Ground-mounted solar farm at Land off Fletchwood Lane, Totton, Southampton

What was proposed

The application proposed a temporary 25-year solar park with panels, infrastructure, fencing, CCTV, community space, landscaping and habitat improvements.

“Proposal: Installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic farm; associated infrastructure and engineering works; deer fencing, pole- mounted CCTV; community open space; landscaping and habitat enhancement for a temporary period of 25 years…”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The 13.5-hectare agricultural site was used for low-key livestock grazing and bordered Fletchwood Lane, watercourses, fields and a protected wildlife site.

“The application site comprises a 13.5 hectare (ha) area of agricultural land used for the low-key grazing of livestock, to the south and east of the residential property of Great Fletchwood Farmhouse, and to the east and north of agricultural buildings at Great Fletchwood Farm, both of which are within the applicant's ownership.”

“The western-most boundary adjoins Fletchwood Lane, a single track, no-through road. The most eastern and northern areas of the site are located within either Flood Zones 2 or 3, following the Bartley Water.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier decisions included permission for a replacement agricultural and battery-storage building, a solar-park scoping response, and refusals for housing and business units.

“Replacement of existing barn with a barn of same footprint for flexible use as battery storage and agriculture (Application for a Non-Material Amendment to planning permission 23/00188FULL) (24/01263) Raise No Objection, 14 November 2024”

“Application for Scoping Opinion under regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 for a solar park, associated infrastructure and landscaping (24/00440SCP) scoping response issued on 01 July 2024”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the scheme failed the tests for major development in the National Park and would cause unavoidable landscape harm.

“The adopted development plan for the National Park confirms the focus is on renewable schemes that provide energy for an individual household or business use, or for a small local community facility within the National Park. The development plan is clear that larger renewable energy developments to meet a wider-than-local need are not appropriate within the protected landscape other than in exceptional circumstances where the major development tests are met.”

“Development of the scale and nature proposed is not considered appropriate in the protected landscape of a National Park. The proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the intrinsic landscape character of the National Park which cannot be mitigated or outweighed.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The landscape and planning policy officers objected or recommended refusal, while several other consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or mitigation.

“Archaeologist: No objection subject to conditions.”

“Planning Policy Officer: (Summarised) Recommends refusal. While the provision of renewable energy is a benefit of the scheme, in itself it is not considered to outweigh the fundamental conflict with several key development plan policies. The proposal is not linked to individual households, businesses or local community use within the National Park.”

Officer report

What people said

Supporters cited renewable energy and ecological improvements, while objectors raised landscape, farmland, National Park, siting, precedent, highway and noise concerns.

“In respect of the letters of objection, the concerns raised relate to concerns in relation to detrimental impact upon the landscape; loss of farmland; development not benefitting the National Park; inappropriate siting; concern with regard setting a precedent for this type of development; concern with regard to highway safety; and noise.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two public participants spoke for the application, one public participant spoke against it, and a parish councillor took part.

The decision and reasons

Planning consent was refused because of unacceptable harm to the National Park landscape and insufficient evidence that Fletchwood Lane would be safe.

“25/00760/FULL Details Land off Fletchwood Lane, Totton, Southampton SO40 7DZ - Installation of ground-mounted photovoltaic farm; associated infrastructure and engineering works; deer fencing, pole-mounted CCTV; community open space; landscaping and habitat enhancement for a temporary period of 25 years Public Participants Chris Darlow (For) Terry Elstone (For) Kathleen West (Against) Cllr Adrian Johnstone (Netley Parish Council) Decision Planning consent refused Reasons…”

Minutes