Solar farm with battery storage at Whistle Mead Solar Farm, Melksham

What was proposed

The application sought 40-year permission for a solar farm with photovoltaic panels, battery storage, substations, access works, fencing and ecological improvements.

“PL/2023/01914 Site Address Whistle Mead Solar Farm, Little Chalfield, Melksham, SN12 8NP Proposal Proposed temporary planning permission for 40 years for the development of a solar farm of up to 24.14MW of generating capacity, comprising of the installation of solar photovoltaic panels and associated infrastructure including customer cabin, customer substation, DNO substation and equipment, inverter and transformer substations, spare part container, associated battery…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site covered about 26 hectares of rural Grade 3b agricultural land, with 17 hectares developed, nearby homes, hedgerows and heritage assets.

“The subject site forms part of a large field located in open countryside on agricultural land classified as Grade 3, in the parish of Atworth, to the west of South Wraxall and the south of Little Chalfield. The site is bound by established hedgerows with a minor classified road to the east. The site is located within the Cotswold Countryside Character Area.”

“The application site has not been mapped on Natural England’s Magic Map 1 , however the applicant has submitted an Agricultural Land Classification Statement (produced by Abei Energy, dated March 2023), which concludes based on the findings of the Smiths Gore appraisal and current site conditions, that the entirety of the land is classified as Subgrade 3b on the agricultural land classification (ALC).”

Officer report

Earlier applications and changes

An earlier solar farm proposal was refused and dismissed on appeal, while this scheme was reduced, lowered and moved away from sensitive areas.

“PL/2022/00726 - EIA Screening Opinion for the construction for a solar farm on c.26 hectares of agricultural land for 40 years - The council concluded that the proposal would represent EIA development due to the cumulative effect of the proposed solar farm with existing and approved solar farms within 5km of the site.”

“It is therefore considered that the scheme now proposed has been fundamentally revised. The development occupies significantly less land and, while this results in a reduced level of energy generation, it also materially reduces the harms previously identified in relation to the earlier appealed proposal. In addition, the revised scheme incorporates safety measures in the event of a fire incident and improved biodiversity provision.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because revised design and mitigation reduced landscape, heritage, environmental and highway harm, while renewable energy benefits outweighed remaining impacts.

“In this context, the limited level of landscape harm identified is considered to be clearly outweighed by the benefits arising from the proposal, including the generation of renewable energy, contribution to climate change mitigation, alignment with national net-zero objectives, and the delivery of long-term landscape and biodiversity enhancements secured through planning conditions.”

“In conclusion, while the proposal would result in some temporary harm to landscape character, such impacts are considered to be limited, reversible, and capable of mitigation. The significant benefits of renewable energy generation, biodiversity enhancement, and climate change resilience outweigh the identified harms.”

Officer report

Consultees and public views

Several parish councils and many residents objected over landscape, heritage, traffic, fire, water, noise and cumulative effects, while consultees largely accepted conditions.

“Broughton Gifford Parish Council: Maintain objection in terms of cumulative impact, landscape, heritage, highway safety, noise, lack of connection plan, water safety, and how contaminated fire water would be removed from the site.”

“Whitley and Shaw Parish Council: Objection due to concerns regarding BESS fires, which are difficult to control, require vast quantities of water, and pose environmental risks unless a substantial on-site firefighting water supply and full firewater containment infrastructure are provided, such that any scheme lacking these measures should be refused.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Objectors, supporters, parish councillors and two unitary division members addressed the committee, presenting concerns about harm and arguments for renewable energy.

What members debated

Members debated the differences from the earlier scheme, grid connection, cumulative effects, panel height, fire safety, groundwater protection, conditions and restoration.

“Members queried the deliverability of the scheme, particularly in relation to the grid connection, noting national reports of delays in connecting renewable schemes and the weight given under Paragraph 168a of the NPPF to renewable energy. Officers reiterated that the applicant had secured a grid connection agreement at Norrington substation and stated that the separate application for the physical connection was likely to be successful.”

“Members also queried whether the assessment criteria used for cumulative impact was appropriate and whether infrastructure related to grid connections, such as cabling and substations, should have been considered. Officers advised that the scope of cumulative assessment was a matter of professional judgement, informed by NPPF guidance, as outlined on page 158 of the agenda pack.”

Minutes

The vote

The motion to grant permission was lost, followed by a motion to refuse based on landscape, heritage and cumulative impact concerns.

“Following a vote the motion to grant planning permission for the application was lost.”

“The proposal by reason of its size, scale and cumulative impact would result in a dominant and uncharacteristic form of development causing unacceptable visual harm to the landscape character and appearance of the site and the wider landscape setting. It would conflict with the need to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. This would conflict with policies CP42(i) and CP51 and CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission because the proposal’s size, scale and cumulative impact would cause unacceptable landscape harm and conflict with heritage policies.

“To REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:”

“Reason: The proposal by reason of its size, scale and cumulative impact would result in a dominant and uncharacteristic form of development causing unacceptable visual harm to the landscape character and appearance of the site and the wider landscape setting. It would conflict with the need to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. This would conflict with policies CP42(i) and CP51 and CP58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy.”

Minutes