Stonestreet Green Solar

Summary

The open floor hearing for the Stonestreet Green Solar project commenced at 5 PM, led by Graham Sword, who was appointed by the Secretary of State for this examination. The hybrid event, joined by both in-person attendees and online participants via Microsoft Teams, considered concerns about the project proposal, which is expected to last 40 years. Discussions highlighted various issues such as visual impact, disturbance to local landscapes, traffic, biodiversity, and the use of best and most versatile agricultural land. Public representatives and local residents, like those from CPR Kent and Kent Ramblers, voiced concerns about the project's scale and effects on the community, heritage, and public rights of way. The hearing concluded with the applicant addressing some concerns and the reminder for stakeholders to articulate their points in written submissions by the deadline.

Highlights

• Graham Sword leads the hearing for Stonestreet Green Solar at 5 PM, blending both in-person and online participants 🌍.
• Residents voice concerns on the project's 40-year lifespan, significantly longer than what local guidelines suggest ⏳.
• Richard Thompson from CPR Kent argues the project threatens to transform agricultural areas into industrial landscapes 🏭.
• Linda Harmon emphasizes the need to preserve green, rural landscapes for community well-being 🌳.
• Questions regarding battery storage safety and noise pollution are raised by concerned residents 🔊.
• Public rights of way and biodiversity, notably farmland birds, are pivotal issues under discussion by community representatives 🐦.
• The applicant defends the project by stressing the urgent need for renewable energy to meet national targets ⚡.

Key Takeaways

• The hearing was a hybrid event, accommodating both in-person and online participants, showcasing the adaptability in modern meetings 🤝.
• Concerns ranged from visual impact to environmental disruptions, reflecting the community's deep-rooted connection to the land 🌿.
• The project is poised to last 40 years, which many see as too long, arguing it goes against Ashford Borough guidance 📜.
• Key voices from CPR Kent and Kent Ramblers highlighted potential threats to local landscapes, biodiversity, and historical sites ⚠️.
• The importance of submitting concerns in written form was emphasized, allowing the public's voice to persist in official documentation 📝.

Overview

The Stonestreet Green Solar project's open floor hearing was a pivotal event held to address public concerns and gather community feedback on the proposed 40-year development. The meeting was conducted in a hybrid format, allowing engagement through both physical presence and Microsoft Teams, illustrating the adaptability required in contemporary discussions on infrastructure. Attendees were guided by Graham Sword, representing the Secretary of State, ensuring a comprehensive examination of the issues at hand.

Noteworthy participation came from local advocacy groups and residents, like CPR Kent and Kent Ramblers. They raised pressing issues such as the visual impact of solar panels on the landscape, the noise pollution of battery storage, and adherence to local and national planning policies. Concerns were also articulated regarding the potential disruption to public rights of way and the conservation of the biodiversity, specifically concerning vulnerable farmland bird species. The expansive nature of the project, they argued, could industrialize the area's character, which is currently cherished for its green fields.

In conclusion, the applicants highlighted the critical need for large-scale renewable energy projects to achieve national renewable targets, framing the development as a national priority despite local discontent. They pledged to address environmental and safety concerns, emphasizing their commitment to regulatory compliance. Participants were encouraged to formalize their feedback through written submissions by December 10th, ensuring that community voices play a significant role in the planning process.

Stonestreet Green Solar Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 good evening everyone the time is 5:00 p.m. and this open floor hearing for Stone Street Green solar project is now open thank you all for joining us today please could a member of the case team confirm that it can be heard
• 00:30 - 01:00 clearly and that the live streaming and recording have started my name is St at can everybody hear me
• 01:00 - 01:30 can everybody hear me on that side of the room okay thank you sorry I can't hear you you need a microphone okay thank you my name is Graham sword and I have been appointed by the Secretary of State as the examining authority to examine
• 01:30 - 02:00 the application by appl1 limited for an order granting development consent for this project I am supported by the planning inspectorates case team they are managed by Spencer bman who is with us today today's hearing is a hybrid event meaning that some of you are present within the room in person and some of you are joining us using Microsoft teams
• 02:00 - 02:30 I intend to make sure that you will be given a fair opportunity to participate however you however you have decided to attend today I'll now deal with a few housekeeping matters can everyone please set all devices SmartWatches and phones to silent to avoid disrupting the hearing please keep microphones muted until I invite you to speak for those of you in the room I
• 02:30 - 03:00 understand that no fire alarm test is planned for today should an alarm sound then please leave using the fire exit at the bottom of the corridor as you turn left out of this door and go to the fire assembly point in the car park a recording of today's hearing will be made available on the Stone Street Green solar web page of the national infrastructure planning website as soon as we can after the hearing has finished please contact contct a member of the
• 03:00 - 03:30 case team if you don't know how to find the project web page a link to the planning inspector's privacy notice was provided in my rule sixlet date of the 22nd of October 2024 I assume that everybody here today has familiarized themselves with this document which establishes how the personal data of our customers is handled in accordance with data Protection Law please speak dispenser if you have any questions about this
• 03:30 - 04:00 I will give the applicant an opportunity to respond to all submissions at the end of this hearing I will not invite any other introductions at this stage there will be an opportunity for you to intr yourself introduce yourself later if I invite you to speak I will follow the agenda that was published on the 22nd of October 2024
• 04:00 - 04:30 and is it possible for a copy of the agenda to be shared on screen please
• 04:30 - 05:00 thank you I'm just about to complete agenda item one but does anybody in the room have a question about the agenda or the arrangements for this hearing just got one proed one proced matter just to raise thank you the agenda
• 05:00 - 05:30 excuse me um behind the um rule six letter refers to a meeting start time of 6: pm. the timetable refers to a meeting start time of 5:00 pm um it's so there seems to be a discrepancy there which we've observed it seems to us that provided the the hearing continues Beyond 6: PM that would not create any issues but only if that were the case so
• 05:30 - 06:00 um so I just raised that I understand that there there is a a number of people wishing to speak this evening so I I'm assuming it'll go on well be after 6 PM so if that's the case we should be able to C for it I'm grateful does anybody taking part using Microsoft teams have a question about the agenda or the AR arrangements for this
• 06:00 - 06:30 hearing I don't see any hands up so I'll conclude agenda item one so moving on item two this is the purpose of the hearing and how it will be conducted the purpose of this open floor hearing is to give you an opportunity to raise things that you think should be considered for the decision about whether development consent should be granted you are free to raise any topic
• 06:30 - 07:00 that is important and relevant to the examination this is an opportunity for me to hear your thoughts about the application at firsthand this hearing is subject to my powers of control over its conduct as established by the planning act 2008 to be clear the purpose of this hearing is to assist my examination of the project this hearing is not to be used as a political platform and any attempts to do that will not be
