Plans for a solar farm and energy storage system in Kelham voted against by Newark and Sherwood District Council
Plans for a new solar farm have been refused as councillors say they were elected to represent community concerns.
The proposal, submitted by Assured Asset Solar 2 Ltd, aims to install a solar farm with a generating capacity of up to 49.9 megawatts (MW) and a BESS with a storage capacity of 50 MW.
The site is located on land to the west of Main Street, Kelham, and compromises approximately 65 hectares of agricultural land between Kelham and Averham.
At a Newark and Sherwood District Council planning meeting on Thursday (January 16), committee members voted unanimously against the plans.
Over 20 residents from the villages surrounding the land were present at the meeting showing their disapproval of the planning application.
As well as the councillor’s debate, the discussion heard from resident Kira Green and James Cook the planning application agent.
Kira Green, a concerned resident, urged the committee to refuse the application. She said: “We know that the transition into clean energy is a good thing but this site is not a good place for this.”
She shared her concerns about the impact the project would have on the agricultural land, the proximity of the Great North Solar Farm to the proposal, the flooding issues on site and the amount of “serious and fatal” accidents on the main road.
She added: “This is a massive stress for residents of Kelham and Averham and Staythorpe parishes and over to Muskham as well.”
The project would include ground-mounted photovoltaic panels, battery storage units, and associated infrastructure, with plans to connect to the grid via Staythorpe Power Station.
The proposal would have a lifespan of 40 years, after which all equipment would be removed from the site and the land returned to its former condition.
Following the resident’s speech, James Cook said that the submitted agricultural impact assessment concluded that there will be no significant impacts to the region’s agricultural production.
He added: “The site has made minimal contribution to food production in recent years, most of the site has been used to produce energy crops for anaerobic digesters locally due to the unsuitability to grow crops for food.
“In the officer’s report, there is a very clear need for low-carbon and renewable energy generation.
“In addition, significant benefits will also be provided for public access, local biodiversity and the local community.”
The Environment Agency’s Flood Maps confirm the site is predominately Flood Zone One, where there is a low probability of flooding.
However, the site contains isolated areas of Flood Zone Two, where there is a medium probability of flooding, and a small part of the site access would fall within Flood Zone Three.
The site has been identified as a mix of grade two and three agricultural land, which is considered very good and good to moderate respectively, for agricultural purposes.
The site is also located within the setting of heritage assets and on-site archaeological interest.
One of the main concerns of the evening was the cumulative effect of the solar farm plans as the area is part of the Great North Solar Farm project and also has the Staythorpe Power Station.
Sue Saddington said: “We have to consider the climate, I am not saying we don’t, but for goodness sake, we have to consider the residents.
“Now we see Ed Milliband singing blowing in the wind, what wind? We haven’t had wind for two months, and we haven’t had sun except a bit for today, so I think that when we get our power bills at the end of this month, we will find that we have used a lot of gas.
“The cumulative effect, the fact that we don’t have wind and sun all the time to work all these climate equipment, we certainly still need to support our climate with gas for the moment, and I am worried about the flooding, the lost land and the access to that road.“
There were no objections from official sources such as Nottinghamshire County Council highways, National Highways, Nottinghamshire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority, Environment Agency and Natural England.
Keith Melton commented on the dangers of the main entrance to the site as the road has a traffic limit of 50mph, however there are often reports of speeding and a number of accidents.
Averham, Kelham and Staythorpe Parish Council objected to the application due to concerns the development will be permanent as panels will be replaced as technology improves, the fire risk, solar farms’ green credentials being questionable, and harmful and significant detrimental impact on the local landscape character.
Celia Brooks called out the importance of not making an emotional decision but one based on planning considerations.
Mrs Brooks said: “I agree with a lot you say, I don’t know what I think and that is not because I haven’t been listening, I have been listening to everything and that’s why I don’t know.
“A lot of quite emotive stuff has come out and we are not looking at emotions, it does not matter how strongly you feel about it, we need to find planning reasons and that’s my dilemma.
“Having a look through the road, I agree, it’s a horrendous road, I have stood on it and it’s awful, but Highways haven’t said anything and there’s nothing from the flooding people.
“I wouldn’t want to live there knowing that it is there, but I don’t see we’ve got enough planning reasons at the moment to say this is why we are turning it down, these are our reasons.”
Agreeing with the refusal of the solar farm plans, Linda Tift shared her concerns over the application.
“Fully respecting councillor Brooks that we don’t have enough planning policies to prevent this, I think it is a very poor view because, at the end of the day, we are here representing these people,” said Linda Tift.
She added: “I do think that if we don’t listen to the people that live in these places, we might as well throw democracy out of the window.”
This application follows a previous proposal for a similar development in the same area, which was refused by the district council in 2023 due to concerns over landscape impact, loss of agricultural land, and potential effects on local heritage assets.
In response, the current proposal includes revised plans to address these issues, such as enhanced landscaping measures and assessments of heritage and environmental impacts.
Residents were consulted on the application initially in October 2023, which saw in 52 letters submitted, of which 51 were in objection.
The submission of revised plans in June 2024 saw another 51 letters submitted, with 13 letters of support and 38 letters of objection.
The application was voted against unanimously by the committee members on a named voted.
