Solar park at Land To The East Of Stockton Road, Seaham

What was proposed

The application proposed a 48MW solar park with panels, substations, cabling, fencing, access tracks and other infrastructure for 40 years.

“The solar PV installation would require supporting infrastructure including maintenance tracks, fencing and security systems. The cabling that would link the solar panels and inverters to the substation would be connected via a network of shallow trenches which would be backfilled. For security purposes a security system would be installed consisting of a 2.5m high security deer style fence and pole mounted security cameras.”

“Separate accesses to the eastern and western parts of the site would be required with internal permeable access tracks constructed to approximately 3.5m wide. The eastern part would be accessed off the road A1018 in County Durham and the western part from Burdon Lane in Sunderland. Temporary construction compounds would be located on the eastern and western parts of the site which would include parking provision and storage for plant and equipment.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The cross-boundary site covered agricultural land within Green Belt between Seaham and Ryhope, near homes, wildlife sites, recreational routes and the coast.

“The eastern part of the site (referred to as Parcel 4 in the application) lies within County Durham is bound to the north by Ryhope Dene, to the east and south by the Durham Coast Railway Line with the road B1287 and Durham coast beyond. To the west of the site is open land beyond which are residential properties at Seaham Grange and Grange Mount and the road B1285.”

“Ryhope Dene Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and Cherry Knowle Dene LWS are partially located within and adjacent to the site, and within both are designated Ancient & Semi-Natural Woodland. The Durham Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which forms part of the Northumbria Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site and Durham Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC), are located approximately 300m to the east.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the site, although nearby infrastructure, car boot and housing developments were identified.

“There is no relevant planning history for that part of the site within County Durham or that part of the site within Sunderland.”

“To the east of the application site Planning Permission No. DM/25/00556/FPA was granted in October 2025 for the Temporary planning permission (10 years) for the relocation of existing sales area associated with Seaham Hall car boot sale from south of the existing parking area to north of the existing parking area to allow works by National Grid. Planning Permission No. 5/PL/2011/0110).”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal would harm landscape character, residential amenity, Green Belt openness and the Heritage Coast setting.

“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 Area of Higher Landscape Value which includes the landscape and setting of the designated Heritage Coast, and would not provide an acceptable standard of residential amenity due to unacceptable impact through visual intrusion and visual dominance contrary to County…”

“The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is itself harmful and would also cause significant harm to the openness and integrity of a particularly vulnerable part of the Green Belt, which in this location plays an important role in separating settlements and avoiding encroachment and sprawl.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Most consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, but Seaham Town Council and the Heritage Coast Partnership objected or did not support the scheme.

“Durham Coast Special Area of Conservation, the Northumbria Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Durham Heritage Coast. Advice is provided regarding the need for a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and the responsibilities of the Council in this regard.”

“Heritage Coast Partnership – does not support the proposal. The close proximity of the eastern part of the site to the Heritage Coast is noted, about 44 metres away at its closest point, separated by the B1287 and the railway line. Concerns are raised that the development would be visible from most of the section of The King Charles III England Coast Path (KCIIIECP) National Trail in this area.”

Officer report

Public views

There were objections about agricultural land, ecology, Green Belt, landscape, homes, traffic and security, alongside support for renewable energy, jobs and environmental benefits.

“Benefits of proposal • General support for green energy. • Employment opportunities through the applicant’s academy and good for local jobs. • Good for business rates. • Need for alternative forms of energy to increase energy security and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. • The proposal would power 16,000 homes. • Cheaper bills. • Better than housing. • Benefits for future generations. • Benefits to the local area and the greater good.”

“CPRE Durham – objects to the proposal advising that it should be refused. CPRE believe that this is an important piece of Green Belt land (not Grey Belt) that can be enjoyed not just by local residents but also by others from around the country using the Coastal Path or the National Cycle Network Route Number 1. It also adjoins, if it is not part of, an Area of Higher Landscape Value.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident spoke against the application, describing effects on the nearest home, while councillors raised concerns about the coast, landscape and visual impacts.

Members’ debate

Members discussed landscaping, employment, the scale of greenfield development, public support, tourism, recreation, coalescence and whether renewable energy benefits outweighed planning harm.

“Councillor Potts also questioned the employment benefits claimed for the development and asked what long-term employment opportunities would result from the scheme. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the majority of employment benefits would arise during the estimated 12-month construction period. Once operational, the development would require only periodic maintenance visits until eventual decommissioning and site restoration.”

“Councillor Stephenson remained concerned about the effect this proposal would have upon the landscape, wider countryside and setting of the Heritage Coast. The scale, visibility and duration of the development would result in unacceptable harm. He expressed concerns regarding coalescence and considered that the benefits associated with renewable energy generation were insufficient to outweigh the identified planning harms and therefore he supported refusal.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee resolved to refuse the application for the two reasons set out in the officer recommendation.

“That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:”

“The Local Planning Authority considered 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 Area of Higher Landscape Value which includes the landscape and setting of the designated Heritage Coast, and would not provide an acceptable standard of residential amenity due to unacceptable impact through visual intrusion and visual dominance contrary to County…”

Minutes