Temporary solar farm at Land At Cruxton Farm, Cruxton Lane, Cruxton

What was proposed

A temporary 40-year, 10MW solar farm was proposed, with panels, substations, inverters, fencing, landscaping and associated works.

“Description of development 5.1 The proposed development involves the construction of a solar farm, to include the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, with substations, inverters, perimeter fencing, landscaping and other associated works. The cable route between the point of connection (POC) to the site is not included in the application. The POC is located approximately 60m to the east of the site.”

“Table 5.1 – Components of the planning application Component Detail PV array The panels would be set at an angle of 20 degrees facing south towards the sun. The front, lower edge of the module arrays would be 0.60m above the ground, with a maximum height of 2.27m on the rear, upper edge. Panels measure 4.70m in length. Each row would be spaced a minimum of 3.2m apart to prevent overshadowing of panels by other panels.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site comprised two agricultural fields within the Dorset National Landscape, alongside public rights of way forming part of the Macmillan Way.

“Description of site 4.1 The application site is comprised of agricultural land located across two agricultural fields at Cruxton Farm which lies 0.7km south-west of Dorchester Road (A356). The site includes an existing agricultural farm track that serves the site from Cruxton Farm. The boundaries of the site are formed of a mixture of dense hedgerow and mature trees.”

Officer report

Earlier application and changes

A similar application was refused in 2022 and its appeal was dismissed in 2024; the new scheme reduced panels and added planting and recreation measures.

“Background and relevant planning history 6.1 The site has a detailed planning history having been subject to a previous planning application for a similar development (P/FUL/2021/01920) and associated recovered planning inquiry (APP/D1265/W/23/3317593) (the ‘appeal scheme’). The planning application was refused by planning committee in November 2022 and the appeal was…”

“The applicant has undertaken one round of pre-application engagement with Dorset Council planning and landscape officers and the Dorset National Landscape Team. The pre- application proposals were similar to the current proposals, relating to a 10MW solar farm. The advice can be viewed on the Council’s planning register.”

Officer report

Why refusal was advised

Refusal was advised because the development would significantly harm the National Landscape and public rights of way, without demonstrated exceptional circumstances or public interest.

“Harm to special qualities of the National Landscape. The ability to develop a solar farm outside of the Natonal Landscape or meet the needs for renewable energy development in some other way have not been demonstrated. There appears to be reasonable scope to develop a solar farm outside of the National Landscape. The constrained nature of local grid is typical in Dorset. Exceptional circumstances not demonstrated. Great weight applied to the significant harm.”

“Recommendation 17.1 Refuse planning permission for the following reasons: The proposed development by reason of its appearance, scale and positioning would have a detrimental impact upon the character, landscape and visual quality of the Dorset National Landscape and existing public rights of way. The impacts would not be sufficiently mitigated contrary to policies ENV1, COM7 and COM11 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015).”

Officer report

What local people said

Five third-party objections and one supporting comment were received, raising landscape, alternatives, rights-of-way, highways, flooding, ecology and agricultural land concerns.

“Third parties 8.62 Six comments from third parties have been received. Five are objections and one is in support. The objections include an objection from Notton Valley Farm. They raise the following points, in summary: Support • Need – It is vital that substantial clean energy can be provided wherever possible. • With the amendments made, temporary consent should be supported. Objection • Principle – Location within the Dorset National Landscape is inappropriate.”

“Alternatives – Wind power is more effective. Solar panels should be required on the roofs of new buildings. • Landscape – Harm to landscape character. Proposed landscape screening is insufficient. The proposals will not maintain or enhance local identity and distinctiveness. The site is highly visible. • National Landscape – Harm to Dorset National Landscape through development of an undeveloped site. Adverse impact on special qualities.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

An objector opposed the scheme, the applicant supported it, and the Local Ward Member spoke about parish support and climate change.

What members debated

Members debated climate benefits, local support, flooding, screening, renewable-energy opportunities, the 40-year impact and whether the landscape harm was acceptable.

“Members questions and comments • Asked whether any flood mitigation measures had been proposed. • Referred to the parish council’s submission regarding a local benefit fund and sought clarification on the weight given to this in the decision- making process. • Thanked the officer for a comprehensive report and detailed presentation • Noted that the council had declared a climate emergency.”

“Noted that some members were influenced by parish council and local ward member support, recognising the special landscape but stressing the urgency of transitioning to clean energy. • Asked whether further screening conditions could be applied to reduce landscape and visual impacts. • Acknowledged the difficulty of balancing climate change objectives with the protection of the national landscape.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve the recommendation to refuse was proposed and seconded.

“Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to REFUSE as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Spencer Flower, and seconded by Cllr Ridout, for the reason set out in the officer report.”

Minutes