Plans for large solar farm near Thrapston refused
The council say there's more appropriate locations for it to be built.
Last updated 4th Oct 2024
A large solar farm that would have been able to power up to 15,000 homes has been refused by the council after a lengthy debate.
The applicant, Wood Lodge Solar Project Limited, put forward plans to North Northamptonshire Council (NNC) to develop the green energy facility along the A14 near Thrapston and Titchmarsh.
The plans received 29 objections from members of the public, but were ultimately recommended for approval by council planning officers.
The site would have spanned across three fields measuring about 59 hectares and used for a temporary period of 50 years.
The applicant said the project would generate up to 49.99MW of power and make savings of 21,496 tonnes of CO2 annually.
At a meeting on Wednesday (October 2nd), councillors were told by the applicant’s agent that the need to address climate change and generate more clean home-grown energy is a “critical national priority”.
They said: “On Monday this week, the last coal-fire power station was closed, taking another 1,200MW of power off the grid at a time when electricity demand is rising.
“We’ve also seen more extreme weather across the midlands this week with flash floods shutting major roads, stalls, businesses and causing significant damage.
“Successfully tackling climate change and meeting growing energy demands without fossil fuels doesn’t need to be at the expense of nature recovery and farming.
“This proposal is very well planned and sits not in a protected landscape, but along the A14 corridor and it will work alongside nature recovery and farming.”
However, speaking in objection, Cllr Sylvia Prestwich of Titchmarsh Parish Council said: “We need to preserve our best agricultural land to grow food to feed our ever-increasing population.
"There are much more appropriate places to site solar farms.
“The visual impact of the solar farm will be considerable and will be easily seen from all around including neighbouring villages. The panels will be higher than the hedges and will totally spoil our rural countryside.
“The applicant states that this is a temporary project over 50 years- it isn’t temporary is it.”
No objections were brought by the Environment Agency and officers cited the 130 per cent increase in biodiversity on site and the continued use of it for sheep grazing.
Cllr Cedwien Brown said she thought the field should be used for agricultural farming purposes and said that the “devastation to the wildlife habitat would be irreparable”.
She added that the council should be lobbying central government to protect green spaces and put solar panels on commercial and industrial buildings instead.
Cllr Charlie Best spoke in favour of the application: “Is this ideal? No, it’s not. If I lived anywhere near it would I like it? No, I would not.
“But, there is a climate emergency and there is a great sense of urgency around creating our own green energy. It won’t be painless and it will always be a compromise.
“I think the summary that the officer made is that on balance the benefit outweighs the harm here. For those who are close to it, I understand that you won’t share that sentiment, but for me that is important.”
Going to the vote, the plans failed to get enough support from members to be approved and members began a lengthy debate on what reasons they would put forward for refusal.
After half an hour’s adjournment to get advice from officers, the committee returned tasked with finding strong reasons for refusal that they were confident would hold up, should the applicant appeal.
Cllr Elliot Prentice commented that he felt “brow-beaten” by officers on the item after many reasons other members put forward were ripped apart.
He vented: “The councillors over here who have given material application reasons for not accepting this application have got years of experience between them and I’m confident that they have got the understanding of what a material reason for refusal is.
“We have refused applications in the past and never had this much scrutiny from officers.”
Officers explained that they believed the harm to the visual amenity would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme and that they needed members to explain their reasoning further to stand up the refusal.
Chair of the planning committee, Cllr Wendy Brackenbury also admitted that she was finding it “difficult” to find solid reasons as the application was “very finely balanced”.
Ultimately, after 40 minutes of discussing their reasons, planning permission was refused due to the impact on the landscape and visual amenity and the loss of habitat in the Upper Nene Valley area.
The applicant will have the right to appeal the decision if they choose.