Solar farm and battery storage at Land To North Of Stretton Road, Morton, Alfreton

What was proposed

The application sought a 49.9MW solar farm and 50MW battery facility, with panels, infrastructure, access, security, landscaping and biodiversity enhancements for 40 years.

“Proposal Description: The installation and operation of a renewable energy generating station comprising of ground-mounted photovoltaic solar arrays together with inverter/transformer units, BESS units, control house, substation, onsite grid connection equipment, storage containers, site access, access gates, internal access tracks, security measures, other ancillary infrastructure, and landscaping and biodiversity enhancements (Major Development/Affecting Public Right of…”

“This application seeks permission for a 49.9MW solar farm with a battery storage (50MW) facility for a period of 40 years, with the exception of a 132kV substation which will remain on site permanently.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 66-hectare site comprises mainly agricultural land north of Morton, with woodland, a railway cutting, public rights of way and housing nearby.

“The application site is framed to the east by a railway cutting and an area of woodland to the northern aspect forms a precise northern most boundary to the site. Also looking east from the application site, a raised mound can be seen which is part of the former Morton Colliery which is now owned by Derbyshire County Council and a designated wildlife site (NE365 – Morton Colliery). The site includes a number of footpaths, both formal and informal.”

“Immediately to the south of the application site is a new housing development for 100 dwellings which is almost built out. Evershill Lane also extends from the village into the application site. Its appearance is of a single-track surfaced road framed with housing, deteriorating into a rough track which also doubles as a public right of way. The lane continues across and through the application site to the north west where it crosses the railway line.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

The site and nearby land have a history including an appealed timber facility application, an environmental screening request and three approved solar schemes.

“23/00746/EIA | EIA Screening Opinion Request for proposed 49.9MW Solar PV and BESS facility (No EIA Required)”

“Solar Farms on land to north (see Figure 2 above for location in relation to application site)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional approval because renewable energy, biodiversity, employment and grid connection benefits were considered to outweigh landscape and visual harm.

“The renewable energy benefit, whilst substantial, must be carefully weighed against the landscape and visual harm. The application site and its immediate setting was not found to be of significant ecological, historic and landscape (visual) sensitivity and so does not form part of either a primary or secondary AMES.”

“In view of the above, Officers are of the view that the benefits associated with renewable energy generation and the proposals contribution to a net zero future carry significant weight in favour of development.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from two local ward members, a parish council representative, three objectors, the applicant and the agent.

What members debated

Members recognised renewable energy benefits but considered the scheme’s effects on biodiversity, footpaths and residents’ amenity caused significant harm that the benefits did not outweigh.

“Committee discussed the application. Members accepted the benefits of solar farms in terms of the push towards renewable energy generation. However, it was suggested that this did not mean all applications for solar farms should be passed. In this context, some Members highlighted the adverse impact that this scheme had on biodiversity in the area, on the footpaths that crossed and overlooked the site, and the amenity of local residents.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted for a motion to refuse the application, contrary to the officers’ recommendation.

“At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor H Liggett and Councillor W Jones moved and seconded a Motion to refuse the application, contrary to officer recommendations. The Motion was put to a vote and approved.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused, with the final wording of the reasons for refusal delegated to the Planning Manager.

“That planning permission be refused, with the final wording of the reasons for refusal delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Management).”

Minutes