A DECISION on a controversial planning application for a huge solar park near Watchet was this week postponed at the last moment.

Somerset Council’s west planning committee was being recommended to approve the plans to use 100 acres of farmland next to Washford Cross.

Planning officer James Holbrook had dismissed more than 100 objections to the project and said it met planning and energy polices and should be granted consent.

However, just as councillors were about to debate the plans, they were told there were ‘a number of issues’ which still needed to be considered by the council, although no detail was provided.

They included a lack of consultation by the case officer with the fire and rescue service over the fire risks, particularly as a gas mains ran through the proposed site.

The application by Elgin Energy EsCo Ltd was deferred to a date to be agreed.

Elgin plans to instal solar panels in 98 acres of fields classed as prime farmland and owned by the Wyndham Estate close to the Tropiquaria zoo.

It would be a free standing, static solar photovoltaic farm, with 12 battery storage units and a primary electricity sub-station control building.

Elgin said the solar park could generate 25 million kilowatt hours per annum of electricity, which was enough on average to power 7,500 homes.

Among the objections dismissed by Mr Holbrook were those from:

CPRE trustee and planner Fletcher Robinson said Mr Holbrook’s claim that granting planning permission for 40 years made the development ‘temporary’, still represented a ‘significant period in people’s lives’.

Mr Robinson said Government policy required ‘compelling reasons’ if land classed as ‘best and most versatile’ was to be used for renewable energy, but there were none in the case of Washford Cross.

He said Mr Holbrook was wrong to claim the site could be screened from view from the Quantock Hills and the high ground of Exmoor National Park.

Both the national park authority and the Quantocks management group had ‘strongly and repeatedly objected’ to the development.

Mr Robinson pointed to a strong objection by Historic England, and said Mr Holbrook’s suggestion that ‘less than substantial harm’ would be caused to ‘several highly designated and nationally important heritage assets’ still represented ‘real and serious harm’.

He said in fact the harm was considered to be ‘towards the top end of the scale’ because of the sheer number of assets which would be affected.

Mr Robinson said: “There is inadequate justification to industrialise this sensitive landscape with thousands of panels and we ask the committee to refuse it.”