Appeal 6000932

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of a solar farm and battery storage together with all associated works, landscaping, equipment and necessary infrastructure at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/24/1404, and the plans submitted with it subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Amended plans were submitted with the appeal including additional noise mitigation and track extensions alongside layout refinements to the solar panels, swales, and compound in field 1, two additional storage containers in field 7 and clarification on the footpath network. At the submission of the appeal the appellant carried out a consultation exercise with interested parties on the amended proposals.

The amended plans include some changes and new details compared to the scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage. However, the changes are not so significant that they would fundamentally change the proposed development or result in a substantial difference from that originally applied for. Accordingly, I consider the amended plans would neither cause procedural unfairness nor prejudice third parties’ interests, and I have determined the appeal based on the amended proposals.

A screen directive was issued on 9 January 2026 confirming that the project is not Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development. In light of the screen direction and my own assessment, I am satisfied that the project does not require an EIA.

A Statement of [name] (SoCG) has been agreed between the Council and the appellant which sets out areas of agreement and dispute. I have also had regard to the substantive representations made by interested parties who contest certain conclusions or factual assertions within the SoCG. While the SoCG serves to narrow the issues between the main parties, I have considered all the evidence before me including the concerns raised by objectors in reaching my decision.

Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick District Councils are working together to produce a new South Warwickshire Local Plan to cover the combined geographic area. [name] 2025, a preferred option consultation was undertaken on the emerging South Warwickshire Local Plan. The parties agree that the emerging Local Plan is at an early stage and carries no more than limited weight.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to landscape character, visual and cumulative effects.

The appeal site comprises 86 ha of agricultural land across 11 fields on rising land, in open countryside, between [address] and [name].

The appeal site is within national character area 96 Dunsmore and Feldon. Within the [name], the site is predominantly within the Dunsmore character area and [name] character type (LCT) with land partially within the [name] area and [name] where it is adjacent to [address].

The site aligns with the characteristic features of the [name] with undulating topography of low rounded hills and predominantly arable land. Field sizes vary and are enclosed by hedgerows that are fragmented in places. Where the appeal site flattens adjacent to the [address] the open hedged landscape of the [name] with wide road verges bound by thick hedges with some distant views to rising land are apparent. Notable nearby features include individual farms and residential clusters, with the settlement of [name] situated broadly to the north west.

It is common ground that none of the appeal site falls within a protected landscape, and that it cannot be defined as a valued landscape in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) terms. The Parish Council draws my attention to case law1, and I agree that landscape does not have to have a designation to be valued. I also acknowledge other planning appeal decisions discussed on this point in the evidence, but there is little before me to suggest I take a different approach.

I appreciate that the site is highly valued by those who use the footpaths and I have had regard to the [address] appeal2, however the appeal site is made up of farmed agricultural fields in a largely arable landscape, it is not distinctive or notably scenic. Although it has local recreation value and is adjacent to the locally valued trig point of [address], many areas of the countryside display similar 1 CEG Land Promotions II Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2018] EWHC 1799 (Admin) 2 Appeal reference APP/P0240/W/17/3190779 characteristics to the appeal site and the surroundings including the use and enjoyment by the public for recreation. I find the landscape value and sensitivity of the site to be medium.

Furthermore, the fields are larger scale, the existing defined boundaries of the fields provide some landscape containment and the proximity of the site to [address], means that most of the site is not especially tranquil or remote and the site therefore has a degree of resilience to change. Even though the landform rises to [address] and [address] where fields are smaller and more exposed, I am satisfied that the susceptibility of the landscape is medium rather than high.

Accordingly, based on what I have read, heard, and seen at my site visit I conclude that the site and its surroundings have a medium landscape value, a medium susceptibility to change and a medium sensitivity.

I have considered the interested parties’ argument for a five-point scale regarding the magnitude of change and sensitivity, but I am satisfied that the appellant’s four-point categories, supplemented by detailed narrative descriptions, provide a sufficiently robust basis for my assessment.

The proposed development would introduce development of an industrial character in to a currently open rural landscape. The proposed tracking solar panels with a specific geometric form across the arable fields, acoustic and boundary fencing, compound areas, the battery energy storage system (BESS), transformers, and internal access tracks, would alter the sense of place and would be features that would be discordant compared to the surrounding agricultural fields.

Even so, the proposed development has been designed to maintain the existing field patterns, retain existing trees and hedges, and supplement these. Footpaths would be retained on their existing alignment, and the ground levels and land form would be maintained. Certain fields on the higher ground would be left as open fields so that the most prominent and exposed parts of the site would continue to have a natural appearance. This approach would preserve the landscapes’ fundamental structure and accord with the management strategy for the [name].

The land would remain in agricultural use via grazing, and with the proposed gapping up of hedgerows and landscape proposals, the siting of development would be contained by the existing fields. Therefore, while the proposals would have a moderate adverse impact on landscape character at year 1, these initial adverse effects would diminish as mitigation planting matures and the development would sufficiently integrate into its surroundings so that the residual impact on the landscape would moderate to low adverse between years 5 and 15. The changes to the landscape would be long term for 40 years, but ultimately the development would be temporary and reversible.

