Villagers fear odds are stacked against them over Palgrave solar plans

Villagers campaigning against plans to build a huge solar farm in Palgrave fear their objections will be ignored, despite being handed a temporary stay of execution.

In a six-hour meeting of Mid Suffolk District Council, debate raged over this and two other applications in Brantham, which collectively would cover the equivalent of 400 football fields.

Together, the three solar farms would be able to provide power for nearly 40,000 homes across Suffolk and last between 35 and 40 years.

The biggest of the three schemes, at 91 hectares, would be situated between Millway Lane and Bury Road in Palgrave.

At the meeting, villagers argued the loss of biodiversity and agricultural land, of which 52.1 per cent is considered to be best and most versatile (BMV), would significantly impact food security and act as “an eviction notice to the wildlife”.

Jeremy Moynihan, an objector and Palgrave resident, said: “We don’t object to solar, however, given that we can’t provide enough food for our population and rely on imports, sacrificing good growing land to solar can only make this problem worse.

“We implore you to look at the wider picture and not support this ill-conceived industrialisation of the countryside and instead support solar panels where they belong: on roofs and brownfield sites.”

Palgrave residents have been facing applications for solar farms at two sites west of the village since June of last year, while National Grid’s East Anglia Green project could see a string of 50-metre high pylons running across one of the sites.

Pathfinder Clean Energy, which is behind the vast 223-acre solar farm plans, said the development would go some way to helping to reduce fossil fuel imports from abroad.

Neil Weston, chairman of Palgrave Parish Council, added: “There’s been extensive consultation and the vast majority oppose it. Is it right that the vast majority of local residents should be ignored?”

The biggest concern among councillors was the applicant’s potential ability to appeal any decision to the Secretary of State, effectively bypassing the process in the event of a rejection.

Councillor David Penny said: “I sympathise with the residents and parish council, but our hands seem to be very much tied by central government policy.”

After extensive debate, the committee agreed to defer any decision to allow for a further public consultation.

Speaking after the meeting, Mr Moynihan added: “From the beginning of the meeting, it was obvious to me that the council considered that its hands were tied and it would have to approve this development, which will dwarf the village.

“All the questions from the councillors were about mitigating factors, such as hedging, lighting and cameras, suggesting that they had already made their decision.

“There was no discussion about the substantive issues and detriment that this industrialisation will bring.

“The applicant made reference to increased biodiversity, which is a total myth. A change of land use such as this will lead to a loss of biodiversity and accelerated climate change – but this was not challenged by the planners or the councillors.”