Formal objections to the Benridge Solar Farm planning application

In articles published on this site over the past year or so I've outlined my objections to a proposed solar farm development on land at Benridge Farm, just off Fillpoke Lane between High Hesleden and the A1086 Coast Road at Crimdon. My most recent post sets out the main issues and can be found here: Residents' campaign to oppose Benridge Solar Farm

I've now submitted my formal objections to the county council and I've published my comments below in full for information. If you haven't already had your say on the Benridge development please consider submitting your comments to the council's planning department. All you need to do is enter the planning code DM/25/01964/FPA into the search bar in this link: Simple Search and follow the directions.

A decision on whether this development should go ahead will be made by the council's planning committee, which consists of 12 elected members of Durham County Council. Members are compelled to judge all applications with an open mind and take all the facts presented to them into consideration. So if we want to stop this proposal it's up to us as a community to persuade committee members that this is the wrong type of development in the wrong place. Make your voice heard.

DM/25/01964/FPA | Installation of a solar farm together with all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure including battery storage. | Land To The East, South And West Of Benridge Farm, Fillpoke Lane Blackhall Rocks TS27 4BT

My objections to the proposed solar farm at Benridge Farm, Fillpoke Lane should be considered alongside the other points of objection raised by residents, businesses and organisations from the Blackhalls & Hesledens communities I represent as the county councillor.

Given the general nature of the objections I wish to register my concern that an Environmental Assessment was not requested by the LPA. This omission has caused considerable alarm in the community, giving rise to fears that environmental risk factors associated with the proposal have not been adequately assessed. In my view the absence of an EA suggests that the application cannot be approved safely with any level of assurance for our residents or their communities.

The comments below are an outline only of my concerns and are not exhaustive. The points raised here will be developed when the application is put before members at the planning committee stage

Land Use: The land proposed for use in this development is privately owned. Durham County Council’s own policy is that priority for solar developments should be given to brown field sites and land that is Council owned. Provision already exists within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to compulsorily purchase land for public benefit. 

Given the scale and accelerating momentum recently of solar farm applications, the position of any further proposals should balance the needs of developers, landowners and the general public. Schemes such as this, if done fairly, on Council-owned, brown field sites could generate substantial capital receipts, or significant revenue streams, to properly fund vital public services in deprived local communities such as the Blackhalls and Hesledens. Critically, solar farms should be developed on land an acceptable distance from settled communities (see comments below on the cumulative and visual impact of solar farms).

Productive agricultural land: The loss of agricultural land or the disposal of the panels has not been adequately taken into consideration. The fields at the proposed site are already providing vital energy in the form of food, and food security must be seen in the context of current global upheaval and uncertainty. The DCC Local Plan refers to the sustainability of food production, and losing another valued location to solar goes against this commitment.

No discernible local benefit: This development will not provide any significant level of employment for local people, and no one will save a single penny on their energy bills as a consequence of this scheme. Understandably residents who will be adversely impacted most by the proposed solar farm are annoyed that they are expected to shoulder any associated disruption and inconvenience while the company and the grid stand to benefit from the scheme.

Visitors from local villages and beyond come to this part of the Durham coast to enjoy the scenery and its distinctive rural setting. All available evidence points to the physical and mental health benefits of the natural environment. The overall effect of this proposal will have an adverse social and public health impact with no financial benefits to outweigh the harm. In other words, the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the drag it will have on the natural environment or the settled communities around it.

Decommissioning and aftermath: We live in volatile times, and many energy companies have gone out of business or have been swallowed up by larger energy industry companies. It is not possible to know for certain that the company will exist 20 or 30 years from now, leading to fears that residents nearby will be left with a vast, rusting landscape on their doorstep.

The scrap market is also unreliable so it’s reasonable to conclude that the residual panels may well be worthless by the time the site is decommissioned. Given these factors I would request that as a condition an assessment of the full cost of decommissioning should be made prior to any construction and funds supplied by the applicant in the form of an index-linked bond to cover the full costs of decommissioning.

Cumulative and Visual impact: The application must be seen within the wider context of hundreds of acres of agricultural land already lost to recently approved solar farm sites nearby. Taken as a whole, this development will essentially industrialise historic, unspoilt countryside on the edge of ancient woodland. The community at large deserves to be protected from this and any future similar industrial developments.

In addition, local residents feel that this proposal offers no benefit to the community. For many people living in the settlements around the proposed development site the countryside is the only amenity, so to consign residents to living in such close proximity to an industrial solar farm is unfair. The company is proposing to install their solar farm at this location simply because they can, and because it appears to them to be an easy option.

