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