University Will Get Its Solar Farm Despite Widespread Objections

Published on: 7 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 7 Nov, 2024

Solar Panels. Photo Beletric UK

By Martin Giles

A new 43 hectare solar farm with 22,410 solar panels is to be constructed on land designated green belt and, partly, an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), to the west of the University of Surrey.

After a debate, which lasted over an hour, the university was granted planning permission by Guildford Borough Council’s Planning Committee by nine votes to four with two abstentions.

The decision was taken despite objections from Worplesdon, Wanborough and Compton parish councils, 13 amenity groups including: Save Hogs Back, CPRE, Guildford Society, Guildford Residents Association, Farnham Society and over a hundred objections recorded on GBC’s planning portal.

Groups in favour were: Zero Carbon Guildford, Institute for Sustainability, University of Surrey and the University of Surrey Students’ Union.

There were four public speakers, two against and two for. The chairman of Compton Parish Council, Stephen Mallet, said his council approved of solar energy in principle but there “was not a very special circumstance for green belt land and national landscape to be sacrificed for this development”.

John Goodridge, chairman of CPRE, said: “The Hog’s Back is an iconic landscape feature of the Surrey Hills national landscape, and any development here would have to be well screened to avoid harm, which two landscape experts have already said is not possible for the southernmost part of the site.”

He urged the council to consider long term implications adding: “This decision, if the solar plant is approved, it will open the flood gates for other schemes in other inappropriate locations.”

But Mr Rogers, the planning agent for the scheme, said: “In 2019 this council declared a climate emergency. Urgent action is required to address climate change, with the council and University of Surrey both setting 2030 Net Zero targets. If these are to be met, action is required now, not in the future.”

And Will Davies, chief operating officer of the University of Surrey, added: “Delivering a third of our electricity needs from renewable energy is a huge contribution to net zero energy security and will also relieve pressure on the local grid, but we’re also committed to it from a financial sustainability and energy security perspective, our energy costs have soared from £4 million to £17 million per annum. This is simply unaffordable.”

Cllr Howard Smith

When it came to the Planning Committee, Howard Smith (Lab, Westborough) was unequivocally in favour of the scheme. He said: “This isn’t a difficult decision for me. I’m, to be honest, a little embarrassed that a town the size of Guildford doesn’t have any solar farms yet, and very pleased to see at last, we’re going to get one.

“I’ve heard concerns about loss of farmland. There must be hundreds if not thousands of fields in Guildford, and we’re devoting three to a solar farm. Come on, three out of hundreds. This is really not, not a credible argument to make. I think the thing with solar farms is, whether we like it or not, they are the future.”

Several councillors mentioned Little Misley field specifically. It is included in the scheme despite being designated AGLV and its possible candidature for National Landscape status [which used to be called “Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”] as well as being considered from an agricultural perspective “best and most versatile land”.

Cllr Pat Oven

Cllr Pat Oven continued the agricultural theme saying he came from a different background to Cllr Smith: “I’m not as urban. He says ‘a few small fields’, but land of this quality is not common in Surrey.” He calculated that if permitted, the scheme would remove 33 acres of the best and most versatile land from food production and added: “…we live in a time of insecurity. We need to grow food in this country, and therefore this application should be refused.”

However when it came to the vote only four councillors voted against. By party, the votes were: Lib Dems – seven for, one abstention; Conservatives – one abstention, two against; R4GV – one for, one against; Labour – one for; GGG – one against.

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

Responses to University Will Get Its Solar Farm Despite Widespread Objections

E Donovan Reply

November 7, 2024 at 8:25 am

Excellent!
Valerie Thompson Reply

November 7, 2024 at 9:41 am

Terrible decision. What a waste of agricultural land. What an eyesore for local residents. Why did they not put solar panels on the university roofs and carparks?
- D McCaster Reply
  
  November 10, 2024 at 10:03 pm
  
  They are looking into putting solar above their main car parks.
T Stone Reply

November 7, 2024 at 10:48 am

Lots of comments here and elsewhere suggesting that solar panels should be placed on the roofs of university buildings. There are only a small number of suitable roofs, and this would produce about five per cent of the power that will be generated by the solar farm.

