Heritage harm blocks proposed solar farm

So they can be stopped!

The bid by French company EDF Energy Renewables to build a 256-acre solar farm at Aldington has been refused at appeal by a planning inspector.

EDF’s scheme was refused permission by Ashford Borough Council in April last year before EDF almost inevitably appealed against the decision – and now, after a 10-week inquiry that began in February, the decision by inspector Paul Griffiths has been published.

The 49MW scheme, known as East Stour Solar Farm and targeted for farmland south of the M20, had been refused by ABC due essentially to the following reasons:

• Harm to landscape character and visual amenity
• Impact on the significance of heritage assets with archaeological interest
• Management of construction vehicles during the construction phase of the development
• Mitigation and enhancement measures for badgers, brown hares and breeding birds
• Impact on safeguarded mineral deposits

However, by the time of the inquiry, some of these issues had been resolved and the council was defending its case on the premise of impact on landscape and public rights of way, together with the setting of listed heritage assets (Church of St Martin and Court Lodge Farm).

In refusing EDF’s appeal, Mr Griffiths said: “Notwithstanding the screen planting included as a part of the scheme, the imposition of a solar array on the various land parcels is bound to have a significant adverse effect on the receiving landscape.

“Moreover, notwithstanding the revisions to the layout referred to… the experience of walking along the public rights of way that pass through and near to the proposal would undergo a change that would be a negative one.”

Ultimately, it was the harm to the setting and significance of key listed buildings – the Grade I-listed Church of St Martin and the Grade II* Court Lodge – that proved decisive. The inspector concluded that, while the public benefits of renewable-energy generation were substantial, they did not outweigh the ‘less than substantial’ but still serious harm to heritage assets.

While CPRE Kent are strong supporters of the transition to renewable energy, we absolutely agree with ABC that the process should not “automatically override” the protection of our natural environment.

At a time when it might appear that every last field of our countryside is under siege from renewable-energy proposals, it is encouraging to see that sometimes a reasonable and balanced approach to planning can secure a healthy outcome.

In this respect, the inspector’s concluding comments regarding the proposed adjoining Stonestreet Green Solar Farm are striking. As is pointed out, this much larger solar and battery-storage scheme threatens the same heritage assets.

CPRE Kent believe this should serve as a warning and a precedent confirming the heritage impacts are real and substantial. We therefore urge the DCO panel to give them the weight they deserve and refuse the Stonestreet Green application accordingly.