Rural Cumbrian church allowed solar panels after years-long battle
Solar panels on a church have been approved despite concerns
A rural church has finally been allowed to install solar panels after a long running planning battle.
St Anne’s Church in Ings, between Staveley and Windermere, has been asking for permission since 2023 for the panels to cut energy costs.
But in 2023, an application for 28 solar panels on its roof was denied by the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA), with the Planning Inspectorate upholding that refusal.
Now, leaders of the church, which was built in 1743, have come back with an application to install a reduced number of solar panels, 22.
On August 5, the LDNPA’s planning committee gave their verdict on the scheme.
Officers had recommended it be refused again, despite there being fewer solar panels in the recent application.
A planner at the meeting described it as being a ‘relatively rare’ example of an intact Georgian-era church.
She said the solar panels would obscure the slate roof, being a ‘prominent, incongruous feature’ and it would detract from a Grade II* listed building and from its contribution to the Lake District world heritage site.
The planner argued the public benefits of the solar panels, including environmental benefits and support to a community facility by reducing its running costs, would not outweigh the harm.
A Ms Walker spoke in favour of the application.
She said: “The move towards net zero, carbon efficiency, the use of solar power and the attendant financial benefits from that use, as well as the environmental benefits, and also the financial repercussions for the maintenance of the building.
“With all due respect, (the officer) has not mentioned one element of the applicant’s case, which is that the money can be used to keep this building in good repair.”
Ms Walker said while the officers focused on the harm the solar panels would do to the appearance of the roof, church leaders would struggle to pay for the building’s upkeep without the financial benefit from the solar panels.
She added: “Maintaining the building is a fundamental problem in this case for a church which has a congregation of 20 people and is in a village of about 140 residents.”
Ms Walker said the church’s committee had been told it needs to find £70,000 in the next five years, and ‘being blinkered’ is threatening the conservation of rural churches ‘all over the country’.
She added: “Nobody in the course of the examination of this particular application has addressed their minds to how (the church committee) is going to fund what is actually necessary to keep the stone and mortar in place. It’s critical.”
St Anne’s already has a heat pump installed. Committee member Jackie Lancaster asked if that was sufficient to heat the church.
Dr John Hiley, church warden, said: “It is sufficient, but the question is paying for the electricity to drive the heat pump.
“Since the Ukraine war, and we’ve got another war going on in the Strait of Hormuz, energy costs have nearly tripled in the last five years. Accordingly, the electricity costs have increased.”
He said the solar panels would reduce their energy costs by ‘at least a third’.
Dr Hiley added the church was used regularly by the community, as well as for its congregation.
Committee member Peter Walter said the visual harm from the solar panels would not be visible from the A591 ‘or many other places’, instead being on the more ‘hidden’ side.
He also cited the ‘great deal of support’, including 44 letters, and 250 signatures on a petition.
Mr Walter said: “The letters of support are very heartfelt, detailed and specific. They are very genuinely supportive, in large numbers, of this proposal.”
He added the financial benefit would be ‘significant’, but recognised the visual harm that solar panels would bring, saying it was a balancing exercise.
Member Chris Southward said: “I have to admit I came to this application minded to follow the officer’s recommendation.
“But I’d now like to move that we don’t accept the recommendation, and actually propose that the application be approved.”
Member Jenny Boak seconded the application, saying the visibility of the solar panels did not outweigh the benefits.
Four members voted for the application and three voted against it, meaning it was approved, due to the harms being outweighed by the public benefits.