Councillors reject 185-acre solar farm on Nottinghamshire farmland

Plans for a 185-acre solar farm on agricultural land near a Nottinghamshire conservation village have been unanimously rejected by councillors following concerns over the impact on the rural landscape, heritage and surrounding countryside.

Campaigners from Norwell gathered outside Newark and Sherwood District Council headquarters after the application was refused at a planning meeting on Thursday, 7 May.

Foxholes Solar Limited, part of SSE Renewables, had proposed building the solar farm on farmland near Bathley Lane, close to the village of Norwell.

The development was expected to generate enough renewable energy to supply around 16,580 homes.

The proposal comes amid growing debate over the expansion of large-scale solar developments on farmland as the UK pushes towards net zero targets while rural communities raise concerns about food production, landscape change and the loss of agricultural land.

The planned scheme would have covered 185 acres and included solar panels, perimeter security fencing and associated infrastructure across open countryside.

More than 150 objections were submitted against the proposal, with residents and parish representatives raising concerns about the impact on the village setting, nearby listed buildings and the surrounding rural environment.

Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service after the meeting, John Hobson, from the Norwell solar farm steering group, described the outcome as an “incredible relief”.

“We've been working on this since 2020,” he said.

“To have a unanimous decision today to reject this application has made the village very happy.”

Mr Hobson said campaigners had become increasingly concerned after planning officers recommended approval ahead of the meeting.

“We were very worried when the planning officers decided to recommend approval,” he said.

The developer argued the project would have delivered environmental benefits through biodiversity improvements, including new wildflower areas, hedgerows and waterways.

Plans also included the creation of 16 skylark nesting areas.

However, the council’s conservation officer raised concerns that the development and fencing would damage the open character of the landscape and the setting of heritage assets within the village.

Councillors also heard the construction phase would have lasted around six months and involved daily heavy goods vehicle movements along Bathley Road.

Although the applicant proposed widening sections of the road, the measures failed to convince councillors.

Conservative councillor Sue Saddington criticised the proposal, describing it as a “ridiculous application in a rural area”.

“The impact on the heritage of the village, the environment, and the conservation, and listed buildings, will have a huge effect on the surrounding area,” she said.

Committee chairman Andy Freeman said he supported renewable energy projects, but not “at any cost”.

“For me this cost is too high,” he said.

“The impact on the conservation and heritage assets for me, as your chairman, is just too hard to bear.”

Despite the rejection, residents believe the developer could still challenge the decision through an appeal.

“There have been four schemes rejected by Newark and they have all been approved on appeal,” Mr Hobson said.

“We’ll fight.”