• 07:00 - 07:30 tolerated each person that wishes to speak will be invited to speak at the appropriate time these oral submissions should be based on representations previously made in writing by the speaker however they should simply not repeat the matters previously covered in the written submission but Pro rather provide further detail and explanation and supporting evidence
• 07:30 - 08:00 as set out in the agenda I've suggested that each speaker completes their submission within five minutes this will be timed and I will give you a minute warning before your five minute expires I will as I consider necessary ask questions of the speaker and I will give the applicant an opportunity to respond all comments questions and answers are to be directed to me rather than anybody else
• 08:00 - 08:30 does anybody in the room have a question about how this hearing will be conducted could we get a microphone to the I understood from the information given that if like me you were representing a a group of people you could speak for eight minutes five for individuals eight minutes where one IP speaks on
• 08:30 - 09:00 behalf of a number I'm I would hope to be within eight minutes are you are you representing the group I'm representing Kent Ramblers okay yes they they here um the papers do say that so yes we provided eight minutes does anybody taking part using Microsoft teams have a question question about how this hearing will be
• 09:00 - 09:30 conducted okay so I'll conclude agenda item two and move on to item three I will now invite people who wish to make an oral representation at this hearing to identify themselves when I invite you to speak please Ure that you speak clearly into a microphone please state your name and who you are represent thing each time
• 09:30 - 10:00 you speak please remember to unmute your microphone when you speak if you're taking part using Microsoft teams please switch on your camera when I invite you to speak please switch microphones and cameras off again when I move to the next speaker if you are in the room but not at a table with a microphone then please wait for a roving microphone to be taken to you before you speak although I I would say that we have provided table
• 10:00 - 10:30 for each speaker to come to the the front of the room and be able to address myself um so the use of the roving mic should be kept to a minimum so I would now ask like to ask if anybody in the room would like to speak this evening you could raise your hands okay
• 10:30 - 11:00 so could could we have a a roving mic just identify each person please good evening sir Richard Thompson on behalf of CPR Kent sorry I didn't catch your name Richard Thompson Richard Thompson on behalf of CPR e Kent okay thank you
• 11:00 - 11:30 Jeremy Bromley speaking on behalf of the Brumley household uh Alison erley speaking on behalf of alington and bonington Parish Council Linda Harmon speaking on behalf of Saxon Shaw Ward uh Christine Drury also speaking on behalf of CPR
• 11:30 - 12:00 Elaine Rose alington resident Simon Lan speaking on behalf of the aldington amers support group Allison Lan resident and speaking on behalf of ryers Paul Bartlet resident speaking on behalf of mam
• 12:00 - 12:30 Ward Jonathan tenant speaking on behalf of the aington and meren support group Andrew Warrick I'm a alington resident Nigel Spencer on behalf of Kent Ramblers okay thank you for that
• 12:30 - 13:00 and can I ask if there's anybody taking part on Microsoft teams to identify themselves who wish to make a an oral representation today doesn't look as so there is anybody so you just bear with me
• 13:00 - 13:30 okay so terms of the order I'll take people in um I'll invite councelor Paul Bartlett speak
• 13:30 - 14:00 first Richard Thompson of the CPR speak second now I was aware that Christine jury Drew was also speaking on behalf of the CPR are you planning to speak to present together Richard will take the presentation
• 14:00 - 14:30 okay thank you Nigel Spencer Elan Rose Allison erley Allison Lun Andrew SWAT Rick Linda Harman Simon LUN Jeremy
• 14:30 - 15:00 Bromley Jonathan tenant and have I covered everybody in that list sorry could you wait until the microphone wouldn't it better if Simon and Jonathan spoke one after the other because they're the same group and then I follow on rather than sit between them
• 15:00 - 15:30 okay okay that brings us to the end of agenda item three so we move on item four and welcome councel Paul Bartlett to address the hearing for five minutes thank you sir um I'm grateful to have the opportunity to speak I have
• 15:30 - 16:00 submitted a written submission and as you've instructed I will not repeat what has been said just provide additional detail in why I've said what I've said there are three particular planning issues that I wish to raise first of all Ashford Bar Council published renewable energy planning guidance on large photo volcanic
• 16:00 - 16:30 arrays and there are three issues within that guidance which I would like to draw your attention to the first is that the guidance provides a maximum period for developments of 25 years whereas this project is a 40-year project and so goes against ashra Barrow guidance on this point second secondly the guidance provides the
• 16:30 - 17:00 arrays must support biodiversity and to do so it requires a sufficient gap between the various phto units to avoid overshadowing this is not provided in this application and the third point is that the height of the units according to the guidance should be raised 900 mm above ground
• 17:00 - 17:30 level and again this is a point which is not followed by the applicant in this application the next point I want to turn to is policy env1 which is ashb council's policy on renewable energy solar arrays in addition it is in addition obviously addition to the guidance
• 17:30 - 18:00 issued by Asher Bar Council there are three points that I wish to make first of all the policy env1 requires the development should have no adverse impact on the landscape uh others will talk about the best and most valuable land but my issue here on this point is that if this development is brought forward it will become the defining
• 18:00 - 18:30 characteristic of aington and will have an adverse impact on the nearby anob the second point about env1 policy env1 is the unacceptable levels of traffic which will be generated and this is also referred to in National policy statement 2.54 point7 regard regarding the cumulative
• 18:30 - 19:00 impact there are two specific roads in murum which I wish to draw your attention to both Bank bank Road and L's Lane are single Lane tracks and are completely incapable of taking the cumulative impact of the development on these um highways and the the third point on
• 19:00 - 19:30 policy env1 is the policy requires there should be no loss of immunity visual impact noise and disturbance and I've set out in my argument why I believe there is an adverse impact of all of these issues the final point I wish to make is on National policy 2.51 point5 which requires existing Hedges and
• 19:30 - 20:00 established vegetation to be retained this policy does not do this and therefore goes against National policy as I've set out I'm very grateful to you sir for giving me this opportunity of setting out these points and thank you okay thank you very much
• 20:00 - 20:30 if we could move to Richard Thompson CPR please uh thank you sir Richard Thompson on behalf of CPR Kent um whilst we welcome the opportunity to provide oral evidence today we do recognize that this is primy a written process um my intention is therefore to to give you an overview of our position which we're going to be expanding upon within our written
• 20:30 - 21:00 representations um the starting point for CPR Kent um and indeed CPR nationally is that while we fully support the UK's transition towards clean energy we believe that this transition cannot come at the cost of our landscape food security or rural communities um CPR have therefore been campaigning hard for solar to be on rooftops and brown field sites rather than on Green fields and agricultural
• 21:00 - 21:30 lands a rooftop first approach would allow us to protect land needed for food housing nature and energy all without industrializing our Countryside our primary concern is therefore the excessive scale of this proposed development and itsa potential to dramatically alter the local rural landscape when combined with the adjacent EDF proposal the project threatens to turn overal agricultural area into an industrial
• 21:30 - 22:00 landscape in refusing the joining a EDF proposal Ashford Council have rightly pointed to the undulating top Topography of the area and the significant adverse effects on landscape character and on visual imunity the smaller EDF proposal would have clearly such an impact is going to be far greater the smart larger scheme in front of us now the current development as proposed
• 22:00 - 22:30 would completely redefine the landscape and not just occupy it this is not the considerable effort National policy expects in terms of minimizing the impact on the landscape this has been exacerbated by the Project's clear focus on maximizing output from every piece of land under option this is at the expense of some relatively minor mitigation opportunities that would go a significant way in reducing the impact of the scheme in particular we we agree with Ashford council's requests to
• 22:30 - 23:00 remove panels from fields at the higher parts of the site we also agree with their requests to further fragment the scheme moreover completely removing Fields 20 21 and 22 as shown on the illustrative Master plans would go a long way towards lessening the impact of The Proposal on a number of fronts development of these fields heightens the landscape's vulnerability and will significantly impact particularly local import foot path that links alington Village to Sam
• 23:00 - 23:30 Martin's Church our public rights away more generally this is a particularly dense area foot paths that's going to be impacted public enjoyment of the foot paths in this rural area will clearly diminish when surrounded by tall solar panels and we are concerned that this impact is being understated turning to the biodiversity we are particularly concerned projects effect on Farmland Birds especially red listed species in including yellow Hammers and skylarks the scheme provides
• 23:30 - 24:00 limited information on how it will mitigate habitat loss and we're concerned that proposed mitigations are insufficient particularly for species already facing significant decline in this respect we note Natural England KCC ecology and C Wildlife trust have also raised concerned as the likely effectiveness of the proposed mitigation um in particular with regards to Skylar mitigation we're also concerned about Heritage impacts especially on the grade one listed St
• 24:00 - 24:30 Martin's church and again it Fields 20 21 and 22 that contribute to this historic and aesthetic value and this will be disrupted by the addition of solar panels these fields currently serve as a vital buffer preserving the separation of the church and the village and this separation will be diminished by The Proposal in terms of archaeology this is a particularly historically sensitive location and any pole driving or large in ations will need careful consideration and conditioning it
• 24:30 - 25:00 certainly not the case that the agricultural use of these fields have already destroyed the archaeology which is simly being suggested finally and turning to agriculture with over 20% of the site classified as best to most versatile Farmland CPR contends the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated how the development has been designed in a way to actually avoid or minimize building on BMV the lands have historically produced high quality crops and using them for Solar Development disregards
• 25:00 - 25:30 both policy guidelines and the land's agricultural value overall CPR Kent believe the scheme and its current form contradicts National policies EM1 em3 National policy framework ashford's local pan thank you okay thank you very much um as your colleague wish should to add anything to that
• 25:30 - 26:00 thank you very much sir um there are two points that I would like to add specifically one is to emphasize the hidden landscape um the um historic environment of this area um is extremely well known in terms of the total wider area uh in
• 26:00 - 26:30 terms of both the Anglo Romano histories and earlier than that uh not very far away to the east of this site uh archaeology has discovered a complete Roman villa and these things are only discovered when development happens and they are at
• 26:30 - 27:00 risk when devel if development happens without appropriate investigation in particular uh we noted that concrete platforms are intended to be used where there is risk instead of pile driving for the panels um but there is no clarity about how large these concrete platforms will
• 27:00 - 27:30 need to be we are very conscious that because of the Topography of the area these concrete areas indeed for the transport access roads are going to need to be really quite substantial for the hdvs that will bring supplies onto the site this is therefore a topic that certainly needs investigation and in the earlier hearing
• 27:30 - 28:00 or the introductory session that you held this morning I was encouraged that you were minded perhaps sir to have a greater uh a longer session particular session on Heritage and I would respectfully suggest that that covers the invisible Heritage as well as the visible Heritage I would also sir just like to point out that this is an open forum and
• 28:00 - 28:30 there are not very many of us in this room in relation to the number of people who are concerned about this hell development and that again adds weight I think to the point that was raised this morning um that a specific hearing uh in the alington area would be beneficial thank you very much sir thank you if I could ask Nigel
• 28:30 - 29:00 Spencer to approach the the desk next please
• 29:00 - 29:30 my name is Nigel Spencer I'm a local foot footpath officer known as LFO for Kent Ramblers an organization with 4,000 approximately 4,000 members I'm experienced in commenting on planning applications including diversions but this is my first experience of a national infrastructure hearing I appreciate the advice you've given some may be disappointed by the lack of
• 29:30 - 30:00 detail I give this evening don't read my lips read my read our words in the representation we'll be submitting I want tonight to just paint the background to what's coming in there after our first representation I want to talk about three elements consultation public rights away not surprise and the project as a whole um our conso our representations have been been drawn up through consultation with various groups in
• 30:00 - 30:30 Ramblers over time with our national office through through uh other lfos and our County committee and fortunately for us most recently last week where there were over 60 of our Volunteers in a meeting and we went through what we're saying here um I've been pleased to be a member of the community liaison panel as as as a fellow Rambler who's talking later who a resident in alington and I
• 30:30 - 31:00 appreciate appreciate the applicants allowing both of us to attend um the panel has been a disappointment to us in some ways he's kept us a breast of the timetable but as regards public rights away it's not provided what I would call proper consultation um staff have been amiable and act and again today but um I won't detail all of these but a number of ways where group group was agreed but didn't
• 31:00 - 31:30 happen another G group was meeting which unfortunately I couldn't get to through covid was um unintentionally I think misleading and the information and pictures aerial photos given initially were very unclear there was some improvement there I'd like to mention that the director I spoke to very sympathetically out of the panel except to two suggestions I made about root of paths but
• 31:30 - 32:00 uh neither was accepted and the reason was given for one but not the other un not un no probably not a surprise to you the main thing we've concentrated on is public rights of way um the lack of detailed discussion in where I'm saying though still seems to me an odd way for a developer to address an aspect which is exceptional with 16 public rights in or on the site and let me refer to
• 32:00 - 32:30 those now and I assure you now I am not going to talk about every public right away I'm going to mention one for a reason but the representations we put in will have our comments on every path um as as an LFO I'm used to our usual yard stick of measuring inconvenience for developers and uh or land owners and us and agreeing the two and there is
• 32:30 - 33:00 an argument which I won't go into here now that everything about this in a sense is an inconvenience my comments will be solely when we put them in really about the roots of public rights of way so we do appreciate a small move to the edge of a field of panels may be less imp unpleasant for some than having panels on both sides the paths on either side of field field 19 are an example we would be unlikely to agree some of
• 33:00 - 33:30 the diversions we have accepted we would be unlikely to agree them if they were in a Vineyard or an orchard we are particularly anxious to retain what I have called the arterial Roots especially those between Mam and alington fortunately one of the less reasonable diversion originally proposed has been withdrawn it multiplied the length of the path by six that's in the fields we FL risk has now ruled this
