Solar farm the size of 130 football pitches in Leicestershire given go-ahead
The farm will power up to 25,175 homes according to Melton Borough Council
A solar farm the size of 130 football pitches has been given the go-ahead.
It's after a councillor said it was “inevitable” it would be approved at appeal. But before RWE Renewables can build the farm on 214 acres of land at Pickwell, near Melton, it must wait for a second council’s decision.
The farm will power up to 25,175 homes, almost 700 more households than in Melton, which has 24,490 homes, according to Melton Borough Council.
Situated on two parcels of land separated by the A606 and owned by two different farmers, the site sits largely under Melton Borough Council's remit, with a small portion crossing into Rutland.
Rutland County Council has yet to decide whether to award planning consent for its part of the scheme.
The Melton Borough Council application had attracted 229 letters of support, against 53 objections, but had proved controversial.
The letters of support were largely as a result of a form given out to local residents by RWE, which led to accusations from an objector that supporters weren’t local, a claim refuted by both the company and the council.
At a meeting of Melton Borough Council's planning committee last night, members agreed the farm would be “dreadful” for views of the local countryside, but several claimed they were in a difficult position due to the likelihood of it being appealed.
Speaking to members, objector Jan McCourt criticised the canvassing carried out by a consultant for the company. He also said the land flooded regularly when the water table was high, and claimed the situation would worsen if solar panels were installed as they could damage underground drains.
Mr McCourt also criticised the planning officer’s report presented to the committee, claiming it was “misinforming members”. In response, committee chair Allen Thwaites defended the officers, saying they “have to follow the rules in all respects when they’re making these reports, it’s not their opinion”.
Ward councillor Leigh Higgins called the farm “industrial infrastructure and an alien feature imposed on open countryside”. He said it would be “fundamentally out of keeping with the rural character of this area”. Coun Carl Powell, of Somerby Parish Council asked members to refuse the application, saying it was against local and neighbourhood plans for the villages, which he said was more important than national planning guidelines.
But a representative of RWE defended the scheme, saying the farmland wouldn’t be lost, but would “work twice as hard” before being returned to agricultural use “in an improved soil condition” in 40 years’ time. He said “renewable energy is a national need, not a local need”, and claimed the benefits of the scheme outweighed any harm it might cause.
Coun Pip Allnatt, Melton Borough Council's leader, said it was “patently clear” that the farm would be “dreadful” for views of the countryside in the local area. He added: “All we’ve really got to decide is whether we view the damage that’s been done to the view and the general utility of the countryside, being able to go out in it and see it and hear the skylarks and so on, we’ve got to decide if that’s outweighed by the national policy.”
While Coun Elaine Holmes said: “I’m sorry for farmers that want solar panels for their benefit, but I don’t think this is in the right area.” Coun James Mason said he’s “agonised” over solar farm decisions for days, but said it would be “inevitable that this solar farm will get built on appeal”.
But Coun Holmes disagreed. “Please don’t think the door is totally closed,” she said. “It isn’t.” She urged councillors to vote on their “gut feeling”.
Coun Thwaites responded: “We need to make the decision very carefully, and if it’s going to be successful it has to be on the basis of a defendable position. I know the gut feel. We all have our own feelings on what we’d like to happen and not to happen.”
The committee voted in favour of approving the scheme, with six voting for and four against.