Solar farm at Goshall Valley, East Street, Ash

“The proposals are to construct a solar farm, with associated access and infrastructure. The proposals have been amended during the course of the application and have been subject to consultation and re-advertisement. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The development comprises the following elements:”

“Photovoltaic (PV) modules on metal framework - leg driven into the ground, at the lowest point, the frame would typically be 0.8m above ground level and at the highest point, 2.7m above ground level. They would have a fixed tilt structure, arranged in rows approx. 3m apart, and the ground level would be unaltered.”

“The application site relates to a plot of land to the north of the A257; west of the A256, the River Stour; and south of Goshall Stream (a tributary of the River Stour). The site is approximately 83.34ha and is generally flat, comprised of agricultural fields used for arable farming.”

“Seven internationally designated sites are within 10km of the application site. To the east, beyond Ramsgate Road, are a number of designations including Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay special protection area (SPA) and Ramsar, Sandwich Bay special area of conservation (SAC) and Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes site of special scientific interest (SSSI). The site itself is within a SSSI Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) and Natural England have been consulted accordingly.”

“DOV/22/00245 – Environmental Impact Assessment – Scoping Opinion for a proposed solar farm – Environmental statement required…”

“Ash Parish Council (WPC) – strongly object. Raise concerns relating to the following matters: Principle of development (siting national policy, supplementary planning guidance, local policy and Ash Neighbourhood Development Plan, site not allocated, cumulative impacts not adequately addressed); Heritage impact (including possible irreversible damage to archaeology, visual impact on grade II listed Richborough Castle, scheduled Roman site of Richborough, listed heritage…”

“MV) agricultural land (query findings of applicant’s survey, based on local farmers knowledge and Natural England’s agricultural land classification map); Noise (from plant and equipment, should demonstrate any pile driven foundations would not exceed statutory noise levels at nearby sensitive properties); Access to site (including safety of highway users, management of traffic to/from site and impacts on local population, use of restricted byway by other vehicles, suggest…”

“Councillor D R Friend commented that he fully supported renewable energy and the transition to independent energy supplies, but national policy was clear that location mattered. Renewable schemes had to comply with heritage, landscape, agricultural land and environmental safeguards and this one did not. The harm that would be caused to RRF, a scheduled ancient monument of the highest national significance, was not in dispute.”

“The TL noted that Members had spoken of the heritage impact and irrevocable harm, as well as harm to the character of the area and visual harm to RRF. However, the extent of that harm was important, and she sought confirmation that Councillor Friend’s reference to significant harm was the correct categorisation.”

“RESOLVED: (a) That, notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation, Application No DOV/23/01363 be REFUSED on the following grounds: The proposed development, by virtue of its siting and scale, would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the application site and to the landscape character of The Wantsum and Lower Stour Marshes landscape character area (of the Kent County Council Landscape Assessment, 2004) and Ash Level landscape character area (of the…”

“The development would therefore be contrary to Policies SP15, HE1, HE3, CC3 and NE2 of the Dover District Local Plan to 2040, Paragraphs 135, 187, 202, 212, 213, 215 and 219 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 and Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.”