• 33:30 - 34:00 out in selecting this site with a density of footpaths the applicant should have prioritized PWS as an issue and engaged in discussion with us and others about all aspects not just the roots from the beginning so path by path comments will be in our written reps today I wish to just mention one particular path a370 as our views have changed slightly since we put our consultation into the
• 34:00 - 34:30 applicant a year ago this is a diversion we were prepared to accept if the proposed cycle route happens that's still the case in that we don't want to see a diversion and then that route doesn't happen our anxieties about that route they of the cycle route have grown and uh we are very unhappy happy about a cycle routee although this is not strictly a walking
• 34:30 - 35:00 matter a cycle route which comes up to the edge of a very narrow dangerous Lane I've cycled down it I wouldn't take children we think and I will detail this in our comments I think a shter a flatter and better route could provided going along by field 19 or through it allowing a link up or down the two wider Lanes from from the two Rider Lanes to are from alington that's cwell and Goldwell Lanes
• 35:00 - 35:30 um the consideration of public rights way has of course been in the context of a scenario which only arises if planning permission is granted our national policy I'm now talking about the proposal overall sorry I've expressed concerns that these are not inv valued settings the many members and other walkers I spoken to support this is our view and I can quote in our documents that we were told this is not a valued set and we think it is and a particular
• 35:30 - 36:00 point I want to stress now is in the context not just of the immediate area but of Kent it appears that it's likely that tens of thousands of new houses are to be built on green fields in Kent and it therefore becomes more important to look after what I would call him ordinary Countryside it's very attractive it's very green but the area between merism and alington is not a national park it's
• 36:00 - 36:30 not a national landscape it's ordinary but it's nice but with the building of thousands of houses these areas should now be valued more for the health and wealth being of those who live locally or walk into the area I think I was going to say more I think I will stop then appreciate your
• 36:30 - 37:00 tolerance of me and I hope that what I've said is just painting the picture really that we will then fit in in more detail in our representations okay thank you very much for your presentation point to be know what thank you if I could now ask elen Rose please
• 37:00 - 37:30 thank you sir for giving me the opportunity to talk tonight I want to emphasize the visual impact I'm a resident of aington and have been so for over 35 years the erection of security fencing on all the boundaries together with the security cameras and Lighting in addition to the panels batteries and supporting equipment will have dramatic an adverse effect on the environment of aington which if it goes ahead will have
• 37:30 - 38:00 all the attractiveness of an industrial site adequate screening of panels and Battery enclosures on High Ground is in fact impossible landscape visualizations have provided so far have totally misled our community Through very poor photography and being presented at an inadequate scale and In fairness to the community and indeed Justice this must be addressed by
• 38:00 - 38:30 proper uh submissions of photographs and maps and I would invite you sir to seek Direction uh that a direction be made for the filing of those documents by a specific date the land that is proposed to be used is currently productive Farmland supporting mixed farming it's not flat but it's undulating either side of aington Ridge with several high points there are sweeping views either side of
• 38:30 - 39:00 the ancient path of the Roman Road most parts of the solar farm will be visible from significant distances from both the North mam side and the South the Saxon Shoreline and the Romney Mars side it will obviously be visible in the immediately locality by many of the neighboring properties and totally obliterate views for users of the footpaths right of way and byways that cross the land as well as the roads
• 39:00 - 39:30 approaching aington these routes will for years to come in the future if this goes ahead be line with an industrial security fencing warning notices and security lighting who will want to walk cycle or indeed live in such an industrial landscape the enormity of the proposed solar project is so vast and huge that it will indeed be visible from outer space those who currently live close to
• 39:30 - 40:00 solar farm speak of the constant low hum which is always in the background the terrible chaos and disruption to the community and their lives during the building phase with endless lores New Roads across Farmland removal of hedge and of course cement dust there would inevitably be ongoing maintenance which will be considerably disruptive for everyone who lives there tourism for cycling Walkers and families on Romney Marsh and specifically aington and the Saxon
• 40:00 - 40:30 Shoreway is thriving tourism is very is is is doing very well the proposed enormous solar farm will inevitably lead to the loss of visitors to this very much loved rural area so much of Kent as the previous speaker told us is already industrialized and we must fight to retain what little rural landscape is left we are the custodians of our Countryside side and as Kent residents who perhaps unlike the developers have
• 40:30 - 41:00 lived within it worked on it loved it over many generations and so now feel strongly that we must speak up to save and do all we can to speak for our environment and save it for future Generations sadly there are inadequate policies to protect ording from from destruction which is what this project will mean if it's to go ahead the countryside is the soul of our
• 41:00 - 41:30 nation and we are at risk of losing it thank you sir okay thank you very much if I could now ask Alison Earley to approach the desk please
• 41:30 - 42:00 thank you very much so it's Alison erley I'm representing um alington and B bonington Parish Council um we have put in a significant written response to date which I'm not planning to um reiterate as I'm sure you will have read through it carefully I did want to make the point again though that as the parish council we are representing the community and it is the community of alington and bonington that will ultimately be most impacted by this scheme and therefore it's absolutely vital that we on their behalf and they
• 42:00 - 42:30 for themselves have full opportunity to um to engage in the process and as was mentioned this morning it has been very difficult for them to do that so far there' have been a number of errors in the paperwork that's come out um not least tonight we've already heard the timing was um issued wrongly um the parish council did request a full set of examination documents to be provided to put on view at the Village Hall we've had a small subset delivered um but as mentioned previously um they lack detail
• 42:30 - 43:00 certainly the maps even at a bigger size and we thank the applicants for providing earlier some A1 size Maps they do miss particular details such as footpath numbers and so forth so it's very difficult for the public to engage in this process um what I would say is that um as a parish council we have prepared a neighborhood plan which although under the national planning policy framework legislation is a
• 43:00 - 43:30 thorough and endorsed through a referendum um set of uh information that's that the community feel is important to them and it actually covers most of the topics that we've put in our response so including biodiversity views landscape rights of way Heritage Etc um we had thought it had been uploaded to the site but it hasn't so we'd like to rectify that to make sure that it's on public record for you and for the applicants to see and read um just to
• 43:30 - 44:00 say that um so that it's on record as a parish council we are we're not opposed to renewable energy schemes um but it's vitally important that such schemes happen in the right places and at the right scale as has been said earlier the scale of the developments proposed within alington Bon and bonington which is partially within the national landscape of the Kent downs and therefore in the setting of The Kent
• 44:00 - 44:30 Downs is is very large um it is an industrializing nature and it will change the nature and Rural um character of the parish um we're a little bit disappointed to hear earlier that Kent County Council won't be appearing at the hearing on Thursday on transport which is one of the areas that we wish to raise quite a few points and I I hear others too about foot paths um that hearing I suspect would have been an
• 44:30 - 45:00 opportunity for them to give responses to the applicant and I would request that any written responses that might come from that hearing on their behalf are done in a timely fashion so that we can take those into account for our written Representatives at deadline one um which is just over two weeks time um the other thing I would just make a point of saying is uh that we do hope that there will be an opportunity for further issue specific hearings so that we can um verbally give our details on
• 45:00 - 45:30 those in addition to our written um endorsements and that's all I'd like to say for the time being so thank you okay thank you um just in terms of can count council's written responses following the issue specific hearing they will be required by a deadline and will be published so you will will be able to see those okay and just on one final Point sir if I may on on the
• 45:30 - 46:00 neighborhood plan issue are we able to submit that to make sure it is uploaded onto the site of course you can submit that okay thank you very much could now ask Alison Lun please to come forward
• 46:00 - 46:30 good evening sir thank you for letting me speak I will be very brief as a rural area many people who live visit and work in or and murom enjoy Outdoor Pursuits and try to follow Healthy Lifestyles which include walking riding bikes and horses there appears to have been scant regard to the not in significant amount of equestrianism in the
• 46:30 - 47:00 area many individual people and families keep and ride horses here there are also a number of yard whose clients ride in the area L's Lane as a particularly Quiet Lane is popular with many horse riders backing along it there's a circular route along fith Road up by way a e396 when it's accessible down Bank Road along L's Lane back to
• 47:00 - 47:30 fris Road some Riders continuing along Bank road towards muram and col Hill and some towards the yards down prior Lane much of this route will be Criss across by sight and construction traffic it's turned into fire engine routes for the fire engines to access the batteries and there are site entrances planned along the byway we're not actually flushed with byways Bridal paths in our Villages um we'd like to keep this and we' quite
• 47:30 - 48:00 like it to have the proper surface in the proper way thank you okay thank you very much now ask Andrew SWAT Rick to come forward please
• 48:00 - 48:30 so uh thanks for the opportunity um my name is Andrew swri I've been a local resident in alington for over 40 years now I'm a keen walker and a regular user of the public rights of way Network um since I first heard of the project I sought to engage with the applicant um from the very first uh information
• 48:30 - 49:00 and non-statutory presentations in Spring 2022 I've also attended most meetings of the community of the aison panel and the public consultation meetings held in alington at the earliest of these meetings on the 8th of April I believe uh 2022 I supplied Mr mcnu with a list of uh 16 public rights away in the area because he appeared to be unaware of them and he thanked me for the
• 49:00 - 49:30 information I offered to lead a company visits to the effected paths but this wasn't taken up and when I inquired at the community leason panel meeting about the reference in the project appendices which were hard to find uh to a working party to advise on public rights of way I was informed that this is intended to be set up only after planning approval has been granted I.E when the extinguishments and diversions will already have been
• 49:30 - 50:00 decided and when there'll be therefore little point in having such a group um subsequently the existence of a large number of public rights away affected by the proposals has been alluded to in the various project documents but little acknowledgement has been made um of the issue of the effect that proposals will have on the directness of paths within and Beyond the project area um the applicants say they've
• 50:00 - 50:30 undertaken full consultation uh and at the time the June July consultation um last year the published information booklet referred as an objectives of the scheme uh the intention to retain existing public rights away and connectivity where possible I've not found at any stage any information or explanation as to why it was considered not possible to retain
• 50:30 - 51:00 the existing roots of the public rights of way as other developers of other schemes such as the East St scheme the cleave Hill projects have proposed to do in their plans and also it was difficult to find what the proposals were because as several other people have said the maps weren't partic weren't very clear uh and um they were very difficult to relate to the more usual orance survey
• 51:00 - 51:30 mapping um I believe that the reality is that although a few changes were made after the first consultation uh and that um Evolution power have met with KCC a number of times to discuss public rights away most of the proposals to disrupt the public right away Network have been presented as a fat comp uh with little or no consider given to any alternatives to the many proposed diversions and
• 51:30 - 52:00 footpath extinguishments almost all the paths link uh all the paths linked to foot paths beyond the project boundaries and as with many ancient rights of way their desire line paths which are the most direct and efficient routes to reach intended destinations which in this case can often be seen from the paths concerned and are in fact the raise on De of these roots um I'll give much Fuller details
• 52:00 - 52:30 in my written submission but I wish to mention a couple of examples of how badly the public right of way Network and these desire line paths stand to be affected um public footpath a428 starts from a path from cwell Lane and heads more or less North across a field to an ancient brick Bridge Over the eastar River and the limit of the the current proposals and then continues in a direct straight line uh to a bridge over the
• 52:30 - 53:00 existing and um highspeed one railway lines to reach B Road stock Lane and offering links to the a20 SME and M deer part you can see the bridge uh on the skyline when you walk along a the past Evolution power proposed uh to divert this and make it considerably less direct sending it around three sides of
• 53:00 - 53:30 their field 19 uh around the outside of their enclosures and they further propos to divert or ex extinguish three other nearby paths causing lengthy diversions to reach the desire line path beyond the East St um they claim that it will create a new circular route it will in fact be a very circular route um another public footpath
• 53:30 - 54:00 a377 currently runs some Bank Road in alington near handen farm and continues in a more or less directly northwesterly line towards meren um and you can see the church clearly in the direction you're walking in um the applicants want to divert this path first Northeast and then West and then Northeast again and West again um and at the consultant stage cons consult ation stage they claim that while there's a change of directness the
• 54:00 - 54:30 improved legibility Visual and by biodiversity benefits of the rout are considered important I don't consider them important in each of these cases and in other proposed diversions the experience of Walkers using the proposed diversions will be detrimentally affected by having to walk along alongside high fences and 3 m tall solar panel arrays current clear views across the valley would be
• 54:30 - 55:00 spoiled as I understand it the highways act 1980 requires three tests before allowing the diversion of a public right of way first is that it's in the interest of someone uh that the proposed diversion is not substantially less convenient and that the diversion should not affect the enjoyment of the path as a whole I believe that the current proposals fail to meet at least two of
• 55:00 - 55:30 those tests I further believe that uh should the proposal go ahead to the detriment of such a large number of public rights of way for at least the rest of my lifetime uh this that it would also set a serious precedent to future or further developers uh suggesting that public rights of way can be disregarded wholesale so I therefore agree with the
• 55:30 - 56:00 parish council suggestion at this morning's meeting that a fuller examination of the effect of the project on the public rights of way Network should be included in the inspection process and consideration be given perhaps to additional on-site visits which I'd be very happy to um lead if if if required okay thank you
