The City Council proposal for a new solar farm in the north of the city is scheduled to be considered by Planning Committee next month and is recommended for approval.
The application proposes a solar farm development, including 60,000 solar panels, control buildings and associated infrastructure, internal access roads and landscaping. The application falls predominantly with the Coventry City boundary with two fields to the further east fall within the Rugby Borough boundary.
The solar farm is planned to be built on 51 hectares of Council owned farm land near Lentons Lane and Shilton Lane in Alderman’s Green.
The application for the farm was due to be decided on by councillors on 25th January but was deferred until 29th February. According to a report in the Coventry Telegraph the application was deferred because of an administration error which meant that not all interested parties were notified that the application was to be considered at the committee meeting.
The solar farm would provide 30MW of power, sufficient to provide power for around 7,650 homes, saving over 7,000 tonnes of carbon a year, and be in place for 40 years.
The proposal has prompted a significant level of objection from local residents. A petition on the Change.org platform was signed by 250 people objecting to the loss of green belt and the impact on the local community. “It provides an area that gives the residents beautiful footpaths and walkways which offer physical benefits and help to boost the emotional well-being of the people who live here.” Other issues it put forward include how the farm would impact the area’s wildlife and fears over possible health effects.
In addition, there was a paper petition with 112 signatories and 131 objections to the planning application.
The officers’ report on the application acknowledges that the scheme would result in harm to the green belt but said this would be mitigated through planting and the farm being temporary. They argued that the benefits of the scheme, including the renewable energy it could produce, would be enough to outweigh the negative impacts. Other issues would either do no harm or be dealt with through conditions, they added.
The Coventry Society supports this development in principal but submitted a number of proposals to improve the detailed design of the scheme. Some of these suggestions have been accepted in the final proposals. Planning is about balancing conflicting objectives and, on this occasion, we support the officers’ recommendation.