Public inquiry to be held over solar farm work on the edge of Hartlepool

A public inquiry is to be held over refused planning applications linked to two potential solar farms near Hartlepool.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

Five related appeals have been lodged which centre on two solar farms – one approved at Hulam Farm and a refused development at Sheraton Hall Farm.

Although the two sites are located in the Durham County Council area, three of the refused applications which Lightsource Development Services has lodged appeals over fall within Hartlepool Borough Council’s jurisdiction.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

These proposals sought to secure the construction of underground electricity cables and a substation near Hart Moor Farm along with further cables near Sheraton Hall Farm and Hulam Farm.

Agricultural land at Sheraton off the A19 is intended for the 200 acre solar farm.Agricultural land at Sheraton off the A19 is intended for the 200 acre solar farm.
Agricultural land at Sheraton off the A19 is intended for the 200 acre solar farm.

Daniel James, Hartlepool’s planning team leader, confirmed at Wednesday’s council planning committee meeting that an inquiry is to be held next month over the appeals.

Read More
In pictures: 10 past and present visions of Hartlepool's future

He said: “The development would seek to connect a solar farm, that was refused in Sheraton by Durham County Council, as well as an approved solar farm in Hulam, which is also in Durham’s jurisdiction.

“The applicant has appealed the council’s decisions in Hartlepool to refuse the applications, as well as the two applications that were refused in Durham.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The planning inspector has agreed to the appellant’s request and has merged all the appeals into one planning appeal and these are going to be considered through a planning inquiry to take place in November 2022.”

The three Hartlepool applications were refused by planning officers under delegated powers in March this year.

Officers ruled the proposals “constituted inappropriate development in the open countryside to the detriment of the character of the rural area” and did “not constitute a sustainable form of development”.