Newark and Sherwood District Council’s impact report to be submitted for 4,000 acre One Earth Solar Farm on land near North Clifton and South Clifton

Questions remain over major solar farm plans as a council prepares to submit its impact report — with fears residents will be ‘ditched’ with the negative after affects.

Newark and Sherwood District Council’s planning committee met for an extraordinary meeting on Monday, July 21, to approve a draft Local Impact Report for the proposed One Earth Solar Farm, and give officers delegated authority to finalise the report and send it to the examining authority prior to the July 29 deadline.

Plans for the more than 3,000 acre solar farm surrounding North Clifton and South Clifton, put forward by PS Renewables and Orsted, are now in examination stage — as it would be capable of generating more than 50MW, so will be determined by the Secretary of State for Net Zero rather than local councils.

The district council is a major consultee in the process, to represent its residents in the affected villages, and the evidence-based Local Impact Report was prepared by officers to showcase the impacts the development would have on the area.

It found negative impacts on landscape and visual impacts which would see a ‘marked change in the character of the area’ and best and most versatile agricultural land.

The report also noted ‘concerns regarding cumulative effects on the national, county, and regional landscape character areas from multiple solar projects’.

Some aspects of the development are ‘not considered to be properly understood at this time’ by the authority, and it proposes to continue working with the applicant to ‘understand the full impacts’.

The final report, to be submitted to the examiner, will also take on board comments made by councillors at the meeting.

Linda Dales, who represents the area on the district council, said; “I speak on behalf of the huge rural community that is going to be swamped by this application should it be successful.

“I’ve not encountered any opposition in general to solar farms, or the production of solar energy… it’s about the proportionality of this.”

She highlighted residents’ concerns about significant questions which remain unanswered by the developers — including what would happen in the case of a major pollution event from the on-site lithium ion batteries as the area is a drinking water protected zone, the noise levels of the inverters and where they would be located, and the what the long-term plans for and effects of the buried microplastics and heavy metals from the cabling will be on the farmland.

“I think the scary part of all of this is that nobody seems to know,” she added.

“We’re rushing ahead with these schemes without any real understanding of what the long term impact is — not for us, but for future generations.

“They’re three really big questions we should be worried about.”

There were also further fears raised about the future of the land and surrounding communities after the project’s 60-year lifespan was up.

Simon Forde added: “It feels to me very much like the coal mines. When it was helpful to the country we’d build them, use them, make the most of it, benefit the country — when it was no longer suitable they just got ditched. The people got ditched, the communities got ditched. No help whatsoever and we’re still living with the consequences.

“It appears to me like this is another thing, we’re far enough away from London, they don’t care, we’re just going to get dumped with all of this. As long as its suitable for the country — which means London — and the international investors it will go. All the negatives after that we’ll be dumped with.

“We have very little control over the matter… I can’t see any real benefit to our communities from this.”

There was also displeasure over the solar panels being shipped in from China — both due to potential security issues, the lack of use of British skilled labour, and the environmental impact of the shipping — and missing or lacking information relating to trees, biodiversity, and the development’s website showing out of date documents and plans.

“All of it is up in the air… there’s actually more questions coming up than answers that we’re getting,” David Moore said.

“There’s a lot more that we need to know before we can just sign off on something like this for the next two generations. This is going be our kids, grandkids, who are going to inherit the good or the negative of this.”

Councillors unanimously agreed to delegate the finalisation and submission of the report to officers.