Battery storage facilities risk: Documented evidence is available which demonstrates the risks associated with Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS), especially when they are installed in close proximity to residential areas. It is noted that the village of High Hesleden is very close to the proposed development site, and an additional housing development directly adjoining the BESS location is currently in the pipeline. Battery fires cannot be ruled out and the risk is not adequately mitigated in the company’s planning application. In addition, the production, shipping and supply costs associated with BESS seriously weakens any claims of ‘Net Zero’ benefits to be accrued from solar farm development.

Planning considerations: When this application is put before the planning committee for a decision the planning policies it contradicts will be developed in full. For the purpose of this letter of objection however I refer here to just a few of the most relevant policies and how they relate to this application. The list is not exhaustive:

·    Para 28, NPPF Part 15 Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment: the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity or geological conservation interests, recognising the wider benefits of ecosystems, minimising the impacts on biodiversity, preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from pollution and land stability and remediating contaminated or other degraded land where appropriate

·    Para 39, Policy 31 – Amenity and Pollution: states that development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated there will be no unacceptable impact, either individually or cumulatively, on health, living or working conditions or the natural environment, and that the development can be effectively integrated with any existing business and community facilities. Development will not be permitted where inappropriate odours, noise, vibration and other sources of pollution cannot be suitably mitigated against

·    Para 43. Policy 39 – Landscape: states that proposals for new development will only be permitted where they would not cause unacceptable harm to the character, quality or distinctiveness of the landscape, or to important features or views. Proposed developments affecting Areas of Higher Landscape Value (AHLV) will be permitted only where it conserves and enhances the special qualities of the landscape

In conclusion I would urge planning officers to take these comments into consideration and give them significant weight before they come to a recommendation. I believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that this application ought to be recommended for refusal on the grounds set out here and elsewhere by members of the community and local organisations.

Cllr Rob Crute

Blackhalls & Hesledens Division

Durham County Council

Friday 12 June: Park Avenue closed to traffic for sewer clearance works

I’ve been notified by the council’s highways department that Park Avenue in Blackhall Colliery will be closed to traffic next Friday to allow for sewer cleansing works to take place.

The short term works restriction will be in place between 8am and 4pm on Friday 12 June 2026 for an anticipated period of 1 day, and I'm told that notices will be posted at either end of the street advising residents of the closure.

Road closures around the A19 interchange at Castle Eden from tonight

On Friday 5 June a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) will come into effect to enable road works to take place at the Wellfield interchange and on the A19 slip roads.

I checked arrangements earlier this week with highways engineers and they have confirmed that resurfacing works are scheduled to take place overnight for a period of 10 nights. In effect this means roads in the immediate area will be closed to traffic between 8pm and 6am each night from Friday 5 June until Sunday 14 June.

Diversion routes will be in place with full details available on the DCC website via this link: https://www.durham.gov.uk/roadworks

Reform UK to hire political fixers to serve their members. And you get to pay for them!

At Durham County Council's Annual General Meeting held in county hall yesterday (Wednesday 20 May 2026) the Reform UK administration in control of the council asked members to agree to appoint two political assistants for a minimum three years at a total cost to the County Durham taxpayer of £256,000 (£85,300 over 3 years). 

The papers for the meeting set out the basis for the administration's plan to pay for political advisors to work for and on behalf of the two biggest political parties on the council, currently Reform UK and the Lib Dems. The assistants will be nominated, selected and appointed by the political parties themselves and will work to the orders of the leader of that political group. In other words, you are going to pay through the nose for someone to do the jobs of the councillors you voted into office at the local elections last year - councillors who are already receiving an allowance for their role as local representatives!

Political Assistants will be employed to serve the political party that handed them the job. And you the taxpayer gets to stump up £85,300 every year for the next three year term of this Reform UK administration - that's a whopping £256,000 in total. 

That's bad enough in itself, especially after we were told just a couple of months ago that there was no money to spare to help some of the most vulnerable families across the county struggling with rising council tax bills. But to make matters worse there's nothing in the council's constitution to provide for these posts and there's nothing in the budget to pay for them. 

Instead, senior managers at the council will now be told to go away and find £256,00 down the back of a couch somewhere - normally code for further service cuts to pay for something that Reform UK kept under wraps when they were on the doorsteps asking for your vote during the election campaign last May. Make no mistake, someone's been working hard behind the scenes to change everything around for the sole benefit of Reform UK members on Durham County Council.

