TEST Valley Borough Council’s failed attempt to defend a planning appeal against a huge solar farm near Andover cost them nearly £30,000 in legal costs - an FOI has revealed.

The authority spent a total of £29,937.50 in hiring a barrister to represent them in an appeal hearing into the development of the 40MW solar farm, which is currently being built on land west of Cowdown Lane.

The 63-acre site, which lies south of the A303 near Andover, was given planning permission by government planning inspector John Braithwaite following an appeal hearing in December 2015.

Applicants AGRenewables took the proposals to an appeal after Test Valley Borough Council’s Planning Control Committee rejected the plans in October 2014.

The committee were given the final decision after the authority’s Northern Area Planning Committee (NAPC) voted to accept the plans, despite council officers recommending the proposals be refused in their original report.

Due to this conflict the plan was elevated to the council’s Planning Control Committee who backed officers and voted to reject the proposals on the basis that the solar farm would ‘appear as incongruous development in open and undulating landscape’.

However at appeal Mr Braithwaite disagreed with the committee, claiming the solar farm would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding landscape.

Mr Braithwaite also put emphasis on the fact that the solar farm would help the authority to reach their renewable energy commitments – with the site set to power around 15 per cent of the borough’s total number of homes.

One of those to attend the appeal hearing was Andover resident and planning consultant Paul Flippance.

Mr Flippance, who submitted the Freedom of Information request to TVBC, was disappointed with the authority’s ‘lacklustre’ defence at the appeal hearing and accused the council of wasting tax payers’ money.

He said: “I was at the appeal and the applicants just walked all over Test Valley.

“The councillors voted against the plans because they wanted to protect the views in that area but their defence was so poor that at the appeal the inspector said it would not even have an impact.

“It just felt like a local authority playing games with people’s money.

“If they can’t defend a planning appeal like that what else can’t they defend us from?”

Planning and building portfolio holder councillor Phil Bundy said: “The council’s Planning Control Committee refused the application on October 14, 2014 due to the detrimental impact the development would have on the landscape and the adverse visual impact it would have on public views.

“The applicant appealed the decision which meant that the application was presented to a government inspector at a public inquiry.

“The government inspector allowed the appeal and granted planning permission.

“The council subsequently paid the sum of £29,937.50 for a barrister to represent the authority at the public inquiry.”