Month: July 2018

Responses to the 2nd phase consultation

It’s been a couple of weeks since the 2nd phase consultation closed on the auspicious date Friday 13th July 2018. There was a huge amount of activity in the run up to this date as … Read more

The Faversham Society’s Concerns

The Faversham Society has grave concerns about the negative environmental and amenity impact of the solar power station being proposed at Cleve Hill and across the surrounding marshes. There are alternative brownfield sites available, and distributed generation is both possible and more desirable.

The most peaceful place I know…

Some more lovely pictures from another campaign supporter who said: “the most peaceful place I know, teeming with wildlife, and they want to destroy it.” Please remember to respond to the 2nd phase consultation – … Read more

Wildlife Haven or Desert?

Yesterday I came across something unexpected – I had kept a copy of the “Biodiversity Management and Monitoring Plan” submitted by developers in 2015 before they plonked a small solar panel installation on good farmland … Read more

More profit for greenfield exploitation

A recent news article shows that the developers are already looking forward to getting more energy out of the power station.

Hive Energy told an industry audience last week that it believes technological improvements mean its planned Kent solar farm will have 14% more capacity than originally conceived.

The Cleve Hill scheme could have a capacity of as much 400MW, the company said, compared to the UK’s current largest solar farm, a 72.2MW one in Wales.

via UK heatwave helps solar power to record weekly highs | Environment | The Guardian


So, why the headline about profit? Surely there’s nothing wrong with profit – it’s an essential part of the economy? It’s certainly one argument.

But hang on a minute; the developers have continuously stressed to us that this scheme is not subsidised by government and that to make it financially viable, they have to work at this monstrous scale (despite the fact that other solar developments have already launched without subsidy at 5% of the size).

They have asserted that because there is no subsidy, there is no ability to compensate local residents for the impact this will have on them.

They have picked this area, not because it is the most suitable land, but because it is cheaper for them to degrade a greenfield site than it is to invest in improving a brownfield site.

So, hearing that they will be able to make even more profit, whilst they continue their false assertions about the project drivers, is – in the view of this author, somewhat troubling.

(EDITED 6/JUL/2018 to clarify the point about profit)

Devil in the detail

If you haven’t yet read all 2,303 pages of the PEIR, then here are 46 easy-to-access snippets of content from the ‘Volume IIA Figures’ report.

How to object

Check out our ‘how to object‘ page where you’ll find helpful information and links.

Drone footage of the greenfield site

The human eye can see much more than the camera, which is why many of the images that developers have used do not do the landscape any justice at all. 

So we commissioned some drone footage to more clearly the scale and beauty of the site.

A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment

The developers are keen to point at the Industrial Strategy and the Clean Growth Strategy. But hang on! This is supposed to be a green initiative isn’t it? Find out why the developers have not information about the government’s 25 Year Green plan.

GREAT Community Event!

A huge thank you to everyone who came along to our Community Event in the All Saints Church on Saturday 30th June. There were so many people who made the effort to turn up and find out the real truth about the proposal, rather than the PR-laden information that we’ve been fed by the developers.