Huge solar farm on greenfield North Hampshire land refused

There was cause for celebration for many Silchester and Bramley residents after a huge solar farm between the two villages was turned down.

Protests by a local opposition group provided the backdrop for the borough council meeting last night (Wednesday), as campaigners gathered outside the council offices in Basingstoke to object to the scheme.

The application, called Bramley Frith, would have seen a farm the size of around 140 football pitches built on fields around Bramley substation for a “temporary” period of 40 years, and would have been capable of powering around 11,700 homes, as well as displacing 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

However, councillors on the development control committee ignored the recommendation for approval from its planning officers and overwhelmingly rejected the scheme, citing concerns over the loss of arable greenfield land, the lack of benefit for local residents and the possible impact on the Roman archaeological remains.

The committee heard from Lee Harrison, representing the Bramley Solar Farm residents group, who said: “Solar in the right place and supported by the community is a positive force, but solar done primarily to line the pockets of developers is not.”

He criticised the planning officers’ report for describing the farm as “temporary”, adding that as the farm would be in place for 40 years, many of the people who had objected to it would not be around to see it decommissioned.

Simon Wheeler, head of development for Enso Energy, the company behind the plans, said the scheme would be the single biggest action “this council can take right now to tackle climate change”, and said “severe weather events in the borough have shown that the global issue of climate change is now a local problem”.

He warned that the scheme was robust enough to withstand scrutiny of a planning inspector, hinting that the company would appeal the decision.

Bramley resident Alan Haffenden, speaking in favour of the application, asked the council to “lead by example and disallow the myopic self-interest of the objectors and grant the development for the greater good”.

However, councillors sided with the campaign group.

Chris Tomblin, who represents the Bramley ward for the local independents group, said: “The application will deliver renewable energy for most of the year, but it won’t address the cost of energy right now.

“It’s a commercial enterprise first and foremost and is located on this site as it’s the cheapest connection to the National Grid.”

He said community groups should be encouraged to fund panels on buildings.

Paul Harvey (BDI, Norden) said: “These kinds of proposals do need to benefit the community and there is no indication that this application in any way, shape or form directly benefits the community.

“On landscape grounds, particularly on heritage impact and the critical importance of the archaeological site, it would do harm.”

Nick Robinson, who also represents Bramley for the Conservatives, said: “It’s on arable farm land and generates 700 tonnes of grain per year.”

He said alternative sites for solar farms should be sought, such as factories, warehouses and railway embankments, adding: “I really can’t understand why we need to put this on a greenfield site.

The decision was not unanimous, however.

Liberal Democrat councillor Ronald Hussey said he was “ashamed” to be on the council as the debate veered towards refusal.

He said: “Three years since we declared a climate emergency, and we’re still sitting on our backsides doing nothing.

“We declared an emergency, and we put lots of effort into putting words on paper, and got wonderful strategies, but what have we actually achieved?

“We’re doing nothing.

“We need to seize the initiative, and we’re failing this evening by the sounds of it.”