Sulhamstead solar farm plans rejected

Councillors vote against application to install 18,000 solar panels on agricultural land

PLANS to install a solar farm the size of 10 football pitches near Burghfield Common have been rejected by West Berkshire Council.

Mulbrick Clean Energy LLP proposed to install almost 18,000 solar panels on the 11-hectare site to the north and south of Stud Farm, Sulhamstead Abbots.

Twenty car parking spaces, an electrical substation and a 2m-high wire fence are also proposed for the site, which is currently used for grazing.

However, the plans were thrown out at a meeting of the Eastern Area Planning Committee last Wednesday when councillors defied the officer’s recommendations that the plans be given the green light.

Sulhamstead Parish Council, along with local residents, had mounted strong objections to the renewable energy site, claiming that the development would have an unacceptable negative impact on the area.

Concerns were also raised over the applicant’s ability to deliver the project, with objectors telling councillors that neither the applicant, nor the agent, had delivered such a project before – an accusation later refuted by the agent, Green Cat Renewables.

In their report, officers had said the application was in line with the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as well as the council’s own core strategy.

They concluded the plans were finely balanced but argued that the contribution to renewable energy generation, and the absence of suitable alternative sites in the surrounding area, outweighed the identified harm to the local landscape.

However, ward member for Sulhamstead, Keith Chopping, disagreed, telling the committee he could not lend his support to the application, saying he had a number of concerns, including the negative impact on the surrounding area and the length of time the solar farm would be in place.

“It’s going to be given ‘temporary’ permission for 25 years,” he said

“How temporary is 25 years?”

He added: “The main issue is the screening of the site – it’s not being screened.”

However Richard Crumley admitted he agreed with the officers’ recommendation, saying: “It’s a modest development, it’s not going to save the world.

“To me it’s a step in the right direction and something we should support.”

Alan Law (Con, Basildon) said that despite the NPPF and core strategy supporting such developments he proposed the committee object to the plans due to the overall negative impact of the site.

“It’s an industrial development in the wrong place,” he said.

“I think it’s overbearing.

“Our own website defines the copse next door as ancient woodland – we don’t do that to ancient woodland.”

All but one committee member voted to object to the plans.