Controversial solar farm green-lit for East Suffolk
More than 200 objections to the plans were lodged
Those living in East Suffolk have been left disappointed after a controversial solar farm was green-lit for the area.
Pathfinder Clean Energy (PACE) UKDev Limited’s plans for a new solar farm on land north of Gray’s Lane, in Wissett, near Halesworth, were discussed by members of East Suffolk Council’s planning committee earlier this week.
Despite changing significantly since its submission, in August 2022, to cover 41.7 hectares – less than half of the original plans – the solar farm attracted strong local opposition.
The farm was proposed alongside a battery energy storage, consisting of 23 battery storage containers and seven inverter units, ancillary infrastructure and fencing.
The scheme received 238 negative letters, emails, or comments and formal objections from Wissett, Spexhall, Rumburgh and Halesworth parish councils.
Concerns included food security, location, landscape and visual harm, heritage impacts and a lack of water supply.
These were all raised during the three-hour discussion by various representatives of the objectors.
Simon Clarke, who spoke on behalf of the Save Grays Lane Campaign (SGLC), a group formed by residents in the impacted villages in response to the proposed development, spoke particularly about ‘potentially lethal’ substances within the battery storage.
Other issues, including heritage, loss of best-quality land, and landscape harm, were raised by Cllrs Paul Fenner, Leslie Sharman, and Frank Burton, of Rumburgh, Spexhall and Wissett parish councils respectively.
A common thread raised by objectors was the overall feeling residents were not being listened to.
"These communities feel they are not with us on this journey"
Cllr Beth Keyes-Holloway, the district authority’s representative, pointed this out and stressed residents were not against solar energy developments.
She said: “I can express that it is not that they sit in opposition to green energy; the residents are a very active community and work hard to bring the environment to the forefront of the villages.
“This objection here is not to solar, it is just to the proposed site being looked at — I can see the reasons these communities feel they are not with us on this journey.
“I feel that the evidence produced here today gives valid reasons as to why the solar factory is in the wrong place.”
On heritage, planning officers considered the harm to be substantial but outweighed by the potential benefits of the development.
The county council’s fire and rescue service said the plans were within guidance subject to a commitment to develop an emergency response plan during the development.
On the use of land, the papers stated although the site was on close to 80 per cent of best-quality agricultural land, the farm itself would only take a 15 per cent portion chosen due to being consistently the lowest yielding area of the farm.
The applicant confirmed it had looked at other places, but there were no brownfield sites big enough and close enough to a grid connection.
"Our local environment is and will always be important to us"
Speaking in favour of the application, Ben Hadingham, a local farmer, said the proposals would provide a long-term income stream outside the crop margin fluctuations while meeting national energy goals.
He explained changes in the market and climatic conditions had resulted in a significant loss in his farm and confirmed he would still use the area to farm sheep before the land was returned to cropping at the end of the 40-year lifespan of the solar development.
Mr Hadingham said: “We have farmed in the area for over 100 years, so you understand that our local environment is and will always be important to us.
“Farming has been through significant changes in recent years — to be sustainable, our business needs to be viable.
“I have two sons, three, and two and a half weeks old, and a diversified income will ensure the longevity of our business for future generations.”
When it came to debating, committee members were split.
Cllr Andree Gee, who came out against the proposals, said they would create ‘unacceptable’ harm.
She added: “If we give permission for this project to go ahead as it is in its position, we are putting aside our heritage and the beauty of our unique landscape of Suffolk … and putting it on the altar of Net Zero — it will be a sacrificial lamb.”
Others, such as Cllr Paul Ashdown, said although they understood the concerns of the local community, there was a comprehensive list of conditions which should resolve any issues.
"Waste of time"
At the end of the debate, councillors voted on a motion to approve the plans subject to conditions, including the requirement for an emergency response plan and further detail on why the farm would not warrant a hazardous substance consent given the makeup of the batteries.
The motion was successful with five votes for, and four against — ‘waste of time’ yells could be heard after the decision.
The farm will operate for 40 years before being returned to its original condition, with ecological enhancements, and will have the capacity for 27 megawatts, producing enough energy to power 10,518 homes in the district.