• Kingsclere nestles in the setting of the North Wessex Downs - an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), close to Watership Down. It is known for its historic charm, beautiful natural landscapes and strong sense of community.

• The application industrialises 29.4 hectares, 72.6 acres of arable farmland, the equivalent to 60 football pitches. This development is completely inappropriate for a site so close to residential properties in the rural setting of Kinsclere and Ecchinswell. The visual impact of such a huge industrial solar development would fundamentally change the tranquil rural character of the area.

• The location is within the setting of a Designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in an area of undulating open countryside and has attributes which take it out of the ordinary when considering landscape character. It has been evaluated as “Valued Landscape” within the terms of the Basingstoke and Deane’s draft Local Plan Update (2024).

• The development will impact the setting of many houses that surround the site. Solar panels should not extend up so close to people’s homes. Many families will overlook hundreds of solar panels, and industrial site, lacking birdsong, wildlife and countryside views.

• The solar panels will be on a significant slope which rises up facing south towards the ridge of the North Wessex Downs (AONB). The OS Map confirms the contours that will be completely visible to walkers and riders on the Wayfarers Way . It will be impossible to mitigate the significant visual impact of this industrial development by planting hedges.

• We consider solar panels would be more appropriately located on already industrialised land, on roof tops or over car parks, not on agricultural land.

• Loss of farming on agricultural land when the UK needs to produce 56 per cent more food by 2050 due to increasing population and the need to improve our food security. If we continue to build on farmland we have no hope of achieving it in the next 30 years.

• Lets not compromise our food security for the sake of profit

• The UK must not increase its reliance on imported food.

• The UK has 600,000 acres of unused south facing industrial roof space which could take solar panels.

• Stratton’s Farm has been farmland since the medieval times. The footpaths follow field boundaries that can be seen on 300 year old maps.

• This loss of good quality agricultural land which is contrary to national policy. None of this farmland is grade 4 (poor quality) or grade 5 (very poor quality).

• CPRE states “Taken together, all suitable roof space and car parks in the UK could generate a whopping 117 GW, substantially more than the government’s total solar target of 70 GW by of 2050.”

• Meeting national solar energy targets through ground-mounted schemes alone could require between 0.9-1.4% of the land in England, covering as much as 1,800 square kilometres/ 180,000 hectares of our countryside – an area larger than the size of Greater London (157,000ha).

• Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) is a system used in England and Wales to grade the quality of land for agricultural use. It is used to inform planning decisions affecting greenfield sites, to protect good quality land from development.

• The system classifies land into five grades, with grade 1 being the best quality. Planning policies state that the valuable grades 1, 2 & 3a should be protected from development not associated with agriculture of forestry.

• Have you seen sheep grazing under solar panels?

• The proposed development won’t benefit the local community in any way. The power generated by the solar panels will not power the local communities but go straight to the national grid.

• The solar energy industry has jumped on a bandwagon of a modern-day Wild West style gold rush. Developers ignore other alternatives and exploit the cheaper, unregulated opportunities of placing solar onto agricultural green fields. It is for profit not sustainability.

• The developer, Anglo Renewables, stands to makes millions, quickly selling the development plans on to a financial operating company who is unlikely to have specific utility expertise. These financiers and their builders are likely not to be the longer term owners and operators of the site. Again, its operation is likely to be sold on, with debt and operated at the lowest possible cost. The arrangement is not unlike the water companies (e.g. Thames Water). The local community is left with the development, its problems and its pollution.

• The landowner receives around £3.2 million over the 40-year lease of the land with no duty or responsibility for the operations onsite.

• Anglo Renewable “hope to set up a community benefit fund of £25,000 which will be invested in suitable community project directly benefitting local residents”. We don’t believe this. That is not a benefit but a pitiful level of compensation for the loss of the community’s countryside.

• James Gray MP for North Wiltshire said on 16th April 2024 “We are talking about a multibillion-pound investment with very substantial returns for the Wall Street spivs who stand behind it. The people behind it are not there for environmental reasons at all, although they may claim to be. They claim to be biodiversity-friendly and all that stuff, but it is absolute PR spin and total nonsense. They are there because there is an enormous amount of money in it. I do not see why we should compromise our environmental principles by allowing those people to come into our countryside and do what they propose.”

• AR Kingsclere Ltd is a subsidiary of Anglo Renewables specific to only this project. If, for any reason, AR Kingsclere Ltd is dissolved, will the local community be left with unfinished and/or unmanaged mitigation measures with no recourse for a remedy?

