10 Comments

1. The proposed solar farm development is nothing more than an attempt to make a profit for the investors of the parent company. Previous to the proposed development, the land was I understand ear marked for housing development, when that was rejected, this seems to be ploan ‘B’. Low Carbon is a fairly new company with not much of a record to support the proposed development. There will be no benefit for the local environment, and will certainly be a blot on the landscape.

   1. I agree fully with all your comments this company does not care about our villages or communities. Purely this proposal is about making money.

2. Not the prettiest of things but it does reduce CO2 from less climate-friendly methods of electricity generation and stops houses been built there

3. Preferred to housing but any additional expansion of schemes like this if it’s perceived that the area is open to them is a concern.

4. I live opposite the proposed site.
   I welcome an opportunity to support green energy being produced locally, whilst I know I will not benefit from this directly. I do have a contract with another green energy provider.
   I am concerned about additional traffic during construction and on going maintenance and if it will access the field from Riffhams Lane (already overused by “through” traffic for a single lane). I am concerned about the visual sight and reflective issues as seen from my upper windows, in spite of reassurance of additional hedging.
   I’m pleased to read that sheep will still graze on the land but can not see how wildlife will benefit further than at the present from this installation.
   I would vehemently oppose any building of residential/commercial structures but do support (with the above concerns) a proposed application for a solar farm.

5. I do not object to solar farms but they need to be positioned somewhere off the main road to the village. It can be quite unsightly and therefore it ruins the beauty of the village if it is too close.

6. We are supportive of green energy in the right location, however this development is too close to our village and existing residential dwellings. Surely, it can be placed elsewhere, in a location away from villages, especially as it is of no direct benefit to Danbury or Little Baddow.
   We are concerned that once a solar farm has run its course, it would then potentially be easier to convert the land for residential use. It is no longer greenfield, it is brownfield.
   We note the comment above that this land had previously been earmarked for residential development, but was rejected. This feels like development through the back door.

7. A solar farm of these dimensions will industrialize a green area of fields, woods and hedgerows. It will take many years for a hedgerow to grow high enough to shield the panels from the road. Great damage will be done to the natural environment. It would be better to promote solar panels on roofs.
   Compare this proposal with one for 100 hectares at West Hanningfield

8. I am against further residential building and in favour of green energy, therefore this proposal may be the best outcome of all the possible uses for this land, presuming it will not stay untouched for ever. As others have already said, as long as due consideration is paid to the size (is it all or nothing?), inevitable disruption during development and final aspect it is hard to argue strongly against it. In addition, it should be deemed a one off and not set any precedents.

9. If there were enough of these projects, and reduced consumption, we might not need a new nuclear power station at Bradwell. That would mean Danbury doesnt get the extra 1 lorry per minute through the village.
   They have to go somewhere!

Comments are closed.