of work
and fees has been agreed.
- It
needed to be put in context that the country was facing an energy
crisis as we were only producing a small percentage of the amount
of energy needed. This proposal was not
discriminatory against the rural communities. The land may have been allocated for farming in
the 1920s but it did not make sense to keep it for that use in
pertuity.
- Was the interest in the finance model a fixed amount?
We would borrow at fixed
rates which were currently around 4% and set by the Public Works
Loan Board. There had been no
indication that we could not borrow at 4%. If we borrowed now then the rate would be set at
4%.
- If
the solar panels were installed at higher level or were movable
would animals be able to graze underneath? We would be looking at all options for
farming. Moving panels were more
appropriate in warmer climates as they needed exposure to the sun
and the ongoing costs were also greater than with static
panels. The business case for them was
marginal.
- Had any consideration been given to the loss of hedgerow and
trees in any environmental impact assessment? All three applications would be
subject to full environmental impact assessments and
biodiversity. It was believed that
there was an opportunity for a better biodiversity
gain.
- Some of the roads which would be used to access the sites would
need vast improvement to handle the heavy vehicles which would be
used. Traffic management
plans would be included as part of the planning
applications.
- The land west of America Farm needed to be protected especially
Flag Fen. There was already
a clear gap between America Farm and Flag Fen.
- The risk register does not include the risk of a change in
government policy. This was
included as point two of the risk register. The Government had published a reduction in
subsidies. There was a potential risk
of agreeing a proposal and contract and then there being a change
in policy.
- What consultation had been done with the tenants and what
options were available to them, for example relocation to another
farm? Officers had tried to
establish a few things, for example was there an opportunity to
develop on land coming to an end, talking to the tenants about
possible reconfiguration of tenancies and looking at what the
options were for the future. Jo
Gresty had met with all the affected
tenants and packages were being discussed.
- What were the timescales officers were working to? There had been no decision
yet. The planning applications needed
to be gone through first and then we needed to appoint a
contractor. The timescale was
flexible.
- There was a perception that if this goes through then the other
farmers would be worrying which farm was next. Why was the land at Castor not
considered? Castor was
looked at but would not have been feasible.
- Why were officers not looking at going to the planning
inspectorate to determine the planning applications so they were
tested better? Planning
over a certain size could not be determined locally and was taken
out of our hands. The risk of going
directly to the planning inspectorate was we could not guarantee
government support if we delayed.
- Why was farming land being used? Was
the driver financial rather than enabling energy
sufficiency? It was about
both energy and income. Planning
policies were also coming in to encourage people around energy
sufficiency.
- One of the risks on the register was about challenge by third
parties, which third parties did officers believe this could come
from? It was a generic use
of the term third party and referred to someone outside of the
council who might submit objections, for example during the
planning applications process. It was
about starting to mitigate the impact around possible judicial
review and managing that risk. It would
be inappropriate to suggest a specific third party.
Following debate the following
motions were moved:
It was proposed and seconded
that Cabinet be recommended that farmland is not taken away for
solar panels and wind farms in any of the three wards. On being put to the vote there were five votes for
and seven against so the motion was lost.
It was proposed and seconded
that Cabinet be recommended to approve the recommendations detailed
in the Cabinet report along with an additional recommendation from
this meeting to ensure that the needs and
demands of the rural communities are fully addressed. On being put to the vote there were six votes for
and six against and the Chairman using her
casting vote voted for, therefore there were seven votes for and
five against so the motion was carried.
It was proposed and seconded
that Cabinet be recommended that it further explores paragraph
8.4.7 of the report with officers and understands the process for
which the sum for community funds can be developed. On being put to the vote there were seven votes
for and four against so the motion was carried.
It was proposed and seconded
that the financial model at paragraph 8.2 of the report is updated
to reflect what is known but estimated and what is
contingency. On being put to the vote
there were five votes for and five against and the Chairman using
her casting vote voted for, therefore there were six votes for and
five against so the motion was carried.
It
was proposed and seconded that Cabinet be recommended to
investigate the feasibility of dual use of the land
at each site taking particular account of the sensitivities of the
area around America Farm for Oxney
Grange and Flag Fen. On being put to
the vote there were seven votes for and four not voting so the
recommendation was carried.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The
Joint Meeting of the Sustainable Growth & Environment Capital
Scrutiny Committee and Scrutiny Commission for Rural Communities
advises Cabinet that it broadly supports the recommendations
detailed in the Cabinet report:
- Notes the updated
strategy for the development of renewable energy parks at each of
the three council owned agricultural sites (America Farm, Morris
Fen and Newborough farms) since the report to Cabinet dated 10 July
2012, in respect of ground mounted solar photovoltaic panels and
wind turbines;
- Approves the proposal
to submit planning applications in respect of development of ground
mounted solar photovoltaic panels;
- Notes that subject to
planning permission being received for ground mounted solar
photovoltaic panels a contract for their installation is likely to
be awarded to Mears Ltd under a framework agreement approved under
a decision by the Cabinet Member for Resources (reference
Solar Photo-voltaic (PV)
Panels Framework Agreement - JAN12/CMDN/002)
- Notes that subject to
the outcome of necessary studies and continued negotiations a
further report will be brought back to Cabinet for consideration
prior to submitting planning applications for wind
turbines;
The
Joint Meeting further recommends:
-
That the Cabinet ensure that the needs and demands
of the rural communities are fully addressed.
-
That the Cabinet further explore paragraph 8.4.7 of
the Cabinet report with officers and understands the process for
determining the appropriate amount of
community funds, and also at this stage seeks information from
officers of the likely range of community funds.
-
That table 8.2 of the Cabinet report is updated to
reflect what is actually known at this time and what is
contingency.
-
That Cabinet investigate the feasibility of dual use
of the land at each site taking particular account of the
sensitivities of the area around America Farm for Oxney Grange and Flag Fen.