Myth Busting

We are aware of an Objector's Campaign website, Facebook page and some leaflets being circulated that are not providing the full facts or are in some cases making statements that are untrue. Our response to these points can be found by clicking the green arrow.

Website comments and responses:

  • The objector has used the incorrect area. The operational area comprises 33 hectares, the remaining area 16 hectares is for planting, wildlife and heritage mitigation.

  • The panels are mounted on steel frames. The height of the front edge would be approximately 0.6m above the ground, with back edge with and overall maximum height of 3m above ground level. Solar PV requires conversion of the electricity generated by the solar panel (Direct Current (DC)) into usable electricity (Alternating Current (AC)) and the Proposed Development will utilise inverters at strategic positions within the solar park to provide this function. There will be a substation and transformer kiosks, these are required to increase the voltage of the electricity generated by the solar panels to a level compatible with the local electricity grid.

  • In order to reach net zero all forms of renewable power are required.

    Ground mounted solar farms are considered to represent a key part of the UK’s Energy Security and Net Zero Strategy. This includes an ambition for a fivefold increase in solar by 2035, up to 70GW. Powering Up Britain (2023) recognises that "we need to maximise deployment of both ground and rooftop solar to achieve our overall target. Ground-mount solar is one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation and is readily deployable at scale”. The Proposed Development would positively contribute to a secure, flexible energy supply, significantly contribute to meeting the identified need for additional generating capacity and, in view of the urgent need for additional low carbon generation will be given significant weight in he planning balance, especially given changes to the draft NPPF (July 2024) and the written ministerial statement (30 July 2024) which is now a material consideration for planning applications.

    BNRG Langmead have recently acquired approval for solar on all NWF packing plants and cannot find suitable alternative brownfield sites to provide a development of this size.

  • There is a proposal for a wildlife corridor on part of the site by CDC in the Regulation 19 Local Plan.  The policy has unresolved objections and is subject to modifications by the Council that will be considered by the planning Inspectors at the Local Plan Examination.  Given there are unresolved objections to the policy it has little weight in the planning process. Furthermore, the two uses are not incompatible; removing the intensive arable use will help restore the biodiversity in and around the panels.

  • Correct

  • The High Court case Resilient Energy prevented direct benefits to the community from renewable energy.

    R v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Forest of Dean District Council (Appellants) [2019] UKSC 53
    The decision was quashed as the community benefits to be provided by Resilient Severndale did not affect the use of the land. Instead, they were proffered as a general inducement to the Council to grant planning permission and constituted a method of seeking to buy the permission sought, in breach of the principle that planning permission cannot be bought or sold.

  • The deliveries will be made to a holding compound accessed from Lagness Road.

    No delivery traffic will enter Runcton Conservation Area. Construction traffic will be kept to a practicable minimum with projected HGV movements to be c.8-12 HGVs per week. Which is similar to those already experienced as part of the permitted use, during Harvest Season.

  • All of our solar sites are retained in freehold and will revert to agricultural land upon decommissioning.

  • The site will not be lost to agriculture as the site can be grazed during the use for solar.

    Planning permission would be required for any use other than agriculture.

  • As part of the planning permission requirements, the owner of the solar farm will be obliged to decommission the plant at the end of the by planning condition imposed by the Council.

    The solar site will be retained in freehold and will revert to agricultural land upon decommissioning. As the owner of the site, the company will be required to return this to agricultural use at the end of the planning term.

  • The landscape officer's comments were in relation to the pre-application scheme.

    It has not been assessed with the benefit of the completed Landscape and Visual Assessment.

  • The assessment of the scheme by professional heritage experts is that the proposals will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building, which is considered to be minor in magnitude, sitting towards the lower end of the scale.  The planning judgment that follows is that the public benefits that flow from the scheme far outweigh the minor residual heritage harm after mitigation is considered.

  • Under the Habitats Regulations, Chichester District Council (CDC) is a competent authority, responsible for ensuring that development management decisions do not adversely affect the integrity of sites within the NSN. The applicants have prepared a shadow Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) that provides information for the Habitats Regulations Assessment that CDC will need to undertake in approving the planning permission. This document screens the proposed development for likely significant effects on the NSN sites both alone, and in combination with other plans and projects, before addressing the need for appropriate assessment. The assessment has concluded that the scheme will have no likely significant effect, either alone or in combination, on the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area and that there is no requirement for Appropriate Assessment. The Shadow HRA is also relevant to consideration of the impact of the proposals on the Pagham Harbour Ramsar site and Medmerry as a matter of Government policy, as set out in the NPPF 20238. As for the Pagham Harbour SPA, the shadow HRA concludes no likely significant effect, either alone or in combination and that there is no requirement for Appropriate Assessment. As Competent Authority, CDC will undertake its own independent HRA to confirm.

  • Solar farms are classified as essential infrastructure in terms of flood risk. Essential Infrastructure is deemed appropriate in Flood Zone 3. The proposed development is intended to remain operational and safe in times of flood.

    Given part of the site falls within flood zone 3, whilst this type of development is permissible, a sequential test is necessary.

    The sequential test needs to consider whether there were other sites available at lower risk of flooding. The NPPF confirms that renewable energy are suitable developments within FZ2 and 3 following a sequential test that has been prepared.

  • There is a proposal for a wildlife corridor on part of the site by CDC in the Regulation 19 Local Plan.

    The policy has unresolved objections and is subject to modifications by the Council that will be considered by the planning Inspectors at the Local Plan Examination.

