PART 3: Community Comments from Opinion Questionnaire.
Summary of comments.
Size:
- Overwhelming view it is way too big.
Location:
- This is the wrong location for this project
- Open countryside not recommended by government or by community
- Too close to residential area
Community Benefit Fund:
- Amount offered is not acceptable – it is too little.
- Overall view it should be increased considerably.
- Suggestions on how to assess the amount include percentage of profit.
- Desire to inflation-proof or index link payments if delivered over 30 years
Elgin:
Lack of information
- General surprise at paucity of information concerning project
- Too many woolly words and aspirations – not enough fact-based data and definitive statement about deliverables
- All of the truth about the project and what it entails please
- We have loads of questions to which we need honest answers
Q&A meeting with Elgin
- Community want to hear from Elgin
- Want a community meeting (not exhibition!)
- Want to ask questions and get straight and factual answers, with proof.
- Involve Landowner and RCC to get full view
Bypass:
- Preferred route MUST be protected
Collaboration:
- Degree of collaboration between Elgin, landowner and community, to date, poor
- Community must be involved in planning and thinking
- Views of community MUST be considered
- If project gets approval, work with community for benefit of all
Guarantees:
Financial
- How will CBF be protected
- How to ensure against business going bust
- How to protect community if business sold, taken over etc
- Detail of Proposal
- Where’s the money coming from
- Who is going to run the site
Land:
- Need proof of land grade and value
- Not happy to use arable land
- Footpaths should not be diverted
- Rural countryside not appropriate for this project
No to Proposal
- Some say an absolute no to any solar farm in Langham, no matter what
Sorted data from ‘Comments’ box of Community Opinion Questionnaire.
Benefit |
All the village should benefit from cheaper electricity if allowed. |
Benefit - comment |
No benefit to the community. |
Benefit - comment |
I've heard of the development scheme where village community bought the land and built solar farm on it. Then it was paid rent by the company every year - £150.000 exactly. |
Benefit - comment |
I think Q6 [how much CB should we get]is irrelevant, yes more money would be nice, but realistically how much would Langham see!! |
Benefit - more |
A much bigger contribution to the community and |
Benefit - more |
but contribution needs to be much larger than proposed. |
Benefit - more |
The Community Benefit offered is derisory. |
Benefit - more |
community benefit increased. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Community benefits should be a yearly % of profits |
Benefit - suggestion |
Community Benefit could be % of profits or index-linked. |
Benefit - suggestion |
The community benefit should be a percentage of profit made and linked to inflation over the 30 years. |
Benefit - suggestion |
At least £600-750 per acre per year |
Benefit - suggestion |
The community benefit should be calculated as a percentage of Elgin's profit not a fixed sum which will be quickly inflated away |
Benefit - suggestion |
Community Benefit should be a percentage of profit generated by this form, subject to independent review |
Benefit - suggestion |
Community benefit should be percentage of any profits. |
Benefit - suggestion |
On a percentage basis of profits paid yearly. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Community Benefit needs to be going-rate. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Index-link any payment proposals |
Benefit - suggestion |
Share profits with village. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Inflation needs to be taken into account (Community Benefit) percentage profit. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Allowing for inflation. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Community benefit could be a percentage of profit - that way community shares in success of project, |
Benefit - suggestion |
C. benefit percentage of profit. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Percent of profit |
Benefit - suggestion |
Partially fund bypass? |
Benefit - suggestion |
They should also pay for road improvements such as traffic calming measures. |
Benefit - suggestion |
In favour of percentage of profits. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Percentage of profit. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Percentage of profit better than lump sum. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Revenue should either be index linked or percentage of profit. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Community benefit should increase each year |
Benefit - suggestion |
Should CB not be linked to their sales price/profit? |
Benefit - suggestion |
Index linked payments. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Annual payments should be index linked. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Percentage of profits an alternative. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Perhaps a bond to guarantee this. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Rather than a Community payment, a reduction of electricity charges of village residents should be considered so it benefits everyone rather than just a few. |
Benefit - suggestion |
The community benefit should be a percentage of the yearly profit and paid yearly. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Payment possibly for planning purposes and more likely to receive it. |
Benefit - suggestion |
Inflation proof community benefit. |
Benefit - suggestion |
money for Community Benefits paid for the duration of project and inflation increases |
