Protesters don sunglasses for solar farm rally

Protesters don sunglasses for solar farm rally

Protesters don sunglasses for solar farm rally

First published in News

VILLAGERS armed with sunglasses and signs protested against plans for 45,000 solar panels on farmland in Ardleigh.

Residents in Ardleigh and Great Bromley say plans to turn a site the size of 20 football pitches into a solar farm would be a blot on their idyllic landscape.

Jonathan Hardy, owner of Chancery Farm, in Park Road, wants to lease 16 hectares to Vogt Solar to raise money to replant orchards after a crop failure two years ago.

About 70 residents carried signs and donned sunglasses to protest at the glare they claim will emanate from the 6ft panels if Tendring Council approves the application in July.

See Wednesday's Gazette for more

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:17pm Wed 28 May 14

MrDarcy says...

Protesting about, fracking, wind farms, solar farms, it seems no good can be done for being wrong... Cheaper bills everyone is crying for. Confuses me so much, why protest against what we need ? its also money for the farm owner and lets face it, its not like the British farming community doesn't need all the help it can get. and as for the glare you say it will cause, get a grip. This is England not some scorching hot desert. ~weirdos
Protesting about, fracking, wind farms, solar farms, it seems no good can be done for being wrong... Cheaper bills everyone is crying for. Confuses me so much, why protest against what we need ? its also money for the farm owner and lets face it, its not like the British farming community doesn't need all the help it can get. and as for the glare you say it will cause, get a grip. This is England not some scorching hot desert. ~weirdos MrDarcy
  • Score: 6

5:26pm Wed 28 May 14

Jack222 says...

Agreed - will the protesters refuse to use electricity? If they are worried about glare lets try compromise - get the farmer to plant some hedges around it as part of the approval plan.

NIMBYs...
Agreed - will the protesters refuse to use electricity? If they are worried about glare lets try compromise - get the farmer to plant some hedges around it as part of the approval plan. NIMBYs... Jack222
  • Score: -5

5:54pm Wed 28 May 14

colmark says...

I agree with using solar power at source i.e. on house roof's, factory roofs and shops but to use prime agricultural land that is needed to grow crops for our consumption is wrong, the figures just don't ad up other than the farmer gets a massive subsidy otherwise these projects would be dead in the water, I agree with the protesters so will be with them on Monday at Ardleigh Village Hall 7.30 to support them. if parks and green space in town and cities were covered in spar panels their would be massive protests I am sure.
I agree with using solar power at source i.e. on house roof's, factory roofs and shops but to use prime agricultural land that is needed to grow crops for our consumption is wrong, the figures just don't ad up other than the farmer gets a massive subsidy otherwise these projects would be dead in the water, I agree with the protesters so will be with them on Monday at Ardleigh Village Hall 7.30 to support them. if parks and green space in town and cities were covered in spar panels their would be massive protests I am sure. colmark
  • Score: 5

6:27pm Wed 28 May 14

SoundSense says...

Gentlemen, are you not aware that we taxpayers subsidise every kilowatt produced by wind and solar? We pay to produce the power and then we pay again if we use the power. Cheaper energy bills - I doubt it. Wind and solar farms are a blot on the landscape and not the answer to our energy needs. The Government's enthusiasm for these projects (and hence the subsidies) is because we are obliged to meet renewable energy targets set by our friends in Brussels.
Gentlemen, are you not aware that we taxpayers subsidise every kilowatt produced by wind and solar? We pay to produce the power and then we pay again if we use the power. Cheaper energy bills - I doubt it. Wind and solar farms are a blot on the landscape and not the answer to our energy needs. The Government's enthusiasm for these projects (and hence the subsidies) is because we are obliged to meet renewable energy targets set by our friends in Brussels. SoundSense
  • Score: 5

8:17pm Wed 28 May 14

super waluigi says...

My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels.
We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.
My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels. We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos. super waluigi
  • Score: -21

8:30pm Wed 28 May 14

PaulWagland says...

super waluigi wrote:
My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels.
We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.
Radiation given off by the electrical current? I'm sorry mate, but you clearly have no clue what you're talking about here. The electricity produced by PV is no different to that from any other source (coal, nuclear, whatever). If' you're really worried, a hat made of aluminium foil will almost certainly keep you safe...
[quote][p][bold]super waluigi[/bold] wrote: My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels. We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.[/p][/quote]Radiation given off by the electrical current? I'm sorry mate, but you clearly have no clue what you're talking about here. The electricity produced by PV is no different to that from any other source (coal, nuclear, whatever). If' you're really worried, a hat made of aluminium foil will almost certainly keep you safe... PaulWagland
  • Score: 19

8:34pm Wed 28 May 14

PaulWagland says...

