Today the team here at CARE Suffolk started delivering our latest information leaflet.
Our last leaflet was a snapshot of the limited available information covering both the Enso Energy and EDF Renewables solar proposals.
Now that Enso Energy have submitted their full planning application we’ve read the documents (there are over 800 pages with more requested!) and updated the information to produce a new leaflet, that covers the main impacts the development will have on our communities.
Copies of the leaflet are being delivered out over the coming days, hopefully before the snow falls, to the villages most affected by the proposals. But if you’d like to send a digital copy to your friends and family who enjoy visiting the area but wouldn’t get a leaflet we’ve made it available here for you. Just click the Download link below.
Please note that since the document was sent to the printers, the deadline date for public comments has been changed to 28th February 2021.
I live on the north side of the Orwell and so are not affected by these projects. I share some of your concerns but would be happier if I knew you were applying pressure on your M.P. to have building regulations for new build properties to be fitted with solar panels in the same way that we insist that new houses must have sewage connections or septic tanks. You come across as a negative organisation so please be FOR something and not only AGAINST. Certainly these large battery plants should not be near houses. Also, I would like to know if this land which you say is prime farm land, has in fact been actively farmed during the last 5 years. Yours sincerely, Eric Walker
Hi Eric. Thank you for your comments, and some excellent questions you’ve raised. So yes we are contacting our MPs (the site covers two MP areas) and are trying to point out that solar belongs on rooftops before high grade farmland. The farmland here has indeed been farmed for the last 5 years. Right now many of the fields have winter drilled crops, and the rest are awaiting the spring drilling window. In fact living memory within our group has always known these fields to be farmed, which for a few people exceeds 80 years, and the area is built on a history of agriculture. Even after all those years of traditional farming practice, the land is still high grade soil which is confirmed not only by DEFRA and Cranfield University, but by the developers own soil analysis. CARE Suffolk was started with the intentions of enhancing our local villages and the natural areas around us. It started with a very positive intention. For example we hope to make some of the footpaths around here more accessible to the elderly who need rest breaks every now and again, as well as organising a community orchard, and one day even helping with some of the wider conservation efforts. Once we’ve achieved those things we then wish to help guide other villages who may wish to also try them. Sadly the two solar proposals arose. It isn’t the start we were planning for, but it is the hand we have been dealt.
Many thanks indeed. It is ridiculous when you come to think of it, that there are millions of roofs, not only of houses but of factories and giant warehouses that should be fitted with solar panels before agricultural land is used. Try to force your M.P.s to take a stand on this. I will try to get same from my M.P. Theresa Coffey but she will not doubt give an ambiguous answer as do most professional politicians nowadays unfortunately, thus allowing a charlatan like Nigel Farage to gain such a following!
Eric.
Pingback: Enso Energy Objection Letter – CARE Suffolk
Sirs,
I read with interest your objection letter but worry that it will be less impactful than intended.
Planning decisions are made purely on planning policy related grounds and your letter does not point to the planning policy considerations that could underpin your case for refusal of consent. Planning policy related issues such as NPPF protections of best and most versatile farmland need citing along with as many others as you can make a case for. Having occasionally sat on Babergh’s planning committee in the past I am all too aware how easy it will be for the developers to sweep away the arguments in your letter and for the planning officers to see them as having less weight than the perceived benefits of green energy. We amenity groups must learn how to be effective in addressing energy infrastructure proposals if we are not to see the place labelled the Black Country shifting from the West Midlands to our beautiful and natural East Anglian landscapes. I say all of this with absolutely no desire to criticise. We stand at the brink of an energy industry revolution that could swamp our landscapes if we are not effective. None of this is to oppose the greater objectives of green energy: it’s just about balancing the benefits and detriments and not allowing an amenity or wellbeing detriment to be ignored in balancing the decision making process around energy projects. I would therefore urge you to submit an additional planning policy focussed response and to do so even if it is a little late because the planners will most often accept submission up until the point at which the issue is decided. My advice would be to indicate that you are presenting a “STRONG OBJECTION” to the proposal from the outset of your response as that seems to be the approach and wording that works best. And if you struggle to do this in your own right, try engaging with a Parish Council and vector your policy lead objection via them.
Wishing you success,
David Holland
Hello David. Thank you for your advice. It is greatly appreciated. May we clarify if this advice is in relation to the public leaflet above, or our full response to the LPA? Our full response can be found here as it doesn’t appear to be on the planning portal yet: http://www.caresuffolk.org/2021/03/03/enso-energy-objection-letter/
From our understanding the applicant currently intends to submit substantial additional information at a later date, which the public will have an opportunity to consult on before it goes to committee. So there will be another opportunity for improvement. We have cited a lot of planning policy in our report, but any pointers to make our concerns stronger would be gratefully received.
My response was to your document (Full-Report_FINAL_web.pdf) as linked in your email of last evening and titled “(New post] Enso Energy Objection Letter”. I simply used the links provided to read your letter and and provide my response. If you have made a planning submission to the LPA other than that linked in the your email, then I apologise for my misinterpretation of the purpose of your document. I hope this is helpful and provides clarity.
I seek only to be supportive.
Best,
David
David Holland
Chair of Stour Valley Underground
No need to apologise. Just wanted to clarify. Should the Enso Energy application proceed to a second consultation phase, and should EDF Renewables submit an application, we will do our best to include more planning policy. The advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you.