Representation by Edward Evans
- Date submitted
- 11 September 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
This proposal is ill-conceived and the applicant has shown no real appetite to engage with the local community to make it acceptable. It would fundamentally change the rural nature of Aldington, industrialising more than a quarter of the farmland that surrounds the village for no demonstrable public benefit. It should be rejected for these reasons: 1. Visual impact. Putting panels on the Aldington ridgeline, a prominent feature of the local landscape, will lead to significant loss of visual amenity in the area and runs contrary to national planning policy. Screening the panels in higher areas will be impossible. 2. Inadequate public consultation, in particular over the location of the proposed batteries and potential fire risks they pose. 3. Loss of historic - and well-used - public rights of way, contrary to national planning policy that encourages active living and walking. Aldington is surrounded by a dense network of PROWs. The proposed replacements are longer diversions - a major loss of public amenity. Where's the public enjoyment in paths hemmed in by panels? And why should paths be stopped up in perpetuity when the project only has a 40-year lifespan? 4. Inadequate traffic management plan. This will put intolerable pressure on the narrow roads running between the village and the A20. No consideration has been given to the cumulative traffic effect of this project as well as Pivot Power’s battery and the synchronous condenser station on Church Lane. No serious account has been taken of how lorries will safely navigate the Smeeth crossroads — an accident blackspot. 5. Inadequate consideration of other sites. Less intrusive sites are located nearby, and the applicant has failed to show they have given them proper consideration. 6. The area of panels to the east of Goldwell Lane in particular will have a disproportionate visual impact. This part of the site runs adjacent to one of the most important footpaths in the village and panels here would impact the setting of the Grade I listed St Martin’s church. The applicant hasn't shown why this additional site is necessary. 7. Biodiversity impact, particularly on species such as the skylark, yellowhammer and brown hare. 8. Flood risk: the project is located on the River Stour flood plain and could worsen surface water flooding in the area. In particular, the proposed wire fences surrounding the site risk trapping debris, impeding the runoff of surface water. 9. Loss of some of the best agricultural land in the area — contrary to planning policy which dictates that panels should only be sited on the poorest quality land. I make no comment on the merits or demerits of solar energy projects in general. But I note the applicant hasn't so far been able to show by how much exactly they expect this project will reduce energy prices at the national level. Without such a figure, how can the applicant argue the project would have a wider public benefit, let alone one that would outweigh the serious local harms this project would entail?