I think this is an interesting project. Solar power is viable in the UK. All those saying that's only because of subsidies really need to do some research into the subsidies we give other fuel sources. Nuclear in particular - our nuclear power stations would never have been built if we hadn't invested trillions in (pointless and immoral) nuclear weapons.

We're running out of coal, gas, oil, even uranium. The advantage of renewable energy sources is very much in the name... RENEWABLE.
I think this is an interesting project. Solar power is viable in the UK. All those saying that's only because of subsidies really need to do some research into the subsidies we give other fuel sources. Nuclear in particular - our nuclear power stations would never have been built if we hadn't invested trillions in (pointless and immoral) nuclear weapons. We're running out of coal, gas, oil, even uranium. The advantage of renewable energy sources is very much in the name... RENEWABLE. PaulWagland
  • Score: 1

8:51pm Wed 28 May 14

Solarpro says...

Solar is an amazing technology. Once efficient cost effective electricity storage solutions are widely available It has the potential to solve the looming energy supply problems. It is a real shame that certain companies within the industry feel it is appropriate to construct large scale solar parks on prime agricultural land and in close proximity to 50+ houses. Vogt should be ashamed of themselves. Without public support large scale solar will never live up to its potential. Please please please start to put these developments in sensible locations. If the government stop subsidies for these schemes the industry will only have themselves to blame for mismanaging the technology.
Solar is an amazing technology. Once efficient cost effective electricity storage solutions are widely available It has the potential to solve the looming energy supply problems. It is a real shame that certain companies within the industry feel it is appropriate to construct large scale solar parks on prime agricultural land and in close proximity to 50+ houses. Vogt should be ashamed of themselves. Without public support large scale solar will never live up to its potential. Please please please start to put these developments in sensible locations. If the government stop subsidies for these schemes the industry will only have themselves to blame for mismanaging the technology. Solarpro
  • Score: 21

9:38pm Wed 28 May 14

super waluigi says...

PaulWagland wrote:
super waluigi wrote:
My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels.
We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.
Radiation given off by the electrical current? I'm sorry mate, but you clearly have no clue what you're talking about here. The electricity produced by PV is no different to that from any other source (coal, nuclear, whatever). If' you're really worried, a hat made of aluminium foil will almost certainly keep you safe...
Why the patronising response? go and check electromagnetic radiation.

For further info, google the response of scientists and roof panels. The link is there.
[quote][p][bold]PaulWagland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]super waluigi[/bold] wrote: My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels. We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.[/p][/quote]Radiation given off by the electrical current? I'm sorry mate, but you clearly have no clue what you're talking about here. The electricity produced by PV is no different to that from any other source (coal, nuclear, whatever). If' you're really worried, a hat made of aluminium foil will almost certainly keep you safe...[/p][/quote]Why the patronising response? go and check electromagnetic radiation. For further info, google the response of scientists and roof panels. The link is there. super waluigi
  • Score: -17

11:39pm Wed 28 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

super waluigi wrote:
My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels.
We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.
I presume you live in Essex. If you do, you're within about 50 miles of 2 working nuclear power stations (as the crow flies).

Personally I would be much more worried about the potential radiation given off by those than a solar farm!
[quote][p][bold]super waluigi[/bold] wrote: My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels. We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.[/p][/quote]I presume you live in Essex. If you do, you're within about 50 miles of 2 working nuclear power stations (as the crow flies). Personally I would be much more worried about the potential radiation given off by those than a solar farm! Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 13

7:10am Thu 29 May 14

super waluigi says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
super waluigi wrote:
My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels.
We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.
I presume you live in Essex. If you do, you're within about 50 miles of 2 working nuclear power stations (as the crow flies).

