Your name

Your email

First Line of Address

Your Postcode

Subject

Message (Edit just as you wish)
Dear Sir/Madam Please find below my objections to planning application 22/0948/FULEI. I strongly object to this application for the following reasons: The degree of impact on both the visual and spatial impact of the Green Belt is unacceptable and any identified benefits of the proposed development are insufficient to amount to very special circumstances which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, as required by the NPPF. The proposals also conflict with policies in the Local Plan and, being proposed on Green Belt, planning permission should not be granted. The impact of the proposed development on residential amenity and upon visual impact will be severe. The huge number of solar photovoltaic panels proposed, together with the associated transformer units, battery stores and substation will have a permanent, detrimental, impact on the visual landscape. Instead of views of agricultural land, residents and members of the public will be subjected to endless visual clutter, including a sea of solar panels, destroying the character of the area. This land has been deliberately protected by the Green Belt designation to prevent urban sprawl. The proposal will add spatial clutter and will permanently alter the openness of the Green Belt, to the detriment of its character and appearance. The scale and quantity of the panels will result in irrefutable harm spatially. The impact and level of harm to designated Heritage Assets is significant. Irrefutable harm will be caused to the setting of designated heritage sites and would not be outweighed by public benefit. Furthermore, although only several heritage assets are referred to in the application there are actually 41 Listed buildings within 1 kilometre of the proposed site and insufficient attention has been given to the effect on these. I strongly disagree that the applicant will mitigate the loss of Green Belt by suggesting a “temporary consent “ of 35 years. This length of time is considered to be tantamount to permanent use, having a significant and detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt for an extended period of time. Any identified benefits of the proposed development overall do not outweigh the harm that would be caused and the proposal is not the optimum viable use for the site. Although solar energy is a public benefit, the proposal would result in the loss of many important existing public benefits. Government policy towards acceleration of carbon reduction should not override these considerations which are particularly inappropriate on Green Belt land with very close proximity to London. The proposal will detrimentally impact 12 rights-of-way across the site, which are predominantly located on the NE and SW zones of the application. The application will result in loss of, or detriment, to these public rights of way, footpaths and bridleways. The pedestrian routes have been regularly walked by local residents from Radlett, Letchmore Heath and Bushey for many years. They provided a vital resource for ‘lockdown’ people to safely exercise in an outdoor area. The minimum 5 metre stand-off proposed by the applicant on either side of all public rights of way, coupled with solar panels nearby will lead to a tunnelling effect, is insufficient and will adversely impact both the openness and enjoyment of this much used network. The proposed solar farm, by virtue of its size and associated equipment will destroy the benefits that public rights of way offer people, limiting access to these public open areas and denying the benefits that the path network currently offers. I have concerns about the issue of flooding and that the proposal will lead to an increased risk of flooding elsewhere. On the previous, broadly similar, application (21/0050/FULEI) the Lead Local Flood Authority (Flood Risk & Drainage Team Hertfordshire County Council) actively objected to the application. Despite a revised Flood Risk Assessment submitted to the Local Planning Authority in April 2021, they still maintained their objection and recommended refusal. The NPPF requires that development should not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. The loss of productive agricultural land diminishes the important ability to maintain and enhance food security at a time when this is a national priority. The national needs of food security require the best use to be made of agricultural land, particularly where it occurs adjacent to urban and heavily populated areas. The use of the land for agriculture, including supporting of many crops, should be maintained. Allowing land to be taken out of food production for the purpose of providing energy is wasteful and unnecessary when many other non-productive opportunities for solar energy operations exist elsewhere. The enhancement of biodiversity is insufficient to compensate for the loss of open Green Belt land. The proximity of the National Grid Elstree Substation to the site, and the fact that some of its pylons are already sited on the subject land, may be a convenient commercial factor for the applicant but should be entirely disregarded when assessing the merits of the application itself. The application fails to demonstrate that the impact of the proposals can be made acceptable to the residential community as required by the NPPF. Whilst the NPPF provides that communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections I have concerns relating to the likelihood of noise generated by inverters, potential fire hazards from the batteries and subsequent leeching of highly toxic gases, including carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide, and also concerns over the safety of flying activities at the Elstree Aerodrome, due to upward reflection of the sun on the solar panels. Whilst it is recognised that renewable energy is an important requirement, the impact of these developments and whether they are in the right place is of paramount importance too. The adverse impact on the surrounding area's landscape character, visual amenity and substantial loss of Green Belt renders the scheme unacceptable The applicant’s Alternative Site Assessment, filed as a supporting document, is noted. However the applicant’s proposal is for a solar plant of such vast size that it will dwarf most other UK solar farms and it is therefore unsurprising that alternative sites for a proposal of this magnitude may be difficult to find. In addition to all of my submissions above, the proposal is simply too large. Yours sincerely

I agree to the Privacy Policy