Report by Local Democracy Reporter – Jon Cooper
Disappointed campaigners fear plans for a solar farm on greenfield land for Chesterfield Royal Hospital will pose further flooding risks and an eyesore as councillors provisionally approved the scheme subject to a flood and drainage review.
Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust’s application for ground mounted solar panels, infrastructure, engineering operations and works just north of the hospital, at Calow, was conditionally approved by Chesterfield Borough Council’s planning committee at a meeting on April 20 despite experts and residents’ ongoing concerns over flooding and drainage.
Following the meeting, Tracy Jenkins, who lives at the adjacent Plover Hill Farmhouse, said: “When it rains, it absolutely floods, and it has taken all our lane up, and basically at our own house, last year, we had to tank-in the utility room which is above ground as water came in through the base and through the floor and over the last four or five years it’s done that as a regular occurrence.
“This will be right at the side of us, and what they are suggesting is going to be like driving into a prison.”
The council’s planning committee considered many submitted statements raising concerns including flooding and drainage, the project’s scale, worries about potential water run-off, noise, light pollution, access, the loss of greenfield space, the impact on the environment, highways, wildlife and nearby residents as well as the scheme’s visual appearance.
Derbyshire County Council’s flood authority has already submitted a ‘holding objection’ until the applicant can submit more information regarding concerns and similarly Yorkshire Water has lodged an objection due to the lack of proposed drainage information and it too has requested further details regarding the means of draining surface water.
Chesterfield Borough Council’s urban design officer has also raised an objection to the potential impact of the scheme.
The applicant has appointed a drainage consultant to address concerns and further information is expected to be submitted which will be considered by planning officers before any final, overall decision to approve or refuse the application after the committee made only a provisional decision to approve the scheme depending on the outcome of flooding and drainage investigations.
The Environment Agency has stated it feels the site is in an area at low risk of flooding and the council’s environmental health officer has not raised any objections to the plans.
But Ms Jenkins told the meeting the site is already ‘boggy and saturated with water’ and it follows a natural watercourse in an area where the water table has risen and which may also cause flooding to properties.
She said: “It’s causing damage to our properties which is one of the main heritage sites which is Plover Hill Farm and we are worried this is going to cause damage and flooding in the future.
“I fully understand about climate change but large scale solar panel arrays are not to have a negative impact on water level damage and I feel it will make the water level higher… causing the risk of major flooding and flood problems. I have lived at this property for 20 years and I have never seen floods this bad.”
A spokesperson for the farm argued the design scheme for the solar farm will cause ‘unjustified harm’ and not enough consideration has been given to its negative visual impact on heritage assets while she pointed out that the borough council’s own design officer had objected to the plans.
She added the applicant’s mitigation measures do not go far enough, plans for a new boundary hedge would take years to grow, and plans for metal fencing are inappropriate while new plans for CCTV poles would still be too prominent.
Concerns have been raised about the scheme’s potential impact on the Plover Hill Farmhouse and former Threshing Barn which are Grade II listed buildings and sit very close to the site.
Plover Hill Management Ltd listed many concerns including the impact on neighbouring heritage assets, the planned fencing, lighting and camera poles and buildings, as well as feared light pollution and disturbance to properties and loss of privacy, access and a loss of local character.
A Plover Hill Management spokesperson has stated: “The proposed development is unsuitable for the location and will cause serious and unjustifiable harm to [the] setting of the heritage assets, the landscape character and visual amenity that will not be adequately mitigated.”
The Campaign to Protect Rural England, which urges the installation of roof top solar panels and the use of car parks over greenfield farmland, expressed its disappointment given the available rooftop and car park space available at the hospital.
Nearby resident Trevor Sadler said after the meeting that people are not against solar panel energy schemes but he believes the hospital does have alternative sites in its grounds including roof space and car park canopies.
He said: “I do not think they are open to looking at other alternatives such as the car park canopies and roofs. The calculations have been made because it just so happens that there is a field they can use.”
The council has received amended plans for widening the landscape buffer along eastern boundary, the lowering of security fencing, and the removal of most of the lighting and CCTV columns which are now only proposed adjacent to access gates and transformer housings.
