The total amount the Reepham Christian Aid Group raised this year was £1,105.78, which includes the online Reepham QR code donations and the extra that will be claimed back as Gift Aid. Thanks to everyone who donated.
Sue Cripps, Reepham Christian Aid Group
Re Hugh Ivins’ comments (Your Letters, 25 April 2025), how is it that such a major decision affecting thousands of Broadland residents be made by three members of a committee of Broadland District Council?
Given also the absence of several of the planning committee, surely such a decision should have been passed to the full council to make the final decision.
It sounds as if the committee had been lent on, especially when the chair of the committee, being fully aware of the scale and nature of the objections, used her vote to accept the proposal.
Given the planned large-scale solar farms in the Dereham/Swaffham area and around Long Stratton, which it is said will generate far more electricity than is needed in Norfolk, no further solar farms should be allowed, especially on greenfield sites.
What can be done to investigate the actions of the Broadland Planning Committee?
Bryan Gostling, Bircham Road, Reepham
I would like to echo Hugh Ivins’ comments (Your Letters, 25 April 2025) on the sad day for democracy when only a small number of councillors were prepared to turn up and vote on a highly controversial project.
He has named Stuart Beadle as one who did not attend. I hope that he can name the others so that the 80 or more people who objected to the project can contact them and express their contempt.
Terry Lawton, Bircham Road, Reepham
Those of us who travel along the Norwich/Reepham Road (I've often wondered where one becomes the other) are delighted that so many potholes have been filled.
Many thanks are due to the team that did the work and to whoever organised it.
Stephen Howard, Norwich
Broadland District Council’s Planning Committee decision to approve the Pettywell solar farm application (Solar farm at Pettywell gets approval in close vote, 25 April 2025) was down to the chair’s casting vote after a tie at three-three by the six councillors present, which says much for the fact that four councillors did not even attend the meeting.
Also, the non-appearance of Cllr Stuart Beadle to speak as our local member in view of the 80 local objections and town council’s strong opposition says as much about local representation and democracy in Broadland.
Will the new unitary authority be any better? Only time will tell.
Hugh Ivins, Whitwell
Further to the news item in Reepham Life (Mobile phone coverage boost to town centre, 21 March 2025), the mobile phone signal now transmitting from/to St Michael’s tower is the result of a contract between the installation company, Net Coverage Solutions (NET CS), and Reepham Parochial Church Council (PCC), which was signed about three years ago; there has been no direct input or influence from political councillors, MPs or other agencies.
The time since then has been spent creating and installing the necessary infrastructure in and around the tower.
This has been a slow process, both gaining the necessary approvals and because the NET CS engineers have been involved in similar projects around the country; there have also been changes to technical requirements en route.
An early part of the work was copying some of the bell chamber wooden louvres on all four sides of St Michael’s tower and replacing them with identical fibreglass louvres to allow the signal to penetrate.
Electrical power and lighting was installed in the tower, a steel framework was fitted in the clock chamber to take the weight of the transmission equipment, and a fibre-optic cable was laid joining the Reepham telecoms exchange to the church.
The work was completed on 11 March and the antennae went live that day. These are designed to broadcast mobile signals from any provider if they wish; so far only Vodafone has signed-up, so it is only Vodafone users who are currently seeing the benefit, but it is hoped and expected that other providers may join.
From virtually no Vodafone signal around the centre of Reepham, there is now a four-bar strength and this even extends to improving the signal up to a mile away, depending on location and the availability of other transmitters.
It has been a lengthy project, but Reepham PCC is glad that, 800 years on, its iconic, listed church buildings in the heart of this “best place to live in Norfolk” are continuing to spread the message, both spiritual and secular.
Rupert Birtles, Reepham Parochial Church Council
Re the news that the Vodafone aerial had gone live on the church tower (Mobile phone coverage boost to town centre, 21 March 2025).
We still have no signal in our part of Bircham Road, despite being able to see the church tower from our house.
Over the past few days I have checked out the signal between the Market Place and the roads nearby.
One day last week I got three bars in the Market Place; yesterday there was nothing – outside Johnsons, outside Spar and even directly outside the church.
Has anyone else in Reepham noticed an improvement to their mobile phone signal?
Bryan Gostling, Bircham Road, Reepham
I would like to respond to a number of points raised in Rachael Richmond’s letter of 31 October.
It is undoubtably important that we find greener and better ways to produce electricity. We should, however, be extremely concerned if being self-sufficient in electricity is seen as more important than being self-sufficient in food.