• The residents living adjacent to the site will have a significant adverse visual impact from the site, whilst there will also be a loss of the rural amenity of the extensive open views along the footpath and bridleway crossing the site.

• The UK is leading the world with its renewable energy program and both our local and national policies promote solar panels that directly power domestic, local industry or community projects, reducing demand on our National Grid. The government’s policy states “it would seek at widespread deployment of rooftop solar on commercial and industrial properties. The large-scale deployment of ground mounted solar on brownfield, industrial and low and medium grade agricultural land”.

• In the last 12-months 70% of our electricity was already generated by low carbon methods. The National Grid’s ‘Beyond 2035’ report states “By 2030, it will be common for the electricity system to run on 100 per cent renewable sources for extended periods of time.”

• What benefit do we derive from something only operating effectively during low-demand summer days? The project will not help avoid blackouts because it only generates power during sunlight hours. During cold winter evenings when demand peaks, it produces no power. It is not a benefit.

• The solar panel industry claim rooftops are not enough to meet the government’s target of 70GW by 2035. Other researchers differ:-

o Power Roll, a solar film manufacturer concluded that commercial roof space can easily support the levels of solar PV required to meet the UK’s net-zero target. Their analysis shows that there are around 2.5 billion square meters of south-facing commercial roof space in the UK, which could support over 400 GW of solar power; well in excess of the latest estimates of the capacity required to deliver net zero.

o Research by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) indicates that installing solar panels just on the UK’s car parks and new buildings could generate 31 gigawatts (GW) and taking all suitable roof space and car parks in the UK could generate a whopping 117 GW, substantially more than the government’s total solar target of 70 GW by 2035.

• In their mitigation measures, Anglo Renewable are suggesting 4-meter-high hedges. If properly implemented and maintained these can take up to 15-years to mature. The local community don’t benefit in the meantime but live with an industrial view.

• Once the connection is established and/or the Kingsclere substation is upgraded, there is a likelihood that the site may be expanded into more of Stratton’s Farm. As technology improves, the panels will be upgraded for higher capacity panels, extending the site life beyond the suggested 40 years.

• The planning application implies decommissioning as part of the project but, in their application for planning, there are no details or documents of how this will be implemented. Whose responsibility will it be to ensure this happens? In 40-years time, will the local community be left with the benefit of an abandoned facility that no one wants?

• The proposed development seriously impacts the amenity of the 5 footpaths through and adjacent to the site including nationally known long distance footpath, the Brenda Parker Way. This will be adversely impacted with the proposed industrialised facility as opposed to open countryside.

• Anglo Renewables have suggested mitigation measure to hide the solar site from these footpaths. This involves ‘gapping up’ many gaps along hedge lines, planting new hedge lines and trees and encouraging them to grow to 4 meters tall.

• Currently, there are extensive open views of green fields and agricultural farmland to and from the North Wessex Down AONB (now known as a National Landscape) and the Wayfarers Walk and the internationally known Watership Down. The development would create significant adverse visual impact along the footpaths and bridleway, with arrays of 3 meter high dark coloured solar panels which would tower above walkers blocking those views.

• Walkers would be separated from the site by a 2.5 meter high security fence and 3 meter imposing security cameras. The solar panels and fencing would destroy the wide, open views and create an unpleasant tunnel along the pathways, degrading the amenity value.

• The proposed mitigation measures will simply not work. Properly managed countryside hedges do not grow tall enough to screen the proposed very high panels. They will take several years before they create any screening, will not be effective during winter months and the panoramic views will be blocked anyway.

• We consider the proposed development contravenes ?? which states that proposals affecting Public Rights of Way will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the routes and the recreational and amenity value of the Public Rights of Way will be protected, or satisfactory diverted routes that deliver a level of recreational and amenity value at least as good as the routes being replaced are provided.

• We consider the proposed development contravenes Basingstoke and Deane’s Planning Policy EM-1 Landscape which specifically states that “Development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated through an appropriate assessment that the proposal are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned”.

• It also conflicts with the National Planning Policies Framework (NPPF) and the North Wessex Downs AONB (National Landscape) Management Plan. These seek to ensure that proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned.

• This landscape has attributes which take it out of the ordinary and has been assessed as ‘Valued Landscape’ in the 2023 Basingstoke and Deane Draft Local Plan Update.

• This proposed development is turning what is deemed to be ‘Valued Landscape’ into an industrial zone.

• Large solar farms such as that being proposed for Strattons, have the potential to have a transformative effect on the land which could have consequences for local wildlife.

• The high security fencing of the posed project will cause serious adverse impacts to movement between wildlife habitats. The current free and open interconnection of these habitats allows wildlife free movement between areas of protected ancient woodlands that cannot be recreated by the “temporary” short-term planting proposed in the mitigation measures.

• Walkers and riders share the experience of tranquillity with animals such as deer, hares and skylarks in a green corridor that plays a crucial role in linking sites of ancient woodland.

• Kingsclere has a rich history that dates back to medieval times.

• Footpaths follow ancient field boundaries and hedgerows.

• There has been insufficient survey to allow this much piling.

We consider the proposed development contravenes Basingstoke and Deane’s Planning Policy EM-1 Landscap which specifically states that “Development will be permitted on where it can be demonstrated through an appropriate assessment that the proposal are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned”.

• The A339 is already a busy, fast and dangerous road especially at peak rush hours.

• Road works, long delays and traffic chaos will seriously impact local people, commuters who travel between Newbury & Basingstoke, mothers on the school run, postal deliveries, the bus service (Link/32) and school buses.

• The danger will increase especially through the villages of Kingsclere and Headley where it is extremely narrow with houses directly on either side of the road.

• Development vehicles will directly pass the entrance to Cheam School. This is already an extremely dangerous junction which puts the safety of children at risk.

• Kingsclere, Ecchinswell, Headley and Ashford Hill will become rat-runs.

• The A339 will suffer serious disruption while the underground cabling is installed under the verge.

• Frustration, trucks turning and mud on the road.

• Pedestrians, school children, cyclists and horse riders on rural and village road face more danger from diverted traffic.

• Solar farms are not quiet, the inverters emit an irritating humming noise, they have cooling fans which also emit noise, to get rid of the heat. This is currently a tranquil site with the prevailing wind taking any road noise away. Claims of no increase of background noise will not be realised on quiet summer days.

• Construction traffic will be entering and leaving the site for 26 weeks (that’s 6 months), disrupting traffic and leaving mud on the road.

• They would be driving piles into the earth causing vibrations, noise, and dust.

• The construction stage will last months and will involve articulated lorries, HGV’s and vans transporting materials to site. The villages of Kingsclere and Headley will be significantly impacted by the noise and vibration caused by the very large increase in HGV traffic during the construction phase.

• Wayfarers Walk and Brenda Parker Way are two long distance routes which bring tourists into the area. These link to numerous local paths creating circular walks that are promoted by Hampshire County Council. Kingsclere has a café & 3 pubs (which offer rooms), Ecchinswell has a pub which is proposing to offer rooms. The local walks are mentioned on their websites because they form a beautiful & tranquil network. The solar development would turn a pleasant and rural area into an industrialised area protected by CCTV cameras and high fencing with warning signs, which are far from welcoming to those who currently benefit from the quiet and unspoilt public access pathway and bridleways. Who will return to these industrialised walks?

• Cheam School (HM King Charles’s prep school) is immediately north of the development on the A339 and represents a financial asset to the area. A339 disruption affect the day pupils getting to and from school. As well as directly impacting the school, the development reduces income to local businesses catering to associated visitors. The noise & vibrations during construction may also adversely affect the students at the school.

• The proposed cable route is along the busy A339 for about 1km. This is a busy trunk road with several accident-prone sections. Even the smallest road works or accident can cause miles of traffic queues. Businesses along the entire 12-mile stretch of the A339 are affected. The construction period may be the “temporary” part of this project, but its economic impact is huge. Disruption along the A339 will introduce delays to deliveries and increase costs and commuting for all businesses that use it.

• This proposed development is for 40 years. Is half a lifetime temporary? A child has time to be born, grow up, become a parent and for that child to also become a parent in that time. Will the child see it as temporary?

• The RHS says that it will take between 20 and 50 years for hawthorn hedges (diciduous, they loose their leaves in winter) to achieve their full height of about 3 meters - this is more than half of the life of the solar farm.

• Greg Smith MP for Buckingham said in a recent Commons debate on large solar Farms “ Let it be a warning to any community where solar is coming. It does not end with just the solar panels.”

• The developers have included the word ‘decommissioning’ in their application. There is no documentation in the application that relates to decommissioning. Without a very specific plan and allocated funding who can say it will be removed?

• A brick building will be part of the complex, the panels will be anchored by pilings into the ground there will be associated concrete footings. Restoration to farmland will be difficult and expensive, seeking an opportunity for building development becomes easier and permanent.

• Low intensity sheep grazing under solar panels is not recognised by DEFRA as “dual use”. In the screening application requesting a waiver from an Environmental Impact Assessment (Ref. No: 23/03072/ENSC), the developers found it convenient to classify this within the regulation as “industrial installation for the production of electricity, …”. In reality, this is a change of use from agricultural to industrial.

• Anglo Renewables make frequent references to the fact that Basingstoke & Deane declared a climate emergency in 2019. But this is not a planning policy and is not relevant for the purposes of determining planning applications.

• It is very unlikely that the site will ever be returned to its current agricultural use, therefore there is no weight to any claims that the development is temporary and can be reversed.

The Prime Minister stated on 17th April “particularly at a time of increased geopolitical risk, we must protect our nation’s food security and therefore our most valuable agricultural land. We do want to see more solar, which is one of the cheapest forms of energy, but, as he said, on brownfield sites, rooftops and away from our best agricultural land. That is why our recently published national infrastructure planning rules set out the requirement for solar not to be placed on what is described as the best and most valuable versatile land where possible. The Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are ensuring that developers and planning authorities strike the right balance so that we can deliver what my hon. Friend wants, which is more British food grown here at home.”

Justin Tomlinson Minister for State for Energy Security and Net Zero stated on 16 April 2024 “That is why it is clear in planning policy and guidance that solar projects should be directed to previously developed or non-greenfield land. That was the message we reinforced in the January national planning statement to ensure that we reduce unnecessary clustering.”

Dr Caroline Johnson MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham opened the resent debate on Large Scale Solar Farms in the Commons saying ”In the process of achieving that laudable aim (netZero), we must be very wary of unintended consequences. There is a considerable risk that in the name of saving the environment, we end up destroying it, and that in the name of energy security, we make ourselves dependent on food imports.” “We would ideally have policies prioritising energy security and food security, but as it stands, the balance has tipped too far towards energy security at the expense of food security. National self-sufficiency in food has fallen from 74% to 61% since the mid-1980s.”

“The previous debate that I secured on this issue, in June last year, focused on planning regulations. To give the Government credit, since then they have clearly tried to get to grips with the issue, and they released a new national policy statement on renewable energy infrastructure in January. Nevertheless, I fear there is still a loophole in the regulations. The cumulative impact of solar applications is not properly defined, and the regulations are still characterised not by strict rules but by guidance, which can be flouted. Many planners still utterly ignore the guidance to avoid the use of the best and most versatile land.”

“It is clear that developers are taking advantage of the absence of rigid and specific Government guidance to protect BMV land and proposing ever larger solar installations as NSIPs in unsuitable places. As one developer commented: “That’s the neat thing about the NSIP process. You put all the powers you need into one consent and have relative certainty of the consent being granted.” “The companies have no ties to the land and no stake in its preservation.”

Sir David Davis MP for Haltemprice and Howden says “The Prime Minister said that on his watch, he will not allow great swathes of our best agricultural land to be swallowed by solar farms, and we will make sure he lives up to that promise.”

Greg Smith MP for Buckingham says “My asks are clear. First, we simply must diversify our national energy security strategy to promote less land-intensive schemes, which come at the expense of our food security, and promote the development of more reliable, sustainable and less impactful schemes that we can actually deliver every day of the year. Secondly, we must put in practice the provision of the new language in the NPPF and encourage local authorities to use it. Thirdly, we must incentivise the use of existing rooftop space for stand-alone solar installations on sites that already have a grid connection and reform the grid to ensure that many more can as well. Let us get this right and stop the solar destruction, build our energy security on nuclear, protect our food security and save the great British countryside.”

Dr Caroline Johnson says “Some people say that the land underneath solar panels can be grazed by livestock, but from practical experience, that is absolute nonsense. I challenge anyone to look under the ground-mounted solar panels already in place and see how often they find animals grazing there.”

James Gray MP for North Wiltshire said on 16th April 2024 “We are talking about a multibillion-pound investment with very substantial returns for the Wall Street spivs who stand behind it. The people behind it are not there for environmental reasons at all, although they may claim to be. They claim to be biodiversity-friendly and all that stuff, but it is absolute PR spin and total nonsense. They are there because there is an enormous amount of money in it. I do not see why we should compromise our environmental principles by allowing those people to come into our countryside and do what they propose.”