The Council contends that the photomontages within the LVIA rely on distant viewpoints which under represents the actual magnitude of the developments visual impact on the immediate surroundings. However, the photomontages combined with professional analysis provided by all parties is sufficient to allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal’s visual effects.

The main concern of the Council is the impact on localised views from the public rights of way (PROWs) and permissive footpaths and the effect on nearby dwellings. The PROWs and permissive routes through the appeal site would be retained on their current routes. The footpaths are well used and at the hearing the interested parties described how these footpaths play an important part in the recreation of those living nearby. The Parish Council represented by Enplan, among other things, raises concerns about the effect of the development on more distant viewpoints. I consider these first.

The A425 is a busy main route (viewpoint 1) with grass verges and no designated footpaths. Motorists are receptors of low to medium sensitivity. Views of the proposed development from the highway would be transient and limited by established roadside vegetation. Adjacent residential properties would have views towards the development from upper windows but given the distance from the site and the intervening hedges and trees the development would not appear prominent or discordant.

The focus of patrons at the [name] public house garden (viewpoint 3) is primarily social. As such receptors have a lower degree of engagement with the wider landscape than those using the footpath network. From the pub garden the appeal scheme would be a small element of a wide panoramic view. Interrupted by land form and topography, its scale would be indistinct, and the effect of the development would be minor adverse.

Viewpoints 4, 5 and 6 are on recreational routes with receptors of high sensitivity. From these elevated viewpoints, the solar panels would be discernible as a new element on rising land. However, the panels would be on the lower fields, they would not break the skyline or obscure landmarks, and the development would not become a prominent or dominant focal point in these views.

As requested at the hearing, I specifically assessed the proposals from Reeds Park, where the end of the estate road affords open wide views towards the appeal site that are representative of the views experienced from the rear elevation of many properties within Ufton village. From these vantage points, the appeal site is perceived as part of a broad, panoramic rural landscape. The solar panels would be visible, perceived primarily as a tonal and textural change within the field. Due to the distance, the individual components of the solar infrastructure would not be prominent. Therefore, while the development would introduce additional complexity to the view and residents of Ufton facing the view are of high sensitivity, the magnitude of change would be low, resulting in a minor adverse effect on the visual amenity of these receptors.

Approaching the appeal site along the footpath from [name] (viewpoint 7), views through to field 9 are of agricultural land. The views are not far reaching because of the topography, but these views would be replaced by constrained, short-range views of perimeter fencing and solar infrastructure. At this key entrance in to the landscape the loss of the open view would be harmful and detrimental to the experience of users of the footpaths.

Short distance views would be gained from the network of footpaths that cross the site. Walkers, and other recreational users, who are agreed to have a high sensitivity to adverse impacts, would see the panels, CCTV cameras, fencing, inverter and battery stations, storage containers and access tracks when using these routes.

This would be so for the footpath between fields 8 and 9 that has open but not expansive views. Although spacious margins would be retained adjacent to the footpath, the development would be seen on either side of it for most of its length. The infrastructure would be a dominating feature of views from the footpath in year 1 with panels progressively softened as the proposed planting matures, but the enclosing effect would remain for the duration of the permission.

As the footpaths descend towards [address], the views over the fields are more expansive. Where the orientation of the path faces towards the valley some of these views would be retained, such as the higher parts of fields 3 and 7. However, most of the footpaths would experience solar panels within the immediate field of vision. Furthermore, except for fields 10 and 11, where the existing context would remain, solar panels would channel footpath users, in some places with solar panels to either side and in other areas footpath users would be channelled due to the panels to one site and the proximity of existing or proposed boundary hedging creating a restricted visual corridor.

In addition, between fields 1 and 2 the siting of the construction compound and the BESS would introduce a high density of infrastructure. Although views from the footpath at this location are not far reaching the concentrated industrial character would result in a notable albeit localised diminishing of the recreational experience for footpath users which would be only moderately offset by the landscaping proposed given the height and form of development here.

Regarding tranquillity, to ensure noise levels along the footpaths within the site are minimised, the scheme includes acoustic fences around the areas of plant closest to the footpaths and alongside the substation. The scheme also includes tracking solar panels with small motors used to move the panels.

The tracking panels would introduce an intermittent but audible acoustic presence within the local landscape. The noise would represent a perceptible erosion of relative tranquillity acting as a detractor for receptors moving through the site. While the effect would not be notable on the footpaths nearer [address] where road noise is audible, on the site’s west side in fields 8 and 9 where the site is more tranquil, the tracking system would reduce the sense of quietness diminishing the recreational experience of footpath users.