It is hard to see how land that is currently graded as BMV (best and most versatile) could possibly be improved – certainly not by covering it in solar panels, seeding a monoculture of shade-tolerant meadow grass and then farming large numbers of sheep on it.
Large parts of the land would be in permanent shade and 40 years of rainwater run-off from the panels (with associated erosion and compaction) is unlikely to improve any soil.
Organic food production does not require “agricultural sprays”. What guarantees are there that herbicides will not be used in the control of saplings and weeds around the panels?
It would also be necessary to do a full comparison of the potential environmental impact of high-volume sheep farming (including faecal run-off to our rivers, greenhouse gas emissions and chemicals used in sheep-dips) versus using the land for other types of food production.
What would the effect be on birds and bats from covering large areas of countryside in panels, including the impact of tonal buzzing and humming? What effect also on the local climate of covering the land in this manner?
It should not be forgotten that the Pettywell proposal includes two acres to be covered by a battery-farm and associated concrete. The risk of fire and prolonged toxic output from these battery farms in such an event has meant that some countries have banned them.
Thousands of solar panels and the battery farm will need removing, transporting and recycling at the end of 40 years, not forgetting the fencing, CCTV masts, transformer blocks and associated concrete for these. Who will manage this and pick up the cost of this expensive process?
Global environmental issues should also be considered. There are increasing concerns from scientists and environmentalists about the impact of solar farms on the planet and the problems they are storing up:
Huge swathes of Norfolk countryside are currently under threat from several bids for giant solar farms from organisations set to make massive profits from them.
It is important that “greenwash” marketing by these organisations does not go unchallenged.
Are we really doing future generations any favours by rolling out this ageing technology across our vital farmland and countryside or are we in fact creating even more problems for them?
Jacqui Wash, Whitwell Street
Rachel Richmond should read Cllr Greg Peck’s comprehensive demolition of her arguments in his latest View from County Hall.
She and others might also be interested to learn of two conclusions from a report recently sent to Ed Miliband by the National Electricity System Operator, established by him to make sure the UK has the electricity it needs.
Unsurprisingly, Mr Miliband has not seen fit to publicise these conclusions:
While Count Luca Padulli, the ultimate owner of the Pettywell site through his company Albanwise, will no doubt earn the gratitude of this government and the green lobby, we will bear the cost of this project through higher bills, a damaged local environment and a questionable impact on carbon dioxide absorption.
Michael Pender-Cudlip, Mill Road, Reepham
In response to Rachel Richmond (Your Letters, 31 October), Cllr Greg Peck is correct to claim that the proposed Pettywell solar farm “effectively becomes a ‘brownfield site” at the end of its 40-year lifespan.
In the National Planning Policy Framework, brownfield is defined as “previously developed land”, which is exactly what will happen at the end of the 40-year period when planning permission, if approved, expires.
Despite what is said in the online promotional literature [for the solar farm] that “all solar PV [photovoltaic] array infrastructure… will be removed from the development site”, there is a caveat in the “FAQs and Programme” section where it is stated: “It is anticipated that the solar farm will operate for 40 years, and then the site could be re-used for agriculture.”
The solar farm at the nearby former RAF Oulton airfield was granted consent in September 2015 for 25 years and was recently granted consent for a further 15 years.
The point to note is that a solar farm is described in planning terms as a “solar power station” and you only have to look on Google Earth for confirmation.
This comes within the “general industry” planning use class and permits any other defined general industrial use to take place without any further “change of use” consent.
The Pettywell scheme covers an area of 105 hectares – equivalent to 185 football pitches and practically the size of Reepham’s footprint.
The sheer size of the scheme, the reflective nature of the many panels and noise of the inverters and transformers, which may not be obvious to the human ears, will have a detrimental effect on all types of wildlife by removing a large area of natural habitat.
The sheep will be a token gesture – the site has never been used for grazing – and are unlikely to cover all the 105 hectares or be on site for a full year therefore representing an uneconomic use of best and most versatile agricultural land.
This land should continue to be used for crop production and provide a wildlife habitat for a number of protected species of animals and birds.
The government has also stated in a recent written response that: “It places great importance on our agriculture and food production. and where significant development agricultural land is shown to be necessary, including ground-mounted solar, the planning authority should seek to use poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.”
We have had PVs on our cottage roof for at least 20 years and have recently converted our AGA cooker from oil to electric. We also have a foul-water biodigester that drains clear water.
So perhaps that is what we need to concentrate on rather than letting others do what they are doing by promoting solar farms in the wrong places. By resisting them they will get built in the right places.
Hugh Ivins, Whitwell
