Full Breakdown
Solar Farm Appeal in Burnett, Somerset Provokes Local Opposition
4/25/2026, 9:44:33 PM
Appeal for 28.2-Hectare Solar Farm in Burnett
Bath and North East Somerset Council (Banes) refused planning permission for a 28.2-hectare (70-acre) solar farm on Burnett Hill and Middlepiece Lane near Keynsham. Developer Conrad Energy II Ltd has lodged an appeal, and a public consultation runs until 4 May.
Background: Renewable Energy Targets and Local Planning
The proposal forms part of broader UK renewable-energy goals, yet the council’s earlier decision emphasized the need to protect agricultural land, visual amenity, and local ecology. The appeal reflects tension between national clean-energy objectives and site-specific environmental concerns.
Key Stakeholders
- Conrad Energy II Ltd – developer of the solar farm, represented by a corporate spokesperson.
- Bath and North East Somerset Council – local planning authority that denied the original application.
- Local residents – including Richard Arthur, a farmer who voiced objections.
- Potentially affected parties – local wildlife groups and agricultural interests.
Project Details and Statistics
The farm would generate enough electricity to power approximately 5,500 homes annually. The design proposes panel placement that allows sheep grazing beneath the arrays. The council recorded 41 formal objections during the initial planning stage.
Official Positions
The council’s spokesperson explained that while renewable energy is a priority, the site’s location and scale would cause landscape harm that outweighs identified benefits. Conrad Energy’s representative highlighted ecological enhancements, agricultural compatibility, and the project’s reversibility, asserting that biodiversity would improve after decommissioning.
Local Opposition and Concerns
Residents argue the development would dominate the open hill scarp, reducing visual quality and increasing surface-water runoff during heavy storms. They fear loss of farmland, degradation of local ecology, and potential flooding due to water saturation beneath the panels.
Conflicting Assessments
Council officials contend that the environmental impact outweighs renewable-energy gains, whereas the developer maintains that the design mitigates agricultural disruption and enhances biodiversity. No independent hydrological study is cited, leaving the flood-risk claim unverified.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The fields are very open, there is no screening to them at all and, in fact, the panels would all be running along the top of a prominent hill scarp,” — Richard Arthur, resident
- “In heavy storms the rain will saturate the ground immediately below the panels, that'll run into hills and there will be a lot more surface water,” — Richard Arthur, resident
- “significant weight was given to the need for renewable energy, but in this case, with the site location and scale of the development, the harm to the landscape would not be outweighed by the benefits identified” — Banes spokesperson
- “Ecological enhancements are at the heart of it.” — Conrad Energy spokesperson
What’s Next
The appeal will be reviewed by Banes after the consultation period ends on 4 May. A decision is expected later in the year, determining whether the solar farm proceeds, is modified, or is permanently rejected.