While it has been suggested that the landscaping itself would be visually harmful, I cannot agree, in general native hedgerows and trees tend to be viewed as positive features in the landscape because of their soft appearance, changing nature over the seasons, movement of leaves and branches and the likely presence of wildlife within them. It is also notable that the use of the fields for agriculture means that at certain times the level of containment along the footpaths would be higher. This was apparent on some parts of the footpath near to field 7 at my site visit. Therefore, while open views along the footpaths may be restricted or lost, the recreational value of the footpaths would, in the main be retained although the experience of users would be altered.

Looking beyond the appeal site, the further the viewer travels from the site on the surrounding footpaths, the more the development would recede, and the visual effects of the development would lessen. From viewpoint 8 while the panels in field 3 would be visible at year 1 those in field 2 would be largely hidden by the existing boundary planting.

Near to [address] the mature trees and hedges in this area already provide a good level of intervening screening and while solar panels may be visible, the changes to open views would not be significant and the effect of the development on the recreational experience of footpath users would not be harmful.

Overall, the solar panels and infrastructure would have a detrimental impact on the recreational experience of footpath users within the site through loss of open views from footpaths and the effects of the panel tracking system on tranquillity. The development would have major moderate adverse visual effects during the early operational phase on footpath users within the site which would reduce to a moderate impact following establishment of the landscaping between years 5 and

Beyond the site the effects of the development would progressively recede and would be much more limited, resulting in low adverse effects.

The Radford Semele Neighbourhood Plan (NP) (Policy RS6) highlights protected views from Valley Woods and [address]. However, the site occupies a minor portion of the wider panoramic outlook from these viewpoints. Existing boundaries and proposed landscaping would ensure the magnitude of visual change would be small. I am satisfied that the essential character and quality of these views would be retained in accordance with the policy test.

Regarding properties near or adjacent to the appeal site, some of these properties have windows facing the site from where the development would be seen. Nevertheless, while the rural aspect of the views would be changed, such changes would not detract from the living conditions within these properties.

Moreover, the proposed landscaping would, over time, have a notable influence on the extent to which the development would be seen from windows. Consequently, while the development would be experienced by receptors of high sensitivity, due to the placement of landscaping in the longer term the overall visual effect on surrounding residential properties would be of a minor nature.

The cumulative assessment focuses on the consented schemes at [address] Farm, Ashorne, and Eastfields. Other sites are excluded due to distance, intervening landform, and lack of visual intervisibility, and I see no reason to disagree. However, I included in my assessment the cumulative effects of the development with the existing Radford solar farm.

Reference is made to the [name]. The document identifies areas of constraint for solar development in Stratford upon Avon and acknowledges that there is some capacity for solar development within [name]. While the document recommends that development generally be small or medium scale, because of the development that has been consented in the meantime I have assessed the cumulative effects of the proposal based on the evidence before me.

I see no reason to disagree with the appellant’s assessment that the [name] farm is separated from the development by changed landform so that sequential, simultaneous or in succession views would be prevented and there would be no cumulative landscape effects.

The existing and consented sites at [address] and Ashorne, are within the same [name] as part of the appeal site and together would represent a notable land take near to [address]. While the developments would represent a physical concentration of solar farms, the schemes do not form a single mass. [address] itself, along with the railway line and the intervening open fields, provide a clear sense of physical and visual separation between the projects.

I am satisfied that the landscape possesses enough structural robustness because of its strong network of mature hedges and trees to effectively absorb these changes. This is because each site would mainly consist of solar panels of around 3 metres in height, and would be within its own established field boundaries, so that each development would remain sufficiently contained. This would ensure that the underlying agricultural character of the [name] would not be significantly undermined. The sense of an open rural landscape would not be changed, and the cumulative effects would be localised and minor adverse on the landscape as a resource.

From viewpoints within and adjacent to Ufton, the appeal site would appear as a background or recessed element relative to [address] and [name] farms sited on the flatter land in the foreground. Although there would be intervisibility between the sites to varying degrees from viewpoints within the village and its recreational routes, due to the distances involved, the placement of each development within the landscape, existing vegetation and proposed planting, the predominantly rural character across the valley would remain the dominant element in the field of vision in such views.

Furthermore, cumulative views from Harbury and [name] would be heavily restricted by distance and topography. Any intervisibility between the proposed development and other schemes would be highly filtered by intervening vegetation, resulting in negligible cumulative effects.

From the higher ground within and around the appeal site there would be some co-visibility with the Radford solar farm. However, the effects of seeing the two schemes together would be minor adverse because the extent of [name] farm is limited, separated from the appeal site by [address] and solar panels are set back from the road frontage.

With regard to the consented schemes, the topography, and existing vegetation would mean that views of [address] solar farm would be intermittent and filtered. There would be a small number of views (represented by viewpoint 5) where the solar developments would be seen sequentially or simultaneously by users of the footpaths on the higher ground. However, any combined visual effects would be localised and limited and would diminish as the landscaping proposed across the sites matures.

[address] is recognised as a historically significant roman route characterised by its linear alignment through the landscape. There is potential that on a relatively short section of the road there could be sequential views of solar infrastructure although the Council has provided no formal visual analysis or detailed evidence in this respect. As acknowledged in the LVIA and not disputed by the Council, visual receptors on [address] are receptors of medium sensitivity.

Travelling along [address], the experience of the existing and proposed solar farms would be intermittent. Due to the speed of travel, the intervening topography, and the presence of roadside vegetation the solar developments would be perceived as distinct and separate elements along the route. The pockets of solar infrastructure would be sufficiently contained that views from the road would not transform the visual experience of those using the route. Furthermore, the proposals would not undermine the historic linear character or the overall appreciation of [address]. Therefore, the cumulative visual impacts on users of [address] would be modest.

Overall, while the development would increase the presence of solar infrastructure in the area, the strong existing landscape structure and clear physical separation between sites ensure that the cumulative landscape and visual effects would be low adverse and would not fundamentally undermine the rural character of the area.

The proposed development once established would cause low adverse effects to the landscape character of the site. The development would cause a major adverse visual impact in views from the public footpaths within the site at year 1. However, the further away the viewer travels, the more the development would recede, and the visual impact would diminish. Harmful visual effects would also reduce over time as the landscaping matures, although effects on tranquillity would persist, particularly in fields 8 and 9. The visual effects of the development on surrounding residential properties would be of a minor nature. Moreover, the cumulative landscape and visual effects would be small given the intervening distances and the proposed planting.

Based on the above the development would cause moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area overall. While the scheme is designed to respond to the site characteristics, it results in a residual conflict with Policy CC2 a and b of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (Local Plan) due to the identified moderate harm. The scheme would also conflict with Policy NE4 where it seeks to ensure that development positively contributes to landscape character. As far as Policies DS3(a), SCO(j) and BE1(b) relate to consideration of landscape matters there is also conflict with these policies. My attention is also drawn to Policy B3 of the Local Plan, which although not referenced by the main parties, is similar in its effect to Policy CC2 where it seeks to protect amenity of residents and future users. Even so, as far as the policy seeks to protect the enjoyment of public places, I find some limited conflict with it because of my conclusions on the footpaths through the site.

Given my conclusions of the effect of the development on viewpoints RS6/5 and RS6/7 I find little conflict with Policy RS6 f) of the NP where it seeks to protect the essential character and quality of these views.

The Parish Council has drawn attention to Policy RS8 of the NP and Policy NE1 of the Local Plan. Neither main party finds that the development conflicts with these policies. Since the purpose of Policy RS8 is to seek improvements to footpaths, I am satisfied that it is not directly relevant to the proposals. Policy NE1 seeks to protect, enhance and restore green infrastructure to provide an integrated network. In this case there is limited conflict with this objective or conflict with this policy here.

Objectors challenge the appellant’s agricultural land classification (ALC) survey citing higher grades on adjacent land and crop yields. However, the site-specific ALC report identifies that of the 86ha site, 18ha is grade 3a best and most versatile agricultural land (BMVAL) with the remainder of the site grade 3b. Furthermore, the ALC classifies land based on its inherent, long-term versatility rather than its current management intensity or annual output, which can fluctuate. Therefore, crop yields do not automatically indicate a higher ALC grade. I have no reason to reach a different conclusion to the main parties on the level of BMVAL within the site.

The Framework at paragraph 187 advises that in making decisions the economic and other benefits of BMVAL should be recognised. The National Planning Practice Guidance advises that use of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality should be considered. National Policy Statements (NPS) EN-1 (Overarching Policy Statement for Energy) and [name]-3 ([name]) also indicate that applicants should seek to minimise impacts on BMVAL and preferably use areas of poorer quality land. Policy CC2 of the Local Plan supports renewable energy technology, in principle, subject to criteria. The policy criteria do not set out a requirement to consider BMVAL in preference to poorer quality land, although the explanatory text sets the expectation that it should be demonstrated that the use of agricultural land is necessary, continued agricultural use is allowed for, and where possible BMVAL should be protected.

No formal alternative site assessment was submitted with the application, but site selection is clearly influenced by the proximity and availability of a viable grid connection for which a formal offer is in place. Furthermore, most of the appeal site comprises grade 3b land which does not fall within the definition of BMVAL. [name] acknowledge the concerns about food security, there is no substantive evidence that the loss of 18 ha of BMVAL would be a threat to food security and the loss of BMVAL did not form a reason for refusal. Similarly, it is unlikely that sufficient previously developed land is available or usable for renewable energy purposes. I am satisfied that it has been shown that greenfield sites will be required if the UK is to meet its renewable energy aspiration.

Moreover, a planning condition would ensure the land remains in agricultural use through grazing during the development’s operational phase. With further conditions to protect the soil during construction, and to require site restoration upon decommissioning so that BMVAL, and indeed all the land, could be returned to arable use. On this basis, the proposed development would not result in a significant, unacceptable, or permanent loss of BMVAL, and the proposal accords with the Framework’s objectives and Policy CC2 of the Local Plan.

Reference has been made to the Lullington solar park decision, but this case is not directly comparable. Given the different scale and grade of agricultural land affected, it is not a persuasive precedent for this appeal.

Initial scoping indicated that the appeal site is in a landscape with several features and sites that can support biodiversity. Within 5 km there are eight statutory sites and eight Local Wildlife Sites. There are also ponds, hedgerows, deciduous woodland, traditional orchard, grazing marsh wood pasture, and parkland in the vicinity. These features can support several protected and priority species such as bats, breeding birds, great crested newts (GCN), and badgers.

Biodiversity reports and surveys supported the application. In general, these surveys conclude that the arable fields where the development would take place are of lower value to biodiversity whereas the periphery of the fields where there are margins with hedges, trees and ditches are of more value. The scheme has been designed to respond to the findings of the biodiversity reports and surveys by retaining features that support biodiversity, maintaining fields that would be seeded as meadow grass and setting development away from field margins and key biodiversity features, such as ponds. This approach would avoid impacts on protected species. The landscape planting would increase the size of the habitat available to many species. [name] explain in the benefits section there would be notable net gains in biodiversity. Impacts on wildlife during construction, especially GCN and badgers would be addressed by conditions.

Regarding ground nesting birds, in particular skylarks and yellow wagtails, the Council’s ecologist considers that with solar panels in place the fields are highly unlikely to be used for nesting by skylark, and this may also be the case for yellow wagtail. Despite this, the Council conclude that the number of individuals of both species using the fields is not high enough to give rise to any significant concerns over there conservation status within Warwick district. I have no reason to disagree with this approach. Furthermore, the open fields retained within the site would provide opportunities for ground nesting with the remainder of the site continuing to provide foraging opportunities.

At the hearing, the recently adopted Warwickshire Local Nature Recovery Strategy was referred to by interested parties. I am satisfied that its strategic objectives are entirely compatible with the site-specific biodiversity management measures proposed for the development.

Moreover, the submitted biodiversity evidence, secured by conditions, would provide a technically robust framework to mitigate ecological impacts and address the concerns raised by the Wildlife Trust. Overall, I conclude that the proposals would not harm protected species, would result in a biodiversity net gain (BNG) and comply with Policies NE2 and NE3 of the Local Plan.

In accordance with the statutory duty, I have considered the impact of the proposal on the setting of nearby heritage assets, including the Grade 1 [name] and Schedule Monument of Chesterton and the Scheduled Monument of the Roman settlement of [address]. My assessment of the nearby heritage assets is informed by the submitted heritage impact assessment, which sets out the significance of heritage assets, and my onsite observations.

Given the substantial separation distances and the intervening topography, I find that the significance of the heritage assets identified in the heritage assessment would be preserved. Consequently, the proposal would result in no harm to their heritage interest. I am satisfied that the statutory requirements are met and that the proposals comply with the Framework and Policies HE1, HE4 and CC2c) of the Local Plan.

The proposed access on to [address] would have visibility splays considered acceptable to the Council’s Highways Authority for the 60mph speed limit. While the development’s construction phase would involve a temporary intensification of road use and the potential for disruption to road users, such impacts can be effectively managed by condition based on the construction traffic management plan submitted with the application. Once operational, the development would generate a negligible volume of traffic. Therefore, the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would not be severe and the development would accord with Policies TR1 and TR2 of the Local Plan.

The technical evidence demonstrates that glint and glare impacts on residential amenity, highway safety, and aviation activity would be negligible. Modelling confirms that any reflections would be of low intensity and limited duration. Based on the technical data, I am satisfied that the combination of anti-reflective coatings and landscape screening would effectively mitigate these effects. Moreover, in the absence of substantive evidence that glint and glare would affect horses, I have no reason to conclude that the proposal would result in harm in this regard.

Regarding the status of the permissive footpaths through the appeal site, the layout plan confirms these routes as part of the development. While residents have applied to the County Council to establish these as formal rights of way, this is a separate legal matter. Any future change in the paths’ status would be governed by the relevant statutory requirements; it does not alter the layout before me or the landscape conclusions reached elsewhere in this decision.

The appeal scheme would provide an output capacity of 49.99 MW (AC) with a secured connection to supply 40.6 MW (AC) to the grid. It is estimated that the development would meet the equivalent energy needs of approximately 20,651 homes and displace roughly 13,954 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum.

The proposal includes a BESS with a capacity of 20 MW and utilisers single access tracker technology, which allows panels to follow the suns path and maximise energy generation. As highlighted in the [name] and the [name] 2030 Action Plan co-locating storage with efficient generation technology maximises land-use efficiency and grid stability by managing peak demand. These features ensure the development would be a cost-effective contributor to the UK’s energy security and the transition to net zero, directly addressing the national climate emergency. Furthermore, the scheme has been designed to ensure that degradation of the site’s output capacity does not diminish overt time.

At a local level, the proposal draws support from the [name] 2030 [name]. This programme seeks to increase renewable energy generation across [name] from a 2019 baseline of approximately 121MW to 730MW by 2030. This ambition stems from the declaration of a climate emergency by Warwickshire County Council in 2019. The appeal scheme would make a meaningful contribution towards these specific local targets.

Taken together the contribution to national and local renewable energy targets, the enhanced efficiency provided by tracking technology, the co-located BESS, and the direct alignment with the objectives of the action programme carry substantial weight.

The proposal would generate a significant number of temporary jobs during the construction and decommissioning phases, alongside a small number of permanent positions once operational. The development would also contribute to the wider economy and provide business rates over its 40-year life span.

[name] acknowledge that long-term operational employment is modest, the local community would also inherently share in the long-term economic benefits of a more resilient and affordable energy market and support the construction sector in the interim.

The proposal would provide a diversified income stream for the farm business, consistent with the Framework and, in principle, Local Plan Policy EC2. However, there is limited specific evidence before me to demonstrate the precise nature of these benefits, but I accept that on balance farm diversification would add to the overall economic benefits. Overall, the economic factors warrant moderate weight.

The scheme would deliver substantial increases in biodiversity net gain specifically 66.63% for habitat units, 66.72% for hedgerow units and 22.04% for watercourse units. This would be achieved through extensive new planting, and habitat creation, which would be retained following the future decommissioning of the site. BNG refers to an overall biodiversity improvement that goes beyond offsetting adverse impacts. Given the long-term ecological benefits, which would be retained beyond the life time of the development, I afford this matter moderate weight.

Regarding agricultural land quality; ceasing intensive arable cultivation would allow for improvements to soil structure and carbon sequestration. However, as the site would be seeded with a specific mix and the precise degree of recovery is not evidenced, the magnitude of this benefit remains uncertain. I therefore afford this matter limited weight.

The proposed sustainable drainage strategy includes swales to intercept existing overland flows and manage runoff. While this would provide a degree of flood risk betterment such measures are largely necessary to ensure policy compliance and manage the developments own hydrological impacts. Therefore, this is a neutral factor.

I have had regard to the various suggested planning conditions which were discussed at the hearing and considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have made such amendments as necessary to comply with those documents, for clarity and consistency, and to ensure that details are submitted for the Council’s approval where relevant.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring the carrying out of the development in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty. Conditions setting out the time limit for the operational period of the solar farm and its subsequent decommissioning and restoration, including were the use ceases before the term of the permission, are necessary in the interests of agriculture and landscape character. Since decommissioning can be effectively secured through a planning condition, a financial bond is not appropriate as it fails the test of necessity.

To safeguard cultural heritage, it is necessary to secure a scheme of archaeological investigation, mitigation, and recording. Because of the site’s position and the extent of development, conditions to secure a construction and environmental management plan (CEMP), an ecological and landscape management plan and the protection of hedges and trees during construction are necessary and reasonable in the interests of the environment and protected species, the living conditions of residents, and the safe and efficient operation of the highway. I have added in reference to the construction traffic management plan to the CEMP for clarity.

The management of the permissive footpaths within the site is necessary and reasonable in the interests of safety and amenity. For clarity I have changed the reference to the paths in the condition to desire line walked routes to correspond to the wording used on the layout and Landscape mitigation plan. To ensure operational and fire safety a [name] plan and details of water supplies for firefighting are necessary and reasonable. Conditions 7, 12, 13 and 14 are necessary in the interests of highway safety. Condition 14 has been reworded for clarity and to ensure the provision of the vehicle access during construction. Conditions to ensure the flood risk and drainage details are implemented, correctly installed, and managed are necessary to ensure that the site is satisfactorily drained, and flood risk is managed.

Details of the construction compound are required in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. The installation of noise attenuation and the restriction of lighting are necessary for similar reasons. A grazing management plan is necessary to ensure that agricultural activity is maintained on the site in accordance with the submitted evidence. The word ‘any’ has been removed from the condition as this is not precise.

For certainty and to protect the character and appearance of the area it is necessary to secure the specific height of the communications tower and details of the position of the CCTV infrastructure. The CCTV condition does not need to be pre-commencement; the condition has been amended accordingly. I have also imposed a condition covering external materials to protect the character and appearance of the area and to ensure the anti-reflective coating on the solar panels is provided.

Pre-commencement conditions are imposed to avoid adverse impacts during the construction phase and to ensure suitable detailed design is available before construction is commenced. The appellant has agreed to the form of these

For the reasons I have already set out, the adverse landscape and visual effects of the appeal proposal would cause moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area. [name] recognise that the countryside is of great value to those living nearby and using it for recreation, the adverse impacts would be relatively localised and not significant. Nevertheless, the conflict I have identified with the development plan leads me to conclude that the appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole.

Renewable energy is supported by government and local policy and is crucial to the objective of combating climate change and achieving net zero ambitions. In this context the renewable energy benefits of the scheme, taken together with the economic and BNG benefits described, are of a scale and nature that justify giving them substantial weight in my decision.

Overall, it is my judgement that the benefits of the scheme are substantial and are material considerations that warrant a decision other than in accordance with the

I conclude that the proposal would result in conflict with the development plan. However, I find that the material considerations cited outweigh the development plan conflict and the identified harm. I therefore allow the appeal.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following approved plans and the specification contained therein (notwithstanding any references to plans being preliminary or indicative): Site Layout & Landscape Mitigation Plan P21-0150_EN_10H [name] and [name] P21-0150_EN_26D Cable Trench Cross Section Fosse RE24_CS_GB001 [name] RE24_CCTV_GB001 [name]_EL_Comms_001 [name]_CS21GB001_04 [name] and [name]_RE24_DFNC_GB012 Fence and [name]_RE24_FNC_GB003 Internal Track Cross Section Fosse_RE24_Track_GB0011 [name] RE24_MS_GB001 [name]_MV_SKID_FSS_001 [name]_RE24_SAT_GB002 [name]_RE24_BESS_GB004 Spare Parts Building Details Fosse_RE24_SP_GB001 [name]_Sw_EL_001 [name]-01 [name] to [address] N150-05 [name] P21-0150_DE_001__01

The planning permission hereby granted shall be limited to a period of 40 years commencing from the date commercial electricity generated by the solar panels is first exported to the National Grid (the '[name]). Written confirmation of the [name] shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) no later than one calendar month after the first export date. At the end of this 40-year period, the development shall be removed, and the land restored to its previous agricultural use in accordance with details that shall have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA, in accordance with condition 22.

No development shall commence until: a) A Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for a programme of archaeological evaluative work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA; b) The programme of archaeological evaluative fieldwork and associated post excavation analysis and report production detailed within the approved WSI has been undertaken. A report detailing the results of this fieldwork, and confirmation of the arrangements for the deposition of the archaeological archive, has been submitted to the LPA; and c) An Archaeological Mitigation Strategy document (including a [name] of Investigation for any archaeological fieldwork proposed) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. This shall detail a strategy to mitigate the archaeological impact of the proposed development and shall be informed by the results of the archaeological evaluation. The development, and any archaeological fieldwork, post-excavation analysis, publication of results and archive deposition detailed in the approved documents, shall be undertaken in accordance with those approved documents.

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a tree and hedgerow protection scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The scheme shall include details of measures for the protection and maintenance of the trees and hedgerows within the application site for the duration of the construction period. The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved scheme of protection.

No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The CEMP shall include details of: (a) any temporary measures required to manage dust, noise, and vibration; (b) demolition or clearance works; (c) wheel washing facilities; (d) site working hours and delivery times; (e) restrictions on burning; (f) pollution control measures; (g) details of all temporary contractors’ buildings, plant and storage of materials associated with the development process; (h) construction transport management measures which should be substantially in accordance with the Construction Traffic Management Plan (August 2024) (i) ecological and habitat protection measures to be implemented prior to and during the construction of the scheme, which must be substantially in accordance with the avoidance and protection provisions contained within (a) the biodiversity management plan [January 2025] and (b) the ecological assessment report [September 2024]; and (j) a soil management plan (SMP) detailing the following: a. Measures to protect soils during the construction period of development with reference to the guidance found in [name] of Practice for the [name] of Soils on [name]; b. A works programme showing how all soil handling and trafficking operations will be undertaken and which makes allowance for poor weather/ ground conditions stoppages; c. Details of how construction activities will be managed across the site to minimise impact on soils; and d. Details of appropriate equipment and methods for stockpiling, re-spreading, and ameliorating of soil compaction in accordance with good practice techniques to minimise the risk of soil compaction. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved SMP. All works of demolition or construction shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved CEMP.

Notwithstanding the submitted plans and information, no development shall commence until a drainage scheme for the approved access works has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The drainage shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the accesses are first brought into use and maintained in accordance with approved details thereafter.

No development shall commence until a footpath access management plan for the construction period and operational lifetime of the development, has been submitted and approved in writing by the LPA. The footpath access management plan shall be implemented as approved and shall include details of: a) how permissive pedestrian access will be provided along the desire line walked routes as shown on the Site Layout and Landscape mitigation plan [name], such access to be provided from the [name]; b) the width of the desire line walked routes and the distances between the desire lines and any vegetation or fencing; c) the process for any necessary temporary closures of the desire line walked routes; and d) how the site will be operated to ensure that no security fencing shall be erected on or within 1 metre of any public right of way or desire line walked route within or adjacent to the application site during the construction period.

