Policy CC8 - Renewable Energy

Object

Representation ID: 4736

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Serena Solanki

I agree with the need for producing renewable energy, however Rutland is one of the smallest counties in England. The PV farms will be located on greenfield sites - how will biodiversity within these sensitive areas be protected? The energy generated will not be used to power local homes or businesses - local people won't see the benefit.
Vattenfall is one of the largest offshore windfarms off the coast of Norfolk and once completed, will generate enough energy for 1.95 million homes. The proposed wind turbines aren't going to be strategically located to maximize energy generation- should be located elsewhere

Support

Representation ID: 4756

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lunn

I support the need for a policy. However, i do not support good agriculture land being used when we have good brownfield sites available, possible ex military sites (old runways) that would make more sense to use. Also if all new housing estates and warehouse roofs for example had solar panels as standard fitted this would reduce the need for large solar farms.

Support

Representation ID: 4949

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Robert Purves

In North Luffenham we have a unused airfield with 3 runways and a wide expanse of open area.
The airfield was sited on top of a hill to make use of the wind. The 3 runways would accommodate up to 100,000 solar panels and the airfield to the North East could take 2 wind turbines with the nearest dwellings being over 500m away.
It makes sense to use the existing runways to place the solar panels on. If the site was to be used for anything else, it would mean tons of concreate being dug up and then disposed of.

Object

Representation ID: 4958

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Williams

Areas of land “identified” in the map quoted should not be supported without extensive scrutiny by RCC. It should not be a given that these proposals will be approved.
The document , in which the PV opportunity map appears has not been widely circulated for scrutiny by Rutland residents.
There is too little evidence to say that agricultural land could be returned unharmed after 40 years to farming. There has to be a guarantee that it will not become brownfield.
Site-specific soil assessments must be undertaken on all proposed sites and all ALC grade 1-3b protected.

Object

Representation ID: 4960

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Graham Tenneson

I note that medium-to-large wind turbines should not be sited within 500 metres of any settlement and would only be permitted within 2000 metres of residential property if there were clear evidence of no significant harm arising from noise, flicker, or their overbearing nature (characteristics which would appear intrinsic to any medium-to-large turbine). Two of the areas shown on the accompanying map as suited to wind turbines are within 500 metres of my property In line with your stated policy therefore, I ask that you reconsider the marked areas to the north and south of Whissendine Road (west of Ashwell.)

Support

Representation ID: 5071

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

Ground mounted PV panels should not be located on agricultural fields. Returning them to agricultural use after 40 years might be difficult to justify as the area may then qualify as brownfield. Grade 3 agricultural land is what most of Rutland is, and can be very productive if farmed well. We should be producing as much of our food locally in line with CC1. The area to the S of Stamford Road, Ketton, is not suitable for ground mounted PV or wind turbines (as designated on the map) as it is at the entrance to the village and CA.

Support

Representation ID: 5084

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: National Highways

Dft Circular 01/2022 paragraphs 65-70 set outs National Highways policy in relation to wind and solar farms adjacent to the Strategic Road Network. This identifies potential risks to motorists, what will/will not be acceptable, and what further information may need to be provided to support planning proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 5093

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England generally welcomes this policy and the provisions it includes for the protection of local landscapes, biodiversity, geodiversity, nature recovery, soils and other natural resources. We note that in the section Additional considerations for solar based energy proposals the recognition of the need to consider BMV soils and the Nature Recovery Strategy which is welcome. In the section on Additional matters for wind-based energy proposals we suggest that impacts on protected species particularly birds (including migration routes) and bats should be considered.

Support

Representation ID: 5138

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Aukera UK

We are supportive of the presumption in favour of such developments on the condition that key criteria and tests are met to ensure a scheme’s acceptability. Areas identified for solar development potential should not be applied in an exclusive way so as not to eliminate development in other areas which may be suitable and satisfy the key policy tests. As a conscientious developer we welcome support for projects that offer significant benefits but would appreciate further clarity on what this includes. The additional solar requirements could be clearer to distinguish BMV and carbon sink considerations.

Object

Representation ID: 5151

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Objection to wording re Landscape Character. A need to support renewables in Conservation Areas. Community Energy schemes should be future-proofed.