Personally I would be much more worried about the potential radiation given off by those than a solar farm!
Agreed. But within 50 miles has potential, where as people who sleep directly underneath the roof panels are directly absorbing potential electromagnetic radiation.
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]super waluigi[/bold] wrote: My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels. We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.[/p][/quote]I presume you live in Essex. If you do, you're within about 50 miles of 2 working nuclear power stations (as the crow flies). Personally I would be much more worried about the potential radiation given off by those than a solar farm![/p][/quote]Agreed. But within 50 miles has potential, where as people who sleep directly underneath the roof panels are directly absorbing potential electromagnetic radiation. super waluigi
  • Score: -11

8:12am Thu 29 May 14

MaryPoppins87 says...

I've got solar pannels and I love them! I hardly pay anything for my electricity, and get a nice juicy cheque every quarter too!
I've got solar pannels and I love them! I hardly pay anything for my electricity, and get a nice juicy cheque every quarter too! MaryPoppins87
  • Score: 9

8:51am Thu 29 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

super waluigi wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
super waluigi wrote:
My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels.
We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.
I presume you live in Essex. If you do, you're within about 50 miles of 2 working nuclear power stations (as the crow flies).

Personally I would be much more worried about the potential radiation given off by those than a solar farm!
Agreed. But within 50 miles has potential, where as people who sleep directly underneath the roof panels are directly absorbing potential electromagnetic radiation.
Evidence, please.
[quote][p][bold]super waluigi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]super waluigi[/bold] wrote: My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels. We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.[/p][/quote]I presume you live in Essex. If you do, you're within about 50 miles of 2 working nuclear power stations (as the crow flies). Personally I would be much more worried about the potential radiation given off by those than a solar farm![/p][/quote]Agreed. But within 50 miles has potential, where as people who sleep directly underneath the roof panels are directly absorbing potential electromagnetic radiation.[/p][/quote]Evidence, please. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 6

8:53am Thu 29 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

super waluigi wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
super waluigi wrote:
My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels.
We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.
I presume you live in Essex. If you do, you're within about 50 miles of 2 working nuclear power stations (as the crow flies).

Personally I would be much more worried about the potential radiation given off by those than a solar farm!
Agreed. But within 50 miles has potential, where as people who sleep directly underneath the roof panels are directly absorbing potential electromagnetic radiation.
I'd wager there's more danger in a microwave oven!
[quote][p][bold]super waluigi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]super waluigi[/bold] wrote: My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels. We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.[/p][/quote]I presume you live in Essex. If you do, you're within about 50 miles of 2 working nuclear power stations (as the crow flies). Personally I would be much more worried about the potential radiation given off by those than a solar farm![/p][/quote]Agreed. But within 50 miles has potential, where as people who sleep directly underneath the roof panels are directly absorbing potential electromagnetic radiation.[/p][/quote]I'd wager there's more danger in a microwave oven! Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 7

8:54am Thu 29 May 14

Burnt Heath says...

In this case the land for the proposed site was used for growing apples and given understandable concerns about the carbon footprint of our food, it should go back into fruit production - not get 'locked up' under glass panels for 30 years. How many apples do you see in supermarkets coming in from abroad - loads. We should be growing more local foods. I am all for solar power, it's great technology, but it doesn't have to ruin the countryside, and should only go there when all suitable brownfield and roof space has been used. Even then it should go on poor quality sites.
In this case the land for the proposed site was used for growing apples and given understandable concerns about the carbon footprint of our food, it should go back into fruit production - not get 'locked up' under glass panels for 30 years. How many apples do you see in supermarkets coming in from abroad - loads. We should be growing more local foods. I am all for solar power, it's great technology, but it doesn't have to ruin the countryside, and should only go there when all suitable brownfield and roof space has been used. Even then it should go on poor quality sites. Burnt Heath
  • Score: 14

8:57am Thu 29 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Burnt Heath wrote:
In this case the land for the proposed site was used for growing apples and given understandable concerns about the carbon footprint of our food, it should go back into fruit production - not get 'locked up' under glass panels for 30 years. How many apples do you see in supermarkets coming in from abroad - loads. We should be growing more local foods. I am all for solar power, it's great technology, but it doesn't have to ruin the countryside, and should only go there when all suitable brownfield and roof space has been used. Even then it should go on poor quality sites.
So, perhaps old industrial areas, for example?

I didn't really think about that aspect. You have a valid point.
[quote][p][bold]Burnt Heath[/bold] wrote: In this case the land for the proposed site was used for growing apples and given understandable concerns about the carbon footprint of our food, it should go back into fruit production - not get 'locked up' under glass panels for 30 years. How many apples do you see in supermarkets coming in from abroad - loads. We should be growing more local foods. I am all for solar power, it's great technology, but it doesn't have to ruin the countryside, and should only go there when all suitable brownfield and roof space has been used. Even then it should go on poor quality sites.[/p][/quote]So, perhaps old industrial areas, for example? I didn't really think about that aspect. You have a valid point. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 16

10:01am Thu 29 May 14

Catchedicam says...

SoundSense wrote:
Gentlemen, are you not aware that we taxpayers subsidise every kilowatt produced by wind and solar? We pay to produce the power and then we pay again if we use the power. Cheaper energy bills - I doubt it. Wind and solar farms are a blot on the landscape and not the answer to our energy needs. The Government's enthusiasm for these projects (and hence the subsidies) is because we are obliged to meet renewable energy targets set by our friends in Brussels.
The UK was the first country in the world to set legally obligated renewable energy targets, the EU followed our lead, but don't let facts get in the way. As for subsidy, the subsidy is designed to subsidise JOBS to get our fledgling renewable energy sector off the ground, or would you rather subsidise people to sit around and waste their time on 'the dole'?
[quote][p][bold]SoundSense[/bold] wrote: Gentlemen, are you not aware that we taxpayers subsidise every kilowatt produced by wind and solar? We pay to produce the power and then we pay again if we use the power. Cheaper energy bills - I doubt it. Wind and solar farms are a blot on the landscape and not the answer to our energy needs. The Government's enthusiasm for these projects (and hence the subsidies) is because we are obliged to meet renewable energy targets set by our friends in Brussels.[/p][/quote]The UK was the first country in the world to set legally obligated renewable energy targets, the EU followed our lead, but don't let facts get in the way. As for subsidy, the subsidy is designed to subsidise JOBS to get our fledgling renewable energy sector off the ground, or would you rather subsidise people to sit around and waste their time on 'the dole'? Catchedicam
  • Score: -10

10:02am Thu 29 May 14

Catchedicam says...

PaulWagland wrote:
super waluigi wrote:
My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels.
We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.
Radiation given off by the electrical current? I'm sorry mate, but you clearly have no clue what you're talking about here. The electricity produced by PV is no different to that from any other source (coal, nuclear, whatever). If' you're really worried, a hat made of aluminium foil will almost certainly keep you safe...
Excellent, love it..
[quote][p][bold]PaulWagland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]super waluigi[/bold] wrote: My biggest concern with solar panels is the radiation that is given off by the electrical current down stream of the panels. We don't know enough about it to confirm or deny it, because they simply have not been around long enough yet, but I have heard from good sources that the effects in the building trade of radiation from panels could trump the health problems caused by Asbestos.[/p][/quote]Radiation given off by the electrical current? I'm sorry mate, but you clearly have no clue what you're talking about here. The electricity produced by PV is no different to that from any other source (coal, nuclear, whatever). If' you're really worried, a hat made of aluminium foil will almost certainly keep you safe...[/p][/quote]Excellent, love it.. Catchedicam
  • Score: 3

10:22am Thu 29 May 14

PaulWagland says...

Burnt Heath wrote:
In this case the land for the proposed site was used for growing apples and given understandable concerns about the carbon footprint of our food, it should go back into fruit production - not get 'locked up' under glass panels for 30 years. How many apples do you see in supermarkets coming in from abroad - loads. We should be growing more local foods. I am all for solar power, it's great technology, but it doesn't have to ruin the countryside, and should only go there when all suitable brownfield and roof space has been used. Even then it should go on poor quality sites.
Burnt Heath, you make a fair point, but I think the article says that the owner of this land is hoping to make enough money from the solar farm to recreate his old orchards, which failed some years ago. Energy and food security are both hugely important; it's interesting that one might support the other.
[quote][p][bold]Burnt Heath[/bold] wrote: In this case the land for the proposed site was used for growing apples and given understandable concerns about the carbon footprint of our food, it should go back into fruit production - not get 'locked up' under glass panels for 30 years. How many apples do you see in supermarkets coming in from abroad - loads. We should be growing more local foods. I am all for solar power, it's great technology, but it doesn't have to ruin the countryside, and should only go there when all suitable brownfield and roof space has been used. Even then it should go on poor quality sites.[/p][/quote]Burnt Heath, you make a fair point, but I think the article says that the owner of this land is hoping to make enough money from the solar farm to recreate his old orchards, which failed some years ago. Energy and food security are both hugely important; it's interesting that one might support the other. PaulWagland
  • Score: 5

1:50pm Thu 29 May 14

Solarpro says...

