- Decision
- allowed, 19 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: R E Jones
- Authority
- Bath and North East Somerset (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6005916
- Application reference
- 24/02489/EFUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Ground-mounted solar farm (c.28 ha) with battery storage, transformers, tracks, landscaping and BNG (EIA development)
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt accepted)
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), AnnexB:grey-belt, HE6, W3
- Development plan policies
- BANES Core Strategy 2014 CP8, BANES Placemaking Plan 2014 GB1, NE2, NE2a, HE1, RE5, Local Plan Partial Update 2023 CP3
- Main issues
- grey belt; inappropriate development; landscape character; heritage setting
Summary
A 28 ha solar farm with battery storage on four fields in the Bristol–Bath Green Belt near Keynsham. Bath and North East Somerset refused it; the appeal was allowed. The inspector found the land to be grey belt and the scheme to meet all the relevant GB7(1)(g) limbs, so it was not inappropriate development. Significant landscape harm and minor harm to the settings of listed buildings were outweighed by substantial weight given to renewable energy and storage.
Issues and findings
- Transition. The inspector decided the appeal under the August 2026 Framework without inviting comments: "In the context of this case and the main issues being considered there are no fundamental changes, in my view, between the new and the previous 2024 Framework" (DL ¶5).
- Grey belt: ACCEPTED. On purpose (a), the site is 900 m from Keynsham, with no intervisibility and contained by a ridgeline (DL ¶11-12). On (b): "it nevertheless occupies a very small proportion of the intervening Green Belt land between Keynsham and Bath. Its development as a solar farm would not therefore result in a loss of visual separation" (DL ¶13). On (d), Keynsham was not shown to be a historic town, and "Burnett … is a village rather than a town" (DL ¶14).
- GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS. The scheme would cause "significant encroachment of the countryside at a local level" (DL ¶17). But "the appeal site's 28 hectare area would constitute only a very small fraction of the district's Green Belt … it would not fundamentally undermine the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment" (DL ¶18). A claimed extra "local" Green Belt purpose, taken from an unadopted 2013 review, got very limited weight (DL ¶21).
- GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS. Unmet need was established by the Clean Power 2030 solar target (15GW→47GW) (DL ¶22).
- GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS. "those considerations are of limited significance. Solar farms are inherently land-intensive developments and are commonly located in rural areas. Traffic associated with the operational phase would be minimal" (DL ¶23).
- Openness. "the courts have found that there is consequently no requirement to assess the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt" (DL ¶25).
- Landscape: significant harm. The panels in upper Fields 1 and 2 "would industrialise a sizeable part of the local countryside … erode the attractive landscape setting of Burnett" (DL ¶38).
- Heritage: minor harm, considerable weight. Harm to the Grade II Manor House, the Church of St Michael and two tombs through their setting (DL ¶54-55).
- Alternative sites. A search limited to Green Belt land within 4 km of the grid connection was accepted, because most of the district is Green Belt. The Barton in Fabis BESS appeal (APP/P3040/W/23/3324608) was distinguished (DL ¶69-71).
Planning balance
This was an ordinary material-considerations balance, with no VSC test because the scheme was not inappropriate. On the harm side: significant landscape harm and minor heritage harm, the heritage harm carrying considerable weight. On the benefit side: renewable generation (substantial weight), battery storage and energy security (substantial), BNG (moderate), and jobs and local spending (moderate). "Taken together, these considerations weigh substantially in favour of the proposal and offset the harm" (DL ¶85).
What made the difference
Two things decided this appeal. The first was the plan-area scale of the GB7(1)(g)(i) test. In a district that is about 70% Green Belt, even 28 ha of admitted local encroachment was a "very small fraction", so the purposes were not "fundamentally undermined". The second was that limb (iii) is close to a formality for solar. Once the scheme was not inappropriate, the landscape and heritage harm had to beat substantial renewable-energy weight in a straight balance, not a VSC balance. It could only have gone the other way if the site had strongly served purpose (a), (b) or (d), for example as part of a narrow gap between towns.
Transferable points
- GB7(1)(g)(i) is judged across the whole plan area, so significant local encroachment does not fail it where Green Belt is extensive (DL ¶17-20).
- A site forming a "very small proportion" of the gap between two towns does not strongly contribute to purpose (b) (DL ¶13).
- A village is not a "historic town" for purpose (d) (DL ¶14).
- For solar, the GB7(1)(g)(ii) need can be shown from national targets such as Clean Power 2030 (DL ¶22), and limb (iii) is "of limited significance" (DL ¶23).
- Where GB7 is met, there is no need to assess openness (DL ¶25).
- An alternative-sites search confined to Green Belt land near the grid connection is not deficient where most of the district is Green Belt (DL ¶70).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| AnnexB:grey-belt | pass | 900 m from Keynsham, contained by ridgeline/Burnett/industrial estate → not strong on (a); very small share of Keynsham–Bath gap → not strong on (b); Keynsham not shown to be historic town and site not in its setting → not strong on (d); Burnett is a village so not (d) (DL 11-15) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(i) | pass | significant local encroachment (purpose c) but 28 ha is a very small fraction of a district c.70% Green Belt → does not fundamentally undermine purposes taken together across plan area (DL 17-20) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(ii) | pass | unmet need for solar evidenced by Clean Power 2030 Action Plan target 15GW→47GW (DL 22) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iii) | pass | transport considerations "of limited significance" for a land-intensive solar farm with minimal operational traffic; no highway objection (DL 23) | |
| GB7(1)(g)(iv) | not-engaged | housing only (DL 24) | |
| GB6(2) | not-engaged | not inappropriate, so no openness assessment required (DL 25) | |
| DP3 | harm | significant | significant landscape and visual harm from upper Fields 1 and 2 on prominent slope/ridge; setting of Burnett eroded; LCA Band D low capacity (DL 33-39, 77) |
| HE6 | harm | considerable | minor harm to Grade II Manor House, Church of St Michael and two listed monuments via setting, for up to 40 years; outweighed by public benefits (DL 48-55, 76, 85) |
| W3 | benefit | substantial | up to 22 GWh/yr (c.5,574 homes), c.8,000 tCO2/yr; battery storage also substantial weight for energy security (DL 79-80) |
| N2 | benefit | moderate | BNG 54.33% habitat, 12.95% hedgerow, 19.88% watercourse units (DL 84) |
Key facts
- 28 ha on four arable/pasture fields, Grade 4 land, c.900 m from Keynsham, adjoining Burnett village
- About 70% of BANES is Green Belt; grid connection fixed the 4 km search area
- Alternative site assessment 43 → 3 sites within 4 km of connection accepted even though it looked only at Green Belt land (DL 69-70)
- 40-year operational life; panels up to c.3 m high
- Inspector did not invite submissions on the 2026 Framework, finding "no fundamental changes" for these issues (DL 5)
Sources
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.