Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[briantrumpet]

The Greens' devolved structure can mean that local groups vary on policy. Also, are there particular reasons for opposition in this case?

If it's the one near Sevenoaks, it's got the usual guff that @Pross will recognise for local councils to refuse planning applications, only to rack up substantial legal costs when the planning inspectorate overturns the refusal. Maybe they only like solar when it's Somewhere Else.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/massive-kent-solar-farm-rejected-115134668.html

"Vocal campaigner and Green Party councillor Laura Manston said after the result: "It was the right result and I am really relieved that we're through this stage. The members were very competent and took a decision that will protect our village."

"Among the many objections raised were over the loss of agricultural land, local amenities and trees; air contamination and water and noise pollution as well as the impact on physical/mental well-being and the effect on local businesses."

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

FT and also paywalled. We'll never know.

Kent Live isn't paywalled.

Looks rather nimby to me:

Vocal campaigner and Green Party councillor Laura Manston said after the result: "It was the right result and I am really relieved that we're through this stage. The members were very competent and took a decision that will protect our village."

Edit: oops, BT got there first.

 

[briantrumpet]

The "Greens don't have a centralised structure" seems to be the get-out excuse each time they do daft things, like not being green. If they can't agree nationally that solar power is good and needs to go on (some) agricultural land, then they are going to get the national reputation as nimbys and fools, rather than being green.

 

[Pblakeney]

"Among the many objections raised were over the loss of agricultural land, local amenities and trees; air contamination and water and noise pollution as well as the impact on physical/mental well-being and the effect on local businesses."

I cycle past a solar farm quite often, including this afternoon. It is silent.
I await further information on where the air contamination and water pollution come from.

 

[First Aspect]

I cycle past a solar farm quite often, including this afternoon. It is silent.
I await further information on where the air contamination and water pollution come from.

It's all of the photons colliding with the panels. it is deafening.

Probably a lot of the objections are based on the installation phase. Not sure whether this would have required access roads and new links to the grid for example.

 

[Pross]

If it's the one near Sevenoaks, it's got the usual guff that @Pross will recognise for local councils to refuse planning applications, only to rack up substantial legal costs when the planning inspectorate overturns the refusal. Maybe they only like solar when it's Somewhere Else.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/massive-kent-solar-farm-rejected-115134668.html

"Vocal campaigner and Green Party councillor Laura Manston said after the result: "It was the right result and I am really relieved that we're through this stage. The members were very competent and took a decision that will protect our village."

"Among the many objections raised were over the loss of agricultural land, local amenities and trees; air contamination and water and noise pollution as well as the impact on physical/mental well-being and the effect on local businesses."

I think I may see the reason for her objection there!

 

[briantrumpet]

It's all of the photons colliding with the panels. it is deafening.

Probably a lot of the objections are based on the installation phase. Not sure whether this would have required access roads and new links to the grid for example.

Yeah, fair enough, saving the planet just ain't worth the disruption of access roads. Perish the thought.

 

[briantrumpet]

I think I may see the reason for her objection there!

Bet you've never seen an objection quite that powerful.

 

[Pross]

If it's the one near Sevenoaks, it's got the usual guff that @Pross will recognise for local councils to refuse planning applications, only to rack up substantial legal costs when the planning inspectorate overturns the refusal. Maybe they only like solar when it's Somewhere Else.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/massive-kent-solar-farm-rejected-115134668.html

"Vocal campaigner and Green Party councillor Laura Manston said after the result: "It was the right result and I am really relieved that we're through this stage. The members were very competent and took a decision that will protect our village."

"Among the many objections raised were over the loss of agricultural land, local amenities and trees; air contamination and water and noise pollution as well as the impact on physical/mental well-being and the effect on local businesses."

As for the objections:

1. Loss of agricultural land - it can contiue being used for grazing which, looking on Streetview, appears to have been what it has been used for.
2. Local amenities and trees - the response from The Woodland Trust to the application concludes "The proposed works, providing they are carried out in accordance with an approved arboricultural method statement will not result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodlands, ancient woodland buffers, nor ancient, veteran or notable trees." The existing public rights of way appear to be getting maintained so I'm not sure what loss of public amenity there could be unless it's like my local fields where the public think they have the right to use private farmland as their personal dog walking areas.
3. Air contamination - yes, solar power is renowned for the amount of air pollution it creates. It would be far better to build a gas power station to generate the electricity requirements.
4. Noise pollution - again, solar panels are well known for being noisy! OK there'll be a bit of noise during construction but that's a relatively short-term issue and gets controlled by planning condition.
5. Water pollution - how do solar panels pollute watercourses? If anything, agricultural use of the land is likely to be far worse for this.
6. Physical / mental wellbeing - WTF?
7. Effect on local business - yes, they work far better if they don't have enough electricity.

Officers recommended approval based on wooly Leftie ideas like planning law, Councillors saw the light and rejected it because it will be "incongruous" and the people they pay to advise them on policies are presumably incompetent fools. Stevo and co will be happy to help foot the £400k bill when it gets appealed.

 

[Pblakeney]

As for the objections:

1. Loss of agricultural land - it can contiue being used for grazing which, looking on Streetview, appears to have been what it has been used for.
2. Local amenities and trees - the response from The Woodland Trust to the application concludes "The proposed works, providing they are carried out in accordance with an approved arboricultural method statement will not result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodlands, ancient woodland buffers, nor ancient, veteran or notable trees." The existing public rights of way appear to be getting maintained so I'm not sure what loss of public amenity there could be unless it's like my local fields where the public think they have the right to use private farmland as their personal dog walking areas.
3. Air contamination - yes, solar power is renowned for the amount of air pollution it creates. It would be far better to build a gas power station to generate the electricity requirements.
4. Noise pollution - again, solar panels are well known for being noisy! OK there'll be a bit of noise during construction but that's a relatively short-term issue and gets controlled by planning condition.
5. Water pollution - how do solar panels pollute watercourses? If anything, agricultural use of the land is likely to be far worse for this.
6. Physical / mental wellbeing - WTF?
7. Effect on local business - yes, they work far better if they don't have enough electricity.

Officers recommended approval based on wooly Leftie ideas like planning law, Councillors saw the light and rejected it because it will be "incongruous" and the people they pay to advise them on policies are presumably incompetent fools. Stevo and co will be happy to help foot the £400k bill when it gets appealed.

In other words, NIMBY.

 

[briantrumpet]

As for the objections:

1. Loss of agricultural land - it can contiue being used for grazing which, looking on Streetview, appears to have been what it has been used for.
2. Local amenities and trees - the response from The Woodland Trust to the application concludes "The proposed works, providing they are carried out in accordance with an approved arboricultural method statement will not result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodlands, ancient woodland buffers, nor ancient, veteran or notable trees." The existing public rights of way appear to be getting maintained so I'm not sure what loss of public amenity there could be unless it's like my local fields where the public think they have the right to use private farmland as their personal dog walking areas.
3. Air contamination - yes, solar power is renowned for the amount of air pollution it creates. It would be far better to build a gas power station to generate the electricity requirements.
4. Noise pollution - again, solar panels are well known for being noisy! OK there'll be a bit of noise during construction but that's a relatively short-term issue and gets controlled by planning condition.
5. Water pollution - how do solar panels pollute watercourses? If anything, agricultural use of the land is likely to be far worse for this.
6. Physical / mental wellbeing - WTF?
7. Effect on local business - yes, they work far better if they don't have enough electricity.

Officers recommended approval based on wooly Leftie ideas like planning law, Councillors saw the light and rejected it because it will be "incongruous" and the people they pay to advise them on policies are presumably incompetent fools. Stevo and co will be happy to help foot the £400k bill when it gets appealed.

Since they all seem to use the same pro forma objections list, I guess that those charged with dealing with the objections can use their own pro forma rebuttal list.

Just a bit surprised that they haven't done the usual thing of finding the only nest of Something Extremely Rare in Sevenoaks.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

5. Water pollution - how do solar panels pollute watercourses? If anything, agricultural use of the land is likely to be far worse for this.

The report says fires. There will be one during the site's lifespan. Chemicals used in fighting it with pollute the aquifer.
Yes, NIMBYs but not necessarily black and white.

 

[Pross]

Since they all seem to use the same pro forma objections list, I guess that those charged with dealing with the objections can use their own pro forma rebuttal list.

Just a bit surprised that they haven't done the usual thing of finding the only nest of Something Extremely Rare in Sevenoaks.

Thing is, they know they'll lose on appeal and will probably get costs against them but they can now say "well we refused it but we were over-ruled by the (Labour) government appointed Planning Inspector.

I had to attend a Plnning Committee once where they had to be reminded by their officers they had to provide a legitimate reason for refusal i.e. they need to cite the planning policy or policies it didn't comply with. Looking at the Decision Notice in this case it feels very much like a case of 'what reason can we dig out'. I feel sorry for the officers as they then have to try to justify the decision at appeal even though they have advised against it at planning committee.

I'd love to do a FOI request for all Councils to see how much they have paid out in costs for planning appeals on decisions that were refused against their officers recommendations but suspect I'd get the 'we do not keep this information' reply. I feel it should be something they have to report annually so all these objectors that think they're being clever can see what it is ultimately costing them.

 

[Pross]

The report says fires. There will be one during the site's lifespan. Chemicals used in fighting it with pollute the aquifer.
Yes, NIMBYs but not necessarily black and white.

I would guess it would still be less than you would get from agricultural use though albeit different and more concentrated.

 

[Psamathe]

Loss of agricultural land - it can contiue being used for grazing which, looking on Streetview, appears to have been what it has been used for.

Whilst I'm in favour of renewables (incl. solar farms), this point I don't fully understand as agriculture comes down ultimately to needing light (for grass & crops to grow). But solar panels need light so more solar panels taking more light means less light for agriculture.

In terms of biodiversity, wildlife, etc. I can see how they can compliment each other but for agricultural production I'm confused.