Solar farm and battery storage at Land to the East of Scawby Road (B1206), Scawby Brook, Brigg

What was proposed

The application sought a 49.9MW solar array, battery storage, substation, access and related infrastructure, operating for 40 years.

“Planning Committee 29 July 2026 Proposal The planning application seeks consent for the construction and operation of a 49.9MW photovoltaic (PV) solar array, a 30MWh battery energy storage system (BESS), an on-site substation, associated access and infrastructure on land to the east of Scawby Road (B1206), Scawby Brook.”

“A number of other infrastructure components would be provided as part of the development, including a substation compound, a control room, welfare and storage compound, access tracks, security equipment and fencing, lighting, drainage, landscaping and underground cabling connecting the various PV parcels to the grid.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The approximately 85-hectare site included arable fields, previously developed land, a railway, nearby renewable-energy facilities and areas in flood zones 2 and 3.

“Planning Committee 29 July 2026 PA/SCR/2022/10: EIA screening request for a <50MW solar array and associated infrastructure – opinion given 09/12/2022 BESS site (including wider site) The BESS site and wider site includes several permissions relating to the sugar beet factory, as well as the introduction of a hydrogen plant in 2024 within the power station site which sits adjacent to the site to the east.”

“To the east are further arable fields and the River Ancholme beyond. To the south lies further agricultural open land before the village of Hibaldstow. The proposed BESS area, the northernmost plot of land within the red line boundary, comprises previously developed land which is mostly hardstanding. Part of this plot is allocated for ‘Proposed Industry – BRIE-1’ and a ‘Landscape Proposal – LC15-9’ within the adopted development plan.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because substantial renewable-energy benefits outweighed limited and temporary landscape harm, with technical impacts capable of mitigation through conditions.

“Planning Committee 29 July 2026 development in terms of character and appearance should only be afforded moderate weight in the planning balance. No other significant impacts are identified, with matters relating to ecology, highway safety, archaeology and construction all capable of being mitigated to low or negligible levels, through proposed conditions where necessary.”

“BNG has been demonstrated as capable of being provided above the statutory 10% requirement (currently shown as 86% for area habitats, 39% for hedgerows and 15% for watercourses). The most relevant policy in this case is DS21 which concerns renewable energy. Whilst there are identified conflicts with elements of other policies, the proposals should be considered in the context of the plan as a whole and other material considerations.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

An objector, the applicant and two local ward or council members addressed the committee about location, farmland, employment, traffic and renewable energy.

What members debated

Members debated whether the land was productive farmland, whether brownfield or rooftop alternatives existed, and whether the location was appropriate beside the highway.

“Councillor C Ross agreed with the objectors’ observations that the proposed site was good quality farmland, with a crop being grown at the site for the past 29 years. The crop was in fact being grown on the land at this exact moment. The claim that the land was unproductive was therefore inaccurate. The location of the site was also a concern, due to its proximity to the public highway.”

“Councillor C Sherwood was concerned that the proposed site was not appropriate for such a development, with there being many alternative sites/locations that the panels could be installed instead of a agricultural land.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to refuse planning permission was proposed and seconded, and the motion was carried.

“That planning permission be refused for the following reasons –”

Minutes