Solar farm with battery storage at Land At West Fen Farm, Whitemoor Road, March

What was proposed

The application sought a 49.8MW solar farm, 30MW battery storage, substation, fencing, CCTV, acoustic fencing and associated infrastructure for a temporary period.

“Installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) farm with battery storage, substation and associated works including 3.0m high pole mounted CCTV cameras and 4.0m high acoustic fence…”

“The application seeks full planning permission for the installation of a solar farm comprising 49.8MW ground mounted solar photovoltaic panels with associated 30MW battery storage, substation and ancillary plant and infrastructure, and erection of security fencing and pole mounted CCTV cameras.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is 109.37 hectares of arable agricultural land in Flood Zone 3, surrounded by farmland and crossed by drainage ditches and a transmission line.

“The site is surrounded on all sides by agricultural land. The nearest residential properties are located 300m west of the site boundary, 350m east of the site and West Fen Farm itself, at the north-eastern site boundary. The primary point of access to the site is proposed to be via the existing bound-surfaced bellmouth along Whittlesey Road, with additional access points via tracks leading from Whitemoor Road and West Fen Farm.”

“The site is generally flat and largely sits below sea level at -1m AOD. The site and the wider local landscape is crossed by numerous drainage ditches. A main drain – Twenty Foot River – is located approximately 700 metres to the east of the site at its closest point. Other than grass and groundcover there are almost no trees or shrubs on the site at the present time.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because renewable energy, energy security, employment and biodiversity benefits were considered to outweigh landscape harm and temporary loss of best agricultural land.

“The development would contribute positively to environmental sustainability, by providing a significant contribution to renewable energy generation and energy storage, contributing towards addressing climate change and improving energy security and resilience.”

“Whilst it is acknowledged there are some matters that weigh against the development, it is considered that the identified benefits which would result from the proposal, particularly the significant contribution towards addressing climate change, energy security and biodiversity gain attract sufficient weight to outweigh the negative aspects and any associated policy conflict.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council objected over the loss of valuable agricultural land, while the main technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or mitigation.

“CONSULTATIONS (summarised) 5.1 March Town Council - 17.06.2025 Objects. Whilst supportive of renewable energy., considers the land is far more valuable as agricultural land and the development is better situated on grade 4‐5 land.”

“HRA findings The HRA has concluded that, providing mitigation measures are required by Conditions applied to any permission which may be granted to the scheme, the development will not have any effect on the integrity of any European designated sites.”

Officer report

Public comments

One resident objected on the grounds of agricultural land loss and the availability of preferable alternative sites.

“Objecting Comments 1 objection received from a resident at Tydd Gote; Officer Response…”

“Loss of agricultural land and/ or alternative sites are preferable…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicants and landowner supported the scheme, describing its renewable energy, biodiversity and farming diversification benefits; officers presented the report.

The committee’s decision

The committee voted to refuse the application against the officer recommendation, considering that it would cause agricultural land loss and harm Fenland’s landscape.

“Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be REFUSED against the officer’s recommendation.”

“Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of approval of planning permission as they feel that the application will mean a loss of agricultural land and will be detrimental to Fenland’s landscape.”

Minutes