Appeal 6002462

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a ground mounted photovoltaic solar farm with an electrical generating capacity of up to 49.9MW together with associated equipment, infrastructure and ancillary works at [site address] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P2061/21/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

A site visit was undertaken the day before the Hearing. During my visit I walked the site and its surroundings with a representative from the Council and the appellant using a walking route agreed between main parties, I also separately saw the site of the proposed substation. I therefore have a good awareness of the site and its surroundings.

A Statement of [name] (SOCG) has been provided. Within this, table 1 demonstrates Matters not Agreed between parties. During the hearing, it emerged that both main parties sought to adjust some of the anticipated landscape and visual effects of the proposal. It appeared that conclusions of some of the effects were still evolving during discussion. Given these circumstances, main parties were asked to collaborate on a revised table that would better demonstrate the areas of dispute as it seemed that some areas of dispute may fall away. Accordingly, a short period of time was provided for parties to complete a revised table. A revised SOCG was received 6 May 2026, and the hearing was subsequently closed by correspondence.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant provided solar guidance from the British Horse Society (BHS) [August 2025], which is not a planning document but provides a useful insight as to glint and glare considerations from an equestrian perspective. After seeking views from the Council at the hearing, I decided to accept this document and will take it into consideration in making my decision.

A screening opinion, undertaken by the Council in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)) Regulations 2017 concluded that the proposal was deemed to be EIA development. Accordingly, an Environmental Statement (ES) has been submitted in support of the proposal.

A new version of the National Policy Statement for [name] (EN-3) came into force 6 January 2026. Both main parties have been given an opportunity to provide views on any effects on this to respective positions, and I have taken those views into consideration in my consideration of this appeal.

A revised location plan (1056-PLODDYFARM-008 rev A) has been submitted to demonstrate the extent of land owned by the appellant beyond the appeal site. This confirms that which was stated in the Council’s officer report and by the appellant at the hearing, with respect to off-site Skylark mitigation and the availability of land off-site. I have taken this revised location plan into consideration with the appeal as it would not materially change the substance of the proposal and would not prejudice any party.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the landscape character and the visual effects of the proposal, taking into consideration cumulative effects, and. • The effect of the proposal on local road users, walkers and residential occupiers from glint and glare.

This application is not an energy development which is a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008. Nonetheless, the Overarching National Policy Statement for energy (EN-1) may be a material consideration for applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). This sets out the national policy for energy infrastructure and establishes the Government’s approach to meeting its [name] 2030 and net zero objectives. It recognises that to meet the Government’s objectives and targets for net zero by 2050, significant investment in new energy infrastructure, both large nationally significant developments and smaller-scale developments determined at a local level, will be required. Furthermore, EN-3 sets out national policy in respect of renewable energy and identifies ‘an urgent need for new electricity generating capacity to meet our energy objectives.’

Whether policies in EN-1 and EN-3 are material, and to what extent, should be judged on a case-by-case basis. In this case the proposal is for a solar park creating up to 49.9 megawatts of energy. The site would benefit from a connection to the grid by way of a short underground connection, running under Kent’s Green Road and [address], to a new substation and connecting to a 132-kilovolt overhead power line. The proposal therefore falls below the threshold for NSIP but due to its scale, EN-1 and EN-3 are deemed to be policy documents of substantial weight.

The UK Government has declared a climate emergency and set a statutory target of achieving net zero emissions by 2050, and this is also a material consideration. Since the declaration, the Sixth Assessment Report of the [name] on [name] has indicated that there is a greater than 50% chance that global temperature increases will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The report indicates that delay in global action to address climate change will miss a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all1.

The UK’s Health Effects of [name] [2023], describes the costs of inaction as follows:

“Under optimistic scenarios of low warming, temperatures will likely peak mid- to late-century, coinciding with the working age years of a child born today. The United Nations Framework Convention on [name] (UNFCCC) established the goal of limiting warming to below 1.5°C (no higher than 2°C) above the historic average. Beyond these temperatures, many ecological and human systems are expected to pass thresholds for unacceptable or irreversible impacts. The global average temperature passed 1°C above the pre-industrial average around 2017, with 1.5°C widely expected to be surpassed in the next 5 to 10 years. Current global actions and policies put us on a collective trajectory closer to 2°C to 3°C warming, with projections of over 4°C considered a plausible worst-case scenario”.

“These trends are already underway: the current UK climate is warmer, wetter and sunnier than was typical during the 20th century. Extreme heat will lead to an increase in the number of deaths and other health effects due to warming temperatures and an aging population. Up to 10,000 deaths per year due to extreme heat by the 2050s under a high-warming scenario without adaptation have been estimated”.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that the planning system should support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate. It states that when dealing with planning applications, planning authorities should not require a developer to demonstrate a need for low carbon or renewable energy projects and should recognise that even small-scale projects can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This also explains that such schemes should be approved if any adverse impacts can be addressed appropriately.

Policy AP 2 of the Forest of Dean Allocations Plan [2018] (LP), with respect to [name], supports such facilities where it would meet environmental, economic and social impacts. In 2022, The Forest of Dean District Council declared a climate emergency with its publication of a [name] and Action Plan.

To achieve the Government’s ambitious targets, it is clear that considerable growth in large scale solar parks will be necessary and this cannot be achieved solely by the use of brownfield land or roof top installations. The proposed development would make a valuable contribution to achieving these local and national goals. The policy context, in supporting the delivery of a substantial level of renewable energy projects, provides compelling evidence for the need for solar schemes, such as proposed, and conveys significant weight in favour of the proposal. 1 IPCC Sixth Assessment Report - Summary for Policymakers, paragraph D.5.3

The Council’s landscape consultant regards the appellant’s LVIA to be flawed on the basis that it has assumed the vegetative screening is a permanent feature, that new vegetative screening has been double counted as both mitigation and enhancement, and that the appellant’s landscape assessment fails to recognise the value of the landscape. It is also asserted that the landscape assessment only assesses landscape effects on the physical landscape elements and does not take into account aesthetic and perceptual aspects. The Council asserts that for these reasons the appellant’s supporting assessments do not comply with GLVIA3.

It is recognised that existing tree and hedge screening is only semi-permanent. Over time vegetation will die back. However, this is largely replaced with new planting, especially along hedgerows and therefore it is reasonable to consider the screening effects of vegetation when considering the impacts of development as a largely permanent landscape feature. The appellant has corrected its position with respect to double counting. The revised SOCG increases some of the appellant’s anticipated landscape and visual harmful effects, in excluding new vegetation as enhancement benefits, thus reducing predicted mitigation and increasing the corresponding harm outputs.

Furthermore, at the hearing the appellant demonstrated that the landscape assessment considered the value of the landscape and considered aesthetic and perceptual aspects of the site and its spatial qualities. This therefore has been considered, to my satisfaction, and illustrates that the appellant’s submitted landscape and visual impact assessment, and associated technical note, establish a suitable baseline and these properly explore the landscape and visual effects of the proposal in compliance with advice of GLVIA3.

There is a distinction to be made between impact on landscape, which should be treated as a resource, and impact on visual amenity, which is the effect on people observing the development in places where it can be viewed, such as from roads, public rights of way and individual dwellings.

The appeal site consists of around six fields. The site and surrounding fields are used for a range of arable and pastoral purposes. The fields within the site are arranged in a cluster, bound by Kent’s Green Road, fields to the west, north and east and connects, in part, with an unnamed highway to the east.

When walking through the site, the site appeared to consist of gradually undulating land. Nonetheless, the appellant’s topographical plan (figure 6.2) demonstrates that the site is relatively flat and appears to gradually slope down north-wards, within comparatively low-lying land. The market town of Newent is around 1km to the north of the site, the site’s surrounding countryside includes small pockets of development consisting of farm holdings and separate dwellings, which either stand alone or are in small clusters.

The site is within Natural England’s National Character Area’s NCA 104 and NCA

NCA 104: ‘[name] and [name] describes the area as an undulating landscape, including well-wooded landscapes, orchards varied field patterns and a dispersed settlement pattern. NCA 106: ‘Severn and [name], includes similar characteristics. The description of key features, also notes that woodland is sparsely distributed across the landscape, but a well wooded impression is provided by frequent hedgerow trees, parkland and surviving traditional orchards.

The Council’s Local Character Assessment [2002] places the site within LCA 6b: ‘The Severn Vale’, with a character type of an [name] and close to LCA 15a: ‘Kilcot and [name]. LCA 6b is defined by the Assessment as consisting of a soft rolling landscape, with well maintained, often ancient, hedgerows. The area is noted as containing numerous mature field and hedgerow oaks and small copses and shelter belts with quiet winding lanes linking numerous isolated farms and hamlets. Landscape guidance for this character area is to promote hedgerow restoration, conserve species rich meadows and to conserve and replant woodlands and orchards.

The site is not within an area with high landscape value and not within a National Landscape. It is therefore of medium value, with a medium susceptibility and sensitivity to change. The site is within the open countryside and set away from major roads and settlements, conveying a sense of tranquillity. The appeal site appears to generally align with this area’s character assessment and therefore makes a positive contribution towards the area’s landscape character.

The pattern and arrangement of character area 6b forms low-lying land with a elevated areas to the west. The site consists of a main area and a smaller substation area. The main area of the site is enclosed by hedgerows, which include dispersed trees. Groups of trees are also evident within isolated pockets within some fields. The highest part of the site appears to be within its southwestern corner. The substation site is around 1km to the south of the main site. It is alongside a hedgerow and on the edge of a field, on gradually sloping ground. This part of the site would be alongside two overhead lines, where man-made electrical infrastructure already exists.

Overall, the undulating landscape and extent of tree and hedgerow cover provide a good degree of containment, that combined with its low-lying nature prevents most wide views of the local landscape. The proposed development would locate solar arrays and a substation within the existing field pattern. It would retain and enhance hedge and tree groups within the site, thereby retaining the structure of field boundaries and keeping field patterns intact. As such, the proposal would have a largely non-invasive and restorative impact on the landscape features defined as important to the 6b character area.

The appeal site, whilst relatively extensive, represents only a small proportion of the national and district character areas. At a district level, the impact on the landscape would be greater, but as the existing natural features of the site would be largely retained and enhanced, the overall landscape effect would be limited. Furthermore, the solar arrays would be low-lying, being open sided features and the development would be temporary in nature. As such, the characteristics of the scheme would limit the overall effect of the scheme on the wider landscape receptors.

Consequently, the proposal would cause negligible to minor adverse effects to the wider parts of the landscape receptors within LCA 6b and 15a. However, the proposed development would also cause direct changes to the landscape with the introduction of renewable energy infrastructure across a relatively broad area. It would therefore result in moderate adverse harm to receptors within the main site and substation site. Accordingly, the scheme would result in a moderate adverse impact on the landscape receptors resulting in moderate harm to the area’s landscape character during construction and at both year 1 and year 15.

The appellant’s visual assessment was undertaken in March when deciduous trees and hedges were largely not in leaf. Furthermore, the appellant’s Landscape and [name] Note2 (TN) includes Site Context Photographs that also show trees not in leaf. The visual assessments therefore appear to have taken place when the site was least screened by deciduous vegetation enabling a worse case scenario to be applied to the effects from these viewpoints. My visit took place in the early summer, and this has enabled me to compare the submitted photographs with my own observations to understand the effects of the proposal accounting for seasonal variations.

The appellant’s Landscape and [name] Assessment3 (LVIA) considers 20 viewpoints, as shown on the Visual Appraisal Plan, at figure 6.5. Furthermore, the Site Appraisal Plan, figure 6.4, shows the location of site appraisal photographs. The TN considers further viewpoints and includes further site context photographs. These viewpoints assess the effect of the scheme on [name]. The combined viewpoints have been accepted by the Council as being the most significant in understanding the visual effects of the proposal. However, I am cognisant that these selected viewpoints provide only a snapshot of the site and would not necessarily fully reflect the experience of people walking through or around the site and taking in sequential views.

The site can be seen from several viewpoints including from road users, cyclists, horse riders, walkers and residents. several Public Rights of Way (PRoW) cross the site; most notedly GNE99 and GNE133 and several other PRoWs connect beyond into the wider countryside.

Figure 6.5 of the LVIA, shows the zone of theoretical visibility of the scheme. This demonstrates that whilst the zone encompasses the site, the majority of views outside the site would be in an arc from the north, clockwise through to the south. A high likelihood of views could also be obtained from high land to the east of the site, although woodland, vegetive screening and topography would obscure most or all views from this vantage. The LVIA considers the visual effects of the proposal both during construction, at year one and at year fifteen. The 15-year assessment takes into account the growth of proposed landscape screening as it approaches maturity.

The general topography of the site and its surroundings, in combination with existing vegetation, provide screening from many wider views and form a degree of enclosure to the appeal site. The combination of these features would disaggregate and limit views into the site. 2 Stantec, Landscape and [name], March 2025 3 Environmental Statement, Appendix 6,

The PRoWs of GNE99, GNE133 and GNE121 pass through the site. Despite comments raised by some interested parties, the Council has not identified that additional PRoW cross the site. The proposed solar panels would be off-set from the PRoWs by 5 metres and would be enclosed by a security fence. The proposed gap would provide a sense of separation, albeit modest, for users of the pathways that cross the site. Nevertheless, users of the footpaths would experience close-up views of the solar panels. Due to the proximity of panels and the generally flat character of the site, walkers would experience a modest sense of enclosure with panels on at least one side of them for most of their journey through the site. Furthermore, from higher land close to the junction of GNE99 and GNE133, views would be likely to encompass wide views of panels within the westernmost field due to local topography. Beyond visual effects this change in the context would also alter the aesthetic and perceptual experiences of walkers along this section of the route, eroding the existing sense of tranquillity noted within the site.

Whilst the Landscape Strategy Plan includes new hedgerows, tree groups and grassland areas, no hedgerow planting is proposed alongside the paths through the site. This means that walkers would be exposed to views of the panels and their associated security fencing. This effect would be reduced as walkers approach ‘Caerwents’, from the middle of the site walking southeast, where views would open-up due to the proposed grasslands creating a wide and open sense of separation.

Upon entering the site from Kent’s Green Road, on path GNE99, views would be from an elevated position looking down over part of the nearest field, providing wide views of several fields of solar panels. Nonetheless, the foreground would be laid as grassland with a new hedge separating this from the proposed panels, tempering the overall visual effect of the solar farm from this view.

Although parts of the route through the site would retain its existing open character, large parts of the route through the site would experience adverse effects through the sense of enclosure, intruding into existing open views. Due to an absence of vegetative screening these effects would not diminish over time. Consequently, the visual effects of the proposal would be ‘major/moderate’ adverse at year 1 and would be likely to remain so.

However, additional hedgerow planting, secured through a landscaping condition, could reduce some of these effects. I was unconvinced at the hearing why the Council had sought to remove originally proposed hedgerow planting from these routes. Enclosing the route through the site with new landscaping would be consistent and in character with other parts of the existing route when approaching ‘Caerwents’ and in locations beyond the site. Accordingly, with the addition of landscape screening, the overall visual effect for users of the PRoW crossing the site could be reduced to ‘moderate’ adverse at year 15.

Once walkers have passed beyond the boundary of the application site, views of the solar panels would become substantially reduced. Approaching pathways would be likely to only catch glimpses through gaps in hedging along approaching routes, although some elevated land may reveal more of the scheme. As walkers move further away from the site, views would become less possible, further diminishing views of the solar farm.

Path GTA51 leaves Kent’s Green Road at an elevated point that overlooks the site. This view takes in the eastern most parts of the site. This would look through a field boundary that would be thickened with a new tree belt. Accordingly, the visual effect on walkers of the nearby PRoWs would be ‘miner’ adverse at year 1 and year 15.

The appellant identifies that long distance views of the site are theoretically possible from east facing slopes of [address] and from Upleaden. Nonetheless, these views are largely obscured by topography and vegetation. Furthermore, when viewed from such a distance, those elements that might be glimpsed would be limited and seen within a wide tapestry of fields, plants and buildings. Therefore, even if parts of the solar park remained visible these would be likely to be seen as small parcels of development, interspersed by field boundaries and the established new landscaping, within distant views. Therefore, views of the site from long distance views would be ‘minor’ adverse at year 1, diminishing to negligible by year 15.

The views from residential properties are regarded as having a high susceptibility to change and a medium/high sensitivity. ‘[address]’ (annotated as ‘[name] on some of the appellant’s plans) is a single storey dwelling on Kent’s Green Road, on a triangular plot. Due to the separation distances, the proposed panels would be around 50m and 12m from its two rear facing boundaries and separated by existing and new hedgerows. The Council officer report notes that the property’s principal outlook is from its southern and western elevations. Its western outlook, looking towards the proposed panels, would take in the plot’s hedge boundary, beyond which would be an access track with solar panels rising on elevated land beyond. To its eastern rear boundary, the proposed grassland, retained hedges and proposed hedge would provide good visual separation between the residential plot and the panels. Accordingly, residential occupiers would experience a ‘moderate’ adverse effect at year 1, reducing to ‘minor’ adverse at year 15.

‘[address]’ is a two-storey brick house that presents its side elevation to Kent’s Green Road. This dwelling has some secondary side windows, with a first-floor bedroom window that would overlook the site. This window would gain wide ranging views of the site, which being on rising ground, would be highly visible having an adverse effect from receptors in this room. However, the property’s main outlook is gained from its front and rear facing windows, which provide wide ranging views of the surrounding countryside, but views of the site itself would be oblique. Being separated from the site by a boundary hedge and the highway, and due to its orientation, the effect on receptors at this property would be ‘moderate/minor’ adverse at year 1 and year 15.

‘Caerwents’ is located to the north of Kent’s Green Road, within a southern enclave with development proposed to its west, north and east. It consists of a group of buildings and converted barns. This group stands on elevated land, on a slight rise, and therefore commands wide ranging views. It would be, however, separated from development by grassland areas that would themselves be bound by proposed hedging. The Council’s officer report notes that the panels would be 65m to the east, 140m to the west and 108m to the north, which can be regarded as substantial distances from the residential plot. Therefore, whilst ‘Caerwents’ is at an elevated position, the visual effect on residential occupiers would be ‘moderate/minor’ adverse at year 1 and year 15.

It is recognised that occupiers of [name], [address], [address] and those of other residential properties along Kent’s Green Road would experience adverse visual effects, but these would be ‘minor’ adverse or ‘negligible’. The greatest visual effects would be experienced by occupiers of [address], [address] and Caerwents, a conclusion shared by the Council.

The local roads provide visual receptors from motorists and other road users that would primarily be paying due care and attention to other road users and hazards and would have a low/medium sensitivity to change. Motorists on Kent’s Green Road would observe parts of the site when passing, but such views would be fleeting, resulting in only a ‘negligible’ adverse effect.

Due to the prominence of plant and construction activity, the visual effects of the construction phase of the proposal would be ‘moderate’ adverse to local residential receptors of ‘[address]’ and ‘[address]’. It would be ‘minor’ adverse for other identified properties within the surrounding area. The effects on users of the PRoWs through the site would be ‘major/moderate’ adverse during construction. Nonetheless, these effects would be tempered due to the temporary nature of the works, but this would not materially reduce the overall effect of this phase of the development for the duration of the works. Accordingly, beyond the site itself, construction effects would be moderate/minor adverse, causing only localised major/moderate adverse construction effects.

It is recognised that vegetative screening would take time to become established. However, once established, the identified adverse effects for many receptors would reduce to ‘minor adverse’ or negligible after 15 years resulting in minor residual effects.

Whether or not additional landscape screening were applied to the routes through the site, the adverse visual effect of the panels on walkers would be localised only. I have also found that the effects would be ‘moderate/minor’ adverse for several local residential occupiers. Topography, the retention of field boundaries and landscape screening would mean that the residual adverse visual effects would be largely confined to localised effects only. Consequently, the effect on the most effected residential receptors would be, at most, moderate adverse. New landscape screening, and allowing boundary hedging to grow to 3m, would provide some mitigation to reduce the effects on residential receptors. Accordingly, taking all of the above impacts into consideration the visual effects of the proposal would result in moderate harm.

Two solar parks are identified within the study area, being [address] and Highleadon, both to the east of the site. [address] is a 13.7MW solar farm, whilst [name], Highleaden is a 49.9MW solar farm. These combined with the proposal would result in direct changes to the area’s landscape character. In landscape terms the site would be nestled within the local topography of low-lying ground, enclosed to some extent by topography and existing vegetation. The sites have limited intervisibility and as such established vegetation limits the contribution and perceived overall scale and extent of sites experienced within the landscape, causing only a ‘minor’ adverse effect to the area’s landscape character in cumulative terms.

In visual terms, during my visit I noted that some viewpoints, especially within the eastern part of the site, enabled views of parts of [address] solar farm. However, such views were glimpsed only. Sequential views could be experienced by users of local PRoW and adjacent highways, but it seems that such views would be occasional and infrequent. It is noted that views from some east viewpoints, could take in parts of both the appeal scheme and the [address] solar farm, but any such views would be filtered and require sequential views. As a result, the cumulative visual effects would be ‘minor’ adverse.

Consequently, despite its overall scale, the proposal would result in only a ‘moderate adverse’ effect on the landscape character and moderate harm to the visual appearance of the area. In identifying harm, the proposal would conflict with policy CSP.1 of the Forest of [name] [2012](CS) and LP policies AP1, AP2 and AP4. These seek, among other matters, for solar development to consider the effect on the landscape and heritage assets and to support sustainable development. However, CS policy CSP.4 (development at settlements) does not relate to landscape character and visual effects and therefore weighs neither for nor against the proposal on this matter.

S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or setting or any features of special architectural interest which it possesses. The Framework defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which the asset is experienced.

The proposal has the capability to affect a range of designated heritage assets found around the site. These include [name], [name], [name], Southerns (and its associated barn), [address] (and its barn and shelter shed), The Moat (including the main building, gate piers and gates, barn and store), Barn at [address], all of which are grade II listed buildings. Also, the site could affect the setting of [name], within Newent, which is a grade I listed building. Also, the Newent Conservation Area is within the site’s study area. A moated site at the Grange and a site of the Hertfordshire and [name] are also identified as non-designated heritage assets.

A Heritage Assessment (HA) has been undertaken by the appellant within the Built Heritage Chapter of the ES at paragraphs 7.51 to 7.104. The HA identifies that four listed buildings would be likely to experience a significant effect resulting from the proposal. These consisted of the [name] listed ‘The Moat’, Barn and adjoining Store, gate piers and gates, and ‘[name] which are of moderate sensitivity. The significance of ‘The Moat’, the Barn and adjoining store, gate pier and gates derive from the group’s architectural interest as a surviving farm group.

The listed building of ‘Nelfields’ is a C17 and C18 farmhouse, consists of a Flemish brick bond on a stone plinth. The significance of ‘Nelfields’ derives from its contribution as a typical example of its architectural type and a good example of the local vernacular. The HA concludes that in taking into consideration the proposed mitigation, the scheme would have a minor magnitude of impact on the assets, causing a minor adverse significance of effect. I see no reason to disagree with these conclusions.

‘[name] is to the southeast of the site. It is a timber framed, late C17 barn, partly clad in weatherboards. Its significance derives from its architectural and historic interest being a traditional rural building. Some of the proposed panels would be in views from the rear elevation of the dwelling, due to the slope of the land.

The farmhouse of ‘Southerns’ is to the north of the site, it is a mid C18 dwelling with a Flemish bond red brick and slate roof. Its significance relates to both its architectural interest and being representative of a traditional rural dwelling. The ‘Barn at Southerns’ is a separate plot adjacent to ‘Southerns’ and consists of a three-panel high timber- frame, brick nogged. The significance of this building derives from its architectural and historic interest. It seems that only filtered and/or distant views of parts of the proposal, from these two dwellings would be possible considering intervening buildings, vegetation and landform, resulting in a limited impact to their settings, causing negligible harm.

The Church of [name] originates from C13, and includes a square, coursed stone tower, south chapel and vestry. Its significance derives from its historic and architectural interest. During my site visit I noted that only the church spire was visible from points along the main PRoW through the site (GNE99), the rest being screened by topography, vegetation and other buildings. The proposed solar panels may obscure some views of the spire. However, the panels would be recessed from the pathway and it is therefore likely that only some views would be lost, although the appreciation of the church would be affected in such views. Nonetheless, the proposed mitigation, consisting of off-setting development from the pathways, demonstrates that the scheme would minimise the conflict between the heritage asset and the impact of the proposal. Accordingly, the effect on views of the church from the site would result in a minor adverse effect.

Other listed buildings identified within the study area, including ‘[address]’ and ‘[address]’ and the Newent Conservation Area, would be unlikely to experience an adverse effect to their settings, having no impact on their significance. As such, in summary the appeal site is not within the immediate setting of any heritage assets. The effect on the identified assets is regarded to cause less than substantial harm, being at the lower end of such harm.

In terms of archaeology, the western part of the site has been found to have a high potential to include Roman material of medium significance. During trial trenching archaeological deposits were found associated with iron working and pottery production. The Council is satisfied that an Archaeological Management Plan could be secured by condition to mitigate the effects of the development on these features of interest.

LP policy AP5 relates to historic character. This states that development should protect and promote historic character in order to maintain its cultural identity and sense of place. This policy is generally consistent with the Framework but excludes the public benefit test applied in the Framework and is therefore of reduced weight. As such, the policy needs to be read alongside the Framework to correctly apply heritage considerations.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. For the reasons set out above, I have found that the proposal would result in harm to the significance of The Moat, Barn and adjoining Store, gate piers and gates, and [name] and the Church of [name], each for various reasons, being subject to a low level of less than substantial harm. The identified harm would also be tempered by the temporary nature of the proposal, which whilst extending over half a lifetime, would cause reversible effects. Nevertheless, it must be noted that even less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset carries great weight.

Under such circumstances, the Framework advises that any harm found should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would deliver a renewable energy project, creating around 49.9MW of electricity. This would assist in providing a secure and resilient supply of electricity from a low carbon source. Furthermore, the site would connect to a new substation which in turn would connect to a 132-kilovolt overhead power line where a viable point of connection has been identified and an agreed point of connection is in place. The benefits of the provision of renewable energy, and the existence of a viable connection offer, attract significant weight in favour of the proposal.

The proposal would provide employment both during construction and through the operational life of the development. The construction employment created on site would be significant but temporary in nature, with a small number of employees attending the site once operational. Furthermore, the development would generate income for the farmer, enabling the landowner to diversify the existing agricultural operation into wider interests. As such, the economic benefits also attract some, albeit moderate, weight in favour of the proposal.

In environmental terms, the provision of new landscaping and green infrastructure would provide biodiversity enhancements. Since 12 February 2024 it has been a requirement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for major planning applications to deliver a 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG). The application was made before the statutory 10% provisions came into force and thus the proposal is not subject to these statutory BNG requirements. Nonetheless, the Framework and LP policy AP7, require major development to demonstrate a net gain to biodiversity and to safeguard features and supporting habitats which form part of ecological networks.

The provision and distribution of landscape planting enhancement is demonstrated on the indicative [name] (LN-LP-10 and LN-LP-11). This shows a new orchard to the north of ‘[name], several pockets of new grassland areas around ‘[address]’, ‘Caerwents’ and around several trees groups within fields proposed to accommodate solar panels. New native woodland areas are also proposed around ‘Caerwents’ and in a strip of land to the eastern side of the site. These measures would enhance existing field boundaries, improve and enhance the landscape and would provide a long-term lasting environmental benefit.

Details of hard and soft landscaping, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan and [name] could be secured by appropriate conditions to detail how these measures would be created and maintained. The proposal would result in the removal of limited pockets of existing vegetation and would provide new landscaping with around the addition of 108% habitat units, 99% hedgerow units and 58% river units. Accordingly, the provision of BNG, substantially in excess of 10%, would be a benefit of significant weight in favour of the proposal.

Overall, the benefits of the scheme are afforded significant weight in favour of the proposal. When considered cumulatively, these public benefits would be substantial and would outweigh the harm I have identified to the heritage assets, despite applying great weight to this harm. The proposal represents temporary development, albeit over a substantial 40-year period, and would be reversible at the end of this period, returning the land to open fields and areas of enhanced biodiversity. As such, the proposal would comply with the requirements of LP policy AP5 and the Framework.

Planning Policy Statement EN-3 states that solar panels are specifically designed to absorb, not reflect irradiation. Footnote 100 states that “Most commercially available solar panels are designed with anti-reflective glass or are produced with anti-reflective coating and have a reflective capacity that is generally equal to or less hazardous than other objects typically found in the outdoor environment, such as bodies of water or glass buildings”. However, it is recognised that solar panels may reflect the sun’s rays at certain angles, causing glint and glare.

The solar panels would address the southern hemisphere, largely facing Kent’s Green Road to the south of the site. A Glint and Glare (G&G) assessment [2025] has been submitted in support of the proposal. This has been undertaken by [name], a company that specialises in G&G assessments and has produced nationally recognised guidance4 on this subject. In accordance with the guidance, the assessment does not consider the effect on users of local roads on the basis that traffic densities are low, and any effects are regarded as low impact. Furthermore, G&G effects for rights of way users are generally not scoped into assessments as any potential reflections would be limited in area, infrequent, transient and would cause a localised effect only. 4 [name] and Glare Guidance, April 2021

The assessment explains that solar panels minimise reflection to increase electricity production and reflect around 5% of incoming sunlight. The assessment considers the effect of G&G from 20 observation points (OP) along the two [name] and from 34 OP from nearby dwellings. These are within a 1km study area of the appeal site which I consider to be suitable based on local topography. In consideration of local classified roads, the assessment notes that the B4215 and the B4216 pass relatively close to the site. Following analysis, the Assessment identified that for all whilst solar reflections are geometrically possible, screening the form of vegetation would result in no adverse impact.

With respect to effect on dwellings, the Assessment plotted the position of each dwelling and has provided analysis for each. It identifies that dwellings would experience reflection for short periods in the morning (for OPs 1-13), the morning and late afternoon (for OPs 14-15 and 34), and in the late afternoon (for OPs 16- 33). It finds that most OPs would experience no reflection due to intervening vegetation apart from OP14: ‘Caerwents’ and OP34: ‘[address]’ which would experience moderate impacts. From these dwellings, occupiers would experience unscreened reflective panels for more than 3 months a year but less than one hour a day.

For ‘[address]’ the assessment states that screening to the west would obscure views, whilst only low-level screening has been identified on the east side. The assessment finds that the proposed hedgerow would successfully obstruct views of the panels from this vantage. Whilst the proposed hedge screening would take several years to mature, the immediate effect would be less than an hour, for 3 months of the year. Furthermore, the appellant demonstrated at the hearing that the effect would be far less than an hour, being restricted to around a 15-minute period. As such, this would result in a low adverse effect that would cause limited harm. In terms of ‘Caerwents’, the nearest reflective solar panels would be 100m from the identified dwelling. The submitted visibility analysis shows that a large part of the reflective area to the east, and a small part to the west, would be screened causing a G&G effect from a small group of visible panels. Consequently, a low impact is predicted due to existing and proposed landscape screening.

The G&G Assessment identifies that in most cases, screening through topography and vegetation prevents adverse effects. I am cognisant that the Council has raised concerns in this regard, finding vegetation to be only semi-permanent and semi-transparent (especially in winter months). However, whilst vegetative screening would be lessened in winter months deciduous trees and hedges would still provide a reasonable degree of screening from the G&G of winter sunshine.

The Council has raised concerns as to the effect of G&G on equestrian activities. However, the BHS, explains that “reports from sites with both solar farms and horses, including a solar array beside an area used for riding horses, indicate no reflection and no reaction or impact on horse or rider.” The Council also asserts that at close quarters G&G could cause eye damage, especially for solar panel installers, but it has not justified this assertion. The appellant asserts that any eye damage would be temporary and only result from prolonged exposure. At the hearing the appellant explained that there was no evidence of eye damage and that whilst G&G may cause some temporary after-image effects, there is only a low potential for any permanent eye damage.

Consequently, I am satisfied that the G&G Assessment provides a robust analysis of the associated effects of the proposal on this subject. Accordingly, the assessment demonstrates that the safety of road users and the convenience of nearby receptors would not be materially adversely affected by the proposal in consideration of glint and glare effects.

As a result, the proposed development would not result in demonstrable adverse effects with respect to the effect of G&G on local road users, walkers and residential occupiers. As such, the proposal would comply with LP policies AP1, AP2 and AP4 with respect to G&[name] seek, among other matters, for development to assess the effects of shadow flicker and glare and to be of high-quality design, making a positive contribution to the design quality of the area. However, CS policy CSP.1 (for design and environmental protection) and LP policy AP1 (for development at settlements) do not relate to G&G and therefore weigh neither for nor against the proposal on this matter.

Interested parties raise concerns that the proposal would have an adverse effect on local wildlife, especially bats, deer, birds and [name] (GCN). The appellant’s [name] consists of a desk top study, Phase 1 survey and protected species surveys. The site was found to be of low biodiversity value, being agricultural land, but includes hedgerows and pockets of woodland of greater ecological interest. Habitats and foraging routes on site have been found to provide, or are capable of providing, support for protected species. Mitigation has been largely provided through the scheme retaining most trees and hedging throughout the site and providing suitable buffer zones.

The proposal would remain capable of causing direct and indirect impacts to protected species and indirect impacts on priority habitats. However, these effects could be addressed through the scheme being undertaken with precautionary measures to avoid any residual impacts. Such measures could be detailed in a Construction Ecological Management Plan, which could be secured by condition.

A District License would be necessary to detail on-site habitat creation, management and monitoring for GCN. The submission for a License to be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority, could be required by

The proposal would result in the loss of nesting opportunities for skylark associated with open farmland. A skylark mitigation strategy was provided as up to 16 skylark territories were identified through the protected species surveys to be affected. An adverse impact to breeding skylark territories was identified, by the Council’s ecologist, as being likely without mitigation. The loss cannot be accommodated within the scheme design, and thus provision is required off-site to provide such mitigation.

The Mitigation Strategy proposes mitigation in the form of off-site grassland areas that would not be subject to crop rotation and would provide a permanent habitat for breeding skylarks by improving resource structure and diversity. This would encourage breeding productivity. Furthermore, the proposal includes the provision of rough neutral grassland, which would benefit foraging skylarks. The Council’s officer report stated that the off-site Skylark plots would be provided within other land under the appellant’s ownership, and this was confirmed by the appellant at the hearing.

Following the hearing, a revised location plan was submitted that illustrates all land, outside the application site, owned by the appellant. This demonstrates that the appellant locally owns a considerable area of additional land, within pockets, some of which are close to or adjacent to the appeal site. The Strategy explains that the proposed off-site skylark plots would not be connected to tramlines and would be sited away from field boundaries and telegraph poles. This would be to reduce the risk from predators and improve breeding performance. I am satisfied that the further land within the appellant’s ownership includes suitable land on this basis. As such, a condition could be imposed to secure, with adequate certainty, that the skylark mitigation plots could be provided and maintained.

The Council identified at the hearing that mitigation would need to be secured by a [name]. However, the Framework is clear that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition. The absence of a [name] did not form a reason for refusal, and such a mechanism would not be necessary in these circumstances. Consequently, the implementation of the recommendations of the Skylark mitigation Strategy, providing off-site plots on land within the appellant’s ownership, can be secured by condition.

Accordingly, the proposal would not result in a significant adverse effect on ecological interests and would create biodiversity benefits.

The site is within the zone of influence of the Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and within [name] – very sensitive. In this area projects are required to undertake an assessment as to the likely significant effects upon the qualifying features of the SAC, being the greater horseshoe bat.

The Council identifies that the site is likely to be functionally linked to the lesser horseshoe bat maternity roost approximately 1.3km from this site and the site is therefore within its core sustenance zone. The appellant’s Shadow Habitat Regulation Assessment has considered the scheme, and other projects in the zone of influence, finding [name]. Furthermore, the Council’s Appropriate Assessment concludes that conditions (requiring lighting, landscaping, LEMP, CEMP and [name]) could be relied upon to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the Wye Valley and Forest of [name]. In undertaking my own AA, I am satisfied that the proposal would result in [name] either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

Interested parties have raised concerns that the appeal site is in active agricultural purposes and should be retained as food producing arable land. Paragraph 187(b), of the Framework, places value on recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside including the economic benefits of best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land. The Framework’s Glossary defines BMV land as being land of Grades 1, 2 and 3a of the [name]. Footnote 65 of the Framework states that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.

[name] (WMS)[15 May 2024] is concerned with Solar, protecting our Food security and BMV land. This states that where the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary, poorer quality land should be preferred to higher quality land to avoid using BMV land where possible. It also states that the starting position for solar developers, in taking forward [name], is that applicants should seek to minimise impacts on BMV land and preferably use areas of poorer quality.

Clearly this is a material consideration of lesser relevance for development subject to the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, but it nonetheless demonstrates an effort to steer renewable energy projects away from higher quality farmland.

The site has been classed as Grade 3b agricultural land, although it is noted that this assessment has not considered the proposed substation site to the south of the main site. The appellant’s assessment includes field analysis of the soil types and its conclusions have been accepted by the Council. As such, the site would exclude BMV land. Although the grade of land within the substation site is undisclosed this consists of a small fraction of the site and its loss, even if BMV land would be a matter of limited importance. Therefore, overall, the proposal has been steered towards poorer quality agricultural land.

Moreover, the 2024 WMS identifies that the total area used for solar developments are very small and even the most ambitious scenarios would still occupy less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land. This would therefore have a minimal total effect on food security concerns. As a result, the loss of arable land for the temporary duration of the use would cause a limited impact, and thus the effect on food production would be minimal. The affected land would not be lost but instead used for solar farming for the duration of the life of the proposal. Furthermore, the quality of soils within the site could be maintained through a Soil Management Plan, secured by a condition. This would safeguard that the soils are protected during construction and operation, ensuring the site can be maintained for future arable use. Accordingly, I find that the effect of the proposal on agricultural land would not be significant.

The site would be accessed by an existing field access with a visibility splay of 2.4m by 59m. Tracking plans demonstrate that a heavy goods vehicle can safely turn into and out of the site. Access to the site, for construction and later operational vehicles, would be from the eastern side of the site, via the B4215 and an unnamed road. The unnamed road is single width and vehicles would need to travel around [address]. The lane includes a number of passing points, although these are mostly relatively tight.

Interested parties have raised concerns with respect to the volume and route of associated construction vehicles, the already busy nature of the B4215 and the risk of accidents associated with additional traffic. Interested parties also suggest that improved passing points would be substandard, and that the lane would be a substandard and unsafe way to access the site for construction vehicles.

The appellant’s [name] explains that peak numbers of construction traffic would consist of 80 two-way trips for [name] weekly (an average of 16 daily trips). This would be a modest amount of additional traffic using the lane daily. Moreover, the construction period would be relatively short, being around four months.

Several measures, including traffic light controls, the use of banksmen and/or widening the junction access to hold turning traffic for the time a construction vehicle is using the lane, could be used to manage traffic along the lane if required. Consequently, for this short period of traffic movements, measures could be put in place to ensure that vehicle arrival and departure times are spaced out and that the site access, lane and junction to the B4215 are managed to prevent conflict. This approach would be reasonable, and practical and this view is shared by the Highway Authority.

Such an approach would also ensure that disturbance to other road users would be kept to a minimum during the required placement of underground cabling, associated with the connection to the proposed substation, to the south of the main site.

The approach to best manage construction vehicles would be agreed with the Council through a Construction Traffic Management Plan which could be secured by condition. Although the proposal would increase the use of the lane, especially during construction and decommissioning, the resultant inconvenience caused to other road users would be minor only and this would not provide a strong reason to refuse the scheme. Accordingly, I am satisfied such a plan would adequately address this matter to prevent an adverse highway safety impact.

It has been reported by some interested parties that Kents Green Road has been subject to flooding in the past. However, the site itself is within flood zone 1 and is therefore the least likely type of land to flood. The proposed solar panels would be spaced apart and allow most rainfall to be absorbed into the ground as occurs naturally. The Lead Local Flood Authority is content that the submitted flood risk assessment and drainage strategy demonstrate that the proposal would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Nonetheless, the scheme presents a low to medium risk of surface level flooding, and the inverters and compounds would create impermeable areas. These, new impermeable areas would include filter drains and infiltration trenches, the details of which could be finalised through a condition to secure a robust surface water drainage scheme.

Baseline noise levels were determined following surveys from three monitoring locations. This considered the effect of noise on the identified noise sensitive receptors located around the site. These receptors included the dwellings to the immediate south of the site such as ‘[address]’, ‘[address]’ and ‘Caerwents’. The readings indicate that traffic was the most dominant noise source, with average measured noise levels of 39, 44 and 65dB being recorded at the three locations.

The appellant’s Noise and Vibration Assessment recognises that the noise generated during construction may well occur over 65dB, but this will depend on the proximity of construction activity to noise sensitive receptors which will vary over time. Accordingly, the noise impact has been deemed to range between medium to small, with mitigation proposed to reduce the overall scale of the potential affect.

The assessment also comments that vibration from piling rigs and heavy plant may extend beyond the site. Whilst it finds that vibrations in some circumstances may exceed the threshold of complaint, it would be highly unlikely to exceed the threshold of structural damage. Such effects are deemed to be large to small when works are within 15m of a boundary, but effects would be temporary. A Vibration Impact Assessment and Management Plan, specifying the chosen piling method, can be secured by condition to mitigate the effects of piling to nearby dwellings.

In operational terms, the proposed scheme would include a maximum of 32 inverters, these are operational when the sun shines. The assessment explains that the sound level of a typical inverter is 75dB. Noise levels at each sensitive noise receptor have been calculated, with the highest being 32dB (at location 2- ‘Caerwents’), the lowest 21dB (at location 7- ‘Southerns’). The assessment finds that the proposed development is likely to be inaudible against existing acoustic conditions for most of the time.

Therefore, the assessment concludes that noise levels no more than 5dB above background levels, would be unlikely to result in an adverse impact at all existing receptors and no noise mitigation would be required. These conclusions appear robust and reasonable, a view shared by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

Interested parties have raised concerns that the proposed panels would overshadow neighbours, and cause overlooking. ‘[address]’, ‘[address]’ and ‘Caerwents’ are the nearest dwellings to the proposal. However, only ‘[address]’ would be adjacent to the proposed solar panels, and it would be separated by existing hedging. Furthermore, a buffer of open land is proposed to the rear two boundaries of ‘[address]’, placing panels some distance from this dwelling. As such, the proposed scheme would not cause overshadowing or create a harmful sense of enclosure for occupiers of adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, as the solar farm is a largely automated activity, any overlooking would relate to either the temporary behaviour of construction personnel or staff using the access roads occasionally, both of which having a minimal effect on any adjacent residential occupier’s privacy.

Interested parties have suggested that the proposal would affect tourism and the viability of tourist accommodation in the area. However, there is no clear evidence that tourists would be deterred from visiting the area as the proposal would result in only modest visual effects. Furthermore, the effect on the landscape character and visual effects have been taken into consideration in the planning balance, which could potentially also result in adverse effects on the tourist economy, albeit minor effects.

Other concerns have been raised by interested parties, such as disposal of old solar panels, fire risks, the need for further solar farms in the area based on local population numbers, the scheme would not create local jobs, the future impact of the scheme on the outward expansion of the settlement of Newent and/or the [address] relief road. These concerns are noted but have had only a limited bearing on my consideration of the main issues. Furthermore, whilst it has been alleged that harmful electromagnetic fields are emitted by power grids and toxic chemicals from cells can have a detrimental effect on human health, these comments are unsupported by substantive evidence and have been given limited weight in my consideration of the merits of the scheme.

I have concluded that the appeal scheme would result in moderate harm to the landscape character and convey moderate visual harm to the area and potential minor harm to the tourist economy. The limited harm identified to the heritage assets would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. Nevertheless, for the purpose of my overall planning balance this harm contributes to the adverse effects of the proposal. The surrounding landscape consists of low-lying undulating land with a relatively strong sense of containment, enabling the area to accommodate a degree of change.

The proposed scheme would not harm matters of glint and glare, weighing neither for nor against the proposal. Furthermore, the other matters identified raise issues that either result in no harm or raise technical matters that could be adequately addressed through the imposition of appropriate conditions to negate the harm.

The benefits of renewable energy raise substantial merit in favour of the proposal. These benefits are recognised in the Council’s local policies and national policy in accordance with the Climate Change Act of 2008. It is also supported, in Section 14 of the Framework, to increase the use and supply of renewable and low-cost energy and to maximise the potential for suitable such development. The delivery of suitable renewable energy projects is fundamental to facilitate the country’s transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate. These benefits are further supported through the identified BNG and moderate economic benefits of the proposal.

Also, a solar farm requires grid capacity and a viable connection to operate. As such, this requirement places a locational restriction on site selection that limits the number of appropriate sites for such a facility. The appellant explains, within the design and access statement, that the selection of the site took into account the requirements of the proposed scheme and the suitability of the site. Considerations included the grid connection (being near existing grid infrastructure and an existing 132kV line with sufficient capacity for the solar farm, avoiding BMV agricultural land and areas at risk of flooding. The appellant has therefore demonstrated that a rational approach was taken to site selection lending support for the selected site. The agreed grid connection attracts further significant weight.

Accordingly, the benefits of the proposal are of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the moderate harm found to the landscape character and visual effects of the proposal and adverse heritage effects. Consequently, the identified benefits attract substantial weight in favour of the scheme that would outweigh the moderate harm found. Consequently, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

I have considered the use of conditions in line with the guidance set out in the PPG. The conditions were also discussed at the hearing and I have taken into account the appellant’s verbal and written comments and the comments raised by the Council’s consultees. With this in mind, I shall take the Council’s suggested conditions into consideration and impose most of these with some amendments and adjustments for clarity as discussed and agreed at the hearing. I have applied an implementation period and standard condition with respect to approved plans as advised by the PPG for clarity and certainty [conditions 1 and 2].

A condition is also required to limit the temporary nature of the development for a 40-year period. This would cover the operational period and seek details of decommissioning following the expiry of the operational phase and if the site ceases to provide power over 12 months [3]. Furthermore, a condition is required to limit the maximum energy output of the site to prevent excessive overplanting. Despite, solar development now being regarded as an NSIP projects if they would exceed 100MWs and that the output is within description of development, a condition remains necessary to manage any overplanting of the site [4].

Condition 5, for a Soil Management Plan, is required to manage the handling and storage of soils during construction to ensure the quality of soils is protected to enable the future arable use of the site. Condition 6 is required to provide details of the layout of all equipment associated with the solar farm, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. The Council sought these requirements as a pre-commencement condition, but I see no clear reason why this information would be required before the site is prepared to receive the related equipment.

A condition is necessary to place way markers for the PRoW through the site to ensure walkers can follow correct pathways through the site and in support of enhanced routes to promote healthy lifestyles [7]. Condition 8 seeks the submission of an [name] and Management Plan to address the discovered archaeological interests on site, details required at a pre-commencement stage to prevent initial construction disturbance. The implementation of the Tree Protection Plan is necessary in the interests of nature conservation and to protect the character and appearance of the area [9].

Condition 10 requires the development to be undertaken in accordance with the [name] and the Landscape Strategy Plan, this is necessary to safeguard the biodiversity of the site and comply with the Habitat Regulations.

Conditions 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are required to safeguard biodiversity and in the interests of ecological matters. Respectively, these require the submission of an [name], a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, details of hard and soft landscaping, lighting details, Construction Environmental Management Plan – Biodiversity and a scheme for biodiversity enhancement. Whilst the level of detail sought by each condition has been questioned by the appellant, I am satisfied that due to the scale and ecological sensitivity of the site the Council’s required level of detail is required.

Furthermore, it is reasonable and necessary for condition 15, requiring details of lighting, to exclude the provision of lighting during construction. This exclusion is required for the proposal to comply with the undertaken Appropriate Assessment (AA), being within the Wye Valley and Forest of [name]. In finding no adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC, the AA took into consideration the site’s location within zone A for horseshoe bats, the absence of site-specific bat activity surveys and the reliance on hedgerows to prevent impacts on flightlines. A relaxation of lighting controls would erode the conclusions of the AA, triggering the need for a new AA to be undertaken with construction lighting details, the evidence for which is not before me. Furthermore, it has been acknowledged in the ES, Chapter 5A – ‘[name] and Phasing’ at para 5.31, that construction shall only take place in daylight hours.

Conditions 17, 18 and 19, relate to [name] (GNC) and compliance with the Council’s Organisational license, to secure a certificate from the delivery partner and to comply with the [name]. These are necessary to ensure the adverse impact on GCN are adequately mitigated.

A condition is necessary, to manage the hours of construction and the adverse effects of vibration during construction (through the submission of an assessment), in the interests of the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers [20 and 21]. Condition 22 is necessary, in seeking the submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan, to ensure the safe operation and free-flow of traffic on the highway. Also, condition 23 is required to ensure the access, for both construction traffic and then separately for operational traffic, can access the site in a safe manner without having and adverse effect on other road users.

Condition 24, seeking details of a surface water drainage scheme, is necessary to ensure the satisfactory management of surface water and reduce flood risk. Further, to minimise the visual impact of the solar panels, condition 25 is necessary, requiring the panels to be a dark, non-reflective finish.

The Council’s suggested condition with respect to information boards is not necessary and has not been applied. The Council’s request for a further Noise Impact Assessment has not been applied as the submitted assessment has been accepted by the Council and is suitably robust. Moreover, the appellants are not required to submit a Waste Management Plan as the submitted [name] has been agreed by the Council and further waste management matters would be sufficiently addressed through separate legislation.

As a result, for the above reasons the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans reference: • Indicative drawing [name]-001 [name], • Location Plan 9011 [name], and • Indicative site layout plan 9013 [name].

The permission hereby granted is for a temporary period only and the development shall be retained for a period of not more than 40 years from the date when electricity is first exported to the electricity grid (“the [name]”). Written confirmation of the [name] shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within six months of the [name]. If, within the approved 40 year operational period, the development ceases to export electricity to the electricity grid for a continuous period of 12 months, a scheme for the repair or decommissioning and removal of the solar farm and its ancillary equipment shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval within six months of the end of that 12 month period. Upon the expiry of the 40 year operational period, or following approved cessation as set out above, the solar farm, all associated infrastructure, buildings and equipment shall be decommissioned, dismantled and removed from the site and the land restored in accordance with a decommissioning and restoration scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The decommissioning and restoration scheme shall include: • a programme and timetable for the completion of decommissioning and restoration works; • a method statement for dismantling and removal of above ground infrastructure and foundations (to a depth to be agreed); • a Site Waste Management Plan or waste minimisation statement; • a traffic management plan for the decommissioning period; • an environmental management plan setting out measures to protect wildlife and habitats; and • details of the final land restoration measures. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full within 12 months of the expiry of the permission or within an alternative timescale otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The installed export capacity of the development hereby permitted shall not exceed 49.9MW AC. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority details about inverters for the development which shall accord with the details submitted pursuant to condition 8. The maximum combined export capacity of the inverters shall not exceed 49.9MW AC. Inverters shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained for the duration of the development.

Prior to the commencement of development, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Soil Management Plan shall set out the principles and measures for the protection, handling, storage, reuse, and reinstatement of soils during the construction, operational, and decommissioning phases of the development. The SMP shall include details of: •Measures to reduce soil compaction, contamination, and unnecessary disturbance, •Appropriate timing of soil handling activities, having regard to prevailing weather and soil conditions, •The approach to soil stripping, storage, and reuse, where required, • Measures to ensure soils are reinstated effectively at decommissioning so that agricultural land capability is maintained in accordance with the approved [name]. The Soil Management Plan shall be informed by relevant best practice guidance, including guidance published by Defra and the British Society of [name] (or any subsequent updates). The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved Soil Management Plan.

Notwithstanding the submitted details, no panel arrays, internal tracks, inverters / MVPs, substation, control building, equipment room, CCTV cameras, fencing (in accordance with the Design and [name], para 2.14 and Environmental Statement – chapter 3, para 3.8), or any other components of the scheme buildings shall be erected or installed on site until final details of their precise siting, external materials, form, and appearance have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such for the lifetime of the development in accordance with manufacturers guidelines.

Prior to the first export of electricity, all Public Right of Way (PROW) intersections and at all entry/exit points to the site shall be waymarked using Gloucestershire County Council official way-mark discs. These measures shall thereafter be maintained.

Prior to the commencement of development an [name] and Management Plan and a programme of archaeological work shall be implemented in areas that cannot be preserved in situ, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Archaeological Mitigation and Management Plan shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the lifetime of the solar farm.

The trees proposed for retention, as shown on the Tree Protection Plan, (Tree Survey & Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Appendix 3, [name]: 21/806/02. [name]), shall be protected during construction of the approved development in accordance with section 6.2 of BS5937:2012. The alignment of protective barrier fencing, as shown on the Tree Protection Plan, (Tree Survey & Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Appendix 3, [name]: 21/806/02. [name]), shall be installed prior to work commencing, and remain in situ until completion of construction.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following documents and drawings as submitted with the planning application, or any subsequent versions of those documents approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: i. A Skylark Mitigation Strategy, informed by the [name] dated March 2024 prepared by Stantec, or any subsequently approved [name]; and ii. Landscape Strategy Plan dated 14th November 2024, Drawing no: LN LP10 ([name]) by Stantec and the hard and soft landscaping details approved by separate condition. The off-site skylark plots shall be provided, on other nearby land within the appellant’s ownership, prior to the commencement of development and maintained in perpetuity. All biodiversity mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained permanently thereafter for the purposes of biodiversity conservation.

Prior to the commencement of development an ecological design strategy (EDS) addressing the habitat enhancement and creation works as outlined in the Biodiversity Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The EDS shall include the following: i. Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works; ii. Review of site potential and constraints; iii. Detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) to achieve stated objectives; iv. Extent and location/area of proposed works on appropriate scale maps and plans; v. Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate, e.g. native species of local provenance; vi. Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of development; vii. Persons responsible for implementing the works; viii. Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (typically the first 5- year period – and be compliant with LEMP condition); ix. Details for monitoring and remedial measures; and x. Details for disposal of any wastes arising from the works. The EDS shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

Prior to above ground works, a 10-year Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The content of the LEMP shall include, but not limited to the following: i. Description and evaluation of features to be managed; ii. Landscape and ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management; iii. Aims and objectives of management (including those related to species); iv. Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives, including appropriate enhancement measures; v. Prescriptions for management actions; vi. Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a 5-10 year period) the timings of which shall be consistent with the details submitted pursuant to condition 12 relating to the [name]; vii. Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan; viii. Legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer for the duration of the scheme; ix. Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures; x. Timeframe for reviewing the plan; and xi. Details of how the aims and objectives of the LEMP will be communicated to the occupiers of the development. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for hard and soft landscaping of the site (incorporating existing flora) and the materials to be used for hard surfacing, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be compliant with the [name] condition and include, but not be limited to: i. A plan showing existing vegetation to be retained and safeguarded during construction which shall be consistent with any Construction Environment Management Plan-Biodiversity submitted pursuant to condition 18. ii. A landscaping implementation phasing plan, where appropriate. iii. Detailed planting / sowing specifications including species, size, density spacing, cultivation protection (fencing, staking, guards) and methods of weed control iv. Details of surfacing, boundary treatments and landscaping structures including design, location, size, colour, materials and openings. Such a scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and in accordance with the landscape implementation phasing plan. If at any time in the five years following planting any tree, shrub or hedge shall for any reason die, be removed or felled it shall be replaced with another tree, shrub or hedge of the same species during the next planting season to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

There shall be no lighting on site during the construction period. There shall be no operational lighting unless prior to above ground works, details of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall clearly demonstrate that lighting will not cause excessive light pollution or disturb or prevent bat species using key corridors, forage habitat features or accessing roost sites. The details shall include, but not limited to, the following details: i. A drawing showing sensitive areas and/or dark corridor safeguarding areas ii. Description, design or specification of external lighting to be installed including shields, cowls or blinds where appropriate. iii. Demonstrate their relationship to the landscaping scheme iv. A description of the luminosity of lights and their light colour v. A drawing(s) showing the location and where appropriate the elevation of the light fixings. vi. Methods to control lighting control (e.g. timer operation, passive infrared sensor (PIR)). All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the approved details, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with these details. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed.

Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Environmental Management Plan - Biodiversity (CEMP-B) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP-B shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: i. Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities; ii. Identification of ‘biodiversity protection zones’; iii. Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements); iv. The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features (e.g. daylight working hours only starting one hour after sunrise and ceasing one hour before sunset); v. Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs, including advanced installation and maintenance during the construction period; vi. A non-native invasive species protocol (e.g. for Japanese knotweed) if required; vii. The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works; viii. Responsible persons and lines of communication; ix. The role and responsibilities on site of an [name] of Works (ECoW) or similarly competent person(s); and x. Ongoing monitoring, including compliance checks by a competent person(s) during construction and immediately post-completion of construction works. The approved CEMP-B shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details.

Before above ground works commence a scheme for biodiversity enhancement, such as the incorporation of bat roosting feature(s), hedgehog homes and nesting opportunities for birds within suitable trees/ features onsite, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved details thereafter shall be implemented, retained and maintained for their designed purpose in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall include, but not limited to, the following details: • Description, design or specification of the type of feature(s) or measure(s) to be undertaken, • Materials and construction to ensure long lifespan of the feature/measure, • A drawing(s) showing the location and where appropriate the elevation of the features or measures to be installed or undertaken, and • When the features or measures will be installed within the construction, occupation, or phase of the development.

No development hereby permitted shall take place except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Council’s Organisational Licence (WML-OR138, or a ‘[name]) and with the proposals detailed on plan “ [site address] : Impact plan for great crested newt District Licensing (Sheet 1 and Sheet 2) (Version 1)”, dated 14th May 2024.

No development hereby permitted shall take place unless and until a certificate from the [name] (as set out in the District Licence WML-OR138, or a ‘[name]), confirming that all necessary measures regarding great crested newt compensation have been appropriately dealt with, has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority and the authority has provided authorisation for the development to proceed under the district newt licence.

No development hereby permitted shall take place except in accordance with Part 1 of the [name], as set out in the District Licence (WML-OR138, or a ‘[name]) and in addition in compliance with the following: • Works to existing ponds onsite may only be undertaken during autumn/winter, unless otherwise in accordance with the [name] • Works which will affect likely newt hibernacula may only be undertaken during the active period for amphibians. • Capture methods must be used at suitable habitat features prior to the commencement of the development (i.e., hand/destructive/night searches), which may include the use of temporary amphibian fencing, to prevent newts moving onto a development site from adjacent suitable habitat, installed for the period of the development (and removed upon completion of the development). • Amphibian fencing and pitfall trapping must be undertaken at suitable habitats and features, prior to commencement of the development.

No works including construction works, site clearance, decommissioning and deliveries to and from the site shall take place outside the hours of: • 07:00- 18:00 Monday to Friday, • 08:00-13:00 on Saturday with no working on Sunday or [name].

Prior to the commencement of development, a vibration Impact Assessment and Management Plan, which shall relate to the chosen piling method shall be submitted. This shall include the details of mitigation, including those measures from the Noise and Vibration Assessment V4, received 6 February 2024, where appropriate. The construction should be undertaken in accordance with the approved Plan for the duration of the construction period.

Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) [covering the main site, sub-station site and cabling route], shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP shall include proportionate measures to manage construction traffic associated with the development, including: i. Approved routes for construction vehicles; ii. Measures to maintain highway safety and minimise disruption to other road users; iii. Arrangements for on-site parking, loading and unloading; and iv. Measures to prevent debris or mud being deposited on the public highway. The approved CTMP shall be implemented for the duration of the construction period.

Prior to the commencement of development, details and drawings of the proposed site access for construction vehicles onto the B4215 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved site access, for construction use, shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of the site for construction purposes, and shall thereafter be retained and maintained during the construction phase. Furthermore, prior to first export of electricity from the site, details and drawing of the proposed site access, for operational vehicles, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first export of electricity from the site and shall the be retained and maintained whilst the use retains operational. The approved details of the operational access shall include provision for gated access to the main solar site, set back a minimum of 15 metres from the carriageway edge.

Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be informed by the principles set out in the [name] and [name] submitted with the application. Details of measures to manage surface water during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and shall be implemented for the duration of the construction period. The approved permanent surface water drainage scheme shall be implemented prior to the development first being brought into use and shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

The solar panels hereby approved shall have a dark, non-reflective finish incorporating anti reflective coating, and shall be retained as such for the duration of the development. End of conditions