Object

Representation ID: 5270

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Dr Toby Walker

Applications to install large commercial solar energy sites in the county cover a huge area of agricultural land to the detriment of the local countryside. The area proposed is 3% of the county which is ten times the national guidelines of 0.3%. The Staveley Solar Farm proposal covers a large area of open countryside and will provide no significant benefit to local communities nor is there any element of local ownership. This is clearly a purely commercial venture and an attempt to use a totally disproportionate area of agricultural land in Rutland for the sole benefit of the developers.

Support

Representation ID: 5295

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Joanna Burrows

An important policy that I support 100%

Object

Representation ID: 5340

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Nicholas Leeming

I note with concern that two areas close to our property at Ashwell Grange are highlighted as being suitable for large scale wind turbines or different types of large scale renewable energy.

1. A significant part of both areas lie within 500m of our settlement which comprises individual, residential properties and so does not comply with policy CC8 which states that “Medium to large scale wind turbines should not be within 500m of any settlement or individual residential property…”.
2. Wind turbines need to be located on high ground where the prevailing, westerly wind are strongest, not in sheltered, east facing locations such as these areas which are totally inappropriate for such use.

Object

Representation ID: 5413

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: North Luffenham Parish Council

Can you advise who will pay for the "Independent Assessment of the Proposals" commissioned by the County Council

Object

Representation ID: 5473

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Janet Taylor

Object to siting any PV arrays on agricultural land or open countryside. There is no need while there are acres of unused roofs, car parks etc to be covered. These schemes are generally proposed by commercial enterprises whose only aim it to profit from the desecration of locations that they don’t live in.

Object

Representation ID: 5495

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Nigel Cooper

My property is located about 0.8 miles to the west of Ashwell. To the south of my property, is a yellow area on the Proposals Map. A further yellow area is located to the north . The yellow denotes “Areas Potentially Suitable for Development of Wind Turbine” to which policy CC8 applies. The policy includes the wording Both the yellow areas are within 500m of our group of houses. By the Council’s definition they are not suitable for wind turbines. Accordingly, I object to their inclusion and request that the 2 yellow areas be deleted from the Proposals Map. Plenty of alternative sites which comply with the policy CC8 are identified on the Proposals Map.

The Vale as dissected by Whissendine Road is not suitable for wind turbines nor for solar panels due to the quality of an important landscape. There are more suitable locations for both in other parts of Rutland

Support

Representation ID: 5568

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs laura alcock

I support this policy. I do not think agriculture land should be used, ( we need local farming / food source) . . All new housing estates and warehouse should have solar panels as standard, but then the national grid needs to support this and currently it cannot!

Support

Representation ID: 5616

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Strutt & Parker (Cecil Estate Family Trust)

Agent: Strutt & Parker

We are supportive of the presumption in favour of solar and renewable energy developments. However the policy needs to be reflective of the impact electricity grid connection capacity constraints (a necessary upgrade works) have on the size and location of areas identified for solar development. The policy must not eliminate development in other areas which may be suitable and satisfy the key policy tests. For areas identified as ground mounted solar potential there should be flexibility in the size of the areas provided they satisfy other policies of the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5617

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Strutt & Parker (on behalf of Exton Estate)

Agent: Strutt & Parker

We are supportive of the presumption in favour of solar and renewable energy developments. However the policy needs to be reflective of the impact electricity grid connection capacity constraints (a necessary upgrade works) have on the size and location of areas identified for solar development. The policy must not eliminate development in other areas which may be suitable and satisfy the key policy tests. For areas identified as ground mounted solar potential there should be flexibility in the size of the areas provided they satisfy the criteria of other policies of the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5657

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton Parish Council

Agent: Mary Cade

But the area identified as a "ground mounted solar PV opportunity area" on the Policies Map to the S of Stamford Road, Ketton, is not suitable for ground mounted PV, or wind turbines. It is at the entrance to the village and its Conservation Area. It is the very site where, last year, a tall metal fence was erected for railway safety, without planning permission, and then had to be replaced with less visually intrusive, and reflective (re road safety) deer fencing.

