Solar farm at Land north of Lullington, Swadlincote

What was proposed

A 44-megawatt solar farm would occupy agricultural land, with panels, substations, access tracks, fencing, CCTV and related infrastructure.

“Proposal: The installation of ground mounted solar photovoltaic panels with associated infrastructure and works, including substations, converters, inverters, access tracks, security fencing, boundary treatment and CCTV at Land north of Lullington, Lullington, Swadlincote Ward: Seales Reason for committee determination This application has been called in by Councillor Wheelton due to local concerns raised about a particular issue.”

“The proposal The application is for the installation of ground mounted solar photovoltaic panels with associated infrastructure and works, including substations, converters, inverters, access tracks, security fencing, boundary treatment and CCTV. The solar farm would have a generating capacity of c. MW, which would equate to powering approximately 10,600 homes per annum.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 46.9-hectare site lies beside Lullington Road, north of Lullington, among fields, hedgerows, trees, waterbodies, homes and public paths.

“Overall, although Policy SD6 requires the presumption in favour of renewable and low carbon development to be balanced against wider environmental and social considerations, and Policy BNE5 requires that development will not unduly impact on landscape character and quality, biodiversity, best and most versatile agricultural land, and heritage assets, it is considered that the negative aspects of the scheme would not outweigh the broader benefits that the energy development…”

“90.00m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) to the east of Lullington Road and drops to the south-west and north-east. The site is located within flood zone 1 (low risk of fluvial flooding), however there are small areas of surface water flood risk within the site (including around the ponds). The site is located within the catchment area for the River Mease, with the SAC and SSSI c. 1.7km to the south. There are two tributaries located in proximity to the site: West Brook, c.”

Officer report

Earlier application and appeal

A larger solar farm was refused, and its appeal was dismissed because of harm to best and most versatile agricultural land.

“The proposed development would result in the loss of 10.5 hectares of Grade 2 and 23.1 Grade 3a best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land, which amounts to 48% of the total site surveyed being taken out of active food production for up to 40 years as a result of this proposal. The loss and impact of losing this extent of BMV agricultural land is not considered to be outweighed by the renewable energy and biodiversity benefits arising from the proposed development.”

“The reasons for refusal were considered by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in a subsequent appeal (ref. APP/F1040/W/22/3313316) via a Hearing in April 2023. In the appeal decision, the Inspector found that the impact of the scheme on landscape character and visual amenity would be within acceptable tolerances and that the proposal would not harm historic assets. This means that reasons 2 and 3 of the LPA decision notice were not upheld.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because renewable-energy, biodiversity and National Forest benefits outweighed the scheme’s environmental and agricultural effects.

“Significant weight is attributed to the contribution that the scheme would have towards renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure and the net zero future, as per paragraph 168 of the NPPF. Additionally, material considerations weighing in favour of the development comprise: provision of significant BNG in exceedance of mandatory requirements, with the proposal resulting in a net gain of +44.74% habitat units and +15.94% hedgerow units through various measures including…”

“On balance, although Policy SD6 requires the presumption in favour of renewable and low carbon development to be balanced against wider environmental and social considerations, and Policy BNE5 requires that development will not unduly impact on landscape character and quality, biodiversity, best and most versatile agricultural land, and heritage assets, it is considered that the negative aspects of the scheme would not outweigh the broader benefits that the energy…”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Statutory consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while parish councils, organisations and residents mainly objected to farmland, landscape, ecology, traffic and amenity impacts.

“Initial Response No objections. Notes that the previous application DMPA/2021/1014 was refused on the basis of non-highways reasons. Confirms that the proposed access arrangements are acceptable subject to Section 278 Technical Approval. Conditions recommended for construction traffic management due to limited width of some sections of the proposed routing.”

“Peak and Northern Footpaths Society Objection. Disagrees with the conclusion of the Inspector who decided the appeal to the previous application on the effects of the development on users of Footpath 1, noting that the gently rolling farmland with views of field hedgerows and woodlands would be replaced with, at best, enclosing hedges, and (at worst) in winter and until the hedges grew large enough to act as screens, an alien landscape of solar panels.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

An objector, the applicant’s agent and the local ward member addressed the committee; the ward member spoke for residents.

What members debated

Members raised concerns about visual impact, best and most versatile agricultural land and biodiversity.

“As Local Ward Member, Councillor A Wheelton addressed the Committee and raised concerns on behalf of residents, which included the loss of livelihood for the tenant farmers, the economic loss to the area, non- compliance with Nation Forest Policy, the impact on biodiversity, highway concerns and the loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land.”

“Members considered the Application and raised concerns regarding visual impact, the loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land and the impact on biodiversity…”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused planning permission, contrary to the officer recommendation, because losing best and most versatile agricultural land conflicted with Policies BNE4 and BNE5.

“That planning permission be refused contrary to the recommendations in the report of the Executive Director – Place and Prosperity due to the loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land and was contrary to Policies BNE4 and BNE5”

Minutes