EDDC’s Marsh Green solar farm report ‘biased and inaccurate’, say countryside campaigners

The officer’s report recommending approval next week for a major solar farm application at Marsh Green, near Exeter, is biased and inaccurate, according to the Devon branch of the countryside charity. Members of East Devon District Council’s planning committee will determine the fate of the application (22/0990/MFUL) next Tuesday, 29 November.

The Marsh Green scheme is for a 30MW solar farm of 60,000 solar panels on 218 acres of farmland.

The report states that there is an "absence of technical objections" to the development, a statement refuted by Devon CPRE. The campaigning charity is backing the villagers of Marsh Green in their opposition to the large solar farm and points out that many of the 70-odd local objections, including from Rockbeare Parish Council, have raised technical issues, all of which have apparently been ignored by the officer.

Devon CPRE noted the applicant's claim that the proposed solar farm "has the potential to power up to 18,500 homes" and provided technical reasons why this was not based on facts.  Nevertheless, the officer ignored the objection and repeated the claim in his report as if it were the truth.

Devon CPRE provided a government statement that "all proposals for energy infrastructure projects should include a whole life carbon assessment".  The applicant has not provided a carbon assessment, instead stating only that the development "will decarbonise the UK’s  energy supply" and the officer made no mention of this issue.

The applicant also claims that sheep will continue to graze under and around the solar panels and that herbicides will not be used. This was questioned by many objectors. In particular, research has shown that, except for small arrays of solar panels, in the last 10 years no large solar farm has used sheep grazing - it is just not feasible.  Again, the officer accepted the applicant's claim without question, without imposing a condition ensuring sheep grazing was the only measure for managing the grass and banning the use of herbicides. 

The planning application at Marsh Green is the latest in a series submitted in East Devon. A scheme for Horton Solar Farm is proposed on land east of Rutton Farm at Whimple, among several others in the system. East Devon District Council recently approved a similar application at Clyst Hydon. 

Devon CPRE Director Penny Mills says, “We are completely dismayed at the officer’s report. What does he mean there were no technical objections? Yes, there were!   What's the point of going through this charade of a public consultation if the person writing the report ignores much of what’s been said? It seems these large solar farms are recommended as a matter of course, regardless of what anyone says against them. Are any ever deemed unacceptable by officers in their reports to committee?

“Devon CPRE campaigns for ‘Grass not glass’ because our farmland is vital for producing food to improve Britain’s food security. There are plenty of other large developed and brownfield sites where solar panels can go, including the rooftops of council buildings and car parks. How much farmland are we prepared to lose? And what strategy and policies does East Devon District Council have to protect the countryside and farmland?”

In an age where food security is a major issue, Devon CPRE says we should not be taking farmland out of food production for a pitiful amount of intermittent energy produced by solar farms at times when it is in least demand. The charity’s energy spokesperson, trustee Dr Phil Bratby, says because of the way the electricity market works, solar will only serve to drive up the price of electricity and make the cost of living crisis worse.

Paul Jefferson, Chairman of Marsh Green Valley Protection Group says, “We are obviously disappointed at the planning officer’s report in the light of the strong opposition we mounted to this proposal. I will be speaking against it at next week’s meeting. Let’s hope the views of local residents are not just listened to, but heard, when I address the committee in person.”

Dr Bratby adds, “There are many other technical issues raised by many objectors, but the officer appears to have ignored all of them.  The question has to be asked, why are planning officers so keen to accept the propaganda of developers and recommend approval of these damaging schemes? Is it because they are afraid of the costs of appeal? Or is it because they favour and accept without question all schemes labelled 'green' or 'low-carbon'?”