The County Planning Committee of Durham County Council met on Wednesday 7 October 2026. The committee approved one solar farm application and refused another.

Solar Farm Approved Near Peterlee

The committee approved the application for a solar farm and battery energy storage system (BESS) on land north of Hackworth Road, Peterlee. The development, which will operate for 40 years, will generate enough electricity to power approximately 5,000 homes annually.

Councillor Steven Franklin, a local member, spoke in opposition to the proposal, arguing it conflicted with key policies in the County Durham Plan and would result in unacceptable harm to the countryside. He challenged the applicant's description of the 40-year project as temporary and raised concerns about the cumulative impact of energy infrastructure in East Durham.

Stuart Lovesley, representing the applicant Abbey Energy, highlighted the significant investment in Durham's energy infrastructure, the generation of 15 megawatts of renewable energy, and the capacity to store surplus power. He emphasised that the development was for a temporary 40-year period, after which the land would be restored to agricultural use. He also noted that the proposal delivered exceptional biodiversity net gains and complied with the development plan when read as a whole, with no objections from technical consultees.

Following extensive debate among committee members regarding agricultural land quality, grid connection times, and cumulative impacts, the application was approved by three votes to two. Councillor James Stephenson and Councillor Andrew Eales voted against the proposal, citing concerns about the loss of Grade 3A agricultural land and the long grid connection times. Councillor Mark Wilkes and Councillor Alan Bell voted in favour, acknowledging the government's policy direction on renewable energy and the difficulty in legally defending a refusal. Councillor Scott Woodhouse, Chair of the Committee, also voted in favour, noting that the site's location was already impacted by existing industrial development.

Solar Farm Refused Near Toronto

The committee refused the application for a 27-megawatt solar farm on land east of Addison Road, Toronto. The proposal, which would have covered 47 hectares of agricultural land, was recommended for refusal by officers due to unacceptable harm to the character, quality, and distinctiveness of the landscape, particularly within an Area of Higher Landscape Value.

Councillor Nick Brown, representing West Auckland, spoke in objection, highlighting the site's location on a prominent, exposed valley side and its visibility from surrounding residential properties. He argued that the development would fundamentally alter the character of the area and was an inappropriate location for such infrastructure. He also raised concerns about the lack of community benefits and the potential for cumulative impacts from other solar developments in East Durham.

Councillor Tom Redmond, also representing Bishop Auckland, echoed these concerns, stating that while solar power was not inherently bad, the location was unsuitable for a development of this scale. He emphasised the importance of balancing renewable energy benefits against the harm caused to the landscape and local communities.

Tony Gannon, speaking for the applicant Toronto Green Energy Park Ltd, argued that the scheme was well-located, adjacent to an existing substation, and would deliver significant benefits, including homegrown power, local investment, and a community benefit fund. He contended that the landscape impacts were localised and reversible, and that the benefits of renewable energy should be given substantial weight. He also pointed to appeal decisions where similar refusals had been overturned.

Despite the applicant's arguments and the potential benefits, the committee voted unanimously to refuse the application, citing the unacceptable harm to the landscape and the Area of Higher Landscape Value. Councillor James Stephenson and Councillor Andrew Eales voted for refusal, agreeing with the officer's recommendation and the concerns raised about the landscape impact. Councillor Mark Wilkes and Councillor Alan Bell also voted for refusal, acknowledging the difficulty in legally defending a refusal but ultimately siding with the officer's assessment of harm.

Other Matters Discussed

The meeting also included the approval of the minutes from the previous meeting held on 29 July 2026. Apologies were received from Councillors David Freeman, Julie Griffiths, Liz Maddison, and Adrian Schulman, with no substitute members appointed. There were no declarations of interest made by committee members.