Catchedicam wrote:
SoundSense wrote:
Gentlemen, are you not aware that we taxpayers subsidise every kilowatt produced by wind and solar? We pay to produce the power and then we pay again if we use the power. Cheaper energy bills - I doubt it. Wind and solar farms are a blot on the landscape and not the answer to our energy needs. The Government's enthusiasm for these projects (and hence the subsidies) is because we are obliged to meet renewable energy targets set by our friends in Brussels.
The UK was the first country in the world to set legally obligated renewable energy targets, the EU followed our lead, but don't let facts get in the way. As for subsidy, the subsidy is designed to subsidise JOBS to get our fledgling renewable energy sector off the ground, or would you rather subsidise people to sit around and waste their time on 'the dole'?
The subsidies are nothing to do with jobs. The jobs created by the subsidies are a convenient and positive side effect which help politicians look good. The motivation behind the subsidy is to ensure that enough money was INVESTED in the solar sector to enable the government to meet their ambitious renewable energy targets by 2020. The unexpected consequence of the generous subsidies has been an influx of funding from venture capital firms and savvy businessmen. Once these sites have been developed and the annual yield established they are neatly packaged up together and sold on to other financial institutions such as hedge funds. The solar farm then sits as an asset in the hedge funds portfolio as a nice stable investment bringing in a handsome annual return. This is all paid for by you and me via increases in our electricity bills. Once again the financial institutions make big rewards from the general public. Next time your electricity bill goes up don’t blame your energy company blame the government.
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SoundSense[/bold] wrote: Gentlemen, are you not aware that we taxpayers subsidise every kilowatt produced by wind and solar? We pay to produce the power and then we pay again if we use the power. Cheaper energy bills - I doubt it. Wind and solar farms are a blot on the landscape and not the answer to our energy needs. The Government's enthusiasm for these projects (and hence the subsidies) is because we are obliged to meet renewable energy targets set by our friends in Brussels.[/p][/quote]The UK was the first country in the world to set legally obligated renewable energy targets, the EU followed our lead, but don't let facts get in the way. As for subsidy, the subsidy is designed to subsidise JOBS to get our fledgling renewable energy sector off the ground, or would you rather subsidise people to sit around and waste their time on 'the dole'?[/p][/quote]The subsidies are nothing to do with jobs. The jobs created by the subsidies are a convenient and positive side effect which help politicians look good. The motivation behind the subsidy is to ensure that enough money was INVESTED in the solar sector to enable the government to meet their ambitious renewable energy targets by 2020. The unexpected consequence of the generous subsidies has been an influx of funding from venture capital firms and savvy businessmen. Once these sites have been developed and the annual yield established they are neatly packaged up together and sold on to other financial institutions such as hedge funds. The solar farm then sits as an asset in the hedge funds portfolio as a nice stable investment bringing in a handsome annual return. This is all paid for by you and me via increases in our electricity bills. Once again the financial institutions make big rewards from the general public. Next time your electricity bill goes up don’t blame your energy company blame the government. Solarpro
  • Score: 13

3:06pm Thu 29 May 14

Zx6biker says...

