Does anybody here take the Greens seriously?

[monkers]

Anyway, at least solar power is something that the Greens can agree on.

View attachment 17634

Sorry Brian but this is tosh. ''Other points'' for example illegality. See Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/regulation/63

For those who prefer a fuller version of events and facts ... the planning application was rejected due to the advice of the planning officer and legal officer that it was incomplete and therefore a legal risk to proceed.

It was therefore rejected unanimously as the planning officer and legal officer had requested.

The application was the first item on the agenda, and also the longest, with the discussion lasting around 90 minutes. The Committee heard a full presentation of the application, followed by powerful and well-considered speeches from District Councillor Robert Brown, both Parish Councils, and farmer John Bearman. Speeches were also given by the landowner and the applicant in support of the proposal.

The opposition raised clear, consistent, and strongly worded concerns shared widely across our communities. John’s contribution was particularly heartfelt, offering invaluable personal knowledge and years of experience working the land affected. His insight brought a perspective that no map, diagram, or technical report could ever truly convey.

During the meeting, Members questioned both the Case Officer and the Council’s Legal Officer. A key point of clarification was whether SDC would face legal risk if a full Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) had not been completed. The Legal Officer advised that on that point alone, the application should be refused. In addition, GCC Highways and several other statutory bodies recommended refusal, and Natural England confirmed they could not comment without the HRA being undertaken.

https://frethernewithsaul-pc.gov.uk...ar-farm-and-battery-storage-facility-49-5-mw/

 

[briantrumpet]

Sorry Brian but this is tosh. ''Other points'' for example illegality. See Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/regulation/63

For those who prefer a fuller version of events and facts ... the planning application was rejected due to the advice of the planning officer and legal officer that it was incomplete and therefore a legal risk to proceed.

It was therefore rejected unanimously as the planning officer and legal officer had requested.


https://frethernewithsaul-pc.gov.uk...ar-farm-and-battery-storage-facility-49-5-mw/

Reading that, and this https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/solar-planning/pace-wins-appeal-for-49-5mw-solar-plant, it reads like a better outcome of the meeting would have been to focus solely on the “information gaps at the point of determination" and said it couldn't proceed until those information gaps were filled. It's typical nimby behaviour to tick of several "we don't like these aspects" (@Pross is used to them in his line of work) to refuse at the council level, but knowing it'll get overturned at appeal. The "John’s contribution was particularly heartfelt, offering invaluable personal knowledge and years of experience working the land affected. His insight brought a perspective that no map, diagram, or technical report could ever truly convey" if anything weakens the simple objection "The HRA has not been completed, so we can't pass this at this meeting", and cut all the other stuff. It would have saved about 85 minutes of debate. And it doesn't do the Greens any favour if they aren't encouraging solar at local and national level.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Sorry Brian but this is tosh. ''Other points'' for example illegality. See Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/regulation/63

For those who prefer a fuller version of events and facts ... the planning application was rejected due to the advice of the planning officer and legal officer that it was incomplete and therefore a legal risk to proceed.

It was therefore rejected unanimously as the planning officer and legal officer had requested.


https://frethernewithsaul-pc.gov.uk...ar-farm-and-battery-storage-facility-49-5-mw/

Stop it with these facts will you!

 

[briantrumpet]

Stop it with these facts will you!

And it got overturned on appeal.

 

[Pblakeney]

And it doesn't do the Greens any favour if they aren't encouraging solar at local and national level.

That is the main point. If the Greens cannot see that then not only are they irrelevant but they are making themselves irrelevant.

 

[briantrumpet]

That is the main point. If the Greens cannot see that then not only are they irrelevant but they are making themselves irrelevant.

I suspect that the problem is that they get voted in at a local level by a proportion of people who view Greens more like the CPRE to 'protect the rural idyll' they imagine the countryside to be, rather than a place where food and energy are harvested, so they are constantly finding emotive ways to suggest that solar farms should go Somewhere Else, with the testimonies from people who provide "a perspective that no map, diagram, or technical report could ever truly convey".

The irony here is that I'm arguing for something greener (solar power) than local Greens seem to want to encourage.

 

[Pblakeney]

I suspect that the problem is that they get voted in at a local level by a proportion of people who view Greens more like the CPRE to 'protect the rural idyll' they imagine the countryside to be, rather than a place where food and energy are harvested, so they are constantly finding emotive ways to suggest that solar farms should go Somewhere Else, with the testimonies from people who provide "a perspective that no map, diagram, or technical report could ever truly convey".

The irony here is that I'm arguing for something greener (solar power) than local Greens seem to want to encourage.

It's just the usual. "Yes I want the world to go green, I just don't want it to affect me."
Or, principles knocking on the front door, and not being welcome.

 

[briantrumpet]

It's just the usual. "Yes I want the world to go green, I just don't want it to affect me."
Or, principles knocking on the front door, and not being welcome.

If there were examples of Greens encouraging solar farms on their own patch, I might be less sceptical, but it always seems to be "Of course we like solar, but not here."

 

[monkers]

And it got overturned on appeal.

Yes, but by then the planning application was complete and the HRA considered. The accusation of nimbyism isn't justified. Planning applications are simply passed or refused. The meme you have posted is typical of political propaganda we see. The allegation is nimbyism, while the real factor is unlawfulness at best and illegality at worst. Passing the scheme on that date could have led to some quite serious allegations made out against the council.

It is a Green minority council meaning that the Greens were unlikely to be able to proceed given the other votes to refuse. But as they say, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

[monkers]

If there were examples of Greens encouraging solar farms on their own patch, I might be less sceptical, but it always seems to be "Of course we like solar, but not here."

You have the explanation - you are just speaking bias in face of the evidence.

 

[monkers]

That is the main point. If the Greens cannot see that then not only are they irrelevant but they are making themselves irrelevant.

Are you aware of the actual Green Party policy?

 

[Psamathe]

I wonder if the Green Party are suffering from an influx of "political types".

Many years ago (so I expect a lot changed) when I was an active local group Green Party member (when "Green" was the main policy interest of the Party), at one meeting group organiser announced he had organised a talk to the local PArty about the then embryonic Marine Conservation Areas talk to be given by specialists involved in setting up a nearby MCA. Then immediately it started "Point of order Mr Chairman ... But how is this related to Green Party political directives ... Under our Constitution ..." and all that took over 30 mins.

The talk was outside the normal meeting schedule, obviously optional (and fascinating) but the "political types" wasted 30+ mins on administrative objections. What happens when "political types" start appearing.

 

[Pblakeney]

I wonder if the Green Party are suffering from an influx of "political types".

Many years ago (so I expect a lot changed) when I was an active local group Green Party member (when "Green" was the main policy interest of the Party), at one meeting group organiser announced he had organised a talk to the local PArty about the then embryonic Marine Conservation Areas talk to be given by specialists involved in setting up a nearby MCA. Then immediately it started "Point of order Mr Chairman ... But how is this related to Green Party political directives ... Under our Constitution ..." and all that took over 30 mins.

The talk was outside the normal meeting schedule, obviously optional (and fascinating) but the "political types" wasted 30+ mins on administrative objections. What happens when "political types" start appearing.

Precisely why I avoid committees or meetings at all costs. Some people are more interested in procedures than results.

 

[briantrumpet]

I asked Gemini if national Green Party policy was followed by local councillors.

 

[Pblakeney]

I asked Gemini if national Green Party policy was followed by local councillors.

View attachment 17641

Classic NIMBYs.