Plans to create a new solar farm extending across 56-acres of countryside have been put on hold.

Renewable Connections Developments Limited wants to build the plant at Mathurst Farm near Staplehurst, but when the firm’s application came before Maidstone council’s planning committee, councillors voted to defer a decision for more information to be provided.

Their chief concern was about the effect on the neighbouring Hush Heath Vineyard, run by Balfour Winery, which shares a 300m border with the site.

The committee first heard a plea from the vineyard’s director of wine, Fergus Elias.

He said: “We are not just a vineyard, we are also a tourist attraction, welcoming over 60,000 visitors a year.”

He said the visitors brought business not only to the winery, but also to the local rural economy, supporting shops, pubs, and accommodation providers in the area.

Mr Elias said the vineyard was “proud to showcase the beauty of the Weald” with guided tours around the estate, but that, once built, “the solar farm would be clearly visible to those on our tours and walks”.

He said: “If the outlook is to become industrial, it will affect our footfall, our brand and our income - and that of the businesses around us.”

He pointed out that the solar farm would be surrounded by high fences and covered by nearly 100 CCTV cameras.

He said: “That is not the atmosphere that people are expecting to see when they take a tour of the English countryside.”

He said the solar farm would “replace open pasture land with steel frames and fencing” and that was simply not compatible with his business.

He described it as “Generational change of land use”.

Mr Elias said he was not opposed to green energy, but said there were much better sites available for solar.

He said: “Not far away there is the redundant Blantyre House prison, already surrounded by high fences. Surely the applicants should be looking at such brownfield sites first?”

His view was supported by Cllr John Perry (Con), who represents Staplehurst.

He described the Mathurst Farm site as being a “very precious area in the heart of the Weald”.

The solar farm would be an “eyesore blighting the views”.

He was also concerned at the effect on the vineyard, which he said ”produces some of the finest wines in the country”.

He alleged there was evidence that solar farms could affect the microclimate of a locality, altering wind patterns and creating a heat sink. He wanted officers to produce a report on such potential effects, saying: “Viticulture is extremely sensitive to even small changes.”

Cllr Tony Harwood (Lib Dem) took a different stance, saying: “We have a far bigger solar farm than this at Lenham that most people don’t even know is there, because it is well shielded behind hedges.”

He added: “Viticulture is itself an intense form of agriculture.”

Cllr Harwood said that since the Lenham solar farm had been built in 2010, there had been a blossoming of biodiversity with far more species now living on the site than when it was farmed.

Cllr Harwood was “happy” to grant approval, subject to two changes to the conditions attached to any permission.

He said the species named in the application for the hedgerows that were to surround the solar panels were of the wrong type to survive on Wealden clay.

He wanted those changed to more locally appropriate species, and to aid biodiversity, he also wanted to see the provision of wetland ponds in addition to the proposed SUDS drainage system, which would be dry most of the time.

Rob Jarman is the council’s head of planning.

He said: “You are going to see the solar farm. It will be visible from the vineyard, but in our opinion it is not going to stick out in any medium to long distance views (and therefore was permissible).”

Mr Jarman added: “Everyone says how much they support renewable energy, but there will always be people who say, ‘but not here.’”

Mick Hammond spoke on behalf of local residents opposed to the solar farm.

He pointed out that although the solar farm would cover an area the size of 40 football pitches, it would only generate 18mw of electricity and so, under the government regulations, would be classed “as small scale”.

This was significant because he said: “The government guidelines are clear that small-scale projects should only be permitted if very special circumstances apply, which they do not.”

Speaking in favour of the application, Corey Isolda from Renewable Connections Developments Limited, said: “Solar is one of the cheapest and most easily deployed forms of renewable energy supply.”

He said the project would “improve energy stability and provide enough clean, green energy to power 6,000 homes”.

He said the site was currently used for sheep grazing, and would continue to be used for grazing after the panels were installed.

Mr Isolda said: “It’s a win-win for energy and food production.”

He did not comment on any potential effect on the neighbouring winery.

However, there were other concerns.

Because the proposed entrance to the solar farm joined Goudhurst Road at a bend, there would have to be wider visibility splays created than usual, which would involve removing some existing hedgerows.

The applicant had not carried out a dormouse survey to see if the protected species were present in the hedgerows and that would have to be done before permission could be granted.

Cllr Stephen Thompson (Green) was concerned at the lack of information about the buildings containing the supporting infrastructure - the inverters, transformers and substations.

He said: “It just looks like a container in the countryside. At the very least these should be clad to blend in with the countryside.”

Cllr Kathy Cox (Ind) was concerned about the issues raised by residents about the guidance around “small scale developments”, which had not been addressed in the officer report. She wanted an investigation of that added to the reasons for deferment.

In the end, the committee voted by 11 to one to defer, but officers warned that it would not be reasonable to expect the applicants or the officers to be able to produce evidence regarding the viability concerns of the neighbouring business.

It was suggested that if Balfour Winery wanted to submit a report themselves, it could be taken into account as a “material consideration”.

The council had received 58 individual letters of objection to the plan, plus objections from Staplehurst Parish Council, Cranbrook and Sissinghurst Parish Council, the Weald of Kent Protection Society and the Kent Wildlife Trust.

The application would see solar panels 4.5m long and set in rows on frames 1m above ground, angled upwards to 3m high. The rows would be 3.2m apart. The solar farm would be parcelled up into eight distinct fields, each surrounded by a high fence.

The solar farm would be in use for 40 years before being de-commissioned.

Find out about planning applications that affect you at the Public Notice Portal.

Details of the Mathurst scheme can be found on the Maidstone council’s website, under application reference number 24/502235.