Gloucestershire solar farm plans turned down

The plans were rejected because prime agricultural land would be lost

Plans to build a large solar farm, capable of powering 14,000 homes, have been rejected by councillors.

Developers Elgin Energy EsCo Ltd said building the farm on more than 173 acres of Forest of Dean land would help them reach a net zero target.

Despite it being a renewable energy scheme, the district council voted against it because of concerns about the impact on the environment.

The authority also said too much prime agricultural land would be lost.

The development was being proposed for land to the south of Murrells End in Hartpury.

Forest of Dean District Council added the energy firm had failed to prove protected species such as bats, dormice and great crested newts would not be affected by the solar farm.

'Significant impact'

Robert Wolfson, of Rudford and Highleadon Parish Council, told the development management committee the council is not opposed to solar farms on principle.

However, he explained how the proposals by Elgin Energy EsCo Ltd did not meet national or local criteria.

He said the site would have a significant impact on the landscape of the area and historic buildings, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

Hartpury parish councillor Mark Clarke also spoke against the proposals.

He said the solar farm would be on prime arable land which is of "paramount importance" and the access site via a single track C-road posed a traffic hazard.

The scheme would have produced enough electricity for 14,000 homes

Ward councillor Philip Burford said the proposals would have a visual impact on the landscape and for public rights-of-way users.

"Using this for the location of a solar farm is a significant harm which should carry great weight for members. As a sheep farmer I find it very difficult to see how sheep could graze under the panels in a realistic way."

'Land loss temporary'

Richard Boother, the applicant's planning agent, called on the committee to approve the scheme and said the imperative of tackling climate change outweighed the limited harm of the proposals.

The loss of prime agricultural land there would be temporary, he added.

"The benefits of the scheme in terms of meeting net-zero carbon target and reducing greenhouse gas emissions should carry more weight."

A total of 10 councillors voted in favour of refusing the application, with one against and one abstention.