Solar farm at Stallington Sprink, Blythe Bridge, Stoke-on-Trent

What was proposed

The application sought a 40-year solar farm generating up to 30MW, with batteries, substations, cabling, fencing, access tracks and biodiversity improvements.

“24/38719/FUL - 4 1.15 Onsite cabling Cabling would connect the electrical infrastructure across the site. The cabling would be buried in trenches. Fencing and Security Measures Deer fencing would be constructed around the application site for health and safety and security reasons. The fencing would be high tensile steel wire with hinge joints, with mammal gates included.”

“Maintenance Tracks and Site Access Gate The maintenance tracks will be constructed within the fenced boundary of the site to provide access to the infrastructure by construction vehicles. The tracks will be designed to have sufficient radii for turning of the construction vehicles. Site access will be taken from the southern boundary at Saverley Green Road.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site covers about 69.21 hectares of agricultural grassland between Fulford, Saverley Green and Stallington, within the North Staffordshire Green Belt.

“Reason(S) for Referral to Committee Application 24/38719/FUL is a large-scale major application which is exempt from the Council’s scheme of delegation and as such needs to be determined by the Planning Committee. CONTEXT 1.0 Site and surroundings 1.1 The application site comprises of several fields, situated between the village of Fulford, and the hamlets of Saverley Green and Stallington. It also lies within Flood Zone 1, land with a low risk of flooding.”

“24/38719/FUL - 2 southeast direction across Fields 5, 6, 8 and 9, and the other in a southwest- northeast direction extending through Fields 12 and 14. Two Public Rights of Way (PRoW) are located within the application site; Fulford 12 and Fulford 15, both of which are Category C footpaths. The A50 lies around 0.5km to the north and extends between the application site and the village of Blythe Bridge.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier screening opinion concluded that the proposed solar farm was unlikely to have significant environmental effects and was not EIA development.

“24/38719/FUL - 44 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 23/37774/ESS - Screening opinion for solar farm. The proposal is not likely to have significant environmental effects and therefore does not constitute EIA development. Recommendation Approve subject to the following conditions: The Development hereby permitted shall commence no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while the Design Advisor and Ramblers raised concerns about public rights of way.

“24/38719/FUL - 36 SBC Design Advisor 17.04.2025 There is one specific topic area identified within the Design Midlands landscape report that was considered to be relevant and important to the scheme delivering a more acceptable and supportable proposal from a wider design perspective and which does not appear to have been substantively addressed by the most recently updated information, and this is revisited and highlighted below.”

“The quality and character of these routes are considered to be a key component in how the public and users of the site experience the landscape and quality of place, and while the scheme was considered to largely screen the PRoWs from the worst visual impacts of the panels through augmented or new hedgerows, it remains considered that substantive physical improvements to the 2 PRoW’s as they run through the site and connect to the wider movement network should be included…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor spoke against the application, two speakers supported it, and the Ward Member’s prepared statement was read aloud.

Members’ main concern

Members considered that the scheme would cause unrestricted sprawl, was not grey belt development and would be inappropriate Green Belt development harmful to openness.

“C Chamberlain, S Rocks and B Thomas spoke in support of the application. The Ward Member was unable to attend the meeting but had prepared a statement, read aloud by the Principal Planning Officer. Councillor S N Spencer proposed that the application be refused as the proposal would lead to the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas contrary to paragraph 143(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework and as such would not constitute grey belt land.”

Minutes