Refused application for Craig Y Perthi Solar Farm

On April 11, 2024, RWE Renewables UK applied to Newport City Council (Ref: DNS/3279787) under section 62D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning (Wales) Act 2015) to erect a solar farm and battery storage units, associated infrastructure, access, landscaping and grid connection. The solar farm, to be built on a site of approx. 240ha, would constitute a Development of National Significance and generate capacity of up to 99.9 MW – enough to power around 45,374 typical Welsh homes and save around 3m tonnes of CO2 over the 40-year life of the development, compared with generation from fossil fuels. Part of the planned development area comprised a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) noted for its range of aquatic plants and invertebrates as well as providing breeding grounds for birds including Lapwing. The application also included proposals for ecological enhancements including bee hotels, reptile hibernacula, birdboxes and native species hedgerow / tree planting. On October 21, 2025, planning permission was refused. The Inspector charged with evaluating the application considered: “(a) the effect on ecology; (b) the effect on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area; (c) the effect on the setting of historic assets in the locality; and (d) whether any harm identified in relation to the foregoing considerations is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme, particularly its contribution to renewable energy generation and combating the effects of climate change.” The Inspector noted that Planning Policy Wales (PPW) (which refers to Section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016) advises that “planning authorities must seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity” including “not causing significant loss of habitats or populations of species and must provide a net biodiversity benefit and enable the improvement of the resilience of ecosystems by following the DECCA Framework ie taking into account the diversity, extent, condition, connections and adaptability of ecosystems.” PPW provides a “step-wise approach” to fulfilling this duty, adopting “a hierarchy which is to avoid, then minimise, mitigate/restore, compensate on site, compensate off-site and finally to refuse permission.” The Inspector found that “Development in a SSSI which is not necessary for the management of the site must be avoided”; and that the enhancement “does not offset or override the harm to a designated site or protected species that I cannot rule out on the basis of the evidence before me.” Accordingly, having balanced the benefits of the scheme, including the support to renewable energy which the solar farm could provide, against the harm “to landscape character and visual amenity, heritage assets and ecology / biodiversity”, the Inspector recommended that the planning application be refused.