Ground-mounted solar farm at Land To The South Of Wagtail Lane, Craghead

Earlier uses and applications

Earlier permissions covered an agricultural barn, container, car park, wind turbines and associated infrastructure, and model aircraft use.

“The planning history of the site shows a range of previous approvals and activities associated with agricultural, equestrian, and renewable energy uses. Planning…”

“In February 2005, retrospective permission was granted (1/2004/1095/20456) for the siting of a container, and in February 2004, approval was given (1/2004/0025/18326) for the construction of a car park adjacent to Wagtail Lane.”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended approval, finding renewable energy, biodiversity and employment benefits sufficient to outweigh landscape harm, subject to conditions and biodiversity monitoring payments.

“The proposed solar farm development would provide a significant renewable energy source using solar power sufficient to provide clean energy for up to 12,800 homes whilst also reducing dependence on fossil fuel power stations. Further benefits of the scheme include significant biodiversity and landscape improvements to the site and direct employment to the construction industry.”

“Whilst it is accepted that the proposed solar farm would have an impact to the landscape it is considered that the benefits of the development in terms of energy supply and security, support for renewable energy, biodiversity enhancement and job creation would outweigh that harm and planning permission should be granted.”

Officer report

What people said

Consult consultees generally raised no objections, while residents and organisations objected over landscape, flooding, equestrian use, wildlife, agriculture, heritage, safety, consultation and cumulative effects.

“Landscape – has raised no objections to the proposals. Officers have reviewed the Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) and broadly agree with its conclusions. The site occupies an elevated ridgeline within the Northern Coalfield Uplands, with part of the substation area within the AHLV and the locally listed Holmside Hall Park.”

“A key theme in the objections relates to equestrian use and animal welfare, particularly from residents associated with Holmside Hall Equestrian, where around 50 horses are kept. These residents emphasise that the tranquillity and rural character of the area are essential to their use of the land for horse turnout, hacking, and equestrian training.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local member, local business and residents spoke against the proposal, while the applicant’s representative spoke in support.

What members debated

Members debated equestrian impacts, flooding, consultation, archaeology, contamination, cumulative effects, landscape, recreational amenity, policy compliance and whether the application should await the Burnhope appeal.

“Councillor Wilkes agreed that new Members should be provided details of any ongoing applications following an election. He referred to the satellite image provided in the presentation as the site resembled arable farmland rather than land used for grazing. He queried whether horses at the equestrian centre would be able to see and hear the panels, prior to the landscaping which would take 10-15 years to mature.”

“Councillor Bellingham referred to policies 10, 39 and 40 of the CDP and queried what analysis had taken place to throw the balance in favour of development. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the report provided a detailed analysis of the landscape impact and there were exemptions to Policy 10 for renewable energy.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused consent because the development would cause unacceptable landscape harm and significantly reduce recreational value, despite its benefits.

“The Local Planning Authority considers that due to its location, size and form of development the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character, quality and distinctiveness of the landscape and is therefore in an inappropriate location with the benefits not outweighing the harm contrary to County Durham Plan Policies 10, 33 and 39 and Paragraph 168 and Part 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

“The development would result in a significant deterioration on the recreational value of the area, which would not be outweighed by any benefits, in conflict with County Durham Plan Policies 26 and 31 and Parts 8 and 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes