Appeal 6001477

The appeal is dismissed.

Minor amendments to the site layout were proposed at appeal submission stage, regarding alignment along historic lost hedgerows, extending the proposed permissive footpath route, adding information boards, relocation of the hybrid inverter containers, and additional orchard tree planting. These do not evolve the main parameters of the scheme, and all parties had the opportunity to comment upon them, with this layout forming the basis of that discussed at the hearing session. No parties would be prejudiced in the interests of natural justice in accordance with the substantive and procedural tests of the Holborn Studios Ltd judgement, and so I have used this version as the basis of my determination.

Late evidence was provided to me shortly prior to and at the hearing by the main parties, some at my request, and all of which I accepted as being relevant and not having been possible to be submitted in accordance with the standard timeframes. No party raised any objection to this approach in writing or at the hearing session, such that again I find no-one would be prejudiced.

Many of the objector representations refer to regularly walking a circular route, along [address] and around past [name] and back along [address]. This includes travel across private land, which the hearing clarified has no permissive agreement in place. For the avoidance of doubt, my consideration therefore does not take into account any public use of this land.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site covers approximately 66 ha and comprises a number of agricultural fields to the north of the village of Morton, plus an existing access off the B6014. It partially wraps around the buildings of [address], with a railway line to its north and [name] to its east. It is bisected by the historic route of [address]. Leading out from Morton it forms an unclassified road, and becomes a bridleway PROW after the access track to [address].

The proposal is for a 49.9MW solar farm and 50MW battery energy storage system facility (BESS), a 132kV substation, and ancillary works and landscaping including new public open space and permissive route. It would be operational a for a period of 40 years before removal, excepting the substation which would be permanent

Policy SDC10 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2014-2034 (‘the LP’) is permissive towards proposals for the generation of renewable energy, subject to several criteria. The proposal would also fall under the LP Policy SS9(1) category (h) as it would be in a countryside location outside the Settlement Development Limits, and would have a demonstrable community and/or social benefit. Again, this support is subject to the range of criteria specified in part (2) of SS9. On this basis, the development plan does not rule out solar farms in the countryside in principle, and indeed a countryside location would be expected due to the proposal’s scale requiring sufficient land to be available.

There are no national or local landscape designations on the site or within the surrounding area. The parties agree the landscape is not a ‘valued landscape’ under the National Planning Policy Framework ('the Framework') (2024) paragraph 187(a) definition. Paragraph 187(b) instead applies, whereby decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The LP Figure 8.2 identifies that the appeal site lies outside of the Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES) referenced in its Policy SDC3(2), which are considered to be the most sensitive areas of landscape and most likely to be negatively affected by change or development. These areas are based upon three key indicators of ecology, historic landscape environment, and visual unity. The Derbyshire Spatial Energy Study (SES) aims to provide a spatial assessment of opportunities for energy development. It identifies that the site lies within a ‘[name] location, being one with minimal constraints for this type of energy development. [name] areas are in the minority across the District compared to higher constrained areas including the National Park and Green Belt.

On this basis, the appeal site holds less value and sensitivity than other large extents of the District as a whole. I ascribe positive weight to this in my Other Matters section. Nonetheless, the [name] 6.2.1 identifies the importance of noting that it is a high-level study seeking to define more or less constrained areas, and that site specific analysis is required to confirm the suitability of the site.

Therefore, further differentiation within the [name] area is still possible and necessary to identify areas which are more or less suitable for solar farms. The range of submitted appeal decisions also indicates that solar farms are not entirely precluded within areas of specific control such as Green Belt or adjacent to heritage assets, which would therefore include the SES ‘Constrained’ or even ‘[name] areas, and AMES. In making my judgement, I find the site specific factors I discuss below to hold more weight than these broad categorisations.

Morton originated as a rural village clustered around the church, with rapid eastwards expansion along the main road on account of the pit opening in 1865. The village was a focus of the coal mining industry for over a hundred years, including opencast mining within its hinterland. This included land to the north of the village on and around the appeal site. The countryside around the settlement therefore makes an intrinsic contribution to the setting of the village.

The Derbyshire Landscape Character Assessment locates the site within the Character Area 38: Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and [name] 1, within which it lies within the Coalfield Village Farmlands Landscape Character Type 2 (LCT). This is a broad industrial landscape characterised by villages, dairy farming and small woodlands. Its key characteristics include a gently undulating landform with towns and villages on ridge lines surrounded by remnant medieval strip fields, dairy farming with pasture and localised arable cropping, woodland and linear tree-belts, and dense watercourse trees and scattered hedgerow trees. It includes a network of small irregular lanes, and villages comprise ribbon development of sandstone buildings expanded by red brick terrace housing.

These characteristics are evident within and around Morton, with industrial infrastructure also characterising the landscape. This includes existing solar farms, pylons, and clear evidence of former coal mining and industry including the colliery tip, linear woodland planting, and heritage reminders around the village. Three solar farms lie to the north covering approximately 27 ha in total, being 5MW schemes approved in 2015 by the Council 3. One abuts the appeal site, one lies north of an intervening woodland belt, and the other lies beyond the railway and its woodland belt. These influence the baseline landscape character.

Development of the appeal proposal would involve a significant extent of new hedgerows and trees with smaller field sizes. This would align with the planting and management guidelines in the [name], and would also provide a stronger sense of physical and visual containment. The appellant argues that all the key LCT characteristics, and the layout and architecture of the village buildings within their rural landscape context, would remain and prevail.

However, the form, layout, and colour of the panels would not be typical of this rural landscape character. The context of a large extent of open fields would change to fields containing expansive and uncharacteristic industrial structures, despite any ongoing grazing activity. Solar arrays would become a defining characteristic of the landscape, which would be thus subject to fundamental change. This would erode the experience and perception of this landscape, and reduce its legibility. 1 National Character Area Profile: 38 Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and [name] 2 Derbyshire County Council Part 1: [name] – 4. Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and [name] 3 NED/15/00307/[address]; NED/15/00751/[address]; NED/15/00224/[address]

Moreover, although hedge heights are not referenced in the LCT and vary across the area, the evidence before me including from my extensive site visit suggests that the proposed standard 3m height would not be generally typical. I consider this impact on the Public Right of Way (PROW) later in my reasoning. Over time this would also partly merge into the canopies of many of the specimen hedgerow trees, thereby losing their current shapes and reducing their contribution to landscape character.

The appellant considers that the actual visual envelope and the degree to which the proposal would be seen from the surrounding area would be very limited. However, directly adjacent to the site the Morton colliery tip rises up approximately 20m to 30m, formed from the former coal workings spoil.

The majority of the tip is owned by Derbyshire County Council and leased to the Mining Remediation Authority on a 50 year term expiring in March 2029. Most is allocated in the LP as a Local Wildlife Site, and comprises publicly accessible footpaths crossing wooded and scrubland slopes. The County Council also owns the woodland to the east, and has leased the playing fields to the south to the Parish Council until 2049. The Mining Remediation Authority owns the uppermost part which is fenced off from public access, containing lagoons and the mine shaft which was capped in 2025, and this ownership extends to the south and east.

The County Council has confirmed its intent to continue to manage its land to keep it safe and beneficially accessible, and to engage with the local community to deliver woodland management. No formal agreement is in place for future colliery plans and leasehold, with the Mining Remediation Authority working through technical matters to determine their land requirements and potential social value proposals. This includes discussions with Morton Parish Council, which aims to develop a memorial garden on the eastern section.

Nonetheless, it is clear that the colliery tip holds evident value and is well-used at present, as described in the numerous resident representations. The location adjacent to the playground and playing fields allows for direct access, and circular walks in conjunction with routes around the base and adjacent woodland. Higher vantage points naturally draw people up to enjoy long range views, and this is the highest point identified in the vicinity.

The top colliery footpath is not a PROW and does not appear on [name] mapping, but due to the extent of its use I consider this only suggests a very minor downgrade of its importance when considering the visual impact. It is also not a regional viewpoint to the extent that tourists would be expected or encouraged, such that there is little need for [name] mapping to identify it as a viewpoint. Neither this nor the lack of any specific viewpoint indication in the LP indicates to me any downgrade of its local scenic value.

The presence of the engineered colliery tip and the fenced off lagoons is a very apparent relic of the village’s coal mining heritage. The Parish Council’s memorial bench on top commemorates the 55 local men who died as a direct result of that history; “[name] 1865 -1965, In memory of all who lost their lives at [address] and think of them.” The bench faces the village church with the regional landmark of [name] on the horizon behind. It is a contemplative location.

Despite this choice of bench direction, the experience is not static. When sitting on the bench, people enjoy a wide angle view which takes in the appeal site. It is also very apparent in forwards and wider views when naturally progressing around the uppermost path, despite the filter effect of the existing trees. Further tree screening may occur naturally or may be sought by encouraging growth on the northern slope, but this is outside of the appellant’s control and so cannot be relied upon, particularly in light of the value ascribed to this view by local residents.

These views tie the countryside, village, and colliery tip and its history together, placing it within and giving value to its local and regional landscape context. Site restoration across this area was completed in the early 1990s, such that with over 20 years of management and vegetation growth, the coal landscape of the appeal site has been visually restored. The appellant suggests it therefore now has very limited associated time-depth. However, the appreciation and value of the land’s restoration as part of its industrial legacy is evident in many resident representations, as being part of their collective memory and identity. [name] identity would be fundamentally changed, because the appeal proposal would be seen as a significant modern industrial expansion of the village, notwithstanding the intervening proposed orchard.

In northward medium range views from the colliery tip, the solar panels would fill almost every existing open field to the west of the railway. The existing and new hedgerows would provide some mitigation in breaking up the overall mass, with future growth screening some of the panel rows in each field. The BESS units and the sub-station would be less visible due to screening and distance. The proposal’s eventual removal would temper the harm, as would the retention of the additional green infrastructure after decommissioning. Nonetheless, the elevation of the colliery tip footpaths means that the overall extent would be highly evident for the 40 years.

In contrast, the recent [address] dwellings read as a natural extension to the settlement. They are a sufficiently different context such that despite their permanence, and their impact on the previous view, I see no direct justification for the appeal proposal now arising from that development.

I agree with the main parties that the year one visual effect from the colliery tip would be Major adverse. The appellant considers this would be negligible by year 15, but instead I concur with the Council that this Major adverse effect would remain for the proposal’s operational lifetime. I find there would be a Moderate/Major landscape effect on the site and its immediate environs, and a Moderate effect on its wider environs within the Coalfield Village Farmland landscape. As such, the proposal would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

[address] lies along a gentle ridge and links the settlements of Morton and Pilsley, connecting to a wider network of footpaths to the east. It is bounded by hedgerows including scattered hedgerow trees. Views along the route in both directions are varying and intermittent, and at close to medium range encompass vistas of agricultural fields, [address] buildings, the railway woodland belt, the edges of the Morton dwellings, and the line of pylons. The existing solar panels are visible but are very low level at this distance, lower than the tree belt behind.

Expansive medium and long range open views are also possible. This is particularly at those extents where the route is banked slightly higher than the adjacent fields, through the several field gates, and where the path widens out at the junction to [address]. A medium range views is also evident before leaving the built form of the village. These vistas encompass the scattered hedgerow trees breaking the skyline, the colliery tip, and rolling farmland and woodland and settlements on higher ridgelines. [name] at [name] and the Church of [name] at [name] function as distant landscape landmarks.

The parties agree that there would be a Major adverse visual effect on receptors from [address] and the PROW at year 1. As existing and new hedgerows mature post-construction, the majority of the built infrastructure would be screened from view. The appellant identifies an overall visual effect reducing to Negligible at year 15 on this basis.

However, I agree with the Council’s position that the hedgerows themselves would have a harmful impact. Although not development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, they are an integral element of the proposal, such that their effects can still amount to material planning harm. The new visual experience along [address] for walkers and horse riders would be a tunnel effect bounded at relatively close range by 3m high hedgerows for approximately 650m. Along the PROW section, the existing hedges would remain but new hedgerow would be planted at a set back behind them, also creating a somewhat unusual avenue form in this context. The experience in both directions of leaving the village, and of entering the flat landscape after coming up the steps from the railway path, would be a greatly foreshortened view, directed and enclosed only along the route itself.

The thickness and height of existing hedgerows will vary seasonally and over longer periods, as could the height of crops in the fields. The extent of some long range views may vary over months or even years due to vegetation growth and management. Nonetheless, it is that very cyclicity and variance in natural features and seasons which engages communities with nature and the countryside, drawing people across the year, and creating interaction and anticipation. Restricting these views for a period of up to 40 years under the appeal proposal would go far beyond this anticipation, and the lived experience of how these hedgerows and fields have been historically managed. It would erode visual connectivity to the wider landscape character.

The range of representations made by Morton residents identify the importance, popularity, and value of the historic [address] link as a recreational route. Indeed, this is reflected and encouraged by the direct pedestrian/cycle link on [address] housing development’s northern boundary.

Residents also identify that [address] is the only surfaced route allowing access into the countryside which can accommodate persons with wheelchairs and prams, notwithstanding it is uneven and with a grassed centre strip. Numerous representations particularly highlight that there is no longer a bus service through Morton, such that local access to the countryside has become even more important in its role for everyday wellbeing, exercise, and physical and mental health. This is especially for persons without access to a car, who disproportionally comprise the elderly and people with disabilities.

On this basis, in exercising my function on behalf of a public authority I particularly need to consider the impact on persons with protected characteristics of age and disability as part of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in s149 of the Equality Act 2010. I have considered the three equality aims set out the Act; the need to eliminate discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity, and to foster good relations between people with a protected characteristic and those without. It is my duty to seek to achieve these where possible.

The harm I have identified would particularly impact on the enjoyment of the countryside and the benefits of exercise and mental wellbeing for persons with the protected characteristics of age and disability, because they cannot easily achieve this elsewhere locally. In paying due regard to the PSED aims, I find that the impact of the proposal on persons in these groups would not be consistent with these aims, as it would be discriminatory and cause disadvantage and so not advance equality of opportunity.

Overall, the appeal proposal would severely degrade the qualitative experience of travelling along [address] and the PROW, removing those views across open countryside which provide context and a sense and understanding of place. This degradation would occur during construction, during the period the industrial form of the panels and associated works remains visible, and then also once the hedgerows have substantially grown. I find there would be a Major adverse visual effect along this route across the lifetime of the development, causing significant harm.

The Council considers the impact on and relationship with the [address] development would dilute its achieved design and place making qualities. Examples are its purposeful outward facing aspect with views across open countryside, including from the small area of open space, which would again be blocked by the high hedgerows, and the orchard tree area.

Nonetheless, I do not find this context especially different to the more general expression of how Morton has expanded over time, whereby repeated dwellings on its edge would have enjoyed such views prior to further dwellings built beyond them. I am unconvinced that the [address] relationship with the closest high hedges and orchard area would dilute its overarching design principles to a harmful extent, beyond the general change to the landscape character which I have already described above.

I find similarly for views across the site from the public access part of the lane alongside the [name]. Views beyond the hedgerows would be partially blocked by their higher height, but long distance views of the hills behind would remain. The intervening distance and that this road serves the purpose of access to the care home rather than for recreation, indicates to me that the adverse visual effect here would be Negligible.

There are no designated heritage assets within the site boundary. The central part of Morton village is covered by the Morton Conservation Area, and the village includes [name] as a [name]* Listed Building plus 5 Grade II Listed Buildings. However, due to the lack of direct intervisibility and sightlines, and the separation distances, the Council identifies no harm to their significance including resulting from colliery tip views. From the evidence before me including my site visit observations, I see no reason to conclude differently. The same applies to the other listed buildings in the study area.

There are 15 non-designated heritage assets on the appeal site, although most are no longer visually present in the landscape. Their significance derives from their archaeological value as a source of information about historic land use and agricultural practice. Visible assets include the western boundary hedgerow as a likely ancient marker of the Morton Parish boundary and part of the ancient deer park boundary. Its significance lies predominantly in its purpose as an administrative boundary feature. The significance of [address] is as a historic route linking Morton and Pilsley and other connections, indicating the historic movement of people and development patterns.

Again, I see no reason to depart from the main parties’ conclusions that there would be no harmful effect on the significance of non-designated heritage assets, subject to appropriate conditions. These would secure further archaeological investigation and recording, and retention of the hedgerow and public use of [address]. Other assets outside of the appeal site including the former [name], the colliery, and the Erewash Valley Line, would be subject to no harm within their settings as they would still be appreciated and understood in their immediate surroundings.

The proposal would have a Major adverse visual effect from the colliery tip, a Major adverse visual effect along [address] and the PROW, a Moderate/Major landscape effect on the site and its immediate environs, and a Moderate landscape effect on its wider environs. In having due regard to the proposal’s impact on persons with protected characteristics, it would not be consistent with the aims of the PSED. Overall, the proposal would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

This would conflict with the LP policies SDC3 and SS9. Together and amongst other matters, these require new development to not cause significant harm to the character, quality, distinctiveness, or sensitivity of the landscape, or to important features or views, and to contribute where appropriate, to the conservation and enhancement of the local landscape taking into account its wider landscape character type. Development proposals in countryside locations outside the Settlement Development Limits should respect the form, scale and character of the landscape, through careful siting, scale, design and use of materials. This also leads to conflict with the [name] SDC10 and SDC12, albeit not cited within the reason for refusal, because there would be significant adverse effects on the visual amenity and local character and context of the area, including landscape and visual impacts.

Although also not cited in the reason for refusal, the [address]/PROW harm would also conflict with the LP Policy ID8(3), as this does not permit development proposals which would result in the deterioration in the quality of PROWs unless equivalent alternative provision is made. There would also be conflict with the Framework paragraph 187(b) as the proposal would not enhance the natural and local environment and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The Framework identifies at paragraph 168(a) that significant weight should be given to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation and the proposal’s contribution to a net zero future. Paragraph 163 specifies that the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change should be considered in assessing planning applications, taking into account the full range of potential climate change impacts. The development would have an export capacity of up to 49.9MW, which would generate the equivalent electricity consumption of approximately 19,400 homes per year, and represent a carbon saving of approximately 33,581 tonnes of CO2. The point of connection to the existing pylon would allow for a secured early grid connection with the District Network Operator, adding additional benefit.

The Government recognises the fundamental importance of solar and other critical national projects to the delivery of net zero, and is committed to greatly increasing solar capacity. Numerous publications and policies direct how this will be achieved. These include the [name] (2021), [name] 2030 (2024), the [name] (2025) and the [name] (2025). Together they are clear that significant approvals of new renewable energy developments, including flexibility capacity from battery storage, require swift progression through the planning system in order to meet increased energy demands and address climate change. The main growth in solar capacity will be from large scale solar development. The Clean Power Action Plan calls by 2030 for the rapid acceleration of solar deployment, from 15GW at present up to 47GW, and for a grid connected battery storage increase from 5GW to over 22GW.

Proposed reforms to the Framework in December 2025 include the aim to give greater support to renewable and low carbon energy, as well as explicitly referencing [name] 2030. However, this could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage.

The National Policy Statements (NPS) [name]-1 and EN-3 apply to [name] (NSIPs), and are material considerations to this appeal which add weight. They provide far greater detail on energy policy than the LP, although that is to be expected considering their purpose. They recognise that large scale energy infrastructure projects cannot be achieved without adverse impacts and in areas currently constrained by planning policies, and advise upon how such impacts can be reconciled with the urgent need for new electricity generating capacity. The NSIP threshold increased from 50WM to 100MW in December 2025, indicating the clear need for large scale sites.

[name] specifically, the LP Policy SDC10(2) identifies that in determining applications for renewable energy generation, significant weight will be given to the achievement of wider environmental and economic benefits. The Climate Change Strategy 2024-2030 and the Climate Change Action Plan 2024-2040 are corporate documents which set out how the Council intends to reduce its own emissions, and contribute to net zero through its service delivery. The SES and [name]: [name] and Planning Guidance 2023 form part of the Local Plan Review evidence base, and support the approach to how the Council is addressing its [name], and its commitment to addressing climate change.

The appellant considers that energy security should also be regarded as a material consideration with positive weight in its own right. The Secretary of State’s decision for Bottesford 4 disagreed that separate weight should be given, as that proposal’s early contribution to renewable energy generation and to energy security should collectively carry the significant weight required by the Framework paragraph 168(a). However, arguments in support of separate weight include the publication of the updated NPSs and Roadmaps, and the ongoing events in Iran which continue to impact energy prices worldwide. On this basis, energy security is not solely a climate issue, but relates more broadly to independence and protection of production, energy, and goods.

The co-location of the BESS units within the site enhances the benefits of both renewable energy and energy security described above. They would store excess energy generated, and discharge it to the grid when required to balance peak demand and alleviate periods of strain. Altogether, I ascribe significant positive weight to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation, and significant positive weight to its contribution to energy security.

Grid connectivity is an essential requirement for solar farms, with a key factor in site selection being the point of connection. The Officer Report at paragraph 7.60 concludes that the site avoids the more sensitive landscapes in the District, and there is no brownfield land which could accommodate it. This is based on the 3km search corridor from the point of connection in the appellant’s Site Selection Report 5. Overall, I give significant favourable weight to the sequential approach to site selection, including its comparative location in relation to the constraints for the District overall.

The appellant also argues that, as articulated by the Inspector at Honiley 6, the use of land which is not ‘best and most versatile agricultural land’ (BMVAL) is a benefit, because this places less demand on areas which are BMVAL. However, similar could be argued of land not at risk of flooding, or under any other protective designation which is addressed by other policy or statutory requirements. These factors are all bound up in comparative site selection, such that I see no specific reason in this instance to separate out BMVAL protection for additional weight.

The LP Policy SDC10 advises that significant weight will be given to the achievement of wider economic benefits from renewable energy developments, and Policy SS1 aims to support the local economy by contributing towards business expansion and growth, attracting and supporting a skilled labour force, and improving skills and access for local people to job opportunities. The Framework section 6 similarly places significant weight on supporting economic growth and productivity.

Approximately 40-50 FTE direct jobs would be created during construction, although only 1-2 FTE direct jobs during the operational phase. The proposal would also contribute to additional indirect green economy jobs in the renewable energy sector, for example as described in the [name]. An employment and training condition would maximise opportunities for local employment and 4 PP/Y2430/W/24/3340258; Allowed 25 February 2025. 5 [name].3091.001, Enzygo Ltd, May 2025 6 APP/T3725/V/23/3332671; [name] 2024. training. The proposal would generate a new income stream in diversifying activities on the farm unit. Off-set against this, a resident referred to the loss of existing local agricultural employment on the site, albeit the extent of this is unquantified.

The parties differ on whether business rates should be included, including based on different interpretations by Inspectors elsewhere. I have included them, on the basis that they would not be the deciding factor for the amount of weight I ascribe to the package of economic benefits as a whole. Based in particular on the very limited direct job creation following construction, I give moderate weight to economic benefits overall, which aligns with the appellant’s position.

There would be a biodiversity net gain (BNG) of 88.87% in habitat units and 17.89% in hedgerow units. The proposal includes approximately 2.73km of new hedgerow and up to 141 new trees, plus bird or bat boxes. Landscaping would likely increase the overall diversity and abundance of birds using the site. These measures would comply with the aim of the [name] ID7 and SDC4 to improve and extend the Green Infrastructure Network, to protect and enhance the District’s natural environment, and to increase the quantity and quality of biodiversity. It would also comply with the Framework paragraph 187(d) in enhancing the natural environment by providing net gains for biodiversity.

The recent Government National Security Assessment 7 identifies the climate change harm to biodiversity, and that nature is a foundation of national security. I have also been directed to recent solar appeal decisions where this approximate extent of BNG has been given substantial or significant weight. However, this is a matter of judgement rather than a comparative calculation possible across different appeals, as it depends in part on the baseline conditions and scale. Many of those appeals also have higher percentages for one or both types of unit. I have already ascribed weight to the proposal’s benefits in mitigating against climate change, which would in turn benefit biodiversity. In this instance, I give moderate weight to the extent of BNG which would result.

The proposal would include a circular permissive footpath around the part of the site to the east of [address], which would increase recreational access into the countryside. However, experientially this route would be uninspiring, being in between high hedges and security fencing which would only allow close range views over the expanses of panels. There would also be a new public access orchard area with seats and interpretation boards by the [address] development. In cumulation, I give the new public access areas minor weight in favour.