• 56:00 - 56:30 now can I ask Linda Haron please thank you sir um you'd be relieved to know that I'll keep it very short um I just want to focus on one point uh within my written representation um and that is about the
• 56:30 - 57:00 industrialization of the landscape around our village that this uh proposal um puts forward and I'd like to also draw your attention because having read the documents submitted um the cumulative effect of uh and this proposal alongside side the EDF proposal in the um in the Church Lane uh seems to
• 57:00 - 57:30 be very much uh downplayed by the applicant um on the grounds that you can't see them at the same time however I'd like um I'm sure uh to bring to your attention the ministerial letter of 21st May of this year in which um it says that it's noted that it's important to consider not just the impacts of individual proposals but also whether
• 57:30 - 58:00 there are cumulative impacts where several proposals come forward in the same locality um our village has The Misfortune to be next to a converter station when that converter station was built our our village was made promise that that converter station would not lead to further development however that's turned into being an inaccurate statement and it has instead brought for forward um this huge scale uh representation huge scale presentation
• 58:00 - 58:30 of a proposal to industrialize the entire landscape which for me makes it feel as though our uh Village is under attack and I know that many of the residents within aington feel the same I'd like to just make a point from a personal point of view um again within the environmental statements it states that um the landscape is not of any specific value it's
• 58:30 - 59:00 Farmland it's farmland and it looks like Farmland it's green green is good for us we read about um the fact that it contributes to our well-being looking at Black Metal Frames and high fencing and battery storage units that will be over four meters high on the side of the slope of which we're so proud and alington alington Ridge is uh the high point but when you
• 59:00 - 59:30 come to our village you drive from the a20 down into the dip of the East hour Valley and as you go down into that Valley you will see the majority of this application and it will affect us all thank you okay thank you very much can I move to Jonathan
• 59:30 - 60:00 tenant please thank you sir if you just allow my machine to warm up I was thinking I was going to go one but one later just one moment thank you
• 60:00 - 60:30 thank you for forbearing um it's interesting to see the range of comments uh we've had this evening offered by those in the locality and
• 60:30 - 61:00 those that have been able to make it here which we've already discussed is perhaps not as many as uh it's representative of the concerns in the time available I'd just like to follow up on one or two of the issues that have been raised and some of those raised this morning to give you sir a flavor of what we've been dealing with now for nearly three years the act and other relevant legislation and guidelines require applicants to achieve a development of good design holding that thought we have
• 61:00 - 61:30 repeatedly been told that the site was carefully chosen not just to be a red line around land that happened to be offered to the developer by a willing farmer or Farmers we should expect instead a wider view being taken as the proposal evolves and takes shape looking seriously at a mix of Alternatives that could provide the stated output we were told to expect a front-loaded consultation process which would be clear and informative the sort
• 61:30 - 62:00 of consultation that produces good quality plans indicative layouts and most important of all an impression of what the finished scheme would look like nothing precise but at least photo montages at a size that when held up to view can give even a lay person a good understanding of roughly what to expect from various Vantage points we were told to expect a community liaison panel that would interact with the community be sensitive to its concerns and promote a sense of a
• 62:00 - 62:30 genuine two-way conversation the panel to be a forum where for example concerns about the huge impact of on the public rights of way as we've heard this evening could be addressed through a white rights away working group where big impact items like batteries could be discussed openly perhaps to get an early idea of the optioneering considered and the mitigation possibilities we should also expect archaeological surveys is to be undertaken at a level of detail and geographical scale that recognizes the
• 62:30 - 63:00 historic importance of the audience and area centered as the village is on a Roman Road in the same way we should expect the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and that this would not be just treated as a numbers game where those doing the ecological surveys wouldn't just look at and slavishly follow the required metric but also reflect carefully on The Wider obligations placed on such developments when arriving at an estimated BNG we could hope there would be a
• 63:00 - 63:30 realization but when for example land is Switched uh from arble to a grazing Wasteland as I would care to call it under and between panels periodically occupied by sheep the assessors would realize that redist species like Skylar and lapwing cannot possibly be saved by a few tiny Skylar plots but no sadly on all these points and many more the local Community stands to be short changed unless the objections to the scheme are
• 63:30 - 64:00 upheld things have not been run the way they should have been and the result is that our undulating Agricultural and wooded landscape now stands to become industrialized with an oversized solar scheme coupled with what is now revealed to be an extraordinary number of battery units which is inevitably causing grave concern to all those living in the locality we will as a support group be covering each of these aspects and more during the course of the forthcoming examination and hope that what we see as
• 64:00 - 64:30 fundamental failings will be recognized by the process thank you sir and uh Simon will uh if that's possible follow on from me with a further Point okay thank you very much thank you sir for the opportunity to speak uh both Jonathan and I represent
• 64:30 - 65:00 or seek to represent the community concerns regarding this project in the in the parishes of alington and Mom and it's very clear from our discussions with the community that one of the key concerns is batteries um the applicant strategy on consultation regarding batteries has been a simple one don't tell them anything um and thus there has been no consultation on the safety of batteries
• 65:00 - 65:30 uh particularly given the proximity to nearby Residential Properties the noise from batteries and inverters nor the visual impact of sticking batteries in their 4 meter high enclosures onto the alington ridge to give you a sense for our frustration with the consultation there was a meeting at bank Farm on in April 2022 when we asked the app to provide more information on batteries um we were informed by one of
• 65:30 - 66:00 the representatives of the applicant that they were not going to say anything and if we wanted to discuss this further they were going to close the meeting that is the attitude the applicant has taken towards battery the question of battery storage um the the applicant has provided very little detail for instance on the capacity of batteries and it may well be that they are using the Rochdale
• 66:00 - 66:30 Envelope as a means to say well we don't actually need to provide you with any information um the same would be true of the capacity of the solar panels um but it's my understanding that the application should be judged against the worst case scenario so why can't the applicant tell us what is the worst case scenario for the the storage of the batteries the output of the panels why hide all this information from the from the community which has been the
• 66:30 - 67:00 case likewise why is the project oversized we read that has a capacity to produce 165 megawatts compared to the stated capacity of 99 megawatts to export um why are you using thus 65% more land than would strictly be needed is this something to do with the degradation concession uh who knows that they're not prepared to uh to tell us as you will have seen the batteries
