Holbeach St Matthew solar farm recommended to be refused by South Holland District Council due to loss of best quality soil

Planners have not been swayed by arguments that a solar farm would help fertile growing soil to ‘rest’ for 40 years — and have suggested councillors should turn the plans down.

Green Energy International wants to build a 49.9MW ground mounted solar array with sub station, battery storage and other infrastructure on a 282.3 acres site at Caudwell Farm Holbeach St Matthew.

Members of South Holland District Council’s planning committee are due to discuss the application at a meeting tonight (Tuesday) — and they have been recommended to reject it on the grounds that will result in the loss of best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land.

A report to the committee stated: “Whilst it is argued that resting the soil for 40 years can improve the soil's biodiversity, given this is Grade 1 BMV, the fact that this is the highest grade possible, it is difficult to conclude that the soil requires improvement to increase arable production.

“The soil is already optimal in terms of food production, and techniques could be used in the normal operation of the farm to improve soil biodiversity without the proposal, if required at all.

“The proposals will result in a significant reduction in agricultural productivity of 112 hectares of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural (BMV) Grade 1 Land and the irreversible loss of 3.5 hectares of Grade 1 Land.

“This considered harmful in the planning balance given the UK's current situation in terms of food security. Whilst it is noted that solar energy has benefits for contributing towards net zero, in this instance, the applicant has not sufficiently justified with compelling evidence that the effective loss of such a large area of BMV land would be outweighed by the benefits brought about by the development.

“As such the proposal results in demonstrable harm and thereby conflicting with the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan (2019) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) when viewed as a whole.”

The report to the committee states that the ‘total utilised agricultural area in the UK has decreased by 1.5% to 16.8 million hectares in 2024’ and that South Holland has approximately 42,731 hectares of Grade 1 land.

The decision could be held up by campaigners elsewhere - with solar farm applications the source of big debates across the region.

Green Energy International, which has offered a free rooftop solar system to a local school along with funding educational trips to the site, argued that the loss of 3.5ha of BMV quality land in this area is not of ‘significant development’.

The developer also argued there is no ‘requirement to use land for food production’ and that the loss of ‘0.005% of South Holland's prime land’ would offer a ‘negligible annual loss in food production when compared with the substantial amount of food waste produced annually’.

The report added: “The applicants have not submitted information demonstrating that they have considered and rejected lower grades of agricultural or previously developed land by naming the alternatives, but have issued rebuttals instead which focus on the large amount of BMV land within the district. In terms of comparing the proportion of Grade 1 land within the district, it is not contested that out of 42,731 hectares of Grade 1 land, the use of 112 hectares would be a small proportion, but the question is rather the use of that land in terms of food security considerations.”

The application generated a total of 53 letters from the public who expressed a variety of concerns about the project ranging from the loss of land, battery fires, flooding and fears about the impact on local roads.

Highways and Natural England did not object to the application, Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust did. They highlighted that this was not an appropriate location for a solar farm.

The council’s planning officers said that the application did have benefits in contributing to energy security along with bringing in £80,000 in business rates each year and by increasing ‘biodiversity credits’ due to the conversion into a grass field.

What do you think? Should the councillors turn this down? Let us know your views in the comments below…