Appeal launched to try and get solar farm built near Peterborough after council fails to make decision in time

A developer has launched an appeal to try and get permission to build a new solar farm after a decision was not issued by Huntingdonshire District Council in time.

The Haddon Road Solar Park could see 40,000 solar panels installed over farmland near Haddon.

The company behind the project, Wessex Solar Energy (WSE), said the solar farm would be able to export up to 25 megawatts, providing energy for up to 7,600 households a year.

The project follows similar plans for a larger solar farm of 65,000 solar panels, which was blocked by the district council last year after over 100 objections were received.

Ground solar panelsplaceholder image
Ground solar panels

A planning inspector later upheld this decision at an appeal, concluding that the development would cause “significant harm” to the area.

WSE has said its latest proposals for a smaller solar farm address the concerns raised about the previous project.

The company said: “The Haddon Road Solar Park would make a significant contribution to the fight against the emission of greenhouse gases through the provision of clean, renewable energy providing on average 7,600 homes with electricity.

“It is considered that there is a clear policy commitment at all levels of government to combatting the emission of greenhouse gases that lead to climate change.

“This is a significant material consideration that favours the Haddon Road Solar Park being awarded planning consent.”

WSE said it accepted the proposed solar farm would have some impact on the area, but said measures are proposed to minimise this.

The plans said: “The proposed solar park would not lead to unacceptable impacts that would be in any way significant in environmental assessment terms.

“[A landscape and visual appraisal report] noted that there would be a temporary loss of farmland that could continue to be used as pasture once the physical construction works had been completed.

“Existing field boundaries are proposed to be strengthened through additional planting. All existing hedgerows will be managed at a height of 3.5m to help mitigate views into the site.”

It added that the solar farm would only be in place for a temporary period of time, stating that the economic lifespan of a solar park is expected to be around 40 years.

WSE also said solar farms are “easily and quickly decommissioned and any visual impact is totally reversible”

Now that an appeal has been made due to non-determination the district council will not be able to make the final decision on whether the solar farm can be built or not.

A planning inspector will instead be tasked with assessing the plans and deciding if the development can go ahead.

However, councillors are due to meet later this month (August 18) to decide whether the authority should oppose the development at an appeal.

In a report published ahead of the meeting, planning officers have recommended that the district council should oppose the development due to the potential impact on Sibson Aerodrome.

The report said: “The application has failed to demonstrate that it would not materially harm the safe functioning of Sibson Aerodrome or private flying strips through adverse impacts of glint and glare, and the loss of land necessary to facilitate emergency landings.”

The report also highlighted that Peterborough Flying School had objected to the solar farm being built.

It said: “The application has not made assessments based on the flying patterns that are actually carried out from Sibson Airfield.

“The submitted glint and glare assessments have failed to reflect the angle of ascent/descent or the flown circuits within the area that are restricted by the location of the parachute centre.

“They had not made a meaningful assessment of engine failure after take-off, or engine failure on approach.”

Further objections to the scheme have also been raised, including by Elton Parish Council which argued the solar farm would be “inappropriate” in this location and would “cause undue harm to the landscape character”.

Related topics:
News you can trust since 1948
Follow us
© 2026 Iconic Media Group Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice