Tydd St Giles solar farm plan blocked and branded a “blot on the landscape”

Plans to build a new solar farm have been blocked, after they were branded a “blot on the landscape”.

Councillors at Fenland District Council refused to grant permission for the project to build the 49.9mw facility on farmland near Tydd St Giles.

The project, put forward by Pathfinder Clean Energy UKDev Ltd, had proposed to build the solar farm over 140 hectares of land, 66 hectares of which were in Fenland. The rest came under the jurisdiction of South Holland District Council.

The developer said the solar farm would only be in place temporarily, and that after 42 years, the land would be returned to farmland.

They also proposed sheep grazing while the solar farm was in place to continue some farming use on the site.

The proposals were presented to councillors at a planning committee meeting on Wednesday.

Councillors heard that South Holland District Council had refused to grant permission for the part of the solar farm in its area.

However, planning officers recommended the development for approval, as they said it would “contribute positively to environmental sustainability, by providing a significant contribution to renewable energy generation”.

Officers recognised there would be harm caused to the character and appearance of the area, and that good quality farmland would be taken out of arable production while the solar farm is in use.

However, they said: “Whilst it is acknowledged there are some matters that weigh against the development, it is considered that the identified benefits which would result from the proposed development, particularly the significant contribution of the proposed development towards addressing climate change, outweigh the moderate harm identified.”

The project had been met with backlash from some in the area, with 36 formal objections lodged against the plans.

Objectors argued the site was an “inappropriate” location for the solar farm, and raised concerns about the loss of farmland and the impact this could have on food security.

Councillor Brenda Barber, a ward councillor for the area, urged the committee to refuse the plans.

She highlighted that the councillors had supported a motion she presented to the council calling for the “preservation of the Fenland landscape and recognition of the area of Fenland as critical for food production”.

Cllr Barber argued that the committee “simply cannot approve this and keep the pledge” they made when they supported her motion.

She also said while the application was described as temporary, 42 years was a “significant” amount of time for the farmland to not be used for growing food.

Representatives of the developer spoke at the meeting and said the development of a solar farm would bring benefits to the area.

Callum Wright, planning manager, said an “intensive site selection process” had been followed to identify land where the solar farm could be built.

He explained that the Fenland area had been selected due to its grid capacity, and because the district had policies that supported the development of sustainable infrastructure.

Mr Wright said: “As well as bringing clean green energy to Fenland, we are also offering a community benefit fund of £349,000 to contribute towards local community projects.”

Luke Shackleton, development manager, said he came from a farming family and that he had “seen first hand the need for diversification in the rural economy”.

He added that the solar farm would also help with the UK’s energy security and create jobs in the area.

The development team said the impacts of the solar farm had been considered and that they had “worked closely to respond to community concerns”.

They said they believed that the benefits of the project would outweigh the impacts.

However, councillors on the committee said they did not agree and raised concerns about the plans.

Councillor Roy Gerstner said he was concerned about the amount of agricultural land that could be “taken up by thousands of solar panels”.

Councillor Charlie Marks said he shared this concern about the size of the proposed solar farm, and argued it could “easily go somewhere else” and did not need to be built on “good agricultural land”.

Councillor Ian Benney said the solar farm would be a “blot on the landscape”.

He added that the concerns shared by people in the area should be listened to. He said: “Unfortunately, this is not a city; if this were London, this would not have got this far.”

When a decision was put to a vote, the committee agreed to refuse the plans.

The developer can still lodge an appeal with the planning inspectorate to try and overturn this decision.