Huge solar farm in Halloughton allowed at appeal after Newark and Sherwood District Council rejected it
A huge solar farm has been allowed at appeal after a council rejected it on grounds of size and scale.
Newark and Sherwood District Council’s planning committee opposed the application in March last year as they felt it would swamp the village of Halloughton.
The committee was told the 108-hectare 49.9 MW farm, which would span 13 agricultural fields on land north of the village, would power 12,000 homes for a year and amount to £30m private sector investment.
However, members could not get over its ‘enormity’.
Speaking at the time, ward member for the area Malcom Brock said: “I’d like to compare the area it would cover to the town of Southwell — it is enormous. Had it only been slightly bigger, it would have been a national infrastructure concern.
“There are allegations that if it were to go ahead, it would create an industrial landscape. I think it would completely and totally transform the local landscape.
“This is a very precious area for the community, I know because I use it and I see many others using it. We can’t look over that.”
Fellow ward member Peter Harris said he would have supported the application, by JBM Solar Projects 6 Ltd, had it been much smaller.
Now, the planning inspectorate said the district council got it wrong in rejecting the plans and granted full planning permission to the applicant following an inquiry.
Pegasus Group provided expert landscape, heritage and planning witness on behalf of clients JBM Solar Projects 6 Ltd at the public inquiry.
In allowing the appeal, the inspector quoted 18th Century French soldier and politician Francois de Charette: “You cannot make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.”
Pegasus group executive director Paul Burrell said in his report the inspector had made some interesting observations on agricultural land and the temporary loss of food production and food security, with weight to be given to the temporary nature of the development, albeit the 40 years sought would be longer than a generation.
He said the inspector concluded, in terms of the planning balance, that while there would be some localised harm to landscape character and some visual harm in conflict with the relevant development plan policies, the imperative to tackle climate change as recognised in legislation and energy policy, and the very significant benefits of the scheme, clearly and decisively outweighed the limited harm.
Likewise, in terms of heritage, while recognising the great weight required to be attached to the conservation of heritage assets, he considered the imperative to tackle climate change, as recognised in legislation and energy policy, and the very significant benefits of the scheme, clearly and decisively outweighed the temporary and less than substantial harm to the heritage assets involved.
Mr Burrell said: “My view is this is therefore a decision which shows the strength and weight that is presently being afforded to addressing climate change as a material consideration.”
