Plans for a solar farm between Camber and Lydd have been unveiled, the third proposed for the Romney Marsh. The South Brooks site could be over a thousand hectares in size and also include a battery storage plant.
The proposals are being put forward by EDF and PS Renewables for six pieces of land around Lydd with the biggest to the north of Jury’s Gap at Camber. The project is considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) which will be decided by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero rather than go through the local planning process.
The solar farm could generate enough energy to supply 140,000 homes each year according to the project’s proposals. “To secure our domestic supply of electricity, respond to increasing demand and meet our climate change commitments, over the next decade we need to replace older forms of energy production with homegrown sources of clean, renewable energy.”
The latest plans follow two other proposals for solar farms on the marsh – the South Kent Energy Park surrounding the village of Old Romney and the Shepway Energy Park near Newchurch.
The Hands Off Our Marsh pressure group fear all three schemes will irreversibly damage the unique character, environment, agricultural heritage and tourist economy of Romney Marsh. “We have launched a new petition opposing the South Brooks Solar Farm but we don’t know if it will make a difference,” says Amanda Farrant, one of the founders of Hands Off Our Marsh.
She says the proposals will have a huge affect on Romney Marsh. “It will be almost impossible to hide these giant solar power stations. While the agricultural environment will be severely impacted, the tourist economy will also be hugely affected too. Tourism is a vital part of our economy here. These mega schemes will not benefit local communities in any way. We are like sacrificial lambs being slaughtered on the alter of the race to net zero by big corporate interests and deaf politicians.”
Public events to explain the proposals are planned for the next two weeks:
- Saturday September 27 (12pm – 4pm) Lydd Community Hall, Manor Road, Lydd TN29 9HU
- Friday October 10 (2pm – 6pm) Camber Memorial Hall, Lydd Road, Camber TN31 7RJ
- Saturday October 11(12pm – 4pm) Lydd Community Hall, Manor Road, Lydd TN29 9HU
Image Credits: James Stewart , https://southbrookssolarfarm.co.uk/ .
So, if 140 000 homes installed their own solar instead, it would negate the environmental need for that solar farm.
Maybe the Nimbys could lead the way on renewables and set an example instead of complaining?
I wonder how quickly ‘Mark’ would complain if Rye were to be told it would be surrounded by solar panels and potentially lethal storage batteries? Pett Level – perfect location. All the land around the rugby club, leading to Camber, a perfect location. All those south-facing hillsides north and west of Rye – perfect locations. Huge increase in construction traffic that remains ongoing after installation – no problem. Solar panels only have a limited shelf life and have to be replaced after ten years (this fact quoted by a Shepway Energy Park spokesperson). Think again before throwing ‘nimby’ accusations at people. If the local residents were able to benefit directly from these solar farms (reduced energy tariffs perhaps?) it might be a little more acceptable…But no, all the power has to be added to the national grid for the whole country to’benefit’. Totally unfair and unjust.
With three massive solar farms planned to date, 10% of the marsh could be covered is panels with the dangerous battery storage systems…the character of the marsh would be lost. I believe that their are plans that ‘new builds’ will solar panels as standard, that would help with power requirements. I come from Lydd, we support nuclear energy and want to see a new station at Dungeness. High energy users in my opinion should have SNR’s on site, take the power to where it is needed.
Go for it, we need projects like this to be energy self sufficient, your grand children will thank you as well pluss I don’t think it will be any more intrusive then having two thumping great nuclear power stations on the horizon.
One despairs at this news. “Renewables” (wind and in this case, solar), they are definitely not. The cost of subsidising these unreliable, and in many cases where they have been installed (see Australia and California) around the world, dangerous, sources of energy, is stunning. Both wind and solar rely on the development of storage technology that does not exist, and will not exist for many many decades to come. They are a blight on the landscape, but are making a small number of people exceptionally wealthy at your (tax payers) expense. Read the international press – the current growing green backlash is supported by thousands of scientists who are only now finding the ability to speak out against this nonsense.
This isn’t just about spoiling the character and nature of the marsh which of course is important. We cannot continue to take vast areas of farmland out of food production when there are still so many industrial rooftops available for solar. This undermining of our ability to become more self sufficient in food production is probably one of the most serious threats to our future wellbeing
I’m all for green energy but would rather see another Nuclear Power Station built alongside the B station at Dungeness, the infrastructure is in place. I also wonder in 30 years time, we will regret losing so much our wonderful Romney Marsh?
Only time will tell, the dismantling of the rail network in the 60’s under Dr Beeching was the wrong decision.Probably building shopping centres in the 90’s won’t be needed in 10 years time as the internet has changed how we shop.
History shows the mistakes we’ve made and using Romney Marsh as a massive solar power station is another.
Nuclear, even the small modular reactor technology is likely to be way more expensive. Solar is a very cheap form of energy and this will help reduce energy costs. Once a solar park is built there is very little maintenance needed, and ground below can support wildlife . As for dangerous batteries – no idea where that claim has come from, no commercial operator will put in something that could fail – latest battery chemistry is very safe. Also a solar park provides power easily to grid connections, where solar on homes and commercial buildings has a higher installation cost due to the smaller scale and also tends to provide power mainly just at local area level rather than feeding to the main transmission grid at far higher power. If we somehow get nuclear fusion or something it’s easier to take solar out – where large industrial plants which provide nuclear take ages to decommission.
No thanks. Solar panels and the batteries they need are highly flammable with fires that can take days to put out – and toxic fumes. And next to a nuclear power station that is being decommissioned and miles and miles of live explosives at Lydd Camp. This Ponzi Scheme is being vigorously opposed. We don’t want Ed Milliband’s pet project thankyou. Small nuclear reactor and harnessing the power of the sea would be better.
It is being vigorously opposed.
Solar panels have a shelf life; they don’t last forever. Most come from China, manufactured using coal powered electricity. So not very green… If they were not heavily subsidised they would not be economic, much the same as windmills. The subsidies are the reason, at least in part, why electricity bills are so high in the UK.