Dorset Council rejects revised solar farm despite local backing
Plans for a 44-acre solar farm near Maiden Newton has been rejected due to its impact on Dorset’s National Landscape
Plans for a revised solar farm at Cruxton, near Maiden Newton, have been rejected by Dorset Council, despite design changes and local parish support.
The scheme, proposed for 44 acres of farmland within the Dorset National Landscape, would have generated 10MW of renewable energy - enough to power more than 5,000 homes, equivalent to around 3% of the county’s households or a town the size of Blandford Forum.
Developers had sought to address previous objections following a dismissed appeal by the Secretary of State in 2022.
The new design included the removal of some panels from the northern section to create a picnic area, additional hedgerow and tree planting and wildflower corridors.
Even so, council officers concluded the project would still have “an unacceptable impact” on the sensitive landscape, an assessment the planning committee ruled.
Local farmer Anthony Warren dismissed the design revisions as “lipstick on a pig”, warning that the loss of agricultural land would “ruin the lives of many people around, including mine”.
He informed the council meeting that the site had produced 600 tonnes of maize for cattle feed this year.
However, the parish councils of Maiden Newton and Frome Vauchurch supported the proposal, saying it represented a meaningful local contribution to tackling the climate crisis.
Green councillor Belinda Bawden acknowledged the tension between landscape protection and the need for clean energy. “It’s a difficult decision,” she said, “but we have to move as quickly as possible to renewable energy.”
Developer Steven Bainbridge of Environmena, who lives 400 metres from the site, emphasised that the project would be largely hidden by new planting within a few years.
He added that the scheme would also create the equivalent of 63 person-years of employment and take advantage of a rare nearby National Grid connection.
Despite those assurances, councillors voted to refuse the application, arguing the visual and environmental costs outweighed the benefits.