Solar farm plans rejected in Northumberland
Controversial plans to build a solar farm in the Northumberland countryside have been turned down by council planners.
The proposals would have seen 256 solar panels built on land east of West Chevington Farm near Hadston. Council planners had recommended the proposals for approval, despite 18 objections submitted by local residents.
However, the council’s heritage officer felt that the solar farm would cause harm to the adjacent West Chevington Farm House, which is grade II listed. In an objection to the plans, heritage officers wanred the solar panels would appear “incongruous” next to the farm house which had been “well-preserved”.
While council planners felt that the public benefit of the scheme outweighed the “less than substantial harm” caused to the listed building, councillors on the Castle Morpeth Local Area Planning Committee disagreed.
Speaking after the meeting, local ward councillor David Towns said: “My view was that the heritage officer had expressed some concerns about the proximity of the development to a heritage asset, namely the farm house.
“The planning officers had decided that the public benefit from this small-scale solar project outweighed the harm done. At the meeting I asked whether this was due to a statutory measurement, or if it was a matter of opinion – and was told it was an opinion.
“As a committee, we felt there wasn’t sufficient public benefit to outweigh the harm done to the farmhouse.”
The land has been used as a service area for construction workers completing a conversion of the former farm buildings into nine houses since 2017. The solar farm would have provided power for those properties, which are a mixture of homes and holiday lets.
Planning documents say the project would have “effectively take the dwellings off grid” for electricity. Furthermore, the scheme would also have been able to supply three additional dwellings on the northern side of the C114 road – but these have yet to be constructed.
The reason for refusal published by the council stated: “The proposed development represents less than substantial harm to the adjacent heritage asset. No public benefits have been demonstrated that outweigh this level of harm, with the local planning authority considering the benefits would be private to the applicant.”