The Planning Officer introduced the application as set out in the report.

William Mulvany, the Agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, and this was seconded by the Vice-Chair.

The Chair invited Members to make comments and points raised included:

·      The principle of the application was very good as the Borough needed to create its own renewable energy;

·      Concerned that the land lost would be Grade 1 agricultural land;

·      there was a real need to think about the future of agricultural farming in the Borough as there was a shortage of it across the country;

·      solar farms should only be placed on land that was of lower grade quality, rather than high quality;

·      solar farms were a good example of providing clean, greener energy to the residents of Swale;

·      concerned with the glares onto the motorway but happy with the mitigations that the applicant had proposed;

·      it would take 15 years for the screening to grow and this was too long for solar panels which would be on the site for 40 years;

·      this was the wrong location to place solar panels;

·      disappointed that the Kent County Council (KCC) Highways and Transportation team had not considered the impact the solar panel glares would have on the Oad Street road, Sittingbourne, as well as the motorway.

·      understood that there was a real need for renewable energy, but had concerns with the PROW officer’s opinion that the right-of-way could be too narrow for users;

·      was not convinced that there was a social and economic value to the site;

·      solar panels should be placed on homes, car parks and other buildings in the borough, not on agricultural farmland; and

·      60% of our food was imported and the Council needed to stop the industrialisation of farmland to grow our own organic food in the Borough.

The Planning Consultant advised that the glint was not an issue for Oad Street as the panels were south facing and tilted away from Oad Street.

The Planning Consultant confirmed that the PROW officer’s comments in terms of the widths of the PROW were not entirely addressed.

On being put to the vote, the motion to approve the application was lost.

The Chair moved the following motion: That the application be refused and delegated authority be given to officers to agree the wording of the reason(s) for refusal with the Chair and Vice-Chair. This was seconded by Councillor Richard Palmer. On being put to the vote, the motion for refusal was carried.

Resolved: That application 23/502210/FULL be refused as per the reason(s) to be agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair.