Controversial solar farm plans thrown out by government inspector

Fighting the appeal has cost Amber Valley Council “tens of thousands of pounds”, its deputy leader says.

Paul Jackson, the inspector who oversaw the inquiry, felt the plans from Kronos Solar for a solar farm between Alfreton and Oakerthorpe would have too much of an impact on the area’s landscape quality, character and appearance.

In his newly published report, Mr Jackson said the proposed solar farm would “present as a starkly industrial mass of metal” in the rolling landscape.

His decision comes after a six-day public inquiry held at the Post Mill Centre in South Normanton during late October and early November, after the developer appealed the council’s refusal of planning permission.

Mr Jackson says the scheme “would extend the area of industrial development into an area that is currently open countryside” and “the fields that characterise the countryside on high ground west of Alfreton would be largely subsumed”.

He wrote the proposed scheme would also impact on the setting of several historic buildings and assets, including St Martin’s Church, Alfreton Hall, Wingfield Manor and Alfreton Park – the settings of which would be “significantly diminished” and “seriously compromised”.

Kronos and the council have both been approached for comment.

The benefits of providing 50 megawatts of renewable energy for up to 11,500 homes a year – three times the number of households in Alfreton and nearly a quarter of all those in Amber Valley – was seen to be outweighed by the proposed negative impact.

Mass opposition was raised against the plans, led by campaign group Save Alfreton Countryside, which gathered 764 objection letters from residents, along with the backing of Amber Valley MP Nigel Mills and Coun Barry Lewis, Derbyshire Council leader.

Amber Valley Council’s planning board rejected the scheme in December 2021 due to its scale and impact on the landscape.

It appealed for Kronos to pay its costs of defending the appeal, but this was rejected by the inspector.

However, Kronos will have to pay £342 to the campaign group for “unreasonable” behaviour during the inquiry, namely serving information to an expert witness 10 minutes before they were due to give evidence.

A Save Alfreton Countryside spokesman said: “We are hugely relieved the inspector has found in favour of the very strong arguments made against this hugely damaging proposal.

“We are grateful for the incredible support of the community and councils which enabled us to secure legal representation to help our fight to protect this important landscape for future generations.”

John Campbell, Save Alfreton Countryside’s barrister, said: “This decision is a real testament to the valuable part the community can and should play in the planning process.”

Coun Tony Harper, borough council deputy leader, said: “The residents of Alfreton and surrounding areas are going to be delighted at the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to reject this appeal.

“It demonstrates Amber Valley Council is prepared to stand up for our community.

“We of course have to be sure we have strong reasons for refusing any planning application, but this result has clearly vindicated our decision.

“We understand the need for renewable energy and are certainly not opposed to that. We are very open to green energy applications, but this one simply impacted the area too much, and so the harm clearly outweighed the good.

“The council was forced to spend tens of thousands of pounds to defend its original decision through the appeals process.

“This is money that could potentially have been spent on other services, but we were placed in a position where we had no choice. And the principle of defending that on behalf of our residents was too important.”

Mr Jackson said, while hedge planting had been proposed to block the solar panels from view, the height they would be required to grow to would be out of character with the area – due to the panels standing three-metres tall.

In his report, he details that while parts of the scheme, such as deer fencing, may be obscured over time, CCTV cameras on high poles around the development “would be seriously inharmonious and intrusive in this relatively unspoilt undulating rural environment”.

He said the impact of the scheme within two kilometres of the development would be more significant than that on the wider area, which he says currently has an “intimate…distinct sense of tranquility”.

Mr Jackson writes: “The consistent undulating valley sides carpeted with mainly small fields and groups of trees does not lend itself to introduction of the proposed large scale industrial installation that would rise well above the low hedges and dominate the topography.”

He felt Kronos had “underestimated” the landscape value and made reference to “a large body of evidence testifying to the enhanced value placed on the parkland and the appeal site by local people”.

The scheme would result in a “serious visual impact”, writing: “The proposed development would be significantly out of scale with the landscape of undulating small fields and would completely dominate an attractive valley landform.

“It would effectively prevent many locally important views towards the Peak District from a dense network of well-used public footpaths on the edge of a settlement, occupiers of which greatly value the landscape and views into and from it.”

The development would have remained on-site “temporarily” for 40 years and then removed. Mr Jackson felt the renewable energy benefit was a “very significant factor in favour” of the scheme’s approval.

However, he concluded: “The need for renewable or low carbon energy does not automatically override environmental protections. In the overall balance, the harm caused to landscape character and visual amenity is decisive.

“I consider that 40 years is a very significant period in people’s lives during which the development would seriously detract from landscape character and visual amenity.”