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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
This website uses cookies. Cookies help us analyse how many people are visiting, what pages they are looking at and how long they stay on each page. The information allows us to continually develop and improve the website to enhance your user experience and ensures that Little Baddow Parish Council are meeting our key priority of keeping you informed. No personal data is extracted or stored. Cookie settingsAcceptReject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorised as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyse and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
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.
I agree fully with all your comments this company does not care about our villages or communities. Purely this proposal is about making money.
Not the prettiest of things but it does reduce CO2 from less climate-friendly methods of electricity generation and stops houses been built there
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!