Object

Representation ID: 5760

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Billsdon

The interactive map shows potential areas for wind turbines close to and south of Whissendine. Sites close to the south of the village would cause flicker which may trigger seizures in some epileptic people and challenging behaviour in some autistic people. The village is downwind of the prevailing wind thus noise would intrude. Whissendine has good tranquillity away from major roads, railways, industry and aviation. The study by AECOM shows potential turbine sites . Their sites are in higher wind speed area and away from large settlements and provide benefit without the detriment from the sites on the interactive map.

Object

Representation ID: 5770

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Langham Parish Council

We are concerned about the presumption of permission for land based solar energy installations. Planning permission has already been granted for a solar energy farm in Langham, which makes a strong contribution towards the Government's targets.

Object

Representation ID: 5789

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sue Scarrott

I compeletly with increasing renewable energy but agricultural land should not be used for producing solar energy. In addition to the obvious palces - all houses and commercial/industrila buildings, RCC should be thinking more creatively about positioning solar panels. Agriculture needs to become less intensive to be sustainable so there is no scope for using existing agricultural land for other purposes.

Support

Representation ID: 5846

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

Replace “Weight in favour will be afforded..” with “Proposals will be actively supported for renewable energy systems…..”
Also add “This may include partnerships with local companies or landowners, especially in terms of heat recovery or the siting of renewable energy systems.”

This is a welcomed policy, especially in terms of wind energy. Relatively more emphasis should be placed on solar energy. The interactive map identifies nearly as much area for solar as wind energy.

Object

Representation ID: 5874

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Brian Grady

The objection is that (i) no consideration is given to protecting communities from the risk of fire and contamination caused by thermal runaway in Li-Ion battery storage units (ii) no assessment is made of the requirement for renewable energy in Rutland (iii) opportunity areas for wind and solar installations vastly exceed the renewable power needed by Rutland (iv) priority should be given to previous industrial, brownfield and military sites before consideration of any productive agricultural land, (v) the policy woudlead to an uncoordinated approach to the establishment of renewable installation and threaten Rutland's outstanding beauty and revenue from tourism.

Object

Representation ID: 5909

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jane Lucas

In respect of ground-based solar panels, the policy should incorporate a requirement, when assessing applications, to take into account the aggregate land area in the county already or potentially devoted to solar farms. This should ensure this remains in line with national guidance/averages. Priority should be given to proposals which demonstrably and substantially benefit the local community to discourage the use of farmland to “export” energy outside the immediate locality. Commercial applicants should make every effort to use their own premises or land at their sites to install panels before making proposals to site these elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 5914

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jo Giles

Whilst recognising and supporting the need for more sustainable energy I am concerned at how RCC is proposing going about it, particularly with regard to solar farms. Current applications by developers in Rutland and Lincolnshire, if successful, would make up 50% of the total national land area given over to solar farms. How can that be? If all current proposals in Rutland were granted 2-3% of our land would be occupied by solar farms, way beyond the 0.3% national target set by government to meet net zero climate goals.

Object

Representation ID: 5934

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr John Ferry

Whilst l am fully in agreement and support the aim of becoming carbon neutral by 2050 l wish to register my strong views against using agricultural land such as that between Morcott and Pilton. Not only because of its agricultural value but of its significant landscape character so important for Rutland. There are more suitable alternative sites I.e Cottesmore and North Luffenham MOD sites. Additionally, all commercial and residential new developments should be mandated to install solar panels.

Object

Representation ID: 5942

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Tunstall

When the solar project in Exton/Barnsdale was submitted for a waiver for an Environmental Impact Assessment the local community were strongly against this development at the proposed sites submitting many objections based on proximity to residential properties and businesses, detrimental impact on tourism especially Barnsdale Gardens which is adjacent to the proposed area. Also the documented presence of protected species in the specific area. The Avenue is a Heritage site and Rutland Wildlife Centre is along the boundary and the animals will be impacted by noise pollution. Please take this existing community feedback into account.

Object

Representation ID: 5950

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

A key concern for the UK is energy security. Wind and solar power are not reliable energy sources. Parts are manufactured in China. There is an environmental cost when dismantled. In Rutland, there needs to be caution about net zero, regarding impact on the landscape and environment (solar and wind power) and the cost to the tax payer. Green energy development has been funded by tax payer subsidies and appears, in the majority of cases, not sustainable as a stand alone business model.

The UK needs more food security. Removing agricultural land from production (solar farms) does not make sense.