Protests at solar farm ‘U-turn’
DEVON CPRE has accused Mid Devon District Council of a ‘secretive U-turn’ on its plans to take part in a public inquiry at which it was due to defend its decision to refuse a massive solar farm and battery storage facility at Langford, near Cullompton.
Devon CPRE and local objectors had been granted Rule 6 status (as independent observers) to appear at the forthcoming inquiry to give expert evidence in support of Mid Devon’s reasons for refusing Langford solar farm. Now the Devon branch of the countryside charity has been informed that the council has backed down from taking part in the inquiry.
Dr Phillip Bratby, Devon CPRE trustee and energy spokesperson, said: “The decision – made behind closed doors by a newly configured planning committee – is the latest twist in a saga that’s been going on for two and a half years. That’s when an application was first lodged for a solar farm covering 16 fields, over a mile long and surrounded by over four miles of security fencing and CCTV cameras.
“Having previously refused the scheme, and with good reason, why is the council now apparently in favour of this massive solar farm and battery storage facility which will blight the countryside for 40 years? Is it all about money or is there something more sinister going on? It smacks of something rotten. The residents of Mid Devon, who fund the council, deserve to know what is going on with their money and why undemocratic decisions are being made against their will behind closed doors.”
Devon CPRE director Penny Mills said: “Why did the applicant even consider building a massive solar farm in a totally unsuitable place? Mid Devon had shown the landscape had high sensitivity to solar farms one-sixth the size of the one that was proposed. Is it all about the applicant making money, regardless of the impact on Devon’s landscape, environment and residents?
“In the two years following the redesign, three planning officers examined the scheme, and all three, together with the planning manager, subsequently left Mid Devon Council’s employment. At the first planning meeting to determine the application, the committee members deferred a decision until they had made a site visit. In fact, the site visit never took place.
“At the second meeting, the committee voted to refuse the application, subject to an implications report. It was then pointed out that the minutes of the meeting were incorrect, as somebody had inserted two words which completely changed the meaning of one of the reasons for refusal. Following questions from the public, the council twice stated that an investigation would be held and the public would be informed of the result. However, the investigation never happened and so the public has never found out why the minutes were altered or by whom.
“At the third committee meeting, at which the implications report produced by the third planning officer was discussed, the members again voted to refuse the application. Subsequently, the planning officer and planning manager left the employment of Mid Devon Council. As expected, nearly six months later, the applicant appealed the decision and the Planning Inspectorate decided to hold a public inquiry, at which Devon CPRE and other objectors were to give evidence.”
Dr Bratby added: “The appeal was discussed at a planning meeting on March 30. However, by then, membership of the planning committee had been changed, effectively excluding some of the councillors who had voted to refuse the solar farm. Following initial questions from the public, the rest of that meeting was held in secret and the revamped planning committee decided not to defend the decision to refuse the application. So much for democracy!”
Mid Devon District Council has stated: “Langford Solar Farm was refused at planning committee on July 14, 2021. The applicant had subsequently submitted an appeal for a public inquiry to be held in June of this year. In preparation for this appeal, the council made considerable efforts to seek out the best consultants who would be able to assist the council in defending the grounds of refusal.
“Having received further advice and information from the professional consultant team, advice from officers, and having thoroughly considered the facts – including the likelihood of successful defence of the appeal – the decision was made by MDDC’s planning committee at a meeting on March 30 not to proceed to defend the appeal.
“A Rule 6 party is also engaged on the appeal and, should the appeal therefore proceed to inquiry, the LPA [local planning authority] will therefore attend the appeal, if required, to discuss any potential conditions, should the Inspector be minded to allow the appeal.
“A Rule 6 Party is an independent person/party who wish to also provide evidence in regard to the public inquiry. In this instance, CPRE have been granted Rule 6 Status and still may wish to proceed with the appeal.”