Cited appeal examples identify that soil health would benefit from leaving the land fallow for 40 years, rather than intensively farmed. However, I am also aware of other examples where this was not conclusive. There is no detailed information before me on this matter, notwithstanding that this may be due to the lack of any dispute regarding the land’s agricultural quality. I could impose a condition requiring sheep grazing around the panels, and conditions requiring soil management, but also this would not necessarily preclude the use of herbicides. On the evidence before me, I find soil quality to be a neutral matter. This aligns with the SoCG position. 7 Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security: A national security assessment. January 2026

I note that many of the ‘[name] representations support “the community fund” resulting from the appeal proposal. For the avoidance of doubt, the proposal would not secure any form of a community fund through the planning process, and so I have not taken this into account as a benefit.

Great crested newts (GCN) are a [name] afforded protection under Regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). GCN were not found on site, but could not be ruled out in nearby waterbodies due to access limitations. I must therefore have regard to the requirements of the associated Directive, for any element of the proposal that might lead to a harmful impact. However, there is no need for me to carry out a detailed assessment as to whether a Natural England mitigation licence would be granted. The Council and Natural England have raised no concerns on this matter, and a condition could ensure the licence procedure were followed, with adequate mitigation for any potential GCN harm. I find no reason to conclude that a licence would not be forthcoming.

There is also a requirement for skylark mitigation, as skylark territories are identified on the site. Again, the Council and the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust confirmed no objection on this basis subject to conditions for onsite or offsite mitigation, including details of how any offsite mitigation would be secured for the lifetime of the scheme. The site is within the [name] Zone, designated predominately for wintering bird assemblages, and as important habitat for nesting and feeding sites for breeding birds. However, wintering bird surveys concluded that the site would not be ‘functional linked land’, and so would not result in an impact to the SSSI. On the evidence before me I have no reason to conclude differently.

The Statement of [name] confirms that noise sensitive receptors would only experience negligible changes to ambient sound levels, which would therefore conform to [name] and national planning policy requirements subject to a suitably worded condition. The ‘[name]: Noise Assessment on the Public Right of Way’ also identifies there would only be a negligible impact on the prevailing acoustic environment along the PROW, even in the very quietest daytime periods, and this impact exposure would be transient and temporary for users. On this basis, I am content that matters of noise have been satisfactorily addressed, including that there would be no harmful impact upon tranquillity for countryside users.

I have given significant positive weight to the proposed development’s benefits to renewable energy provision, benefits to energy security, and to the site selection sequential approach including the grid connection availability. I have also identified economic opportunities and BNG as benefits of moderate individual weight, plus the public access to the new permissive footpath and orchard area would be a benefit of minor weight. Across all these matters the proposal gains support from some development plan policies or elements of them, and from aspects of the Framework. A suite of other national policy and publications including the NPSs provides clear and urgent support for the benefits from renewable energy.

In broad terms the appeal site would be a more preferential location for the proposal than other areas within the District. However, I have also given significant weight to the specific harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of the area. This would result in conflict with the LP policies SDC3, SDC10, SDC12, SS9, and ID8, notwithstanding the restoration of the great majority of the site after the 40 year operational period.

The description of both benefits and harm as ‘significant’ indicates that the planning balance in this case is finely balanced. However, the determination of that balance is not a mathematical exercise or on a numerical scale, even though setting it out in tabulated form can be helpful. The term ‘significant’ encompasses an inherent range of weight when defining the precise extent of harm and benefits, and importantly, the types of those benefits and harm. It does not inevitably follow that a number of different benefits, even if individually significant, must necessarily amount to more cumulative weight than a single matter of harm.

The extent of the benefits is intrinsically linked to the extensive scale of the proposal. However, I ultimately find that the harm resulting from that scale would be excessive to the extent that it does ‘tip the balance’, due to the several contributory elements of that harm. This is the key deciding factor in my decision in terms of layering of harm. This results from the effects on multiple viewpoints and experiences of the countryside, linked to that landscape character and its relationship with and value to the village of Morton and its residents, and the particular impact on persons with protected characteristics of disability and age. Taking these considerations together, I find that the harm resulting from the appeal proposal carries determinative weight in this instance, such that in totality it would outweigh the identified benefits.

In conclusion therefore, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. With no other material considerations outweighing this conflict, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.