PaulWagland wrote:
Burnt Heath wrote:
In this case the land for the proposed site was used for growing apples and given understandable concerns about the carbon footprint of our food, it should go back into fruit production - not get 'locked up' under glass panels for 30 years. How many apples do you see in supermarkets coming in from abroad - loads. We should be growing more local foods. I am all for solar power, it's great technology, but it doesn't have to ruin the countryside, and should only go there when all suitable brownfield and roof space has been used. Even then it should go on poor quality sites.
Burnt Heath, you make a fair point, but I think the article says that the owner of this land is hoping to make enough money from the solar farm to recreate his old orchards, which failed some years ago. Energy and food security are both hugely important; it's interesting that one might support the other.
And where will he plant his renewed orchard? Between the solar panels? - if you look at his planning application he only intends to plant 500 trees (less than 1 of his 41 acres of ground, to be used as "buffer") with apple trees ... He has some more leased ground but that was included in his original proposal for solar - so clearly no intent to plant trees there either!
[quote][p][bold]PaulWagland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burnt Heath[/bold] wrote: In this case the land for the proposed site was used for growing apples and given understandable concerns about the carbon footprint of our food, it should go back into fruit production - not get 'locked up' under glass panels for 30 years. How many apples do you see in supermarkets coming in from abroad - loads. We should be growing more local foods. I am all for solar power, it's great technology, but it doesn't have to ruin the countryside, and should only go there when all suitable brownfield and roof space has been used. Even then it should go on poor quality sites.[/p][/quote]Burnt Heath, you make a fair point, but I think the article says that the owner of this land is hoping to make enough money from the solar farm to recreate his old orchards, which failed some years ago. Energy and food security are both hugely important; it's interesting that one might support the other.[/p][/quote]And where will he plant his renewed orchard? Between the solar panels? - if you look at his planning application he only intends to plant 500 trees (less than 1 of his 41 acres of ground, to be used as "buffer") with apple trees ... He has some more leased ground but that was included in his original proposal for solar - so clearly no intent to plant trees there either! Zx6biker
  • Score: 5

3:31pm Thu 29 May 14

Burnt Heath says...

PaulWagland wrote:
Burnt Heath wrote:
In this case the land for the proposed site was used for growing apples and given understandable concerns about the carbon footprint of our food, it should go back into fruit production - not get 'locked up' under glass panels for 30 years. How many apples do you see in supermarkets coming in from abroad - loads. We should be growing more local foods. I am all for solar power, it's great technology, but it doesn't have to ruin the countryside, and should only go there when all suitable brownfield and roof space has been used. Even then it should go on poor quality sites.
Burnt Heath, you make a fair point, but I think the article says that the owner of this land is hoping to make enough money from the solar farm to recreate his old orchards, which failed some years ago. Energy and food security are both hugely important; it's interesting that one might support the other.
The trouble is that most of the land in question (which is very good quality) will then be under solar panels for the next 30 years, so not able to grow apples. It would be better to put the panels on poor farmland / brownfield roof and all this land back into apple/food production. Then we would get the best of both worlds.
[quote][p][bold]PaulWagland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Burnt Heath[/bold] wrote: In this case the land for the proposed site was used for growing apples and given understandable concerns about the carbon footprint of our food, it should go back into fruit production - not get 'locked up' under glass panels for 30 years. How many apples do you see in supermarkets coming in from abroad - loads. We should be growing more local foods. I am all for solar power, it's great technology, but it doesn't have to ruin the countryside, and should only go there when all suitable brownfield and roof space has been used. Even then it should go on poor quality sites.[/p][/quote]Burnt Heath, you make a fair point, but I think the article says that the owner of this land is hoping to make enough money from the solar farm to recreate his old orchards, which failed some years ago. Energy and food security are both hugely important; it's interesting that one might support the other.[/p][/quote]The trouble is that most of the land in question (which is very good quality) will then be under solar panels for the next 30 years, so not able to grow apples. It would be better to put the panels on poor farmland / brownfield roof and all this land back into apple/food production. Then we would get the best of both worlds. Burnt Heath
  • Score: 4

11:26am Sat 31 May 14

mattym1983 says...

MrDarcy wrote:
Protesting about, fracking, wind farms, solar farms, it seems no good can be done for being wrong... Cheaper bills everyone is crying for. Confuses me so much, why protest against what we need ? its also money for the farm owner and lets face it, its not like the British farming community doesn't need all the help it can get. and as for the glare you say it will cause, get a grip. This is England not some scorching hot desert. ~weirdos
I understand with protesting against fracking that can cause eathquakes but as for the rest this just seems to be boredem complaining just like people complaining about the carnival there just bored round em up and give em jobs todo
[quote][p][bold]MrDarcy[/bold] wrote: Protesting about, fracking, wind farms, solar farms, it seems no good can be done for being wrong... Cheaper bills everyone is crying for. Confuses me so much, why protest against what we need ? its also money for the farm owner and lets face it, its not like the British farming community doesn't need all the help it can get. and as for the glare you say it will cause, get a grip. This is England not some scorching hot desert. ~weirdos[/p][/quote]I understand with protesting against fracking that can cause eathquakes but as for the rest this just seems to be boredem complaining just like people complaining about the carnival there just bored round em up and give em jobs todo mattym1983
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree