No solar here...
Holly Lane Balsall Common
Introduction
Exagen Developments want to build what they call “a utility scale solar farm” in 118 acres of Balsall Common’s greenbelt land on Holly Lane.
Their brochure shows a beautiful field of crops surrounded by trees which is ironic because that is what the area looks like now!
However, this is certainly not what it will look like when Exagen has covered all 118 acres in 3 metre high industrial scale solar panels surrounded by 2.4metre high steel mesh security fencing and CCTV camera poles, not to mention 100 shipping container sized battery packs.
And all of this industrial complex will be in Balsall Common’s greenbelt land!
What remains of our greenbelt is therefore even more precious and should be protected for food production, wildlife and the rural open space we all enjoy for running, cycling, horse riding or walking the dog.
Most of us locals choose to live in Balsall Common because it represents a village environment with shops and amenities in a rural area yet with easy access to Solihull, Birmingham and Coventry.
Balsall Common’s green belt is known as the “Meriden Gap”. It exists to provide separation between the urban centres of Solihull and Coventry, preventing urban sprawl joining up these areas into one big conurbation.
Installing solar panels on such a vast scale here in the greenbelt will forever alter the character of our area and pave the way for more development in the future.
(This solar farm will be less than a mile away from the vast Honiley solar farm proposed just over the border in Warwickshire.)
So, what’s wrong with solar energy?
There is nothing wrong with solar energy!
We all support renewable energy: wind, tide and solar all have their part to play in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels through producing green energy to reduce our electricity bills, making the UK more self-sufficient while being kinder to the planet.Solar has a part to play but it is not always the best option in every case. Solar needs to be deployed in the right places where it can provide the benefits of green power without reducing farmland or damaging local wildlife. The best place for solar developments aretherefore brownfield sites, on the roofs of existing buildings or on the latest floating solar farms in the sea, where farmland is not reduced and wildlife is unaffected.
1. The Government has confirmed that offshore wind turbines will produce more than enough electricity to power every home in the country by 2030, based on current electricity usage. Build Back Greener (Oct 2020)
The Hornsea offshore wind farm alone - located 85km out to sea - generates 3.8GW of electricity, enough to power 3.3 million homes. That’s 300 times more than Holly Lane Solar Farm would produce. And while solar panels come from China and only work in daylight, the UK is the world leader in off shore wind turbines which workday and night creating thousands of high quality UK jobs and billions of pounds of
investment in the UK.
2. We have seen how Holly Lane Solar Farm will use 118 acres of fertile farmland to produce what just 3 North Sea wind turbines would produce. Reducing the UK’s valuable food production capacity will exacerbate food insecurity (now also critically affected by the ongoing war in Ukraine). This issue alone should be sufficient reason to ban solar farms on productive farmland.
3. Solar farms generate ‘ragged’ electricity because of the random incidence of clouds or overcast skies which restrict electricity generation from the panels. In addition,the panels only work in daylight whereas demand for domestic electricity goes on for 24 hours. This is why Exagen’s proposal includes expensive battery storage which has a very limited storage duration - as well as a propensity to burst into flames.
The Holly Lane Solar Farm proposal includes 100 battery storage units, each the size of a shipping container.
These are needed to store spare electricity for when the sun doesn’t shine. Professor Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University, is one of a number of scientists who have written to the government expressing their concern. Globally, there have been over 40 fires involving solar farm battery facilities like the one proposed:
“The batteries are spreading around the British countryside. And this, says Prof Allison and his fellow scientists, could spell catastrophe.
It's like a potential bomb, he says. When batteries catch fire, you can't just squirt water on them and put outvthe flames. It's evident from our research that nothing has been done to tackle this problem.
The resulting blazes are difficult to control because they don't require oxygen to keep burning and need tens of thousands of gallons of water to extinguish.
With the potential for huge explosions, fires and clouds of toxic gas, the battery farms could devastate towns and villages nearby, says Wade Allison, emeritus professor of physics at Oxford University and co-author of the report.
Prof Allison and the co-authors of his report, Dr Edmund Fordham, a fellow of the Institute of Physics, and Professor Sir David Melville, former vice-chancellor of the University of Kent, wrote to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) last year about their concerns.
But they were told the batteries were considered & articles – everyday objects not covered by the Control of Major Accident Hazards regulations. It means these plants, or battery energy storage systems, as they are known, are unregulated under UK law.
This throws the entire responsibility on to the fire service, Prof Allison says. I wouldn't want to live within a mile of one.
Given the size of the proposed plants, Prof Allison says this could, in theory, lead to an explosion several times bigger than the one that destroyed the harbour in Beirut last year.
The threat of fire is not merely theoretical. South Korea saw 23 battery farm fires in just two years. A recent battery fire in Illinois burned for three days and thousands of residents were evacuated.
4. With hardly any electricity generated during the winter months, the average energy produced by a solar farm is only 11% of the installed capacity of the panels. Another gross inefficiency. In comparison, a wind turbine generates over 40% of its rated output throughout the year.5. Being renewable does not mean being zero carbon. The embedded carbon footprint (ECF) of a solar panel is 50 gms of CO2 per kWh generated, while the ECF of a wind turbine is 7.5 gms per kWh. 50 gms is much further away from net zero than 7.5 gms.6. Solar farms produce their maximum electricity in the summer when demand for electricity is at its lowest. Wind turbines produce their maximum electricity in mid - winter when demand for electricity is at its peak.
5. Being renewable does not mean being zero carbon. The embedded carbon footprint (ECF) of a solar panel is 50 gms of CO2 per kWh generated, while the ECF of a wind turbine is 7.5 gms per kWh. 50 gms is much further away from net zero than 7.5 gms.
6. Solar farms produce their maximum electricity in the summer when demand for electricity is at its lowest. Wind turbines produce their maximum electricity in mid - winter when demand for electricity is at its peak.
6 reasons why solar farms are not the best or only solution
12 reasons why Holly Lane is the wrong site
1. There is already a huge solar farm planned for Honiley, under half a mile away! If we don’t put a stop to these proposals then the whole greenbelt will be carpeted with solar panels and we will have taken away hundreds of acres of food production.
2. There are plenty of other sites available in the Solihull area that are currently of little or no value to farming or wildlife.The Bentley factory in Crewe, for example, has solar panels covering the factory and its car parks. The whole factory is now powered solely by green energy, much of it generated from its own solar panels.
Surely it makes more sense for Solihull businesses to install solar on their roofs or to use brownfield land rather than cover our green belt in solar panels?
With the Solihull’s Land Rover factory, Birmingham Airport, The NEC and Jaguar Land Rover’s Fen End facility, there are multiple sites more suited to solar panels than the green belt.
Exagen’s brochure says that there are ”no alternatives outside the Birmingham green belt or on brownfield land”.
This is disingenuous for two reasons:
Firstly, there is no requirement from national or local government for solar farms to be built in a particular area. Solar farms are already being built offshore on floating platforms, on brownfield sites, on existing industrial buildings, over car parks and on house roofs. These are surely better places for them than on productive farmland?
Secondly, it would be good to know which other local sites Exagen investigated in their research. We have found four potential sites already, none of which are in greenbelt land, none are on farm land, none would be overlooked by residents or those enjoying the
countryside. And none would damage local wildlife. Why has Exagen not considered these?
Just because a landowner is willing to lease land to solar farm developers, does not mean that this land is the best place for a vast solar farm development.
A proper analysis of local sites including industrial and brownfield should be undertaken before proposals are presented.
As Planning Inspector Elizabeth C Ord LLB(Hons) LLM MA DipTUS said:
“Simply surveying one site is wholly inadequate”.
Appeal Ref: APP/D3505/A/13/2204846 Valley Farm, Wherstead, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP9 2AX 2 June 2014
3. The site is protected green belt land. Greenbelt land is there for a reason – in thiscase, to stop the villages of Balsall Common and Meriden joining up with the Solihull and Coventry conurbations, creating a vast urban sprawl.
4. Timespan: the solar panels proposed are claimed to be ‘temporary’, but the planning application will be for 45 years which feels like a very long time. It is very unlikely that this site will ever be returned to its current agricultural use, meaning that there is no weight to any claims that the development is temporary and can be reversed.
