Find, save and share Public Notices that affect you in the area.
Search the Public Notice Portal What is the Public Notice Portal?What is the Public Notice Portal?
The Public Notice Portal carries statutory public notices published in local newspapers and is the fastest and most effective way of finding out what is happening in YOUR neighbourhood.
Search the Public Notice PortalA plan for an 86-acre solar farm at Lower Wyke Farm near St Mary Bourne has been refused by a development control committee of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council.
The decision, made on June 25, came amid concerns about the natural landscape and the potential health risks associated with living too close to a solar farm.
The 29-megawatt farm, which would span three fields, was expected to generate enough electricity to power approximately 7,252 homes and offset 6,432 tonnes of CO2 annually. It was a temporary site, and the land would be restored to its original use after up to 40 years of solar farm usage.
Several objectors took the stand at the meeting, firstly Councillor Patrick Foote, chairman of St Mary Bourne Parish Council.
He explained the negative effect on the landscape and the difficulty in the positioning of the proposed solar farm, causing traffic issues and ‘enormous diversions.’
Councillors were informed that the construction of the solar farm would take nine months.
Cllr Foote exclaimed: "It is setting a very serious precedent for the future, one that will be difficult to unsay. We believe it can only lead to further development in areas that are predominantly rural."
He recommends an industrial site nearby that would be 'better suited.'
Sarah Wyatt-Tilby, vice-chair of Hurstbourne Priors Parish Council, echoed the concerns about the landscape.
She said she did not feel there were exceptional circumstances or public interest, and it would cause ‘a detrimental effect’ on the natural landscape.
She said: "It is set to be temporary, that temporary nature is 40 years. Within the context of this application, 40 years seems to us to be permanent rather than temporary."
Liz Cosgrove, from Mulberry Court in Andover, spoke on behalf of her retirement community to object to the plans.
She quoted national guidelines which recommend a 500-metre gap between industrial and solar sites, explaining that this solar farm would sit only 80 metres from their door.
She said: "There is an unknown cancer risk of living so close. The [developer’s] response claims residents are upset due to misinformation on social media. This is deeply patronising; it dismisses us as alarmists when we have legitimate and informed concerns.
“We live in a retirement complex where my husband and many of our older and more vulnerable neighbours are cancer survivors.
"Solar farms have only existed for just over 10 years in this country; that is not long enough to draw a firm conclusion about the long-term health effects."
Councillor Paul Miller inquired about the distance between solar farms and houses, and the officer informed him that they are not aware of any set distances and that Environmental Health had raised no objections.
They said it included a ‘comprehensive landscaping scheme’ with a 217 per cent boost on biodiversity net gain.
Councillor Samuel Carr said he thought the application would cause ‘significant harm’ and that it is ‘not a small-scale scheme, this is 35 hectares.’
Cllr Miller, who represents the council at the North Wessex Downs office, explained that the natural landscapes need to be protected.
He said: "To have this put inside the natural landscape, I think, is a step too far."
Councillor Mike Bound said that despite the loss of landscape, farming and heritage land, he thinks the application should be approved.
He said: "The benefit to us in terms of green energy, this was somewhat put to one side by the objectors. The green energy element of it trumps the effect on the landscape."
Councillor Andrew McCormick said the energy generated would be enough for two wards in the borough.
He said: "We all know the challenges we have with climate and expensive electricity."
Read more
Cllr Hussey moved approval, and Cllr Bound seconded this. Four voted in favour, five voted against, and the motion was lost.
Cllr Miller recommended refusal due to the impact on the natural landscape, and that it is contrary to the policies of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. Councillor Richard Court seconded and pointed out the transport issues, although he was told that it is not a sufficient reason for refusal. Six voted in favour, four voted against.
The item was refused due to a negative impact on the natural landscape.
Share