Bypass |
Route of bypass must be preserved. |
Bypass |
and in reducing by around 50% this would enable the bypass plans to NOT be compromised. ie. important to protect the bypass plans. |
Bypass |
[loss of]any chance of a bypass; |
Bypass |
Do not ingress on line of bypass proposal. |
Bypass |
Bypass route must be protected. |
Bypass |
*BYPASS NEEDED. |
Bypass |
Most important is the bypass |
Bypass |
the most important issue is the bypass and the future of that. |
Bypass |
I am very supportive of the bypass and do not want to see that stopped. |
Bypass |
Route of bypass preserved. |
Bypass |
Protect the route for the bypass at all costs! |
Collaboration |
The application must reflect the views of the community. |
Collaboration |
If permission given, Elgin must work with community in order that we optimise the benefit to the community. |
Collaboration |
With lack of details from the developer I am unable to agree with their plans because - are the surrounding trees, hedges and wildlife protected, especially as the area is to be surrounded by a 2m deer fence; |
Ecology and environment |
Not acceptable to cut down all the trees. |
Ecology and environment |
loss of wildlife; farming; |
Ecology and environment |
Do not destroy the ecology of the area |
Ecology and environment |
The sheer destruction of trees and birds and insects; |
Ecology and environment |
Too much impact on environment - trees, views etc |
Ecology and environment |
(save our trees) |
Ecology and environment |
I do not want trees cut down. |
Ecology and environment |
and the environmental damage is too great |
Ecology and environment |
We would not want to lose any trees and wooded areas. |
Ecology and environment |
No trees or hedges should be removed - utilise unshaded acreage only. |
Ecology and environment |
Environmental issues, |
Elgin - Community views |
Planning permission should not be sought until Elgin is better informed about our village and our opinions |
Elgin - information |
Elgin are a small player in the industry - why were they chosen? |
Elgin - information |
The roads will not be safe with all the extra heavy traffic. |
Elgin - information |
We do not have enough information to make an informed decision. |
Elgin - information |
Three months sounds like a very long harvest? |
Elgin - information |
We need to be better informed. |
Elgin - information |
Delay planning until more information available. |
Elgin - information |
Consider where is the access road. |
Elgin - information |
How much noise will be generated |
Elgin - information |
Much more information needed from Elgin with build details, timing, routes etc. |
Elgin - information |
There are insufficient details given by Elgin re placement of cables, construction, decommissioning, traffic disruption, lighting, who is funding and running the farm. |
Elgin - information |
are cables surface or sub-surface; |
Elgin - information |
will land be able to be used for animals grazing etc; |
Elgin - information |
who is funding and running/maintaining and cleaning panels etc; |
Elgin - information |
is Elgin just fishing!; |
Elgin - information |
I have found this form very difficult to complete as I find I don't have nearly enough information. |
Elgin - meeting |
Not completed because need a further meeting with Elgin preferably. |
Elgin - meeting |
We do need to hear from Elgin. |
Elgin - meeting |
Elgin should be present at a Q&A session and reply to their e-mails. |
Elgin - meeting |
Exhibition in village hall as suggested please. |
Elgin - meeting |
Village meeting with Elgin. |
Elgin - meeting |
I would strongly support a meeting with Elgin with the request for honest imagery and reporting. |
Elgin - meeting |
I feel I need to hear from Elgin energy at a future meeting |
Elgin - meeting |
We would like to have a meeting with Elgin. |
Elgin - meeting |
I would like to see the Elgin presentation in the village hall. |
Elgin - meeting |
We would like to have more meetings before the planning application goes ahead. |
Elgin - meeting |
More open discussion with Elgin, LPC. RCC etc necessary |
Elgin – meeting |
More time and another meeting with the locals of Langham. |
Elgin – meeting |
Meeting with Elgin needed before submission of plans. |
Elgin – meeting |
Must have a meeting with Elgin before the application is submitted |
Elgin – more information |
We definitely need more time in order to gather more information & hear from Elgin themselves about their proposals. |
Elgin – more information |
More information please - very definitely before any planning application is made. |
Elgin – more information |
Essential to delay planning application whilst the Parish Council and COMMUNITY get more info from Elgin. |
Elgin – more information |
We need much more info! |
Elgin – more information |
We need clarity of how power is to be distributed. |
Elgin – more information |
Need more information from Elgin to make a proper discussion. |
Elgin – more information |
Unable to complete question 6 because of uncertainty about whole project. |
Elgin – more information |
I am in favour of a solar farm, but simply do not have enough information. |
Elgin – more information |
I can’t answer the questions fully as I don't have all of the information |
Elgin – more information |
Is there a regulatory body for solar farms? |
For the proposal |
It's such important development and really doesn't compare to the damage we are doing to our planet if we do nothing. |
Guarantees |
All of the developer's proposals need to be fully assessed and checked. |
Guarantees |
Elgin are not necessarily friends of Langham and a co-operative approach may not deliver acceptable results for Langham. |
Guarantees |
Is possible 'we' should try to insist on 'good' use being made of the area under the panels. |