5. Inappropriate scale. The very large size of the proposed development is totally inappropriate for a rural area. The visual impact of this huge industrial solar farm would fundamentally change the rural character of the area and have an adverse
visual impact to local people who visit the area for recreation.
Currently there are extensive open views of green fields and agricultural farmland. If allowed to go ahead, this development would create significant adverse visual impact along the lanes with arrays of 3m high dark coloured solar panels which would block those views. The solar panels and security fencing would destroy the wide, open views and degrade the amenity value, ruining the enjoyment of the
countryside for many.
6. Nearby houses and businesses. There are a number of properties and businesses which will be adversely impacted by this solar farm including residents of Holly Lane particularly at Holly Court and Holly Grange, where the solar panels will surround their properties on three sides and be visible due to the near proximity of the solar panels and security fences to residents’ properties.
7. Topography: part of the development is on sloping land making it impossible to screen the solar panels, fencing and towers: the slope means that planting would need to be over 7 metres high! Most notably, the sloping fields at the rear of the Holly Grange and Holly Court properties means that even mitigation measures such as hedgerow or tree planting will not block the view of solar panels in this rural
environment. Exagen staff have already admitted to residents that this is the case.
8. Local businesses will be adversely affected. At Holly Grange, for example, the not for profit organisation ‘walking with donkeys’ works with handicapped children, people with mental health issues and families who simply want to enjoy a few hours in the countryside walking and grooming donkeys. Money raised is used to fund attendees who can’t afford to pay and contributes to the donkeys’ food and medical care. The
rural setting is a key reason for people to visit: replacing this with an industrial view will adversely affect this not for profit organisation. Sue Stait, manager of The Donkeys, says “the not for profit walking with donkeys experience at Holly Grange will be ruined if this solar farm goes ahead, just at a time when mental health is such a real issue for young people. Being able to interact with the donkeys in a peaceful rural setting so close to Solihull, Birmingham and Coventry is of huge benefit to the young, those with disabilities and anyone needing to de-stress.” 60% of companies renting an office at Holly Grange have said they would relocate if the solar farm went ahead, making Holly Grange unviable. The businesses said their primary reason for locating on Holly Lane was to be in the countryside and that the solar farm would ruin this.
9. Wildlife: This site is a haven for wildlife: deer, foxes, badgers, polecats, hares, owls, buzzards, newts and bats are all regular visitors.
Despite developers’ claims, solar farms have disastrous consequences for local wildlife. Birds and bat deaths are common as they mistake the glass panels for wate.
The RSBP have reported that insects which lay eggs in water mistake solar panels for water bodies due to reflection of polarised light. These insects often lay eggs on the panel surfaces which has the potential to impact their reproductive biology. In addition, security fencing around the site will be a barrier to the movement of all larger mammals and represent a collision risk for some bird species.
Exagen say that biodiversity will be enhanced but their claims of “small mammal gates”, bee keeping and wild flowers are just
token gestures that will in no way compensate for the lost potential of the land to wildlife. Transitory animals are regularly seen on this site including deer, foxes, badgers and even polecats.
Their traditional land will be fenced off and their routes blocked, diverting them onto roads.
The land under solar farms is degraded with little potential for biodiversity as half of it will be in permanent shadow and rain water run-off creates set channels without proper dispersal. And as for bees, there are already seven hives at Holly Grange managed by Balsall
Common’s top beekeeper! These bees currently pollinate the crops growing in thesurrounding 118 acres of farmland, just as nature intended.
10. Local heating effect: There is growing evidence that huge scale solar farms like this create higher temperatures over and around the solar panels themselves.
11. Construction disruption: The construction of the solar farm will cost millions of pounds and take six months or more, involving heavy trucks and machinery on the surrounding lanes just when we have the disruption of HS2 construction.
12. The land owner is the only local who will benefit. The proposed development won’t benefit the local community: the power generated by the solar panels will go straight to the national grid, not to local homes and businesses. We will lose productive farmland, deplete precious wildlife and further denigrate our green belt.
