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