South Holland District Council planning committee rejects Holbeach St Matthews solar farm after ‘doormat’ comparison
A solar farm developer did not win over the support of a planning committee by comparing our area to a ‘doormat’.
Green Energy International told South Holland district councillors that the loss of the Holbeach St Matthews field it wants to turn into a 49.9mw solar farm to the district was the equivalent to a ‘doormat of a premier league pitch’.
Villagers - armed with placards - and councillors said this development was about money, not the environment, and that all of these small parcels of land soon add up to a significant chunk of top quality land being taken out of food production.
Members of the authority’s planning committee unanimously rejected the application last night (Tuesday) on the grounds that it will result in the loss of best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
The decision was welcomed by one of the protesters, Bryan Smith, who had also objected against a previous application last year for a solar farm in Holbeach St Marks.
He said: “It was an excellent decision and the right one.
“I thought we had drawn a line in the sand last year but there is a possibility that they will appeal.”
Matthew Bailey, of Green Energy, told the meeting that the proposed development would use 0.005% of South Holland's prime land which would be an ‘equivalent of a doormat at a premier league ground’.
He stated that an ‘agricultural use’ would have been retained as sheep would graze the site and that the development would ‘enhance farming’.
The site was chosen because of its ‘unique grid connection’ and placing it elsewhere would increase development and energy costs.
Mr Bailey also told the committee that there were only limited supplies of fossil fuels left which would mean a reliance on imported energy.
He said that by approving the project would not ‘open the flood gates but closes the door’ on energy security.
Mr Bailey added: “You must choose between farming and energy. Planning decisions should be based on facts.”
Resident Mr Bailey told the meeting that the power generated by the development would not match what Spalding Power Station produces.
He stated that the development would add an ‘industrial look’ as police had asked for better fencing on a site close to The Wash which is a site of special scientific interest.
Mr Bailey said: “This is not to save the planet or stop global warming.
“The only reason is money.”
Ward member Coun Nick Worth told the committee that this was a very ‘emotive issue’ for the people who live in the area and was not about ‘NIMBYism’.
He stated that this land was the ‘crème de la crème’ and the current farm use provides plenty of biodiversity for wildlife.
Coun Worth said: “You will be aware this is one of the many solar applications coming to South Holland, some of them we will have a say on, others we won’t.
“Let’s not be bullied by the secretary of state and become a dumping ground for solar panels. Farming and food is far more important than energy.”
Those sentiments were supported by Spalding councillor Gary Taylor, who also highlighted that the 40 year life span of the project could not be counted as ‘temporary’.
He said: “Food security is far more important than ever. We need to produce more food and promote buy British and buy Lincolnshire and buy South Holland.”
Coun Paul Redgate said it was ‘completely ludicrous’ to use agricultural land’.
Long Sutton councillor Jack Tyrrell and Coun Chris Brewis said they were ‘100%’ behind the recommendation to refuse.
Coun Thomas Sneath added that this was ‘not about diversity but industry’ while Coun Henry Bingham said the only reason South Holland has been chosen was because it is ‘flat and cheap’.
The Donington, Quadring and Gosberton ward member added that the ‘little bits’ of farm land taken for the solar farms is starting to add up.
He added: “I don’t blame the farmer for trying to rent out their land for the next 40 years. At the end of the day, if you are earning £200 an acre and then someone offers you £1,000 an acre, you are going to jump at it.”
Crowland councillor Bryan Alcock said the community benefit of this application was ‘virtually nil’.
He told the meeting: “If we allow this area of land to be taken out of production then no land in the UK is safe.
“In years gone by I was told that if you put a brush stick in the ground down there, the next day you will have a tree.”
Coun Sophie Hutchinson said that developer had not ‘justified’ the site allocation and that they can’t just ‘plonk’ solar farms where they want without following due process.
But Mr Bailey’s description of a ‘doormat’ did not go down with Coun Paul Barnes - who questioned if the area was seen as a ‘doormat’ for solar farms.
