Plans for a massive solar farm in North Staffordshire have been thrown out by councillors who ruled that the land was in the Green Belt.

Stafford Borough Council's planning committee deferred its decision on the 30MW solar farm, spread across 19 fields at Stallington Road, Blythe Bridge, last week because of a dispute over officers' classification of the land as green or grey belt.

The application returned to the committee on Friday (3 July), with an officers' report concluding that the 171-acre site earmarked for the application was defined as grey belt.

The report added that land 400m away, that had been subject to a planning appeal, had been "correctly classified as green belt land".

The committee also heard on Friday that 12 further neighbour representations had been received by the council since the application was discussed last week, in addition to more than 50 objections previously submitted.

They raised road safety concerns due to HGV movements during the construction phase as well as questioning why a brownfield (previously developed) site hadn't been proposed for the solar farm.

Fulford Parish Council member Janet Crossley said: "The land is in the green belt and the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the green belt. The proposal does not meet any of the listed exceptions.

"The proposed development will set a precedent for inappropriate development in the green belt and pose challenges for the viability of brownfield sites in the borough.

"The proposed development goes into the countryside and it will result in the loss of productive farmland that contributes positively to food production."

Committee members were told that Leaford Solar Farm would be capable of producing 30MW of clean energy – the equivalent to supplying around 8,000 homes every year – during its 40-year lifespan.

The proposals were set to include 1.8 miles of new or improved hedgerow, with a biodiversity net gain of 74%.

Beth Thomas, who spoke in support of the application at Friday's meeting, said: "Solar farms are temporary in nature and the Leaford proposal will not result in the reclassification of the land (to brownfield).

"The land is currently used for cattle grazing and it is proposed sheep farming will continue the agricultural use of the land throughout the operation of the site – 95% of the land which will be used by the solar farm has not been classified as best and most versatile (BMV) land."

Claire Chamberlain, who also spoke in support of the application, said: "The site at Leaford was chosen for its good solar irradiation levels, its location outside any statutory environmental and archaeological designations and its sufficient distance from potentially sensitive residential receptors.

"The site is not visible from the vast majority of people.

"Two of the major challenges currently faced by the UK are energy security and the need for more homegrown electricity to protect consumers from volatile gas and oil prices and the impact of climate change on our weather, agriculture, infrastructure and ecosystems.

"The NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) states that significant weight should be given to renewable and low-carbon energy generation."

But in a written statement read out at Friday's committee meeting, ward cllr Mike Dodson said: "Forty years isn't temporary in any sense for the communities who live there – it represents two generations.

"Many residents living near the site today will spend the remainder of their lives looking at this development and children born this year may be raising families of their own before the site is even removed."

Committee members spent more than an hour considering the definition of the land – and in the end they deemed it to be green belt.

Cllr Scott Spencer said: "I can't see any reasoning this is grey belt – I think the erosion of the green belt in this application should be avoided.

He added that the site would produce just 0.06% of green energy required nationally.

"It's such a minuscule amount of electricity for such a significant loss and such an impact on the local community", he said.

Cllr Ann Edgeller said: "Yes we need electricity, but I'm sure there are other ways of producing it.

"Why aren't we looking at putting solar panels on top of industrial buildings instead of decimating our lovely green belt?"

Cllr Jill Hood said: "They come to us asking to sacrifice an enormous amount of green belt towards this application and they give nothing back to the community.

"I do not support this application."

But Cllr Andy McNaughton, who voted against rejecting the application, said: "We have declared a climate emergency and bought into the requirement for net zero.

"Someone, somewhere else has a solar farm giving us electricity – it's about looking at the national interest."

Cllr Spencer proposed the application be rejected and his motion was seconded by Cllr Alec Sandiford.

The committee voted to refuse permission on the grounds the land did not constitute grey belt, and therefore the proposal was considered inappropriate development that would have an adverse impact on the openness of the green belt.