Major solar farm decision pushed back over concerns
Although planning officers deemed the project acceptable, there has been strong local opposition to the plans
Plans for a major solar farm capable of powering close to 10,000 homes have been pushed back over local concerns.
Mid Suffolk councillors met on Wednesday (7 May) to discuss plans for a new 35-hectare solar farm across several agricultural fields west of Blacksmiths Lane, in Earl Stonham, near Stowmarket.
Low Carbon Solar Park 27 Ltd, which submitted the bid in October 2023, said the 40-year scheme would have a 30-megawatt output – enough energy to power 9,642 homes every year.
The solar panels would be built alongside other infrastructure, including substations, inverters, CCTV and fencing.
Although planning officers deemed the project acceptable, there has been strong local opposition to the plans, with objections submitted by 26 residents, Earl Stonham Parish Council and Cllr Nicholas Hardingham, the local ward member.
Cllr Mark Gillett, who spoke during the meeting as chairman of Earl Stonham Parish Council, said residents were not ‘NIMBYs’ but felt under siege from the application, as well as National Grid’s plans for the Norwich to Tilbury pylon scheme.
The term NIMBY (not in my backyard) refers to residents objecting to projects being located too close to where they live while supporting similar bids elsewhere.
Cllr Gillett said: “We are in favour of green energy solutions and recognise its role in the transition to clean energy, however this is a case of this application being the right development but in the wrong location.
“The application comes at the expense of good quality agricultural land vital to our food security, as well as impacting significantly on those residents living in close proximity to the development, some of which are listed buildings.”
He asked councillors to expand the list of conditions should the scheme be accepted.
Sam Dicks, the planning manager for the applicant, said there would not be any significant impacts and added it was essential to use grid connections where they were available for renewable energy.
Under the plans, connection to the grid would be through an existing electricity pole, meaning no extra infrastructure such as cabling would be needed.
Mr Dicks said: “The benefits of the development are extensive and the harms are mitigated as well as they can be to an acceptable extent.
“Nevertheless, we do appreciate that the project may not be popular locally and that we’ll need to carefully manage both construction and operation.”
During the meeting, several councillors said although they were supportive of solar developments, they were uncomfortable with Low Carbon’s bid.
They felt the solar farm would be too close to heritage assets and criticised the irregular and inefficient layout of the site, across several fields.
Cllr Rowland Warboys said: “There is a need for solar farms, but they should be in the best possible places — this may well be a case of a solar farm in the wrong place.”
Cllr Anders Linder said the bid would sacrifice agricultural land use as well as landscape beauty and value.
The council’s area planning manager, however, pointed out the reasons for refusal would not be concrete and warned councillors about a big risk of losing the decision at appeal.
Cllr Linders added: “Here we are seated here as elected people representing the public and then we are sadly led to think that we should not vote as we would want to vote because it might cost the district council a lot of money. That is very sad and rather upsetting.”
The warning dissuaded councillors from outright refusing the application and, instead, they voted – with five votes for and two against – to defer the application so a risk assessment could be prepared.