Rutland County Council's planning committee has approved the plans for Staveley Solar Farm.
We are hugely disappointed, especially given the vocal support of councillors and the mood of the meeting.
Read the full story in The Rutland Times.
Doug Reid, Director of Rutland Solar Action Group, said: “We are dismayed by Rutland County Council’s approval of this damaging development. It is the wrong decision.
"Solar should go on roofs, not farmland. Combined with Mallard Pass, our county is taking a disproportionate share of industrial solar, with an area equivalent to Rutland Water being lost.
“The consensus, quite clearly, is that this is a bad idea and yet it was approved.
"It is a sad day for Rutland – and the consequences of this non-sensical decision will be regretted for decades to come.”
For the record, here is what Rutland Solar Action Group Director Doug Reid presented at the planning committee meeting (December 5, 2024) in our deputation:
Hello, I’m Doug Reid, Director of Rutland Solar Action Group.
We are a not-for-profit company set up by local people to campaign against this development.
We are in favour of renewable energy, but believe solar should be on roofs NOT farmland.
What is obvious to us – and the 1,165 people who signed our petition – is that this development is a disaster for Rutland.
Given the Mallard Pass decision and our county’s disproportionate loss of farmland to industrial solar, the Council must say enough is enough.
We disagree with the officers’ report – and demand the committee rejects the application, or defers a decision until key issues are resolved.
Let me respond to three specific points in the officers’ report:
Firstly, point 23: Statutory Capacity Threshold.
Anglian Water has declined the Case Officer’s request to provide details of the specific inverters used.
This is unacceptable. How can such an important decision be made using officer estimates because the applicant has wilfully withheld vital information?
Total Energies and Anglian Water must disclose all information before a decision is made.
Secondly, Impact on Residential Amenity:
Policy CS 19 of the Core Strategy says that developments should be appropriate to their settings.
Council officers admit the impact would be negative, but say this is of limited weight. This is nonsense and the committee should reject this.
Thirdly, point 101: loss of BMV farmland and food production.
Once again, officers admit the impact will be negative, but say it is of limited weight.
This is wrong and short-sighted.
The committee would be naive to think the applicant won’t come back to extend the life of the site beyond 40 years.
We already know the substation and associated cabling will stay beyond decommissioning.
The result will be a permanent loss of farmland – and ruination of the Rutland landscape.
Let me make this additional important point.
Smothering Rutland’s fields with 87,000 Chinese made panels, likely to have been produced with forced labour, would constitute a crime.
The UK’s Modern Slavery Act requires companies to ensure there is no forced labour within supply chains.
Total Energies and Anglian Water must comply, with full transparency.
Speaking of transparency, we seek confirmation that officers and councillors involved in this decision have no Disclosable Pecuniary Interests.
This includes pension funds invested in businesses within the Anglian Water Group consortium or Total Energies.
If this cannot be confirmed this evening, a decision MUST be deferred.
It should also be deferred until our Freedom of Information request relating to communications between the applicant and officers is answered.
Slyly concealed under the guise of sustainability, this development is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG – and the planning committee should reject it.
Thank you.
Comentarios