Somerset Council and developer clash as solar farm appeal begins in Yeovil
Public inquiry hears council and action group argue landscape harm outweighs benefits, while developer stresses national energy targets
A planned Somerset solar farm is “wholly out of character” and could deter people from visiting the local area, Somerset Council has argued.
Greentech Invest UK Ltd. put forward plans in June 2024 to build a solar farm at Mahe Farm on Chard Lane in the small village of Wayford, between Chard and Crewkerne.
The Milton Keynes-based applicant launched an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination – in other words, that Somerset Council took too long to make a decision.
The public inquiry to settle the matter got under way in Yeovil on Tuesday morning (February 10), with both parties and members of the Wayford Action Group presenting their opening arguments to planning inspector John Longmuir.
The site lies just north of Wayford Cemetery, a short distance from the railway line (served by South Western Railway services) and the Dorset national landscape (formerly area of outstanding natural beauty, or AONB).
The proposed solar farm will be built across several fields surrounding Chard Lane and Dunsham Lane, with access for construction and maintenance being created towards the northern end of Chard Lane.
The solar farm will cover around 26 hectares or just over 64 acres – the equivalent of 36 football pitches – and will remain operational for 40 years (though this could be extended through subsequent planning applications).
The facility is expected to provide up to 18,500 MWh of renewable energy each year – enough to power around 4,700 homes.
Sinead Davies, the legal counsel representing Greentech, said that the solar farm would play a small but vital role in the government’s push for secure green energy, and that the land could not be easily used for productive farming.
She said: “The essential background to this appeal is the critical and worsening global climate crisis, and the scale of the challenge faced by national and local authorities in meeting targets to address it.
“The government says that solar power needs to grow at pace, and that a once-in-a-generation increase in available solar energy capacity is needed. This is infrastructure that needs to be delivered urgently.
“While there are inevitably some adverse landscape and visual impacts, these do not amount to substantial and enduring harms, as claimed by the council.
“The slopes generate operational difficulties for modern machinery. The site presents considerable challenges for efficient arable farming; agricultural activity has been limited for many years.
“The public benefits associated with the proposal are substantial.”
Philip Robson KC, representing the council, said that the solar farm would have an unacceptable visual impact on the local landscape, which could deter visitors to the area and damage locals’ residential amenity.
He reasoned: “Our fundamental concern is the proposal’s impact on the landscape, including the impact on the setting of the Dorset national landscape.
“The site is presently a pastoral hillside, sloping south-east, and is strongly representative of the rural character of the wider landscape area.
“The proposal would be highly prominent within the landscape, and would introduce an industrial form of development which is wholly out of character with its location.
“The appellant fails to appreciate the quality and importance of the views obtained from within the Dorset national landscape and its setting, including the appeal site, which include well-trodden, nationally important walking routes and tourist destinations.”
Michael Feeney, representing the Wayford Action Group, said that national planning policy was in place to protect rural landscapes as well as encouraging renewable energy generation in rural areas.
He contended: “National policy does not mandate that there is a presumption in favour of solar farm development. There is policy support for protecting national landscapes and designated heritage assets.
“The impacts of the proposed development must be assessed in order to determine whether the harms outweigh the benefits – and in this particular case, the development would have a number of substantial harms which would outweigh the benefits.
“The proposed development would fail to conserve and protect the significance of designated heritage assets, and will result in the loss of a significant area of best and most versatile agricultural land for a prolonged period.”
Mr Longmuir is expected to undertake two site visits next week, and will publish his final ruling on the Planning Inspectorate’s official website in the early-spring.