Opinion: The Hog’s Back Solar Farm – Truly ‘Green’, or Just ‘Greenwashing’?

Published on: 5 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 6 Nov, 2024

By John Goodridge

Chair, CPRE Surrey

Guildford Borough Council’s Planning Committee is due this week to decide on the proposal for a ‘solar farm’ on the Hog’s Back near Guildford. The Surrey Campaign to Protect Rural England  has objected in the strongest terms to the planning application (24/P/00441) submitted by Scottish and Southern Electricity (SSE).

SSE proposes to create a solar farm in the green belt on land designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and with candidate status for inclusion in the Surrey Hills AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) National Landscape.

This location is highly sensitive and significant, and the solar farm project raises serious concerns.

CPRE Surrey supports renewable energy but believes that the harm to the countryside and natural environment outweighs any potential benefit. There is no net gain for the climate here, rather, there are carbon costs associated with the materials, transport, construction, and eventual decommissioning.

The recent Supreme Court ruling (Finch v Surrey County Council) established the necessity of considering total environmental impacts, underscoring the need for caution.

SSE and the landowner, the University of Surrey, claim that this project is “temporary” and the land would revert to farmland in 35 years. This is no guarantee.

There are numerous examples of applications for solar farms around the country, most recently in Oxfordshire, being extended beyond their originally proposed and approved 30 or 35-year lifetime, typically for 50-60 years or more.

It is worth noting that there is currently no framework or timetable to connect this facility to the National Grid. As currently reported by the BBC, connections are taking up to 35 years for new schemes.

Furthermore, it is not a carbon-neutral development. The Guildford Local Plan 2023, Policy D17, emphasises minimizing visual impacts; yet solar farms, with their vast panels, fencing, and infrastructure, bring significant visual intrusion. Minimization alone may not suffice when such development negatively impacts cherished landscapes.

GBC’s independent landscape assessment, conducted by Hankinson Duckett Associates, concluded that “current mitigation measures for the Little Misley field are not sufficient to reduce landscape and visual effects to an acceptable level”.

Natural England has indicated that approval would jeopardize the proposed extension of the AONB. Is the urgency for early approval an attempt to circumvent final consultation on the AONB expansion?

In CPRE’s submission there are no “exceptional circumstances” that would justify this loss of countryside. There are, for example, significant threats to biodiversity, especially to skylark populations.

A similar 30MW solar farm proposal in Shropshire was recently denied permission due to impacts on prime agricultural land, visual harm, and destruction of skylark habitats. Guildford Local Plan 2023, Policy P7, requires a 20 per cent Biodiversity Net Gain, yet the developer’s proposal of a small number of trees and hedges falls far short. Given the biodiversity impact, a more ambitious and comprehensive plan is essential.

It should be remembered that the fields allocated for solar panels are agricultural fields but currently not used for farming, but this is because planting has been halted for two years at the instruction of the landowner, the University which seems confident the planning application for the solar scheme will be approved.

The Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) both prioritise brownfield development. There are multiple brownfield sites available within the borough, as well as University-owned land. GBC have been asked to provide an independent report on alternative sites, but this has never been provided.

The reasons given for ignoring other options—such as the disused Onslow Park & Ride, 20 HA of brownfield University land – are in my view inadequate.

The project involves over five miles of cable, each meter diminishing the power generated. This route crosses an active badger sett and runs uncomfortably close to private homes, while bypassing university-owned properties at Blackwell Farm.

The applicant claims this route is necessary to connect to the substation, yet the officer report identifies Stag Hill as the site of the substation for which there are more direct and viable options to route the cable.

Construction and maintenance would disrupt public footpaths and a bridleway, adding unnecessary offshoots that could be avoided with minimal harm to the AONB views. The Surrey Hills National Landscape Planning Officer objected to this proposal in its entirety, and recommended, at minimum, removing the Little Misley field if the project proceeds.

Southern Gas Networks (SGN) also raised safety concerns, as the proposed cable route near a Level 7 high-pressure gas main poses risks to public safety and the environment, contravening the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

SGN states there are “significant consequences for many thousands of customers and businesses relying directly and indirectly on these mains, including schools, prisons and hospitals.” SGN describes the developer’s response to its concerns as “worrying in its naivety”.

The Green Party candidates for Guildford in the 2024 local elections rightly identified this project as “greenwashing”. There are clearly no special circumstances here.

Claims of cost savings from the University due to a slightly favourable energy rate are irrelevant to planning considerations, and promises of future brownfield solar are speculative and are not a planning consideration.

Councillors are being urged by SSE and the university to support this project in the interests of climate action, but CPRE Surrey believes the harm to the environment would far outweigh any positive contribution that this solar fam might make.

In our view, the only “green” element in this project is the green belt land and fields that it threatens to consume.

See also: We Have Made the Case for Our Solar Farm Comprehensively

Share This Post