The solar farm will take up three small fields, if people are really concerned about making productive use of farmland around Guildford, a much more effective step would be to focus on the 100s of hectares currently used for grazing horses.

The solar farm will have a minor impact on the landscape, but if we are serious about tackling climate change and protecting the environment we need to accept some change to the visual aesthetics of the countryside.
Vanessa King Reply

November 7, 2024 at 12:06 pm

If people would like to see the debate in full, please visit the GBC Planning Committee page [https://guildford.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/910445]. You will see a wide range of views and concerns were discussed before the vote was taken. Please feel free to email me [vanessa.king@guildford.gov.uk] if you would like more information.

Vanessa King is the chair of GBC’s Planning Committee and the Lib Dem borough councillor for Stoke.
M Durant Reply

November 7, 2024 at 9:33 pm

Solar panels don’t make much energy in the UK due to the grey skies. They just work at 10-25 per cent in grey weather and they have a negative effect by disrupting animals in nature, including birds and bats.

I also agree with Cllr Pat Oven [GGG, Send], we are not self sufficient foodwise and we need to grow food.

If they are so concerned about energy they should invest in nuclear power which outputs more regular with more consistent electricity at maximum power unlike solar power which isn’t reliable.

I am disappointed on how the Lib Dems voted.
Roland Dunster Reply

November 9, 2024 at 1:03 am

“A new 43 hectare solar farm with 22,410 solar panels is to be constructed on land designated green belt and, partly, an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), to the west of the University of Surrey.”

I absolutely despair. University of Surrey and all those who enabled this, hang your heads in shame.
Frank Emery Reply

November 9, 2024 at 11:27 am

Planning agent Paul Rogers told the committee it is “financially essential” the university decarbonises its energy supply. He added: “A stable university is critical to a thriving Guildford.”

This was a statement supporting the solar farm!

Unfortunately, I and many others don’t see Guildford as a thriving town, the High Street has nothing to offer at all.

The university is of no great shakes and hardly contributes to the economic growth of the town.
- D McCaster Reply
  
  November 10, 2024 at 10:02 pm
  
  Does Framk Emery not think bringing 300 jobs and 16,000 students contributes to the economic growth of the town?
  - S Callanan Reply
    
    November 13, 2024 at 10:33 am
    
    With every contentious planning application comes a line of argument citing economic benefit, but surely no-one believes the university is going to up sticks and move if they don’t get their solar farm. So what point is being made?
    
    And if the solar farm produces about a third of the university’s electricity, they’ll still be dependent on the national grid when the sun doesn’t shine, won’t they?
    
    I’m all in favour of reducing the output of carbon but I don’t think we should be too doctrinaire about it.
Ben Paton Reply

November 9, 2024 at 1:39 pm

Some years ago I too wanted to put a small array of solar panels on a field in the green belt. I took pre-application advice from the Council’s planning department.

Its written advice was absolutely clear: do not bother to apply because any application is certain to be refused.

We have a two tier planning system.
Dave Middleton Reply

November 9, 2024 at 2:23 pm

Perhaps I’m being cynical, but was this not part of the university’s land, that they wanted to build houses on not so long ago?

Could it possibly be that in a few years time, the solar “farm” will be found to be unviable or uneconomic, with a new planning application for housing submitted on this site, claiming it to be “Brownfield” land?
Roland Dunster Reply

November 10, 2024 at 1:56 pm

I very much hope that those who were opposed to this solar “farm” on land designated green belt and, partly, an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), have in the forefronts of their minds at the next local and general elections, which political parties enabled it.

Here’s a reminder:

“By party, the votes were: Lib Dems – seven for, one abstention; Conservatives – one abstention, two against; R4GV – one for, one against; Labour – one for; GGG – one against.”
Steve Grey Reply

November 15, 2024 at 3:45 pm

May as well let the university take over the whole town and the surrounding countryside with their absurd “luxury student accommodation” and hideous countryside-destroying solar farms. Guildford is a dying town and before very long there will be little left aside from expensive flats, a Stalinist station and a dead and decaying town centre.

That’s what decades of appalling governance gives you.