Crockmore Cottage, Fawley (200 kW ground-mounted solar)

Decision

allowed, 14 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: B Plenty

Authority

Buckinghamshire (South East)

Appeal reference

6003569

Application reference

24/07796/FUL

Procedure

written representations

Development

Ground-mounted solar array, 200 kW (12 rows of panels) in the upper half of a small field in the grounds of a cottage, Chilterns National Landscape

Site context

national landscape, open countryside

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

W3, N4(1), S5(1)(a)

Development plan policies

Wycombe District Local Plan 2019 DM30, DM33, DM44, Chilterns AONB Management Plan 2019-2024

Main issues

landscape and visual effect on National Landscape

Summary

A 200 kW ground-mounted solar array on part of a small field at a cottage in the Chilterns National Landscape. Buckinghamshire refused it on landscape grounds and ecology; the ecology reason fell away at appeal. The inspector found modest, localised landscape harm, a "minor adverse" effect on the NL and negligible visual effects. Conflict with the development plan and the statutory "further the purpose" duty was outweighed by the renewable-energy benefits. Appeal allowed.

Issues and findings

• Policy context: W3. The inspector summarised W3: "substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving energy security … It also states that planning authorities should not require a developer to demonstrate a need for low carbon or renewable energy development … substantial weight should be given to the contribution that small-scale community-led renewable projects can make" (DL ¶10). The policy context "provides compelling evidence for the need for solar schemes, such as proposed, and conveys significant weight in favour of the proposal" (DL ¶12).
• Protected Landscape: N4(1). Modest harm. "The Framework identifies that development within Protected Landscapes … requires substantial weight to be afforded to conserving and enhancing their natural beauty. It requires development to be limited in scale and extent, be sensitively located … Main parties agree that the scheme is not major development" (DL ¶17). The effect on the NL would be "minor adverse, causing only modest landscape harm" (DL ¶19). Views from outside the site "would be negligible" (DL ¶21).
• Statutory duty. The scheme "would also fail to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB, in conflict with Section 85 of the CRoW Act, due to the identification of modest landscape harm" (DL ¶22).
• Principle: S5(1)(a). "The Framework recognises at policy S5(1), that only certain forms of development should be approved outside settlements, including at (a) infrastructure projects for energy, supporting the principle of the scheme" (DL ¶24).

Planning balance

This was a s38(6) balance. The scheme conflicted with LP DM30 and DM44 and with the development plan as a whole (DL ¶23). On the harm side: localised, "(at most) moderate" landscape harm, a minor adverse NL effect, and inconsistency with the statutory purpose. On the benefit side: "extensive environmental, social and economic benefits" (DL ¶26). The harm, the plan conflict and the statutory inconsistency "are outweighed by the scheme's substantial benefits" (DL ¶26).

What made the difference

Screening and scale. Thick, year-round boundary vegetation kept the visual effect negligible, and 200 kW in a corner of one field was tiny against the whole NL. That kept the case in N4(1), weighing the modest harm, rather than N4(2), where major development is refused save exceptional circumstances. A larger or more open scheme treated as "major" would have faced the N4(2) presumption.

Transferable points

• Even where a scheme fails to "further" the NL purpose (CRoW s85 as amended by LURA s245), permission can still be granted if the harm is outweighed (DL ¶22, ¶26). The duty is not treated as a veto.
• Small solar is supported in principle outside settlements under S5(1)(a) (DL ¶24).
• Winter photographs showing that hedge screening persists can defeat a council's "temporary screening" argument (DL ¶18, ¶20).
• Drafting slips. ¶10 paraphrases W3(1)(a) as including "electricity network infrastructure" and W3(1)(c) as "small-scale community-led", whereas the policy says "small-scale and community-led". ¶29 speaks of "great weight" and "conservation of designated heritage assets", though no heritage issue is discussed. It looks like carried-over template text. Quote with care.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• 200 kW, about 203 MWh/yr, "powering up to 70 homes"; existing three-phase low-voltage grid connection within the property (DL ¶7)
• Site within the Chilterns National Landscape; parties agreed it is not major development (DL ¶17)
• Dense tree and hedge screen, robust even in winter; views from the lane "barely perceptible"; views from the South Oxfordshire Way negligible (DL ¶18-21)
• EN-1 and EN-3 given moderate weight for a sub-NSIP scheme (DL ¶7)
• Council withdrew its ecology/BNG reason after a PEA and small sites metric were submitted (DL ¶3-4)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.