• 67:00 - 67:30 or battery enclosures containing between four and eight batteries are scattered across the countryside in documentation they apparently did consider putting them in a battery enclosure or putting them all together which for us would make more sense um that that decision was not discussed with the community and we've ended up with a situation where back 4 meter high or fencing four meters high around batteries and the inverter stations are dotted around the
• 67:30 - 68:00 countryside and particularly up on the uh up on the alington ridge which as others have said is severely degrading our Rural imunity and industrializing the countryside is this really necessary um the community is very concerned about battery safety um the batteries are very close to Residential Properties the nearest being 160 m from from somebody's house
• 68:00 - 68:30 um we've all seen in the press that batteries can and do Catch Fire uh or explode a fault in a single battery cell can lead to a local overheating which then propagates the neighboring cells causing theral Runway and the toxic fumes from these uh lithium battery fires are a serious public health hazard and someone living let's say 160 Metter
• 68:30 - 69:00 from the B battery fire is going to be at serious health risk to put out these battery fires you require vast quantities of water um of course the applicant has not told us how much water is going to be stored on site in the in the large water towers but it seems doubtful that there will be sufficient ient water to treat these fires uh which can last for many
• 69:00 - 69:30 days where will the contaminated water go uh if there has been a fire um there are buns around the battery enclosures but eventually this water is going to end up in the East hour River and the ecosystems that are the very important ecosystems that are located Downstream may be affected the other issue is access to fire vehicles it seems from the plans that fire vehicles are going to access
• 69:30 - 70:00 the site from the from the the byway of rth Road um also along single track roads such as Bank Road and LS Lane so we have very serious concerns about how uh how First Responders would be able to get to uh to these uh if if a battery fire should occur so this is an issue that the community feel very strongly about and we feel there should be a subject specific hearing on on
• 70:00 - 70:30 batteries thank you very much for the opportunity to speak okay thank you very much for that um I think I only have Jeremy Brumley left to address the the hearing could you use the microphone
• 70:30 - 71:00 please is the microphone switched on ours is the house that's 160 meters away from the batteries uh we have currently over 54 batteries visible from our property in a circle going completely around us uh there's been a noise assessment done on these batteries that we dispute quite highly uh we I have the fortune to work in an industry
• 71:00 - 71:30 where noise assessment is something that I am fully aware of when they did their testing they tested the noise levels by the Lakes behind us at a level 9 M below our ground floor property and over 16 M below our Upper Floor properties and the levels that they give are based on a 30% use of the battery uh their recordings uh battery container
• 71:30 - 72:00 units for in one of the smaller compounds of 46 DB inverters at 62 DB and the DC todc converter at four times 47 DB and that's timesed all of the different compounds all the way around us uh we are also unfortunately going to have an amplification of any noise that's produced because the panels Point uphill directly at our property uh we've had a few friends have a look at the calculations and a single compound
• 72:00 - 72:30 should give out a decel rating of roughly 62.8 DB at our ground level on a 30% rating and at a maximum 75.4 uh we are not happy with that because it makes our quality of life very very poor uh I've had long consultations with Mr with Conor over there and to be fair he's been very open with a lot of things but we've had no
• 72:30 - 73:00 details whatsoever of the batteries other than there will be some batteries uh we've had a look at this in great detail uh the fire risk I won't go into too much because you've obviously heard from the support group uh but with regards to the sheer number of batteries that are being placed around us we feel quite scared of what's going to go ahead we've got a very old property there's only so much we can do to protect ourselves we spent so far nearly £40,000
• 73:00 - 73:30 putting in screening to try and protect us but that's not going to stop the noise uh I won't go on too much about everything else but I appreciate you listening okay thank you very much for that um I believe everyone who wish to speak has spoken if anybody disagrees could the players read please raise their hand okay thank
• 73:30 - 74:00 you so that completes all submissions from everyone that has asked to speak today and now like to ask the applicant if they would like to respond to the many issues that have been raised thank you sir yes if I can respond Hugh Flanigan on behalf of the applicant um and I'll say now obviously uh this response is going to aim to be proportionate it's not going to respond to every Point raised you'll have our
• 74:00 - 74:30 full responses in written representations any hearings and so forth uh first of all um we'd like to thank um everyone who's taken the time and trouble to come to speak today we recognize that important points have been raised um which obviously you sir will consider as part of your examination and the Secretary of State uh will consider in due course uh we do say it's important to um in addition to all the points you've heard this evening
• 74:30 - 75:00 um in objection in at least in part to the scheme to also consider the balancing points um the need and the benefits and at the top of that list are the the urgent need for significant renewal renewable energy um such as the proposed development that that urgent need is recognized in government policy and go so far as to categorize um the a
• 75:00 - 75:30 scheme such as the present scheme as a critical National priority and there's also other benefits such as the significant biodiversity net gain the enhanced network of public footpaths and jobs and economic benefits but the the urgent need for the for renewable energy at this scale is is obviously at the heart of what's being proposed um as I said I'm not going to go through all the points but what I'm proposing briefly to do in addition to that I've said already is to um
• 75:30 - 76:00 reference some of the places in the application where we we have sought to respond to the points you've heard this evening uh and just to outline our uh headline responses so in terms of landscape obviously concerns raised this evening on landscape visual Character Matters um the the starting point we say for a lot of what has been said is that the applicant has looked to develop the design of the application and our mitigation sensitively and mindful of
• 76:00 - 76:30 the landscape the community and the public rights of way in which it will sit all that aspect of context and setting um the site is not subject to any national or Lo local designations for landscape value that is obviously an important part of the context and uh we have sought to respond to the character that you do find in the setting and on the site itself um and in terms of mitigation
• 76:30 - 77:00 obviously it's important to recognize both in respect of landscape and the other um aspects of uh the environmental assessment that what has been proposed is being secured in the development consent order and is enforceable um it's they're not simply promises they are commitments and we are happy to be held to them so that's landscape public rights of way obviously again a matter articulated by a number of people this evening um we say it's important to
• 77:00 - 77:30 appreciate what is being done in the round both um any diversions but also the new and enhanced um rights of way which will improve improve materially wider connectivity and achieve some of the local authorities aspirations in in that respect we say um I I would encourage um interested parties to look and so far they haven't already at the rights of wear and access strategy that's AP 160
• 77:30 - 78:00 secured by requirement um that sets out some of the diversion distances which you you heard about this evening and obviously a judgment has to be made about the significance of those um in the construction traffic issue specific hearing um the applicant will seek to deal with this a little further as well um and then one specific matter under this heading equestrian use uh raised
• 78:00 - 78:30 tonight um you can uh it is a matter considered in the environmental assessment so so not overlooked and we say adequately addressed um traffic more generally um construction traffic um one of the key documents that again point representers to is the construction traffic management plan A p54 and we say that um explains and and
