To gauge the views of local politicians to the proposal to develop a Solar Farm over 132 acres on high grade (Grade 2 & 3), fertile, agricultural land in the historic landscape of Acton Beauchamp, we asked all three candidates:
- Mark Franklin (local conservative)
- Ellie Chowns (green), and
- Robert Turner (liberal democrat)
to answer five questions as to their views in relation to the proposal.
The responses received so far are set out below.
Click on the “+”sign to see those responses.
Solar power may have a part to play in this but it should never be at the expense of our ability to produce our own food.
Thus solar farms should never be built on productive farmland. No ifs, buts or maybes – never. This proposal should not be proceeding to an EIA but immediately rejected as contrary to policy.
I support both local sustainable food production, and the generation of renewable energy in appropriate locations. As I explained when I visited the site and spoke with SABRE members in January, I consider that some sections of the area outlined in the ‘Request for EIA Screening for Proposed Solar Farm’ are clearly unsuitable for PV (on the basis of being a north-facing slope). Other sections of the area appear clearly unsuitable due to landscape impact or impact on neighbouring properties.
Some relatively small sections of the area appear to be potentially more suitable for PV than the rest of the site. This needs to be determined if and when a more detailed application comes forward, which I expect would be for a much smaller area. As a general point, PV clearly has a place in a diverse renewable energy supply, and we need to urgently reduce energy demand and shift towards renewable sources in order to tackle climate change.
My strong preference is for PV to be installed close to the locations where it is to be used (for example on the roof of buildings) but I can see that there may be value to having some installations on fields in some appropriate locations. However, as your question points out, this needs to be balanced against the value of alternative uses for that land, as well as other impacts on the local environment.
As regards ‘damage to soil structure and fertility for future generations’ I am not sure what evidence there is of such damage from solar farms; on the other hand, there is very considerable evidence of such damage caused by standard farming methods. Thus, the costs/benefits of PV development on agricultural land need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
As yet no response has been received
Climate change is an important issue but it should not override all other considerations.
In considering how to tackle climate change, often solutions are proposed that are too simplistic and fail to take account of the whole environmental impact.
Yes, I am concerned about the potential industrialisation of rural areas. Having said that, again any proposal would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The risks suggested in your question are based on assumptions rather than any specific proposal.
I want to see our wildlife, such as skylarks and hares, properly protected with habitats preserved and, where possible, restored. It may be that, on occasion, for lack of alternative solutions, we have to accept some habitat damage but this should be a last resort and is clearly not the case here.
The solar panels could clearly be sited elsewhere.
I place great importance on wildlife and biodiversity. I would like to see Herefordshire become far more nature rich. As David Attenborough points out, the UK is sadly very nature-depleted and, sadly (as the State of Nature report pointed out) the intensification of land management and farming methods in recent decades has been a key factor in the decline of many species of birds and other wildlife.
It is entirely reasonable of residents to expect that a local authority will respect, protect and nurture the environment in which they have chosen to live.
As per my answer to Q1 I think it is highly unlikely that a proposal will come forward to install 36,000 solar panels. Any form of development (including housebuilding, road repairs, broadband installation, and farm development) entails some degree of disruption; my concerns would be in proportion to the level of likely disruption. If there were a proposal to create a massive installation, I would be very concerned.
I would like to see incentives to redevelop brownfield sites for residential, industrial, commercial and leisure uses but these would probably need to come from central government.
Changes to the building code to promote energy efficiency in new builds, including solar panels, where viable, is a sensible approach. Installing solar panels on agricultural land is, in my view, completely unnecessary and wholly undesirable.
I have also ensured that funds such as the Shared Prosperity Fund explicitly focus on supporting decarbonisation measures; businesses can apply for grants from this fund (and others administered by the Marches Growth Hub) to support them to take measures such as installing solar panels. In my role in the Green Party, I also lobby government to rapidly introduce national environmental building standards.
It’s worth noting that it was the Conservatives in 2015 who scrapped the Code for Sustainable Homes; this current government is responsible for the shocking fact that this country is still allowing extremely unsustainable building. In my view, all new buildings need to be net zero carbon by 2030.
It is vital to note, however, that simply putting PV on houses is not the solution. The most important thing is to reduce energy demand through good design and energy efficiency measures.