    Given there are unresolved objections to the policy it has little weight in the planning process. Furthermore, the two uses are not incompatible; removing the intensive arable use will help restore the biodiversity in and around the panels.

  • Solar Farms offset electricity fuelled by fossil-fuels for the lifetime of the project. A 650W panel will generate approximately 800kWh in one year and this will offset over 170,000g of CO2 released. The ECF for solar is significantly lower than the carbon footprint of fossil fuel-based energy sources, which can exceed 400 g CO2/kWh for natural gas and 900 g CO2/kWh for coal.

  • The extensive ecological surveys have mapped the key corridors and these are kept outside the fencing.  Mammal gates allow small mammals access across the site.  There is no evidence of traffic accidents from incidents with wildlife.  The transport statement includes an assessment of accidents in the area, the data indicates a single slight collision has occurred on Runcton Lane in the most recent 5-year period. This was recorded c.520m north of the Saltham Grange access and was attributed to aggressive driving and drug impairment after the driver failed to stop for police. An incident resulting in a slight injury was also noted near the access to the Tuppers Field access on the B2166 Lagness Road. This occurred c.95m to the west of the access and was attributed to a driver overtaking a cyclist who then fell over, a vehicle following behind then swerved to avoid the fallen cyclist striking an oncoming vehicle on the opposite side of the carriageway. The police report cited ‘failure to look properly’ as the causation factor.

  • The NMNDP has not progressed, it is not a made development plan and has no weight in the planning consideration.

  • The Construction Traffic Routing Strategy has taken great care to avoid using public single lane carriageways, as much as is practicable.

    Where unavoidable i.e. the last few hundred metres of Runcton Lane, such movements will be managed and controlled as part of the construction management plan. Once completed the development will have one light vehicle visit per week.

     These measures will ensure that any impact on the local highway is kept to a minimum and would not result in a 'severe' impact on the local highway network.

Poster comments and responses:

  • This statement is false. The site is not allocated as a green corridor.

     

    The proposal does not risk food security, and the objectors cannot evidence this. The reduction in output is small within the context of the Langmead Farms operation, representing just 3% of the company’s wheat production and 4% of its lettuce production. It is highly noteworthy that this degree of change is within the normal range of variability for cropping dependent upon the weather.

     

    This demonstrates the losses are insignificant.

    The harm is temporary for the duration of the Proposed Development, with agriculture able to reestablish on farmland following decommissioning.

  • See above - Point 20.

  • See above - Point 10

  • All of our solar sites are retained in freehold and will revert to agricultural land upon decommissioning.

  • Planning permission now granted for 4 large solar arrays at NWFs packhouses.

    Panels are already installed on the Grain Store at Chichester Food Park. There is insufficient brownfield land available in the District for an array of this size.

  • These are food production facilities not processing plants. The power requirement is commercially sensitive. In addition, national policy NPPF 164a) Confirms that LPAs should not require applicants to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy.

  •  Under the Habitats Regulations, Chichester District Council (CDC) is a competent authority, responsible for ensuring that development management decisions do not adversely affect the integrity of sites within the NSN. The applicants have prepared  a shadow Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) that provides information for the Habitats Regulations Assessment that CDC will need to undertake in approving the planning permission. This document screens the proposed development for likely significant effects on the NSN sites both alone, and in combination with other plans and projects, before addressing the need for appropriate assessment. The assessment has concluded that the scheme will have no likely significant effect, either alone or in combination, on the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area and that there is no requirement for Appropriate Assessment. The Shadow HRA is also relevant to consideration of the impact of the proposals on the Pagham Harbour Ramsar site and Medmerry as a matter of Government policy, as set out in the NPPF 20238. As for the Pagham Harbour SPA, the shadow HRA concludes no likely significant effect, either alone or in combination and that there is no requirement for Appropriate Assessment. As Competent Authority, CDC will undertake its own independent HRA to confirm.

  • There are no public rights of way on the application site.

    The proposed hedgerow will not restrict visibility on the adjacent road.

    This statement is false.

  • WSCC confirmed in an email that there were no known blockages or issues on the applicant's land at Mundham.  This statement is not supported by evidence.  Regular maintenance works are taking place in August 2024.

  • Construction traffic will be kept to a practicable minimum with projected HGV movements to be  c.8-12 HGVs per week. Which is similar to those already experienced as part of the permitted use, during Harvest Season.

  • The Construction Traffic Routing Strategy has taken great care to avoid using public single lane carriageways, as much as is practicable.

    Where unavoidable i.e. the last few hundred metres of Runcton Lane (which is not within the conservation area), such movements will be managed and controlled as part of the construction management plan.

    These measures will ensure that any impact on the local highway is kept to a minimum and would not result in a 'severe' impact on the local highway network.

  • See above point 16.

  • The solar farm will export over 35,000MWh of renewable energy to the grid. Solar profiles and export capacity factors have been considered in the design of the project.

    A diverse renewable energy generation mix is required to ensure the UK can meet their clean energy targets.

  • The proposal cannot be accommodated on brownfield land or on rooftops that is available to the applicant.

     

    The objectors have no evidence of this so cannot state this without detailed justification.

     

    The planning application does consider the alternatives sites that are available and the brownfield land register as part of the sequential test. The planning application considers whether it could be accommodated on lower quality agricultural land and concludes this is not possible.

  • The site is not allocated as green space, these are privately owned agricultural fields that have no formal designations, and do not 'belong' to a public entity.

    The proposed land use is temporary for 40 years.

  • The objector has used the incorrect area. The operational area comprises 33 hectares, the remaining area 16 hectares is for planting, wildlife and heritage mitigation.