• 78:30 - 79:00 shows how we consider considered the the impacts and how they can be properly managed such as they are um as I say we are committed to responsibly constructing and operating this development and to be held to those commitments uh next battery storage which again featured a few times this evening just as to its its purpose to start with it is important National policy expressly recognizes uh and supports the
• 79:00 - 79:30 collocation of solar and Battery development so that's an important starting point and as to what it does obviously it helps deal with the intermittency of of power from solar generation which is an inevitable feature of the part of the world we live in and it also helps to provide grid balancing system so it is serving a beneficial and important purpose as to safety obviously we recognize those concerns uh and have sought to address
• 79:30 - 80:00 them we say properly uh the key document is the battery Safety Management plan AP 161 uh and in that the project has agreed commitments in that management plan enforcable and secured with the Kent far and rescue service which is the relevant Authority and those um commitments meet and exceed
• 80:00 - 80:30 the national far Chief's Council guidance where applicable so we say it's it's proper and IT addresses what what what needs to be done um concerns or or or queries at least regarding capacity and Generation Um in respect of the ratio of of generating capacity to the grid connection um the generating capacity of a solar Generating Station is almost in all cases higher than the grid connection
• 80:30 - 81:00 and if battery storage is collocated it's typically sized at 1.4 to 1.8 times the grid connection and so as is shown in the grid connection statement in the application documents the the the project holds a grid connection of 99.9 megaw and based on that sizing you're try you're looking at a a generating capacity of around 140 to 180 megawatts and indeed the environmental statement talks about figures in that range 140
• 81:00 - 81:30 160 megawatt so I do respectfully reject the suggestion that's been hidden it's on the face of the environmental statement that that is the contribution to renewable energy uh Heritage and archaeology next um the project has been designed to uh minimize harm to Heritage assets and their setting um it's obviously particular concern raised by some representatives in terms of um
• 81:30 - 82:00 underground Heritage assets um there has been predetermination uh trial trenching um in respect to the project substation and confirmation that there is no significant archaeology present there and other infrastructure such as the inverter stations have been relocated to avoid areas of archaeological potential um which have been identified through the geophysical survey report um and in
• 82:00 - 82:30 terms of key documents the archaological mitigation strategy um we say properly secures all the mitigation that is required to ensure that the project does not have an unacceptable impact on below ground Heritage penultimate item there uh now is best and most versatile agricultural land um the applicant has sought to avoid the use of best and most versatile agricultural land West possible and has
• 82:30 - 83:00 given preference to using land in areas of poorer quality um such loss as there is of best and most versatile agricultural land uh within the local area caused by the scheme is is not we say going to have a material impact on the overall supply of um such land in Ashford burra which equates to many thousands of hectares in terms of the overall Supply and it's simply not the
• 83:00 - 83:30 case we say that that will be materially significantly impacted by the scheme uh and then finally sir policy um just a few matters under that there was reference um to an Ashford bur Council document 2013 guidance on uh solar gener ation firstly that's a 2013 document so it's of some vintage now but but more
• 83:30 - 84:00 importantly that that document is not the applicable policy framework for for what is um proposed which is a national significant nationally significant infrastructure project subject to the National policy statement so it is important we say to apply the correct applicable policy um and there was also I think from the CPR um reference to other approaches such as a sort of rooftop first approach
• 84:00 - 84:30 or something of that sort we say it it is simply not possible to achieve the the challenging indeed very challenging government targets for renewable solar generation without large scale solar uh which is why um what what is being proposed in this scheme is supported we say by policy so so that's what um we've got to say at this stage obviously as I say we respond further in writing and orally during the
• 84:30 - 85:00 examination but unless um I can assist further that's what I have to say thank you okay thank you for that there will be some issues that have been mentioned this evening that will be covered um over the next couple of days and also as I previously mentioned there will be um written questions that are issued from myself um to a range of interested parties in the applicant
• 85:00 - 85:30 during the course of the examination so I made a a careful note of everything that has been um spoken about tonight uh and just to reassure everybody I have listened and taken on board what what has been said so I think that concludes item four so we'll move on to item five and that is any other matters does anybody in the room have
• 85:30 - 86:00 anything else there is within the scope of this open floor hearing this evening could we have if you come down to the front placee something I forgot to mention uh has the applicant thought about using bifacial panels my investigation into the costs against benefit of bifacial panels means they're roughly 18% more efficient for a 10% uplifting cost which
• 86:00 - 86:30 would allow the applicant to reduce the size of this development by 83 Acres which would also allow them to save three million in rent over to 40 years if the ,000 per acre is correct okay thank you the applicant care do I address that issue sir I'm certainly happy to respond to it it's a fairly um technical matter especially given the numbers you were just given so I'm going to ask that we
• 86:30 - 87:00 might be allowed to respond to that in writing okay that's fine does anyone else in the room wish to to make a comment this evening turning to teams I know it is there is a a hand up there you like to switch a camera on and address the hearing please uh yes thank you uh L jessing I
• 87:00 - 87:30 was here with you this morning will there be another opportunity for session like this again um because when I read everything I I struggled to I assumed that because I saw this was Open Session One there will be another opportunity for this at a later stage because at the time I didn't want to speak now I've heard everybody I could have
• 87:30 - 88:00 actually gone ahead and done a presentation but I wasn't sure what prly what all this was about so I didn't and I assumed that because this was open m session one there will be another opportunity at a later date thank you okay thank you for that yes we have another set of hearings scheduled in February of next year um but what I would say is you had the opportunity this evening to
• 88:00 - 88:30 present to the hearing um and you you haven't taken that opportunity but as I say I'm sorry I didn't understand what this was I I I've struggled with this whole process as to quite what we were able to talk about tonight which is why I decided not to okay yeah understand your point uh
• 88:30 - 89:00 and take that on board and as I say there there are another there's a week in February that has been reserved for future further hearings and possibly accompanied site inspections um so we we will notify people um when they take place and what the agendas will be and the topics thank
• 89:00 - 89:30 you so nobody else on teams wish to make a comment um so finally I would like to say if you've spoken today it would help if you could please ensure that they cover the points that you've made in writing in your written representations if you haven't already done so through your relevant reps and the written representations are
• 89:30 - 90:00 to be submitted at deadline one which is the 10th of December 2024 the recording of this hearing will be published on the project PID for all to see um and I I believe that we have now covered all of the items on the agenda so I'd like to thank you all for attending and your assistance and your contribution to this hearing and I now close this open floor hearing thank you