In effect the proposal amounts to the creation of two-tier council representation at DCC for the first time ever, with Reform UK dipping into the pockets and purses of the taxpaying public to give themselves a significant advantage over the smaller parties. Someone more cynical than me might be tempted to call that political interference.

To be clear, over the years there have been thousands of local councillors elected to public office to work on behalf of their communities, and for decades they've managed to do all that without having to hire someone at public expense to give them a helping hand. Although the allowance that councillors receive isn’t a salary it’s been just about sufficient to enable members to carry out their public duties without external assistance. That is until now.

There's something happening in local government lately that's never happened before. Unelected officials are being selected and appointed by political parties to work for those same political parties and no one else – all at the taxpayers’ expense. That is unprecedented here in County Durham.

As a County Durham taxpayer, if you're ok with Reform UK raiding the public purse to pay for their own Political Assistant, you've got nothing to fear and nothing to lose. If on the other hand you're concerned that you're paying through the nose to employ someone to promote and expand the influence of a specific political party at taxpayers’ expense you need to watch out for how your local councillor voted on Wednesday morning.

It goes without saying that on behalf of the County Durham Labour Group I spoke against this ill-considered measure at yesterday's council meeting, and I was supported by almost every member of the other political groups. Only Reform UK members voted in favour - although it should be noted that over a dozen of their members stayed away yesterday rather than obey their party whip.

I've published below a transcript of the notes I used in objecting to Reform UK's proposal. My comments are based on the papers tabled at yesterday's council meeting: Political Assistants final Council report.pdf

When this matter was first tabled at the Constitution Working Group a few weeks ago I raised my objections – mainly on principle because I could see straight away that using taxpayers’ money to fund party political posts is impossible to justify.

At the time I warned other members of the CWG that this wouldn’t sit well with members of the public – and now that we’ve seen the actual costs of the proposal I’m even more convinced that voicing my concerns then was the right thing to do.

Just a few months ago we were told there was no money to maintain a safety net to protect vulnerable families struggling with council tax demands - yet now we’re being asked to support a proposal that’s going to cost the taxpayers of County Durham £85k a year – that’s over a quarter of a million pounds over the next 3 years.

To make matters worse, there’s nothing in the constitution to provide for these posts and there’s nothing in the budget to pay for them. So in effect we’re asking officers to go away and find £85,000 down the back of the couch to fund something that was never mentioned during the elections last year – and something that no one even knew about until a few days ago.

I know there are quite a few members from all the parties struggling with this one, so my advice is to put yourself in the place of the people who sent you here. And ask yourself if they’d be comfortable stumping up for a party-appointed post that answers to the party alone, and has no positive effect whatsoever in directly improving public services.

If local government is to work properly on behalf of the people - in financial terms - we need to look at this from a different angle. In essence, taxpayers create a shared resource through council tax. That pool of money is meant to provide services collectively that individuals otherwise couldn’t afford to pay for – whether it’s for social care services, highways, education or whatever - that money is there to serve our residents and communities.

But what we have here is a political party dipping into that pool of taxpayers’ money to pay for a party-political post that serves only the party - on the party’s own terms and with no direct benefit to the people paying for it. That cannot be right. And if you look at it from that perspective it’s impossible to justify.

If you’re happy for taxpayers to stump up to fund jobs for party political benefit - and you’re then prepared to face the consequences - by all means vote for this proposal. But be warned. Things like this have a habit of coming back to haunt you.

We won’t support this proposal - simply because it’s impossible to justify - and I urge members to think about exactly what you’re asking the taxpayers of County Durham to do this morning. Take a look at this from the perspective of those taxpayers, apply some common sense - and join with us in opposing what our residents will rightly see as a blatant misuse of public money for party political purposes.

Labour members leading the way on community casework

A Freedom of Information (FoI) request was received by Durham County Council recently asking for details of the casework items raised and registered by individual councillors.

The data in the table below show that 3 out of our 5* Labour members were placed in the top 10 in the list of casework queries raised with the council on behalf of their residents, businesses and communities. Proof, if it was needed, that Labour members are leading the way when it comes to all-year-round community activity and responding efficiently to their residents' queries and concerns.

*NB: Labour's Julie Griffiths was elected as the member for Murton in a by-election held earlier this month.

Casework Items	Surname	First Name	Political Group
415	Crute	Rob	Labour Group
302	McGlenen	Jack	Not aligned
282	Maddison	Liz	Spennymoor and Tudhoe Independent Group
280	Molloy	Pete	Not aligned
201	Bell	Alan	DCC Independent Group
178	Gray	Alison	Labour Group
177	Grimes	Darren	Reform UK Group
171	Sims-Brydon	Saffron	Reform UK Group
160	Smith	Tracie	Labour Group
158	Wilkes	Mark	Liberal Democrat Group
146	Mavin	Eric	Liberal Democrat Group
142	Hutchinson	Gary	DCC Independent Group
135	Bowron	Stephen	Reform UK Group
128	McAloon	Billy	Spennymoor and Tudhoe Independent Group
126	Hope	Kenny	Reform UK Group
119	Taylor	Louise	Reform UK Group
107	Penders	Louise	Reform UK Group
102	Craggs	Neil	Reform UK Group
102	Rodiss	Robbie	Reform UK Group
100	Redmond	Tom	Reform UK Group
96	Elmer	Jonathan	DCC Independent Group
94	Husband	Andrew	Reform UK Group
94	Ramage	Michael	Not aligned
87	Foote-Wood	Chris	Labour Group
85	Haney	Dominic	Liberal Democrat Group
83	Neil	Alex	Liberal Democrat Group
77	Grindle	Sandra	Reform UK Group
74	Brown	Liz	Liberal Democrat Group
74	Catchpole	Ian	Reform UK Group
73	Blatchford	Christine	Reform UK Group
73	Rowland	Kate	Reform UK Group
72	Rooney	Kathryn	Liberal Democrat Group
68	Pickard	James	Reform UK Group
65	Franklin	Steven	Reform UK Group
64	Heaviside	Phil	DCC Independent Group
63	Quinn	Joe	Reform UK Group
61	Lines	Chris	DCC Independent Group
60	Harrison	Andrew	Reform UK Group
59	Robson	Tim	Reform UK Group
59	Rowney	Mark	Reform UK Group
56	Biggs	Steve	Reform UK Group
56	Martin	Craig	Liberal Democrat Group
55	McGuinness	Tim	Reform UK Group
53	Walton	David Walton	Reform UK Group
52	Campbell	Jillian	Reform UK Group
51	Hopgood	Amanda	Liberal Democrat Group
51	Husband	Susan	Reform UK Group
50	Burriss	Rhys	Reform UK Group
49	Cook	John	Reform UK Group
49	Gray	Stephen	Reform UK Group
49	Hunt	Cathy	Reform UK Group
47	Elmer	Priscilla	DCC Independent Group
46	Healy	Sean	Reform UK Group
43	Bellingham	Dawn	Reform UK Group
43	Fairs	Chris	Reform UK Group
43	Freeman	David	Liberal Democrat Group
42	Teasdale	Jackie	Reform UK Group
41	Genner	Kyle	Reform UK Group
41	Pears	Elizabeth	Liberal Democrat Group
40	Hillam	Aaron	Reform UK Group
40	Kinvig	John	Reform UK Group
40	Potts	Rob	Reform UK Group
39	Franklin	Mary-Lynn	Reform UK Group
39	Shuttleworth	John	DCC Independent Group
38	Woodhouse	Scott	Reform UK Group
37	Marshall	Craig	Reform UK Group
34	Blakey	Jan	DCC Independent Group
34	Burnard	Matt	Reform UK Group
33	Mountford	Paul Mountford	Reform UK Group
32	Brydon	Gavin	Reform UK Group
30	Stephenson	James	Reform UK Group
28	Allison	Karen	Reform UK Group
27	Bell	Richard	Not aligned
27	Quirey	Brian	Reform UK Group
25	Rooney	Terry	Liberal Democrat Group
25	Schulman	Adrian	Reform UK Group
23	Brown	Nicole Brown	Reform UK Group
21	Eales	Andrew	Reform UK Group
19	Bean	Paul	Not aligned
19	Grant	John Grant	Reform UK Group
19	Sexton	Paul	Reform UK Group
18	Lyons	Nicola	Reform UK Group
17	Brown	Howard	Reform UK Group
17	Hopgood	Ellie	Liberal Democrat Group
17	Savory	Anita	DCC Independent Group
16	Fox	Lyndsey	Reform UK Group
13	Hunt	Emma	Reform UK Group
10	Mavin	Lesley	Liberal Democrat Group
10	Saunders	Dawn	Reform UK Group
10	Stead	Michael	Liberal Democrat Group
8	Cottier	John	Reform UK Group
8	Cross	Ian	Reform UK Group
6	Brown	Nick	Not aligned
6	Moist	Bill	Not aligned
5	Anderson	George	Reform UK Group
4	Fox	Jasmine	Reform UK Group
3	Griffiths	Julie	Labour Group (Elected 5.3.26)
1	Scott	Elizabeth	Liberal Democrat Group