10th June 2024

---

From our point of view the RES Information Day on 25th May was little more than a box ticking exercise which will enable them to demonstrate to East Suffolk Council that they have followed guidelines and consulted with the local community in the pre-application phase of the planning process.

The ‘new’ information presented was limited, incomplete and in some instances, misleading. RES staff in attendance seemed unprepared, uncoordinated and lacked the depth of knowledge we would have expected. For example, regarding the volume of traffic potentially delivering goods in the construction phase, their responses ranged from eight vehicles a day to fourteen. They were equally unsure whether their figures related to one way or round trips. They were also vague on the types of lorry that would be involved i.e. anything between ‘flatbed trailers’ and ‘the large sort that deliver to supermarkets.’

Their display boards too were low on perspective and obviously designed to give the impression that the disruption and impact of the solar farm on the local community would be minimal. When pressed as to their accuracy, staff members referred to a tiny box in the corner stating that their representations were ‘Not to Scale’. This meant that their proposed 3.6mtr high panels appeared to be the same height as the 2.4mtr deer fencing. They also displayed an irritating image of an average height adult male walking freely through a solar corridor and being able to look over them and enjoy the ‘undisturbed openness of the Suffolk countryside’ as if they weren’t even in his eyeline.

Putting aside our views on the way they presented their information, what did we actually learn from the event?

1. They have reduced the size of the proposed development by 17% to 232 acres, although the farm’s declared capacity still remains at 40MW.

2. Their construction traffic plans have changed. The current proposal is to direct all their HGVs and delivery vehicles from the A143, through Flixton on the B1062. On reaching Bungay the goods for ‘most of’ the western section will be directed via Hillside Road East to an access point near Maisebrook Farm. Those delivering to the eastern section and the southernmost parts of the western sector will be directed via the A144, onto Top Road, Tooks Common Lane and finally Clarkes Lane to get to either the track leading to the substation next to Berry Farm or a similarly sized access point near Rookery Farm/Boundary Farm.

3. They have ‘created’ specific set aside areas for skylarks, which, of course, the birds will automatically choose as new nesting sites.

4. They now assert that the construction phase will only take six months rather than the twelve previously advised in November. This contradicts all of our research for a solar farm of this scale.

We took up RES’ invitation to send them any questions we had arising post Information Day. Our queries focused on the following:

· Details of the solar panel specifications and proposed numbers.

· Exit route(s) expected for delivery traffic.

· Clarity on the estimated number (and type) of delivery lorries employed.

· Clarity on the distance of panels from residents’ property/boundary (their stated minimum is 100mtrs)

· How has the expected time of construction halved when the output capacity hasn’t changed and the acreage only reduced by 17%.

RES declined to respond to these questions, saying instead that further information would be available when they ‘submit their formal planning application’.

We are left, therefore, in the dark on a number of key concerns. We will however endeavour to cover all the bases so that we are in a position to counter the application when RES submit it. Be assured that we are being as proactive as we possibly can behind the scenes.

Our BIG concern is that we believe RES are not being upfront or honest about their full intentions for this site. The mathematics of using 232 acres to generate a maximum capacity of 40MW would make it one of the most inefficient solar farms in the UK (including those built eight years ago when the expected panel yields were less than two thirds of what they are now) and simply doesn't make financial sense. This low output expectation is despite their intended use of bifacial modules which have two sides of solar cells and, they say, have the “potential to produce more electricity in less space.”

To support our suspicions the table below shows how the Shipmeadow site would perform in terms of acreage used to generate 1MW of electricity when compared to other sites across the country