Walpole solar farm plan 'won't help us', parish leaders claim

A proposed solar farm, which developers claim could power more than 10,000 homes, will not benefit local people, community leaders say.

Opponents of the scheme at Walpole St Andrew have warned that dozens of hectares of high quality farmland will be lost if it is given the go-ahead next week.

But council officials say the benefit of the project “significantly outweighs” its drawbacks.

Applicants Walpole Green Ltd are seeking permission for a solar farm and battery storage facility, covering nearly 80 hectares of land to the south of Gunthorpe Road and west of The Marsh, Walpole St Andrew.

In a case outlined within a report to West Norfolk Council’s planning committee, which will consider the scheme next Thursday, the company claimed the authority’s own declaration of a climate emergency last year justified the scheme.

The firm said: “The Council has an opportunity with this application to take the action necessary to help achieve Climate Act 2050 net zero targets and the proposals are fully supported by energy policy as it assists in the move to a low carbon economy.

“Rapidly increasing the amount of energy generated from renewable energy sources, including solar projects like this one, is essential.”

The proposed installation would remain in place for up to 35 years if permission is granted and is expected to provide enough electricity for the equivalent of more than 10,000 homes.

But the parish authorities of both Sutton Bridge and Walpole have both objected to the scheme.

The former is concerned about access to the site, while Walpole representatives raised concerns about issues including traffic management, community impact and the loss of grade one agricultural land.

They added: “We see no benefit to the community.”

The Norfolk branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England has described the loss of the land as “unnecessary” and claimed the development was “not appropriate in size or scale” to the area.

But planning officers have recommended the scheme for approval.

They said: “Officers consider that the benefits associated with this proposed development, significantly outweighs the negative effects upon loss of Grade 1 agricultural land which are indeed relatively temporary and reversible.

“The land would also not be totally lost to agricultural production due to the sheep grazing regime (again to be controlled via condition) and the associated benefits to ecology and quality/fertility of the land having been effectively set aside from intensive arable farming for the period of the proposed use.”

Although the application site crosses the boundary between West Norfolk and South Holland, the latter's district council has already backed the scheme and deferred a final decision to West Norfolk.

But the objectors also include the South Holland MP, Sir John Hayes.

He wrote: " I share my constituents' concerns that this proposal will have a detrimental impact on the Fenland landscaping and local amenity.

"In addition, the application does not appear to include any planting or screening to help mitigate the impact this substantial development will have on the character and nature of the surrounding environment.

"Furthermore, this proposal will see agricultural land removed from food production which would be undesirable.

"It is so important that farming land, such as this site, remains in production to ensure that food prices remain affordable, and that we maintain food security and protect our environment."

The application was called in for a committee decision by West Norfolk Council development portfolio holder Richard Blunt in his capacity as a ward representative.