Hatton solar farm approved on appeal after 378 objections
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8dy803zp47o
Posted by insomnimax_99
Hatton solar farm approved on appeal after 378 objections
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8dy803zp47o
Posted by insomnimax_99
9 Comments
> Its report concluded: “The imperative to tackle climate change, achieve net zero targets and contribute to energy security… clearly and decisively outweigh those harms.”
Nice for sanity to prevail for once
I used to be extremely pro solar farms, but given that electricity prices don’t go down, and won’t go down, (octopus ceo) explained it better but essentially even if they sell it at £0, you will still pay the same if not more for electricity due to the terrible governing, so honestly unless you own the land and its your own solar energy to use, seems like a complete waste of time
Unnecessary white elephant projects.
Govt should incentivise rooftop solar panels for each households in the countryside….
I read this as human solar farm and thought we’d gone full matrix.
How many of the 378 objections came from people living within say 5 miles of the site? Prior applications have had problems with people hundreds of miles away objecting. As they just disagree with solar full stop.
This is a regular reminder to those concerned about farming that golf courses outnumber solar farms 10:1 in the uk
Good. Now get it up and running quickly and contributing towards the local economy and employment as soon as possible, so it’s too awkward for Reform to unravel it all again. I live in a very Reform part of Lincolnshire and I’m forever driving past solar farm objection banners.
Our city council is changing the rules a bit with regards to objections on planning applications as well, due to large-scale objection drives + purposful delays to the process for developments.
Old rule was if any application received 20 objections, it must be debated by the relevant committee at a council meeting. This has changed to 20 objections with relevant material concerns.
A bit double edged, as it does put the average person (NIMBY or not) at a disadvantage if they are not well educated on planning laws, but it should drastically speed up decent developments from NIMBYs as well.
From the article though,
*”The inspectorate conceded that the development would have “some adverse” effects on the character of the landscape, but these “would be limited and localised”, in part due to “mitigation planting” around the site.”*
A lot of issues come from developers promising one thing, then failing to deliver on the final product / fix snagging issues upon completion of the project. There absolutely needs to be more recourse for communities, councils, and individuals to hold developers to account for failing to provide on their promises when it pertains to these issues too.
I really want them to interview someone in that picture and basically ask if they are against solar power. Then when they say ‘I’m not against it, but this isn’t the right place’ and then have the reporter say ‘So not in your back yard?’
These people might ask well be holding a sign that says ‘NIMBY’, and their only defense could be that they are against the thing happening anywhere, so I’d love to hear their argument.