Opposing solar farms to protect the landscape is not nimbyism | Letters


Analysis by planning and development consultancy Turley revealing that a growing number of solar farm planning applications have been turned down in recent years is widely interpreted as evidence of nimbyism, inflicting higher bills on customers and damages environmental (plans for solar farms were turned down at the highest rate for five years in Britain, on August 25).

But has Turley identified why these requests were denied? Perhaps there has been an increased number of inappropriate apps trying to jump on the sustainability bandwagon for purely commercial reasons?

The village where I live has had a planning request for a large solar farm wedged in a gap between an area of ​​outstanding natural beauty, a conservation area and old growth forest. It was recommended for rejection by planning officers due to the “significantly damaging” impact it would have on the landscape.

When applicants were asked why they chose this location, the reason given was that they needed sites close to population centers to make connection to the electricity grid less expensive.

There are large areas where solar farms could be built without negatively affecting landscapes or communities, but solar farm developers are not interested because the necessary grid infrastructure is not in place, making sites too expensive to attract investors.

Don’t criticize local communities for resisting solar farms in inappropriate places. Instead, push for sound, proactive government policy to facilitate renewable energy programs that don’t harm our landscape.
Barbara Chillman
Ramsden, Oxfordshire

Do you have an opinion on anything you read in the Guardian today? Please E-mail us your letter and it will be considered for publication.


Comments are closed.