This page sets out an analysis of the impsct of the proposed solar farm on the surrounding Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
The application has been altered once because of concerns on the impact on the AONB. In Volume 1 of the Written Statement of the Environmental Statement, Section 3.59 and 3.60, it states
3.59. This baseline assessment concluded that the most northerly portion of the initial site layout area was located on more elevated ground which resulted in visibility from a wide area, including the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
3.60 As a result it was decided to exclude this area from the development proposals, thereby reducing the impact upon the AONB
However the change to the plan only produces a very minor reduction to the impact upon the AONB.
The national policy on the preservation of the ANOB is clearly stated in Section 4.39:
Policy SA1: Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
4.39. This policy applies to land within the AONB and to development outside the AONB that is sufficiently prominent in terms of its siting or scale to have an impact on the AONB’s natural beauty. The wording of the policy is:
‘Development which would harm the natural beauty of the AONB will not be permitted. Development will only be permitted if its scale, siting and design conserves the quality of the landscape. Where development proposals relate to sites where the existing development is visually of poor quality, opportunities will be taken by the District Council to secure visual enhancements’
So it is made totally clear that the development does not have to be within the boundaries of the ANOB. It just has to be sufficiently prominent in terms of siting and scale to have an impact on the AONB.
In paragraph 2.29 it states that “The Dorset AONB surrounds the site and is approximately 75m from the site at its closest point.”
In paragraph 6.146 it is suggested that there is visual containment from the AONB through changes in landform. The assumption is that the AONB land closest to the proposed development is not in line of sight at ground level to the proposed development though it is not made clear if this is applicable to the whole proposed development and the ANOB. This totally ignores the fact that the proposed development will be visible from other parts of the ANOB which are close though not necessarily immediately adjacent to the ANOB.
Paragraph 6.148 states
“The combination of topography and vegetation create a well wooded character and limit views across the area. Views from publically accessible locations is further restricted by the characteristic hedge lined character of the majority of the roads crossing the area.”
This is a totally incorrect assessment. If you stand in a field with a hedge you cannot necessarily see in to the next field. But because the area is not flat it is very easy to see in to the surrounding area. Paragraph 6.151 states that
“The application site is generally visually well contained by hedgerows and woodland on-site, at, and beyond the application site boundaries. The screening effect of this woodland is enhanced by the low lying, valley, location of the application site land.”
That is exactly the point in relation to the AONB. While the site might not be visible immediately next to the hedgerows and woodland on site, because the site is in a valley it is widely visible from the surrounding ANOB. This is acknowledged in paragraph 6.160:
"The application site aspect and enclosing field hedgerows and woodland blocks, combined with the landform of the application site context, means that potential visibility to the application site is generally limited to that from elevated land to the south-east, within the AONB, and from the facing valley side to the west."
So there is a written acknowledgement that there is an impact on the ANOB that would harm the natural beauty of the ANOB.
Paragraph 6.162 is entirely subjective. It states that the site “does not form a part of the appreciation of the wider landscape”. This in my view is totally wrong. It is impossible to parcel chunks of the valley into those that comprise of “the appreciation of the wider landscape” and those that do not. The site is part of the overall wider landscape. What the solar farm will do within the wider landscape is to provide the very prominence that the application states does not exist, by having something different to the rest of the landscape.
Paragraph 6.186 does cover the impact at an AONB level for the users of the Wessex Ridgeway, where it states:
“Longer distance recreational routes, notably the Wessex Ridgeway are also assessed as high. However local and longer distance recreational routes located within the AONB are likely to be promoted and may be appreciated for their views and visual amenity and have a very high sensitivity.”
The sensitivity being referred to are the visual receptors. There is no mitigation for this impact beyond a statement to say hedgerows will be established on the boundaries of the proposed site where hedgerows do not currently exist. Despite the removal of some existing hedgerows the plan says that the new hedgerows will (paragraph 6.207) “establish new wildlife corridors”. In effect what is being proposed is to take down some hedgerows and replace them with others. So no improvement.
Paragraph 6.276 states that Winter photographs will be undertaken once the leaves are off the trees and submitted as an ES addendum post submission. This is to provide a further visual assessment. It is likely the photos will either not be in place prior to the deadline for comments to be submitted, or the leaves will not have all fallen from the trees by that date.
In paragraph 6.194 it states that visual receptors included in the assessment therefore include users of:
“The Wessex Ridgeway; route to the east of Northay Farm; routes to the south-west over 2km from the application site; routes to the south-east within the AONB.”
The extent of the visual receptors within the AONB is in table 6.12 listed as having a High sensitivity for the Wessex Ridgeway for the three instances that it is measured. Furthermore the public right of way off B3I65 north of St Mary’s Church, Marshwood which is acknowledged as being within the ANOB is listed as having a Very High Sensitivity, but then it is suggested the impact will be low because the site will only be seen through gaps along the hedgerow and gateways. This seems to be clutching at straws to try and suggest a low impact to the ANOB when clearly it is high.
The assessment of the impact from the public right of way east of Pound Road south-east of Hawkchurch is incredible. It is stated that
“The main focus of the view is the elevated ridge which forms the distant horizon”
as if someone located there would only look at the horizon and not at the landscape below it. There does not seem to be any assessment of the visual receptors from the key landmarks that surround the proposed site – notably Lamberts Castle and Pilsdon Pen. The further in paragraph 6.312 the plan effectively contradicts what it has stated earlier, and attempts to dismiss the impact to the ANOB by stating
“Due primarily to the visual containment of the application site, by topography, and vegetation, and the fact that there is no apparent visibility to the main body of the application site from publically accessible locations within the AONB, this assessment finds that the effect of the proposals on landscape and visual receptors should not be given any more than limited weight in the wider consideration of the proposal.”
This is clearly a complete distortion of the truth through what they have already stated elsewhere in the plan.
It is noted in paragraph 6.305 that there are six solar farm, if this proposal is included, within a 6km² area and that
“With potentially six solar schemes becoming operational within approximately 6km², there is the potential for some cumulative effects on landscape character effects to emerge.”
So the plan identifies that there are a lot of solar farms in the area already, and that with that number there is an impact – surely an acknowledgement that further solar farms are not needed. The plan’s mitigation is that you cannot see one site from another despite the small geographic area – so makes no acknowledgement to someone travelling through the area by whatever means.
How close does the site need to be not to have an impact on the AONB? The distance from the AONB is less than the length of a football pitch. Any reasonable assessment of prominence in terms of siting to have an impact on the ANOB would conclude that a distance of 75 metres is prominent, especially as the panels are 2.4 metres high with a surrounding fence 2.2 metres high and surveillance posts 6 metres high. The application is therefore in contravention of the allowed development outside the ANOB because of its prominence to the ANOB.
Back to home page