Points of Objection against the grove farm solar farm

Grove Farm Solar Development lies within a Valued Landscape Area, which is now expressly identified in the Babergh Local Plan.  

The specific point relates to Policy LP18(3) of the Babergh Local Plan and this engages Paragraph 180(a) of the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework), which states that:

‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes … (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan)’

100,000 solar panels, inverters and two substations, surrounded by miles of security fencing and CCTV  cameras would completely ruin this valued landscape and it is completely implausible - in fact, absurd - to present this development as 'protecting and enhancing' this historic and unique part of Bentley.

The development of an industrial scale solar power plant will permanently affect one of the finest tracts of Bentley’s rural landscape and ruin the enjoyment of views, local walks and rides that surround the application site on all sides

The landscape and visual impacts of these industrial-scale proposals will include a complete and permanent transformation and obstruction of the long, scenic, rural views enjoyed by those who live beside and regularly use the various circular routes around this part of Bentley on foot, cycle, horseback and by car.

At least 28 residential properties and the Grade II* St Mary’s Church grade II* immediately surround the sites on Church Road and Potash Lane and they are within sight of several more.

Footpath numbers 50, 55, 40, 21, 19, 18, 22 plus Pond Hall track, Potash Lane and Church Road are all in the immediate vicinity of the development and are directly affected by it.  4 out of 6 of Michael Anderton’s ever popular ‘6 Country Walks from the Case is Altered’ include Potash Lane.

The planning submission claims the site is in the ‘best possible location… avoiding or minimising environment harm’ and that the ‘characteristics of the site are well suited to accommodating a commercial solar array.’ The submission also claims a ‘strong level of enclosure’ is present and that ‘there are no long distance views across the study area’. This is all entirely incorrect.  

There will be an irreversibly significant adverse impact on the settings of our remarkably high concentration of listed and unlisted heritage assets in the immediate vicinity of the development.  These include St Mary’s Church (Grade II*), Bentley Hall Barn (Grade I), Bentley Hall (Grade II*), Bentley Hall Stables & Meeting Hall (Grade II*), Maltings House (Grade II), Medieval Falstaff Manor, Pond Hall (Grade II), Hope Cottage, Bentley House, Church Farm and Church Farm Barn and Engry Wood, which is part of the highest concentration of ancient woodland in any parish in Suffolk that we are privileged to have in Bentley. 

And only 2.5% of UK land area is covered by ancient woodland. Grade A and B oak trees will be felled to accommodate the DNO substation.

In addition to the estimated 100,000 3m high x 7.2m long ‘dark blue, dark grey or black’ solar panels with steel piles and cross bars, noisy inverters and fans, the developer wants to build 11 no. 6.06m long x 2.9m high, 2.5m wide noisy transformer Stations in the Main Site, 2 vast industrial (up to 7m high) substations in 2 different sites, control buildings, a spares shipping container 12.20m long x 2.80 m high x 2.45m wide, car parking, new access roads and openings crossing designated Quiet Lanes,  and all surrounded by either 3m or  2m+  pallisade or steel mesh perimeter fence and dozens of CCTV cameras all around the perimeter as well.

The proposal directly contradicts multiple aspects of the new Bentley Neighbourhood Plan, with particular reference to:

• maintaining and enhancing the quiet and tranquil character of the village and its setting;
• not materially harming the amenities of nearby residents by reason of noise.. loss of light and outlook..and/or residential amenity unless adequate and appropriate mitigation can be implemented.

Church Road is a designated Quiet Lane. There are only a limited number of Quiet Lanes in Suffolk and only 3 in Bentley District.  They are selected because they have established use for leisure and also carry very low levels of traffic.  They are fundamentally unsuitable as access to a construction site. The aim of Quiet Lanes is to maintain the character of minor rural roads by seeking to contain rising traffic growth.

The agricultural land that has been proposed to be used for the site has been identified by MAFF as Grade 2 Best Most Versatile - ‘Very Good Quality Agricultural Land’.(1)

The UK imports just under half of the food that we eat in this country. At a time when food prices are rising and global food security is under threat, taking out land that has been nationally graded as ‘Best and Most Versatile’ is completely counterproductive. There are far more efficient and greener options to produce renewable energy than sacrificing highly productive arable land.  (see point 8) 

On 8 December 2023 the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee published its report into food security in the UK calling on the government to urgently implement key measures regarding the UK’s preparedness and resilience to future food supply stresses and shocks caused by climate change and biodiversity loss and publish a strategy by 19th December 2023.

100 acres of productive land like this can per year produce: enough wheat to make 500,000 loaves of bread, enough rape seed to make 16,000 litres of cooking oil, enough barley to make 9,000 pints of beer and 2,300 tonnes minimum of good enough to sell potatoes.  

New BMV farmland cannot be created in the UK.  But solar panels can go elsewhere.

The government is focusing on leveraging the huge potential of rooftop solar in order to make use of the huge untapped potential of creating solar power without having to sacrifice the UK's most productive agricultural land. 

Solar has its place within the UK’s renewable energy plans but should be located where the benefits outweigh the loss of national production or local amenities. There are around 617,000  acres of south facing commercial roof space in the UK. Approximately 50%  of  the UK’s electricity demand could be provided  if solar panels were placed here instead of on productive farmland(3).

One ‘Mega’ offshore wind turbine can generate enough electricity to power 16,000 homes which is more electricity than the proposed 116 acre solar farm site in its entirety will produce.

Suffolk already produces 60% of the UK’s green energy from the off-shore windfarm network.

Sizewell C on the Suffolk coast is just approved for controversial expansion, and will also soon be working hard for the rest of the UK energy needs.

Wind turbines are greener than solar power, releasing less CO2 into the atmosphere and can produce 48,000 times the amount of energy per kWh than a solar panel can(5). 

There are already 14 operational solar farms in Suffolk (total 184MW) with a further 8 in planning (250MW). Additionally, there are 4 with planning approved (121MW).  Does Suffolk really need to destroy more productive farmland for the input from this development?

Local residents would be subjected to significant disruption during the estimated 8 month build as a result of an estimated 1,600  vehicle movements from articulated lorries, concrete trucks, tipper trucks, rollers, piling rigs, 360 degree excavators, trenching and cabling machines, telehandlers, cranes and 18m long low loaders across the  sites and travelling down small country lanes, some of them single car width, causing noise and inevitable congestion, in addition to the risk it poses to passing walkers, bike riders and horse riders.  

Despite planning to permanently ruin stunning views, spoil country walks, endanger local riding routes and for at least 8 months disrupt a very peaceful part of rural Suffolk, the developers have no proposals to provide the local community with any benefits whatsoever. 

Local residents will not receive cheaper electricity

The proposal is for 40 years ‘unless planning permission is secured for its continued operation’.  Solar panels lifespan is 25-30 years, so the economic efficacy of the original panels will be obsolete way before the 40 year term of this development  and the disruption of removal and new installations will begin again. 

The applicant, Green Switch Capital would not be developing the site.  They would sell the ‘oven ready’ project on to a developer. The developer will then install the site and sell on to an energy or investment company - and they will walk away too. 

In short, the efficiency of wind power generation as the favoured renewable energy source will far outstrip the more inefficient solar generated power, at which point there are no guarantees that the outdated and redundant solar panels at the end of their economic lives will be recycled and the land returned to agricultural use.