The County Planning Committee met to discuss three planning applications, including a solar farm with battery storage, a standalone battery energy storage system, and the redevelopment of a school. The committee approved the Durham Academy redevelopment, but voted to refuse the solar farm application, against officer recommendation, citing landscape harm. A motion to approve the battery energy storage system was then carried.

Hare Hill Farm Solar Farm and Battery Energy Storage System

The committee voted to refuse planning permission for the installation of a solar farm and battery energy storage system at Hare Hill Farm, against officer recommendation, citing landscape harm.

Chris Shields, senior planning officer, introduced the application, explaining that condition 19 regarding biodiversity net gain would be removed, as conditions 20 and 21 adequately covered the habitat creation works. He described the site and its surroundings, including nearby settlements such as Ludworth, Thornley and Shotton Colliery, and key features such as overhead power lines and an underground gas pipeline. He noted that 80 representations had been received, comprising 25 objections and 55 letters of support.

Objectors raised concerns about visual and landscape impact, traffic and highway safety, noise and disturbance, hazardous materials and fire risk, and the loss of agricultural land. Robert Adcock-Forster, Senior Casework Manager, speaking on behalf of Graham Morris MP for Easington, voiced strong objections, highlighting local opposition and the potential impact on property values. Dr Brian Brown, speaking on behalf of residents, argued that the development would cause unacceptable harm to the landscape, conflicting with the County Durham Plan and the government's UK solar PV strategy.

Supporters, including Kenneth Morton, argued that the scheme was well-designed, appropriately sited, and would generate a significant amount of renewable energy, supporting climate objectives and providing local economic benefits. Michael Ford, a local farmer, spoke in favour of the scheme, highlighting the diversification opportunities it offered for agricultural businesses.

During the debate, Councillor Hope questioned whether the developer could evidence that the plan would reduce energy prices to locals. Councillor Wilkes sought clarity on the quality of the farmland and its continued use for grazing. Councillor Bell expressed sympathy for local residents and moved refusal for landscape harm, which was seconded by Councillor Stevenson.

Councillor Wilkes proposed a counter motion to approve the application, stating that the national policies would actually prohibit a rejection on the grounds of loss of farmland.

Ultimately, the committee voted to refuse the application based on adverse landscape and visual impact, with members arguing that the benefits did not outweigh the harm.

Land South Of Spennymoor Electricity Substation Battery Energy Storage System

The committee approved the application for a proposed battery energy storage system near Thinford Lane, Thinford, subject to conditions.

Chris Shields, senior planning officer, introduced the application, noting that condition 11 regarding biodiversity net gain would be removed. He described the site's location near Spennymoor, Hett, and Durham Gate, and highlighted that the agricultural land was not the best and most versatile. He noted that 25 representations had been received, with a slight majority in support.

Objectors raised concerns about safety risks from battery fires and toxic emissions, noise impacts, harmful visual effects, and the loss of agricultural land. Supporters argued that battery storage was essential for a low-carbon energy system, the site used poorer quality agricultural land, and the impacts were minimal.

Councillor Jan Blakey, ward councillor, asked the committee to take careful consideration on this application, raising concerns about the proximity to the nearest properties and the conservation area, the impact on local footpaths and wildlife, and the safety aspects of the battery plant.

Jean Wood, an objector, expressed concerns about the proximity of the development to her home and the potential for transformative change from arable farmland to industrial buildings. Laura Morris, another objector, highlighted concerns about compliance with National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) guidance and the lack of a smoke plume analysis.

John Gregory, the owner of Porch House Farm, spoke in support of the application, emphasising that it was a farm-led initiative that would provide financial stability for his family's farm.

During the debate, Councillor Wilkes raised concerns about the lack of a smoke assessment and other safety documentation. Neil Carter, the solicitor to the committee, clarified that the fire service had been consulted and had raised no objections, and that a fire safety plan would be required as a condition of approval.

Ultimately, the committee approved the application, with members emphasising the importance of battery storage for renewable energy and energy security.

Durham Academy Redevelopment

The committee approved the application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of Durham Academy, Ushaw Moor, to deliver a new school building with associated landscaping works and internal refurbishment works to retained buildings.

Claire Teasdale, principal planning officer, introduced the application, noting updates since the report's publication, including a response from Northumbrian Water stating no objections subject to conditions. She described the site and its surroundings, including residential properties and green belt land.

Laura Chandler, a planning agent, spoke in support of the application, highlighting the benefits of the new school building and its compliance with planning policy. Allison Jobling, the head teacher of Durham Academy, emphasised the positive impact the new facility would have on pupils, staff, and the wider community.

During the debate, Councillor Wilkes raised a point about condition seven, regarding hours of work, and it was agreed that internal work that could be heard outside the site boundary should not start before 8am.

Councillor Freeman moved approval of the application with the condition as discussed, which was seconded by Councillor Bell. The committee then voted to approve the application.

At the end of the meeting, Councillor Wilkes requested a briefing from officers on the impacts of refusing applications that are subsequently overturned on appeal. Steve Reid, the planning manager, agreed to discuss this further with the chairs and vice chairs at a future meeting.