Land At Moat Farm Newent Gloucestershire - Refusal of planning permission for photovoltaic solar farm

The Forest of Dean District Council has refused planning permission for the following development which was accompanied by an Environmental Statement:

P2061/21/FUL Ground mounted photovoltaic solar farm with an electrical generating capacity of up to 49.9MW together with associated equipment, infrastructure and ancillary works.

Consideration has been given to the environmental information submitted.
Various recent government publications have highlighted the need to significantly increase generation from onshore wind and solar energy production, as it seeks to ensure that the target is reached of 95% clean energy by 2030 and that by 2035 all our electricity will come from low carbon sources with the planning system supporting the transition to net zero by 2050. To achieve this ambitious target, considerable growth in large scale solar farms will be necessary and this cannot be achieved solely by the use of brownfield land or roof top installations.

In this case, it is considered that the public benefits are that the scheme has been directed to poorer quality agricultural land where agriculture would be able to continue, albeit in a different form and as the site would be decommissioned at the end of the 40 year period, would not result in permanent loss of agricultural land. It is acknowledged that the scheme is presented as having a capacity of up to 49.9MW energy generation which would generate a significant amount of electricity from a clean, renewable source assisting in the journey to net zero which is considered to have significant weight. Evidence of connection to the local grid also weighs in favour of the development. There would also be significant biodiversity net gain of more than 10%, on a scheme where statutory biodiversity net gain does not apply. The introduction of landscaping features of hedgerows, orchard and tree belt also weighs positively in the balance. There are also the indirect and direct benefits to the economy during construction and decommissioning.

That the proposal does not seek to alter the routes of PROW is neutral in the balance. A positive outcome in relation to the Habitat Regulations Assessment is also considered to be neutral. The proposal would also, subject to suitable conditions, not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety, archaeology can be satisfactorily addressed and impacts on soils can be addressed. In the absence of evidence, it is considered that the weight to be given to impacts on health and the perceived impacts on health and perceived impacts is negligible.

Weighing against the development is the great weight that is required to be given to the setting of heritage assets even though the harm is less than substantial. Also weighing against the development is that it is considered there would be significant adverse residual effects on landscape character during construction and decommissioning (temporary), and in the operational phase of the development which would be long term/permanent. It is also considered that there would be harm to visual amenity during the construction (temporary) and operation (long term/permanent) as a result of the development. Furthermore, it is also considered that the proposal is likely to give rise to significant adverse residual cumulative effects on character, views and amenity during the construction, decommissioning and operational phases of the development. Also weighing against the development is that it is considered that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would not result in unacceptable impacts due to glint and glare on a wide variety of receptors. Although weighing less against the development than the other matters identified above, a section of hedgerow is lost to widen the existing access point. Also weighing against the development, albeit in a very limited fashion is the loss of agricultural land for the sub-station.

Whilst acknowledging the public benefits that would result from the scheme, it is considered that these do not outweigh the resulting harms.
Consequently, the development is considered to be contrary to policies CSP.1 and CSP.4 of the Core Strategy, policies AP1, AP2 and AP4 of the Allocations Plan, and the advice in the NPPF and NPPG and the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy (EN-3).
The decision notice and other documents can be viewed at any time on the Council’s website: www.fdean.gov.uk

Clive Reynolds
Development Manager.