Concerns have been shared about the potential impacts of the plans to build the East Park Energy solar farm across the Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire border.
Fears have been shared that building a major new solar farm across the Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire border could “carve a permanent scar across the landscape”. Hundreds of objections have been lodged against the plans to build the East Park Energy solar farm, with concerns raised about the potential impacts it could have on the area.
However, support has also been shared for the project and its plans to provide “more sustainable energy”. The East Park Energy solar farm is considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, which means a final decision on whether it can be built will be made by the government, after it has been assessed by the planning inspectorate.
The new solar farm is proposed to be built over four sites to the north-west of St Neots, and will include ground mounted solar panels, as well as a battery energy storage facility. The developer has said the proposed solar farm would be able to generate up to 400 megawatts of electricity, which it claimed would be enough to supply approximately 108,000 homes.
The solar farm is proposed to be in place for 40 years, after which it would be decommissioned. The planning inspectorate has published over 1,300 representations submitted to it about the project, which include comments from local authorities, organisations and statutory consultees, as well as members of the public.
Many people have raised objections to the plans, voicing concerns about the potential impacts the solar farm could have. A number of objectors shared fears that the solar farm could cause “irreparable damage” to the countryside. Christine Wloszek argued the project would “carve a permanent scar across the landscape”.
She said: “This proposal represents a devastating and irreversible assault on our countryside, on the lives of local residents, and on the land itself, which once destroyed can never be truly restored. This development would fundamentally and permanently change the character of the area.
“What is currently open, living countryside would be transformed into an industrial landscape dominated by vast fields of solar panels, substations, fencing, access tracks, and security infrastructure. The scale of this proposal is extraordinary and alarming.”
Trevor Staniforth claimed the solar farm would be a “huge unsightly blot” on the countryside. Another concern raised by objectors was the loss of good quality farmland. Fiona Middleton said the loss of best and most versatile farmland was “deeply concerning”.
She said: “Sacrificing this land for industrial use not only undermines the UK’s food security at a time of rising global pressure, but also contradicts long-established planning principles that seek to protect such land.”
A number of objectors argued that the focus should be on installing solar panels on roofs instead. Benjamin Wayles said: “I cannot understand why this area of valuable agricultural land has been selected over other significantly more viable locations e.g. the extensive brownfield site stock or large roofs in urban areas.”
Leigh Colman also raised this point and said: “I feel that solar farms should be put on top of buildings/factories and not on farmland.”
Fears about the impact on wildlife were also shared, with Olivia Brealey claiming the development would “destroy or fragment habitats”. Mark Howlett said he believed the environmental harm would be “severe”, raising concerns that wildlife could be ‘forced out’.
Concerns were also raised about the impact of construction traffic on the area. Seb Wayles said: “My fear is that rural roads will be used during construction (and decommissioning), frequently bringing heavy goods vehicles (HGV) through the villages. Vast sections of these roads are already in a poor state of repair and highly unsuitable for sustained HGV traffic which is only likely to cause further damage.”
Concerns were also shared about the potential safety impacts of this increased traffic, particularly on young children who live in the area.
Supporters argue solar farms are needed
Some have said they support the project and its aims to create a renewable energy farm. Helen Cherry said: “I am 100 per cent behind this project as I believe solar farms are an essential part of the mix needed to move to more sustainable energy in our country.
“Solar is clean, abundant, and renewable energy source and as someone who has had solar panels for 12 years I am aware that this area is very good for energy production from solar.”
Mark Crawford said he believed the country needed to “move towards a green economy” and said “solar is a key part of this”. He said: “It is sad that the countryside is being covered and we lose agricultural land, but farmers make so little money that this is a more profitable usage for them.”
Matthew Brightman highlighted some of the planned development proposed to take place in the area over the coming years and argued the solar farm would help meet that “high demand for electricity”.
Developer responds to concerns
A spokesperson for East Park Energy said the proposed solar farm would help “boost the UK’s energy security” by reducing the reliance on fossil fuels from overseas, while also helping to decarbonise the electricity system. They also highlighted the public consultation they had conducted so far, and said they would continue to engage with people about the plans.
The spokesperson also sought to address some of the concerns that had been raised in the objections. They said the choice of location had been limited by needing to be within range of the planned connection to the electricity grid through the Eaton Socon substation.
The spokesperson said they had “significantly reduced” the amount of land where the solar panels are proposed to be installed from what was originally offered to the project, following feedback during consultations.
They said: “As part of our development consent order application, we are only proposing to install solar panels on around 57 per cent of the land within our proposals across four separate sites. The remaining land would be used for a variety of other purposes, including planting and screening, habitat creation, and site accesses.”
The spokesperson added that they agreed there is a need to install more solar panels on rooftops, but said such installations “account only for a small amount” of the UK’s solar generation capacity at the moment.
They said: “To meet the government’s ambitions to boost the amount of solar power capacity, we need to bring forward new ground-mounted solar developments at the same time as better utilising rooftops for solar installations. Proceeding with new rooftop-mounted solar only would not be enough to meet the government’s targets.”
The spokesperson went on to say that they had tried to avoid building on high quality farmland where possible, but claimed various constraints meant they are not able to avoid it completely. They said: “Only a small amount of this farmland would see a permanent adverse impact.
“At the same time, new grassland and grazing pasture, along with extensive woodland and hedgerow planting to create new and diverse wildlife habitats, means that our plans would deliver biodiversity net gain, provide a real boost to local wildlife and help to increase soil-quality in the long term.
“We are also working with Rothamsted Research to develop approaches to soil quality restoration and land management that would support soil health in the broader area.”
The spokesperson added that they have also been evaluating the impact of the project on wildlife and highlighted the plans to create new woodland, hedgerows and grassland. They also said mammal gates would be installed along all fence lines to “minimise disruption to small mammals”, and that existing trees would be protected and hedgerow removal “reduced wherever possible”.
Addressing the traffic concerns, the spokesperson said the plans aim to “reduce the amount of construction traffic on local roads as far as possible”. They said: “We are proposing to build new temporary access roads connected by short sections of public highway outside of villages.
“This would result in no construction traffic passing through Great Staughton, Little Staughton, Pertenhall and Keysoe. As part of our development consent order application, we submitted an outline construction traffic management plan that sets out further measures to reduce or manage the impacts of construction traffic.
“These include not carrying out any construction activity on Sundays or bank holidays, and seeking to avoid peak times/rush hour for deliveries and HGV movements.”
To get more breaking news and top stories delivered directly to your phone, join our new WhatsApp community. Click this link to receive your daily dose of CambridgeshireLive content.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice .