Councils Objectto Solar Farm in Crowhurst
HUGH SULLIVAN
Local green energy co-operative Energise Sussex Coast (Energise) has lodged a planning application with Rother District Council, seeking its approval of a prospective solar farm off Swainham Lane in Crowhurst, which is intended to be owned by the local community.
Sheep lambs solar farm
The site consists of six meadow and arable fields to the south of the lane, a mile or so out of the centre of Crowhurst village. The application is for the installation of solar panels, security fencing, CCTV cameras, underground cabling and inverters, plus some environmental enhancement measures (mainly tree-planting for screening purposes).
There is local support from Crowhurst Parish Council and from a number of village residents who favour the promotion of renewable ‘green’ energy in general and provision of, and control over, local energy supplies in particular.
However, other residents in the immediate neighbourhood are vigorously opposed. They have set up a chang.org petition oppose-the-crowhurst-solar-farm and erected posters declaring NO to the SOLAR POWER STATION – SAVE Our Green Landscape”.
OBJECTIONS
Their stated objections include complaints that the solar panels will affect “ancient views” from public footpaths and bridleways “and be seen for miles around”, and will also impact local wildlife, while reducing local house values and creating short and long term environmental problems.
The change.org petition suggests that a fair compromise would be the reduction of the proposed site to three fields “where it will be less impactful whilst still generating enough power for Crowhurst and neighbouring communities”.
Surprisingly, Hastings Borough Council – despite declaring a ‘climate emergency’ in 2019 and issuing a Climate Change Strategy Action Plan in 2022 that features promotion of renewable and low carbon energy – has submitted a formal objection. Planning officer Will Larkin describes the application site as “particularly impact[ing]” the view from a public footpath on the Hastings side of the Marline Valley opposite – “people walking along this path in a north-westerly direction will have prolonged views of the proposed solar farm”. He complains that these views have not been addressed or mitigated in Energise’s plans.
East Sussex County Council has issued a Climate Emergency Plan 2023-25, which aims at net zero carbon energy use and endorses promotion of solar photovoltaic (PV) installations. The council has also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Energise to promote local and community energy. Yet its County Landscape Architect, Virginia Pullan, has also filed a negative opinion in this case, “as it would have significant adverse effects on local landscape character and views”.
DISMAY
Energise are dismayed by these submissions. They point out that the six-field site is tucked into a fold of the hillside which obscures it from most directions of sight. A great proportion of the Marline Valley (on both sides) is heavily wooded, so that there are few places where trees do not obscure the view across. The valley is already criss-crossed by a power line elevated on prominent pylons and by telegraph poles; it has a railway running along the valley floor; and the traffic on the Queensway and Bexhill Link roads provides a constant noise backdrop. They have filed a contrary opinion written by local wildlife consultant Dr John Feltwell on behalf of Crowhurst Parish Council submitting that Mr Larkin’s evidence is factually incorrect. They reckon that the site is only visible as a tiny sliver for a few yards on a footpath that leads nowhere and which very few people use.
Aside from landscaping concerns, there are other outstanding environmental cost-benefit issues surrounding the general spread of solar farms. Although Energise’s application refers to a 40-year projected use, panels produced under current manufacturing technology are generally reckoned to have an economic life span of 25-30 years before they require replacement. Disposal and/or recycling technology has not been keeping pace.
Some ecologists are also concerned that mass panels threaten fragile insect populations, though others claim that bees and butterflies can actually benefit from their leafy surrounds (by comparison with the grubbing up of hedgerows, for instance, in the pursuit of more productive agriculture).
Are these issues which a planning authority should also take into account? That’s arguable. But in any event submissions to Rother are now closed. A planning decision is expected during the course of next month.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Don’t you just love the nature of these absurd objections! If ancient views are to be protected then their would be no Crowhurst village at all, if precious bugs are to be protected (but just how are they affected?) and we do nothing about global warming, then there will be no bugs. PV panels are not the complete answer for sure but they will continue to be part of it, ignorance won’t.