As big as Faversham

We’ve talked many times about the massive, monster scale of this proposal. This is not your normal sized solar park. Cleve Hill Solar Park Ltd are taking an industrial-scale approach to solar:

In today’s post we’ve come up with another way to think about the scale. If you’ve walked across this landscape, the Nagden and Graveney Marshes might not seem ‘big’. But as our diagram shows, the area being proposed to be blanketed in solar panels is as big as Faversham.

8 thoughts on “As big as Faversham”

  1. We can’t go on relying on fossil fuels, much of the land in our area is covered in polythene greenhouses, what’s the difference here other than the solar panels being lower to the ground and supplying cleaner energy. I much rather the panels be here rather than over all the buildings we have in faversham. I’d much rather have solar panels then a nuclear power station. Yes it’s big but surely that’s economies of scale. Other than stating the size I’m not seeing a reasoned argument or set of objections so I’m super keen to learn more about what exactly the objection is.

    • Thanks for engaging! We’ve got many posts on the site explaining various angles of objection – hope you have a chance to read some of them.

      At the moment we’re focusing on raising basic awareness of the scheme because not many people have heard about it and those that have often don’t know about the massive scale.

      Most people agree that solar is a better energy source than many others, but not at the expense of the countryside. Much of our land is already swathed in plastic but people and wildlife really need some places that are kept free of it.

      We think that these developers should follow the lead of others and put their solar panels on disused airfields or decommissioned coal plants. One of our next posts will cover this in more detail.

  2. The usual ‘not in my back yard’ stuff. I think it’s a great idea to get clean energy and it’s not like there aren’t plenty of other spaces to walk around…which don’t have solar panels.

    Having the biggest solar farm is something we should be proud of. If the objectors got their way – we’d have no railways, no planes, no cars, no new houses – the list goes on.

  3. Graveney already has a gigantic substation, the London Array – “in 2017 the largest operational offshore wind farm in the world” — (Guardian)
    People do not have an issue with renewable energy — but solar panels are hardly “green”. There will be in excess of 6 000 000 solar panels — where will they be dumped at the end of the project? China will not have them back!

    This project is not really about renewable energy — it is about profit — an estimated 1 Billion Pounds net profit over the lifetime of the project!!!!

    It is also most likely that the energy will be sold to France, Belgium or Holland,….the highest bidder — with a strong Euro, the UK will unlikely be the benefactor…….

    Because of the size, the plant and wildlife will lose out — where will the barn and brown owls hunt, the Brent Geese land, the sky larks………that is what is important.

  4. I agree with Luttie,
    I cannot see the benefit, solar farms have a “shelf” life, creating them is not green, neither is removing them. This all at the expense of creating an eyesore to make money for someone else regardless of the destruction of wild marshland and all it’s inhabitants.

  5. On a ‘Visit Kent’ site & ‘Explore Kent’ to name just two, reference is made to the Saxon Shore Way – and says
    “Outstanding places to visit to admire flocks of migrating birds, wildfowl, wading birds, plants, butterflies, mammals….” etc.
    This area, part of which is a nature reserve, a site of special scientific interest, a special protection area and also a Ramsar Site which to those unfamiliar with the term is a wetland site of international importance under the Ramsar Convention, an environmental treaty established by UNESCO.

    All clear reasons why people object to having a massive solar park. If we don’t object, if we don’t campaign against this, all will be lost.

    And it isn’t about ‘not in my back yard stuff’ – many people (whose back yard it ain’t) come here to enjoy this area, and oppose this proposal – hikers, ramblers, birdwatchers, dog walkers or those who just enjoy the countryside and all it has to offer.

    I rest my case!


  6. Stating ‘this is just for profit’ is not really an argument. It is essential that renewable energy sources do make a profit, or no one will invest in them – and if energy companies are not sufficiently motivated to invest in renewable energy sources, we are all in trouble. It is also irrelevant that the power generated might not be consumed locally, or even in the UK. If it reduces the amount of fossil fuels being burned overall, then it has helped us all, no matter where the electricity is being consumed.

  7. There is no sense in building a solar farm on high grade agricultural land which is what is being proposed here. As Britain does not produce a surplus of foodstuffs the grain which is currently grown here will have to be imported from abroad creating additional carbon emissions. It would be more sensible to insist that new build houses have solar panels on their roofs particularly as the latest models are not as obtrusive as earlier models. On the topic of the profit arising to the landowners for allowing a solar farm on their land this is merely a product of government subsidy effectively paid for by mostly poorer people. Without this regressive subsidy the solar farm would not be economically sustainable. It is not necessary to point out that this would also represent a serious act of environmental vandalism for very dubious environmental gain.

Comments are closed.