No development shall commence until a Landscape Environmental Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The measures within the LEMP shall be substantially in accordance with: a. the mitigation and enhancement provisions contained within the landscape management plan [September 2024]; b. the habitat management and ecological monitoring provisions/timetable contained within the biodiversity management plan [January 2025]; c. the mitigation and enhancement measures contained within the ecological assessment report [September 2024]; d. the planting provisions shown on Site Layout & Landscape Mitigation Plan P21 0150_EN_10H and [name] and [name] P21- 0150_EN_26D; e. The LEMP shall reference and set out how the development will deliver the biodiversity uplift in the [name] (September 2025); and f. The LEMP shall set out how any trees or plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within a period of five years on the completion of development shall be replaced in the next planting season with plants of the same size and species. The approved LEMP shall be implemented and maintained throughout the operation of the authorised development.

[name] (BESS) [address] to form the [name] shall not commence until a Detailed Battery Safety Management Plan (DBSMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The DBSMP shall prescribe measures to facilitate safety during the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the battery storage system. The Battery Energy Storage System shall be operated in accordance with the approved BSMP at all times.

The installation of the battery storage containers shall not be commenced until a scheme for the provision of adequate water supplies, necessary for firefighting purposes at the site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the battery storage units first become operational and shall be retained as such for the lifetime of the development.

No gates, barriers or means of enclosure shall be erected across a vehicular access within 6 metres of the public highway boundary. All such features erected beyond that distance should be hung to open inward away from the highway.

No structure, tree, shrub or plantings shall be erected, planted or retained within 2.4m by 215m visibility splays to the north and to the south along [address], as shown on approved drawing N150/05 [name], which exceeds a height of 0.9m above the level of the public highway carriageway.

The site access shall be constructed at the position identified on the approved drawing Site Layout & Landscape Mitigation Plan P21-0150_EN_10H in accordance details shown on N150-05 [name] and with the standard specifications of the Highway Authority and surfaced with a bound material for a minimum distance of 20 metres as measured from the near edge of the public highway carriageway prior to the commencement of any other part of the development hereby permitted.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (N150-DOC02-FRA-Issue 1, August 2024), and [name] (N150-FN05-Issue 1, September 2025). Thereafter, the surface water drainage infrastructure shall be retained as implemented for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the [name] of commercial electricity from the development, a [name] for the installed surface water drainage system for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Such report shall be produced by a suitably qualified, independent drainage engineer and shall demonstrate the surface water drainage system for the site has been installed correctly, based upon the approved Flood Risk Assessment (N150-DOC02-FRA- Issue 1, August 2024) and [name] (N150-FN05- Issue 1, September 2025). Where necessary detail any correction works and a timetable for their implementation shall be included within the verification report

Prior to the [name] of commercial electricity from the development, a management and maintenance plan for the installed surface water drainage infrastructure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The surface water infrastructure shall be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development.

Notwithstanding the submitted drawing Fosse_RE24_EL_SSC_GB001 and substation compound details shown on Site Layout & Landscape Mitigation Plan P21-0150_EN_10H, a detailed layout for the substation compound shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before any works to construct the compound begins. The substation compound shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and retained as such.

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use unless and until all external plant and equipment has been installed in full accordance with the following approved details: a) Noise assessment report prepared by LF Acoustics Limited (dated 30th September 2025, Rev. 2.3) b) Site Layout & Landscape Mitigation Plan P21-0150_EN_10H and [name] (drawing number P21-0150_DE_001__01). Thereafter those measures shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

No external lighting shall be provided on the site other than in the substation compound which shall be in accordance with the details approved pursuant to Condition 18. The lighting shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.

If the solar farm ceases to export electricity to the grid for a continuous period of twelve months, the applicant/developer shall notify the LPA in writing within 10 working days of the end of that twelve month period and a scheme shall be submitted to the LPA for its written approval within three months from the end of the twelve-month period for the removal of the solar farm and associated equipment and the restoration of the site to agricultural use or the development being brought back into use. The scheme details shall include: a programme of works; a method statement for the decommissioning and dismantling of all equipment and hard surfacing on site; details of any items to be retained on site; a method statement for restoring the land to agricultural use; timescale for the decommissioning, removal and reinstatement of the land; and a method statement for the disposal/recycling of redundant equipment/structures and any associated infrastructure. The approved scheme of restoration shall then be fully implemented within nine months of the written approval being given.

No later than six months prior to the expiry of this planning permission, a detailed scheme of works for the removal of the development (excluding the approved landscaping and biodiversity works) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The scheme of works shall include a programme of works; a method statement for the decommissioning and dismantling of all equipment and hard surfacing on site; details of any items to be retained on site; a method statement for restoring the land to agricultural use; timescale for the decommissioning, removal and reinstatement of the land; and a method statement for the disposal/recycling of redundant equipment/structures and any associated infrastructure. The scheme of works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and timescales.

Prior to the [name], a grazing management plan (GMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Within one year of the [name], grazing of livestock shall be implemented on the site in accordance with the GMP.

The communication tower shall be constructed in strict accordance with approved plan [name]_EL_Comms_001 and shall not exceed 15m in height from ground level.

No development above ground level shall take place until a scheme detailing the position of the CCTV infrastructure shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The CCTV infrastructure shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the external materials, colour, and finish of all built structures above ground level have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.