Skip to main content
Find a National Infrastructure Project

Beta This is a beta service - your feedback will help us to improve it

Back to list Stonestreet Green Solar

Representation by Vera Atkinson

Date submitted
12 September 2024
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. Location & Visual Impact: Why use farmer’s fields? Taking away productive agricultural land is nothing short of a crime. It is the job of central government to prescribe what land should be used for solar development. Land for industrial scale solar must be designated and prioritised, i.e. non agricultural and brownfield sites, land adjoining motorways and A roads, railroad tracks, warehouse rooftops, factories, industrial land and land around the coastline should be fully utilised first. The visual impact of panels located on high ground at Aldington Ridge will be significant and the landscaping visuals presented at the consultation were misleading. The suggestion of screening high areas is imposible. If permitted this would turn a beautiful and picturesque Kent village into an industrial park and blot on the landscape and an eye sore for all who live and pass by. It is evident from the presentation by Chris McNally from Evolution Power that other locations were not considered. There was no appraisal of alternative sites in the area. 2) Size and Scale: The size and scale is totally inappropriate for a small village and this proposal would turn it into an industrial zone that would engulf Aldington and the surrounding villages. 3) Cumulative Effect/Collective Mass: The proposal by EP must be looked at alongside the East Stour solar farm proposal, planning application 22/00668/AS, by EDF to expand the solar development by Church Lane. The cumulative effect of the current and proposed solar farms by EDF alongside the EP proposal would engulf Aldington and some of Smersh and Mersham and turn a picturesque landscape into an industrial park. 4) Public Rights of Way: Chris McNally from EP put forward at his presentation that PRWs would be relocated. PRWs are of historic value and a public benefit of the countryside for all generations to use and explore and they must not be moved or relocated. The scheme will affect at least 12 ancient rights of way and there has been no meaningful consultation with the community. 5) Biodiversity: Industrial scale solar development must not be permitted to the detriment of wildlife, skylarks, herons, badgers and barn owls and their habitat must be protected. 6) Light pollution: Aldington is in a Dark Skies Zone. The proposed site is on agricultural fields with no lighting. Any lighting put in place, even if downward facing, would introduce light that was not there before. 7) Non Green Credentials: Solar panels come all the way from China and storage batteries come with their own carbon footprint, and this project will increase the carbon footprint of all electricity it provides to the grid. 8) Batteries: no meaningful consultation on batteries; particularly regarding the scattergun placement approach and fire risk, visual impact and noise. The scattergun approach has not been justified or compared with a single placement. The vast majority of batteries will be located within 300 metres of houses. The legislation protects and ring fences schools and care homes but surprisingly excludes residential houses and gardens and this is a major concern. The oversizing of the scheme to allow for battery storage has never been explained. 9) Archaeology: The piling for solar panels would destroy archaeological sites. 10) Traffic Management Plan: EPL001 and their advisors have produced an inadequate plan and their proposal will cause serious traffic problems in and around both villages.