Representation by Chloe Isabel Stephens
- Date submitted
- 7 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I live in Darlington but grew up in Great Stainton for sixteen years. My parents still reside there, and I visit them weekly. They designed our family home to embrace the surrounding natural greenery, with a clear view of the Cleveland Hills and the occasional wildlife sightings, like foxes in the garden. However, as Darlington's urban sprawl expands, untouched countryside scenery is increasingly scarce. As the global push for renewable energy intensifies to combat climate change, solar power has emerged as a crucial component of the transition towards a sustainable future. With the UK government setting ambitious targets to achieve 70 GW of solar power by 2035, the proliferation of solar farms has become increasingly prevalent across the country. However, this surge in renewable energy development has sparked intense debates, particularly in rural areas like Great Stainton, where concerns about the coexistence of renewable energy infrastructure and pristine landscapes have come to the forefront. In recent years, there has been an influx in the number of solar farms created, alongside a rise in rural residents' campaigning against numerous proposals. For example, SOS levels, Stop Scotton Solar Farm, and No Solar Desert. As debates surrounding the coexistence of renewable energy infrastructure and rural landscapes intensify, striking a delicate balance between fostering sustainable development and preserving the natural environment emerges as an overarching challenge. This submission will explore three key issues: Ethical Implications, Property Values & Visual Impact, and Environmental Impact. It's important to note that these issues do not cover every problem with the proposed site but the ones I deem most important. Point 1: Ethical Implications Firstly, delving into the concept of social washing, this is a strategy I believe is employed by companies like JBM Solar to portray themselves as socially responsible while potentially disregarding negative social impacts in pursuit of financial gain. JBM Solar, through its LinkedIn updates and website homepage, actively promote its commitment to benefiting local communities and the environment. They advocate collaboration with stakeholders and claim to engage extensively with communities affected by their projects. Similarly, their parent company, RWE, boasts a history of supporting local communities through renewable energy projects. JBM's website homepage states; 'We are committed to developing projects that benefit the local community, the natural environment, and wildlife.' In addition, JBM claims to '...work hard to engage with the community, from the presentation and discussion of project plans to ensuring opportunities to provide detailed feedback on proposals.' RWE also claim on their website to '...have a long history of supporting local communities through funds delivered through the operation of our renewable energy projects.' However, despite these assurances, there are glaring discrepancies between JBM's claims and the reality on the ground. For instance, projects like the Copse Lodge Solar Farm and the Moreton Lane Solar Project faced significant local opposition but were still approved. This raises questions about the effectiveness of JBM's community engagement efforts. Local objections have been ongoing since the inception of these projects, with communities organising rallies, creating online social media accounts, getting in touch with journalists, and expressing dissent through various other modes. For instance, residents living in Bishoptop and Great Stainton have formed separate groups to oppose the proposed solar farm developments in their areas [Redacted]. Furthermore, a pre-application survey revealed that 84% of respondents did not support the proposed development, citing concerns about landscape impact and effects on local wildlife. Despite these objections, JBM continues to tout their supposed benefits to the community, including financial contributions and biodiversity net gain. Community funding's effectiveness is uncertain, particularly in areas like Great Stainton, which lack typical village amenities such as parks or shops. Allocating funds to areas affected by solar farms doesn't always indicate genuine care for communities. The promised benefits ring hollow when most of the local population opposes the projects. Moreover, the lack of transparency regarding how these benefits will truly compensate or uplift affected communities raises suspicions about JBM's true motivations. Upon reflection, it appears that JBM's engagement with local communities serves more as a public relations strategy than genuine dialogue. By prioritising approvals from key stakeholders over residents' concerns, JBM undermines the democratic process and disregards the sentiments of those most impacted by their projects. Point 2: Property Values & Visual Impact Research on the impact of solar power farms on property values is scant, particularly concerning rural communities like Great Stainton. This village, in particular, is primarily made up of houses and a church. It lacks typical amenities such as parks or shops. Instead, locals cherish the expansive fields for strolls, social gatherings, and enjoying the serene rural landscapes. The proposed Byers Gill Solar Farm threatens to disrupt these cherished aspects. In residences like my family home ([Redacted]), the scenic view is not only a backdrop but the focal point. Strategically positioned windows and glass doors frame the picturesque landscape, often drawing admiring comments from visitors. Introducing solar panels near such homes risks diminishing this view, potentially impacting property values and deterring prospective buyers. Concerns about the safety of solar farms further compound