Solar farm amendments at Coldharbour Farm Ashreigney Chulmleigh

The site

The site comprises 17 fields at Coldharbour Farm, extends to the A3124, lies near two scheduled monuments, and has no public footpaths across it.

“Site Description Coldharbour Farm is located to the west of Ashreigney and to the east of Dolton, within the Countryside. The existing farm buildings at Coldharbour are located to the south-east of the application site, which extends up to the A3124 on its western boundary. The application site relates to an existing area of 17 fields, with three of these located to the north of the minor road which extends east of the A3124.”

“The northern fields rise in a northerly direction, with Westacott Barton Farmhouse (Grade II Listed) located to the north-east of this part of the site. The southern section of the site falls towards the existing watercourse and tree line to the north. To the south, the site is bound by managed/maintained boundary hedges which align to the lane linking to the hamlet of Moorwater, the A31245 and Coldharbour Farm holding to the east.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

The solar farm was approved in 2023, later conditions were discharged, and construction had started and was well progressed.

“1/0919/2020/SCRHI D Request a Screening Opinion for a solar farm of 49.99MW SCRP 15.01.2021”

“1/0823/2021/FULM Development of a ground mounted solar photovoltaic array with associated equipment, including access track, cable route, private and DNO substations, transformer stations, security cameras, perimeter fencing, 132kV DNO HV compound and 15m telecommunication tower PER 19.09.2023”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the amendments were relatively minor, reduced some elements, and the public benefits outweighed landscape and heritage harm.

“As noted above, and notwithstanding the reduced scale of some elements of the proposals from the approved scheme, the proposed development is considered to result in some landscape harm as well as less than substantial harm to the setting of off-site heritage assets. The impact on heritage assets is not considered to be altered from the previously approved scheme, which forms a material consideration.”

“The previous Officer’s Delegated Report concluded that the development was on balance considered acceptable with the benefits including the public benefit of the additional energy generation and biodiversity net gain being considered to outweigh the harm identified meaning that planning permission should be granted.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Flood risk officers initially objected but indicated their objection would be withdrawn after further information, while Historic England maintained heritage concerns.

“Devon County Council - Flood Risk Management: Initial response received 27 th February 2026: Recommendation: At this stage, we object to the above planning application because the applicant has not submitted sufficient information in order to demonstrate that all aspects of the surface water drainage management plan have been considered. In order to overcome our objection, the applicant will be required to submit some additional information, as outlined below.”

“Historic England Advice SUMMARY Five years, three responses to previous applications, no change to proposals. Our advice remains the same as my colleague gave previously in 2021, 2022 and 2023 recording our concerns regarding this application. Concerns that could be addressed with little effort by the developer.”

Officer report

Objections received

One neighbour objected to intensification, infrastructure, the tower, safety information, drainage, landscape mitigation, ecology, privacy and the scope of the amendments.

“Number of neighbours consulted: Number of letters of support: Number of representations received: Number of neutral representations: Number of objection letters: 1”

“Objections received can be summarised as follows: - Proposal is material intensification of development; - Increased built infrastructure and industrialisation of the site; - Potential preparation for future battery storage; - Communications tower moved closer to residential receptors; - Lack of safety information; - No separation distance calculations or confirmation of safety margins; - No needs assessment provided of for the communications tower; - Changes to NPPF since…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Development Management Team Leader presented the report, and the applicant addressed the committee in support.

Members’ debate

Members discussed whether updated assessments were needed and whether landscape planting should happen earlier than one year after grid connection.

“Councillor Hames referred to a public objection and questioned whether updated assessments were needed, including a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), cumulative impact assessment, noise assessment, and drainage assessment.”

“Councillor Hames expressed concern that the condition requiring landscape planting to be implemented within one year of grid connection, arguing that screening should be planted earlier due to the site’s visibility and potential for delays in grid connection. Officers explained that this is a standard condition included in the existing planning permission and that Officers consider it unreasonable to amend it given the minor nature of the proposed amendments.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee approved the proposal by eight votes to none, with one abstention, so no further recorded vote was taken.

“It was proposed by Councillor Bushby and seconded by Councillor Keneally that the application is approved.”

“As this vote was carried, no other recorded vote was taken.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to the report’s conditions, with a letter encouraging the applicant to start landscape planting as soon as possible.

“That the application is approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report, with a letter to be sent to the applicant encouraging landscape planting to commence at the applicants earliest convenience.”

“[name withheld] addressed the Committee as applicant in support of the application.”

Minutes