49.9MW solar farm at Hartley Bottom Road, New Ash Green

The site and surroundings

The 105-hectare site comprised a main solar site, a connection site and a cable route, with Green Belt, woodland, farmland and public rights of way.

“48 The site is traversed by a number of public footpaths which connect with rights of way though Ash, New Ash Green and Ridley and into the surrounding countryside. Toward the southern end, public right of way SD233 crosses the site in an east-west direction on the northern side of Ridley Wood. Two rights of way run in a north-south direction, crossing the site from Rectory Road (public rights of way SD307 and SD308).”

Officer report

Application history

The application was revised three times, including removal of battery storage and reintroduction of access tracks, and was subject to four consultation rounds.

“BACKGROUND 1 The application was submitted on 20 December 2024. It has been revised three times following this submission, firstly in May 2025 when revised and additional information was submitted responding to comments received in the first round of consultation. 2 The second revision followed the application being made invalid due to the absence of information within the application submission, including the description of development, relating to land re-grading works.”

“5 The third revision, publicised in November 2025, followed by a further amendment of the application proposal to re-introduce a number of access tracks traversing the solar farm (responding to comments by the Kent Fire and Rescue Service) and further assessment of noise impacts. 6 With each amendment, application details and technical information has been revised to account for the revisions.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because renewable energy, grid connection, biodiversity and economic benefits outweighed the identified harms, subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

“Delivery of large scale renewable energy generation, contributing to climate change / net zero targets – consistent with local and national policy and Government targets, including the NPPF’s support for the transition to net zero and the benefits of renewable energy transmission projects – accords with aims of Core Strategy Policy SP2 – substantial benefit / substantial weight.”

“616 On balance, it is considered that the harms identified would be outweighed by the benefits of renewable energy generation and long term energy security, biodiversity net gain and the economic benefits that would arise.”

Officer report

Public representations

Formal consultations received hundreds of objections concerning landscape, Green Belt, agriculture, biodiversity, highways, fire, pollution, rights of way, amenity and the proposal’s benefits.

“133 The reasons for objections are summarised below, along with the number of respondents raising that issue: • Visual impact on character of the landscape and rural area (including historic landscape, layout and scale) (416) • Loss of amenities for neighbouring residential properties (including noise, views, overlooking and general rural way of life) (380) • Contrary to Green Belt policy – the development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt / there are more appropriate…”

“Visual impact and rural character (146) • Contamination and air, water pollution / public health (137) • Inappropriate development in the Green Belt / land is not grey belt (131) • Fire risk / lack of response from FRS UK.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a speaker against the application, a speaker for it, a parish representative and local members.

Members’ debate

Members questioned grid connection, highways, contamination, fire, screening, farming, ethics, conditions, cumulative effects, water, flood risk, rights of way and landscape openness.

“Members asked questions of clarification from the speakers and Officers. The applicant was questioned regarding creating the grid connection from the development. It was noted that the New Ash Green Village Association owned the subsoil to the highways and would object to connections. However, the applicant had provided information that it was partnering with a Transmission Licensee who would have statutory powers as an undertaker to lay the connection.”

“At 9.10pm the Chairman adjourned the meeting for the comfort of all those present. At 9.25pm the meeting resumed. The Chairman moved onto questions of the Officers. Questions of the Officers focused on conditions, and Members were reminded that a number of the conditions had been proposed by the statutory consultees. Should planning permission be granted, if the applicant/operator were found to be in breach of conditions enforcement action could be taken against them.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to grant permission was put to the vote and lost, after amendments concerning a pre-commencement condition and an ethical-panel informative had been agreed.

“Members debated the application. Concerns were raised over the number of other approved solar farms in the north of the district. It was moved and duly seconded that condition 21 be amended to be a pre-commencement condition to ensure that there would not be any damage to the Landscape unless the project could be implemented. The amendment was put to the vote, and it was agreed. Debate continued.”

“The substantive motion to grant planning permission subject to conditions was put to the vote and it was lost. In their discussion, Members considered whether the application should be refused. However, it was noted that further legal advice and advice from consultants to review the robustness of the potential grounds for refusal would assist Members.”

Minutes