these anxieties. While JBM assures the safety of their installations, public perception remains tainted by reports of fires caused by electrical faults or equipment malfunctions. Such apprehensions contribute to a negative sentiment surrounding the introduction of solar farms into residential areas. In Great Stainton, property prices can exceed regional averages, and fears about safety, landscape disruption, and impacts on local wildlife may lead to decreased property values or reluctance among potential buyers. For homeowners, the prospect of solar farms offers little tangible benefit, as they do not directly use the generated power or experience reductions in electricity bills. Moreover, community funding initiatives may offer limited consolation for those directly affected by the visual intrusion and potential depreciation of their properties. While not all homes in the area may experience a decline in value, some properties are likely to be disproportionately affected. Questions linger regarding whether JBM plans to offer incentives to mitigate these impacts for affected homeowners, adding to the uncertainty surrounding the proposed development. Creating solar power farms like Byers Gill presents a complex challenge for local homeowners, with implications for property values and the cherished rural landscape. Balancing the pursuit of renewable energy goals with the preservation of community well-being and property values remains a pressing concern for all stakeholders involved. Point 3: Environmental Impact While solar power farms offer a promising avenue for renewable energy generation, it's essential to acknowledge the environmental risks they pose. When solar farms are installed, they often take up a lot of land, which can intrude on habitats for wildlife or farmland. This change of land disrupts ecosystems, breaks up habitats, and reduces the variety of plants and animals, which can harm local wildlife. Moreover, the substantial water requirements for cleaning and cooling solar panels can strain local water resources, particularly in dry regions. This heightened demand aggravates water scarcity issues and underscores the need for sustainable water management practices in solar farm operations. Furthermore, making solar panels involves getting and processing raw materials, which can harm habitats and cause pollution. Although solar power is cleaner than using fossil fuels, we must think about the environmental impacts of making solar panels compared to the good they do. Additionally, the construction and operation of solar power farms can have indirect environmental repercussions. Transportation emissions associated with the delivery of materials and equipment to site locations contribute to the carbon footprint of solar projects. While smaller than that of fossil fuel infrastructure, these emissions still contribute to climate change. Finally, the disposal of decommissioned solar panels at the end of their lifespan presents challenges in waste management and recycling. Some panel components contain hazardous materials, requiring careful handling and disposal practices to limit environmental harm. In conclusion, while solar power farms offer a cleaner energy alternative, their environmental impact must be carefully managed through sustainable practices and site selection strategies. By mitigating land use conflicts, minimising water consumption, adopting cleaner manufacturing processes, and implementing effective waste management practices, we can ensure that solar power contributes positively to the government's environmental goals. Concluding Thoughts JBM's proposals for Laynes Wood Solar Farm were welcomed by the area, with no negative press articles or publicly known objections. Instead, articles highlighted the benefits of solar power farms and how they will benefit locals. This indicates that areas within the UK may be willing to host and neighbour solar farms. In addition, it also suggests that certain areas may benefit more than others. However, this favourable reception also raises uncertainty regarding the motivations behind site selection by developers like JBM. The uncertainty about whether developers look for cheap and easily available land, focusing on saving money rather than considering all possible options, makes us doubt if solar farm development is fair and sustainable. In essence, the case of Laynes Wood Solar Farm highlights the regional disparities and complexities ingrained in the implementation of renewable energy projects. While some areas may embrace solar farms as a welcome addition to their landscapes, others may harbour concerns and objections. In the future, developers should adopt transparent and inclusive site selection processes that truly prioritise community engagement, environmental sustainability, and social equity. By doing so, we can ensure that renewable energy development benefits both local communities and the broader environment in a balanced and responsible manner. To conclude, the submission highlights the multifaceted challenges and implications surrounding the development of solar farms, particularly in rural areas such as Great Stainton. The discussion underscores the complexity of balancing renewable energy goals with community well-being and environmental preservation. From questioning the authenticity of community engagement efforts by developers to examining the potential impacts on property values and cherished rural landscapes, the submission navigates through a spectrum of concerns. Moreover, it highlights the importance of transparent and inclusive decision-making procedures prioritising sustainability and social fairness. By addressing these challenges head-on, the submission offers valuable insights into the complexities of solar farm development and the importance of striking a delicate balance between progress and preservation.