The rejection of a solar farm "the size of 150 Old Traffords" to the south-east of Leamington evoked a roar usually saved for last-minute winners – but councillors fear a troublesome second leg.

Plans to cover 86 hectares of agricultural land on the outskirts of Radford Semele with panels were recommended for approval by Warwick District Council's planning experts, their view being that the benefits outweighed the harms, but eight out of nine elected officials tasked with the final call said no at Tuesday's planning meeting. 

The proposals elicited a huge backlash from locals with more than 300 objections, including a petition signed by more than 1,200 people.

MP Matt Western, Radford Semele Parish Council and Warwickshire County Council's landscape professionals all objected with the arguments against based on landscape harm, the loss of good quality agricultural land, open space and the cumulative impact of so many solar farms popping up locally. 

One of the biggest concerns was over the sheer scale of the plans that would cover significantly more land than Radford Semele itself, a point picked up by Councillor Peter Phillips.

"By my calculations, we used a standard measurement in this committee last time, this is the size of 150 Old Traffords. It is massive and much bigger than Radford Semele," he said. 

He asked planning officer Adam Walker how that comparison should be assessed.

"In my opinion, the size of Radford Semele isn't necessarily material to the assessment of this particular application," he replied, a comment that resulted in derisory sniggers from objectors in the public gallery. 

"Yes, it is near to the village but it needs to be assessed on its own merits," he continued.

"Just because the site area is whatever it is in relation to the village, I don't think that could be substantiated as a planning reason for refusal."

Cllr Phillips pushed back. 

"Surely something that is one-and-a-half times the size of the village must be relevant? I hesitate to use the word, but it is going to swamp the village in terms of size. You're saying it is not a planning reason," he said. 

Mr Walker clarified: "I'm saying that making a direct comparison to the size of the village, you could make comparisons to the size of Leamington Spa or whatever, but ultimately it is about the planning judgement of the size of the site, its location and the impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. 

"Officers have made that assessment, recognising that there would be some harm, but quantified that as moderate harm and that has been weighed in the overall planning balance."

It was clear from how the debate progressed that councillors were not inclined to approve, with talk turning to recent cases that went to appeal, where a national inspector assesses the council's call and has the final say.

In a bid to strengthen the council's hand, they added cumulative impacts to the landscape harms as their reasons. On top of that, they decided that both local MPs should be contacted about "the creeping development of solar panels and the cumulative impact", although that was separate to this decision. 

Cllr Bill Gifford said: "I can't really see how we can produce an alternative objection. At the same time, I am very concerned and feel it is highly unlikely that we would win at appeal.

"I suspect that the government's push for sustainability and renewable energy will mean it is highly unlikely that a planning inspector will not grant this application."