33.65MW solar farm at Red Lane, Carlton in Lindrick

What was proposed

The application proposed a 33.65MW ground-mounted solar farm with access tracks, fencing, gates, transformers, substations and grid infrastructure.

“Site Address Land Between Hundred Acre Lane and Red Lane Carlton In Lindrick Nottinghamshire…”

“Proposal Erect 33.65MW Ground Mounted Solar Farm with Associated Internal Access Tracks, Security Perimeter Deer Fencing, Access Gates, Transformer Units, Customer Substation, DNO Substation and Associated Grid Infrastructure.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site comprised about 42 hectares of arable fields beside Hundred Acre Lane and Red Lane, crossed by a public footpath and within a designated Green Gap.

“The site is made up of existing arable land which is irregular in shape and is made up 6no. irregularly shaped fields bounded by existing hedgerows. The site has a combined area of c. 42ha. The northern and southern boundaries are bordered by Hundred Acre Lane (to the north) and Red Lane (to the south). The site is accessed off Hundred Acre Lane via an existing access.”

“A Public Right of Way (PRoW FP1-11) passes through the site, linking the small settlement of Carlton Forest to the east and Carlton-in-Lindrick to the west. The footpath dissects the site on an east-west axis and runs for approximately for 1km through the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A screening opinion concluded that the proposed ground-mounted solar farm was not EIA development.

“25/00514/SCR- Screening Opinion - Ground Mounted Solar Farm– Decision: Not EIA Development – Date 23.05.2025”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the scheme would provide renewable energy and biodiversity gains, while its heritage harm would be outweighed by public benefits.

“The proposal would result in less than significant harm to the setting of the surrounding and nearby heritage assets that is considered to be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.”

“To conclude, it is considered that the less than substantial heritage harm that this development would create does not outweigh the public benefits.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Most consultees raised no objection or sought conditions, while the conservation officer objected because planting would take 15 years to screen the development.

“BDC Conservation – In summary, the Conservation Officer objects to the proposed development as the planting proposed would take 15 years to screen the development, which is considered to be a lengthy amount if time.”

“NCC PROW – Holding objection, however upon receipt of additional information objection uplifted subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Public comments

Five objection letters raised concerns about wildlife, planting, fencing, boundaries, countryside access, grazing land, antisocial behaviour, pollution, health and crops.

“This application was advertised by neighbour letter, site notice and press notice and 5 letters of objection have been received raising the following points:”

“- Impact on wildlife - Concerns relating to the proposed planting scheme - Concerns relating to what the proposed fencing will look like - Boundary and ownership dispute - Loss of landscape/access to the countryside - Loss of grazing land would result in loss of economy to a local business - Increase in antisocial behaviour - Noise and light pollution - Risk of health issues - Loss of crops…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident spoke against the application and the agent spoke in support.

The committee decision

The committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

“Recommendation of the Head of Planning and Place: Grant planning permission, subject to conditions.”

“Committee Decision Resolved: Grant planning permission, subject to conditions.”

Minutes

Main conditions

The permission included a 40-year period, land restoration, archaeological safeguards, construction controls, biodiversity management and surface-water drainage requirements.

“- Demonstrate that the development will use SuDS throughout the site as a primary means of surface water management and that design is in accordance with CIRIA C753 and NPPF Paragraph 175. - Limit the discharge generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 40% (climate change) critical rain storm to QBar rates for the developable area.”

“- Evidence to demonstrate the viability (e.g Condition, Capacity and positive onward connection) of any receiving watercourse to accept and convey all surface water from the site. - Details of STW approval for connections to existing network and any adoption of site drainage infrastructure. - Evidence of approval for drainage infrastructure crossing third party land where applicable.”

Officer report