Exeter City Council has approved University of Exeter plans for a six acre 1.07MWp solar farm and electricity substation in Duryard Valley despite acknowledging the harm that will result from the development.
Exeter local plan policies L1 and LS1 say that “development which would harm existing or potential opportunities for informal recreation in the valley parks” or “would harm the landscape setting of the city” will not be permitted.
However policy EN6 says that “development of renewable energy facilities will be permitted provided that the renewable energy benefits outweigh any harm to the landscape.”
Council officers recommended approval of the scheme to last night’s planning committee meeting on the grounds that the “visual and landscape harm and harm to the Duryard Valley Park” that it would cause would be outweighed by the “very substantial” benefits of renewable energy generation.
The university owns the publicly-accessible Duryard Valley site, which is a designated a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and is a County Wildlife Site. It says the solar farm will generate up to 3% of the energy it consumes each year.
Local plan policy LS4 says that “development that would harm a site of nature conservation importance or a site of local interest for nature conservation […] will only be permitted if the need for the development is sufficient to outweigh nature conservation considerations.”
Several city councillors pointed out at the meeting that the university has not yet installed solar panels on the roofs of most of its buildings or on canopies above its extensive car parks.
Liberal Democrat Michael Mitchell cited the 1,200-bed East Park development on the other side of the campus as an example, as it was built without any renewable energy generation capacity.
Conservative Anne Jobson said she thought that until all the university’s roofs and car parks had been covered with solar panels there could not be a need for development that would cause such harm in direct conflict with local plan policies.
Labour’s Martin Pearce (who is not a committee member) added that the development site is a valuable informal space for leisure, recreation and active travel in one of the worst areas in the city for active travel infrastructure.
However when it came to the decision his party colleagues on the committee all voted in favour with the Green Party’s Andy Ketchin in support. Four opposition members – Alison Sheridan, Anne Jobson, Carol Bennett and Michael Mitchell – voted against.