It also stipulated that as part of the NHS’s commitment to becoming the world’s first net zero health service, all hospital trusts are required to reduce carbon emissions, both directly through buildings and operations, and indirectly through supply chains and medical equipment.
Council planning officers stated the scheme aims to generate green energy as part of its commitment to sustainability and carbon reduction, and to assist with cost reductions and energy resilience.
The applicant argued the proposed solar photovoltaic scheme will provide a considerable proportion of the annual energy requirements for the hospital, which will result in significant environmental benefits and cost savings for the Trust.
It claims that a roof-mounted solar scheme was considered but this was not feasible due to several technical, structural, regulatory and operational constraints.
Solar canopies on car parks within the hospital grounds were also considered, according to the council, but it was felt this would cause significant disruption to the availability of parking during construction and it would have higher associated costs and a longer payback period and lower energy generation.
A council report stated the ground mounted scheme provides the highest energy yield and it is easier to install with fewer construction and logistical risks and constraints and with minimal construction and operational disruption and risks with the best financial return.
Council planners added that information provided indicates the agricultural site is of a poorer quality and the proposal includes biodiversity enhancements around the solar panel arrays and the works would contribute towards the applicant’s aim of providing a net zero health service.
The scheme seeks to retain and supplement the existing boundary hedgerows, according to the plans, and it would also retain two mature trees and recently planted trees close to the northern boundary.
A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concluded it would retain key landscape characteristics and would not have permanent negative effects on features within the landscape but it acknowledges that the character of the site would change.
An assessment also concluded the proposed development does not introduce an unacceptable impact towards the surrounding light sensitive receptors.
It also stated that the proposal includes additional landscape planting along the eastern boundary to provide further screening from the nearest residential properties.
Derbyshire Wildlife Trust raised no objections but it has recommended conditions relating to a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan, a Construction Environmental Management Plan with a Lighting and Enhancement Plan.
A condition has also been attached for the land to be restored to its former condition as a grassed field after the scheme’s permission time expires, according to the council.
In addition, council planning officers deemed that any harm to heritage assets would amount to ‘less than substantial harm’ and would lie towards the lower end of a scale outlined by the National Planning Policy Framework.
Derbyshire County Council’s highways authority also concluded that the scheme does not result in the loss of any parking and it therefore does not raise any highway safety concerns.
The borough council’s report highlighted benefits of the scheme include a contribution to the annual energy requirements for the hospital with environmental benefits and cost savings while helping towards the provision of a net zero, public health service.
It conceded the scheme does result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the significance of the designated heritage assets but it argued that additional planting and the retention of landscape features will offer mitigation.
Richard Holiday, speaking on behalf of the applicants, said the scheme has secured Government funding to support net zero and climate change plans and it would help to reduce carbon emissions, improve energy efficiency and reduce costs.
He argued hospital roof tops were ruled out due to the conflict with ‘critical hospital infrastructure’ and load-bearing capacity issues, and car park canopies were discounted because it would mean a loss of parking with unacceptable disruption.
Mr Holiday also confirmed the planned height of fencing has been reduced and that any harm to the area’s heritage assets would be outweighed by the public benefits.
He revealed concerns over flooding and drainage are being addressed and the Trust is working with a drainage consultant and it is hoped these details may become available in a couple of weeks’ time.
Cllr Martin Stone said: “What we have learned over the last three or four months is certain facilities particularly hospitals need to secure their supply of energy because when the lights go out – we do not want them to go out at the hospital.
“I understand the impact on people and we do feel genuinely sorry for them. That’s the world we live in. Climate Change is going to affect a lot of people and have a significant impact on people’s lives. This field can become a genuine powerhouse for the hospital.”
The planning committee voted by a majority to approve the application in principle with the matter to be delegated to planning officers for a final decision once further information becomes available concerning how the applicant aims to address flooding and drainage objections and concerns over the design of planned lighting and CCTV poles.
Ms Jenkins added: “They have listened to our objections. I feel like they have gone through the motions of listening to what people have to say and they have already made their decision.
“As a heritage site we have to jump through hoops to make any changes but if they are going to damage a heritage site – they can do it.”