Guarantees |
Could we make this an example to others of really 'good' use of this area? |
Guarantees |
Ensure the lease is only for 30 years max not to allow extension |
Guarantees |
I would expect to see an EIA for the proposal. |
Guarantees |
What are the deliverables? |
Guarantees |
Guarantees null and void in the event of bankruptcy or change of business. |
Guarantees |
Decommissioning costs? |
Guarantees |
Very concerned about decommissioning. |
Guarantees |
Legal guarantees sought and |
Guarantees |
We must have guarantees before planning application submitted. |
Guarantees |
More information as to money transactions taking place before land commissioned. |
Guarantees |
Decommissioning costs? Who pays? RCC? |
Guarantees and clarity |
Concerned about changes in the technology impacting on proposed installation over 30 years. |
Guarantees and clarity |
Need lots more detail of exact proposal & legal guarantees especially if scheme were to be sold on. |
Guarantees and clarity |
Any planning proposal should be delayed until lots more detail & in conjunction with LPC & after another proper presentation by Elgin with lots of experts there (& Oliver Hemsley), & after LPC research views of other parish councils where solar farms have been built. |
Guarantees and clarity |
Good point raised re. where their finances come from. |
Help offered |
I would be happy to be involved in any way to help thwart this |
Help offered |
Contact T. Appleton re. wildlife |
Land - character |
no amount of financial benefit on offer could compensate for such a loss of this beautiful area which would, as we understand, destroy the best place for the public footpath and would certainly have the Ramblers' Association on the warpath. |
Land - quality |
Been better to have said at the presentation what existing use of land is & therefore 3a. |
Land - quality |
If the land is not 3b this project should not go ahead. |
Land - quality |
Not on good agricultural land |
Land - quality |
Should be on brownfield site not on agricultural land. |
Land - quality |
Should be on brownfield site not on agricultural land |
Land – loss of footpath |
[loss of] public walkways etc |
Location |
Why in Langham? |
Location |
Are we aware of new location of Solar Farm site proposed at Empingham/ Sykes Lane? Is this Elgin also? |
Location - suggestions |
away from the village could be acceptable |
Location - suggestions |
Sahara Desert seems a better option [for location]. |
Location - suggestions |
It should not be built on the hillside. |
Location - suggestions |
There must be better location. |
Location - suggestions |
Why not on warehouse/supermarket roofs? |
Location - suggestions |
Woolfox - site seems a good idea |
Location - suggestions |
But fundamental there are better sites in Rutland. |
Location - suggestions |
There should be alternative locations. |
Location – too close to residential area |
Not appropriate close to Langham community. |
Location – too close to residential area |
Approve of Solar Parks in but current proposal is not appropriate in proposed location. |
Location – too close to residential area |
Should be put further away from civilisation. |
Location – too close to residential area |
Far too close to residents at Ranksborough, who, though retired, are still alive and interested in where they live and their community. |
Location – too close to residential area |
and too close to Langham |
Location – too close to residential area |
Too close to the village. |
Location – too close to residential area |
Not on good agricultural land so near to the village. |
Location – too close to residential area |
not so near a village |
Location – too close to residential area |
The proposal seems to be in the wrong place. |
Location – too close to residential area |
The location is too close to the village. |
Location – too close to residential area |
Too near |
No to proposal |
Having listened to Austin, am now thinking a solar farm is a bad idea for Langham. |
No to proposal |
Not acceptable in present terms. |
No to proposal |
Think again and go back to your drawing board |
No to proposal |
I'm totally opposed to this proposal. |
No to proposal |
I am totally against this solar farm – |
No to proposal |
I object strongly to change of land use. |
No to Proposal |
Proposal is unacceptable. |
Other |
It's got to be somewhere and I assume there is always a good reason not to have it near where people live. |
Other |
There are plenty of solar panels in fields, and wind turbines on the hills in Devon, especially North Devon and the solar panels are not an eyesore but the wind turbines are. The solar panels work even with the Devon climate (wet) |
Other |
As a point I felt the LPC presentation was biased against. |
Other |
Put tonight's presentation on the website so people who didn't/couldn't attend see it. |
Other |
It should be nothing to do with LPC. They did not pay anything to the purchase for the land or the upkeep over the last 60 years. |
Other |
More information needed from villages with solar farms nearby. |
Other – community knowledge valuable |
In retrospect very impressed with Austin Healy's contribution. |
Other – community knowledge valuable |
Thank goodness for Austin Healey and his expert opinion 'like harvesting?' and 'like building a small town'. |
Other – community knowledge valuable |
But, thanks to Austin we are forewarned |
Other – general concerns |
If the planning permission is not granted will the land be another 'Barleythorpe' |
Other – general concerns |
the disturbance to the village; |
Other – general concerns |
Langham has already been impacted by large housing developments! |
Other – general concerns |
What happens to property prices? |
Other – general concerns |
Will it decrease our house prices? |
Other- County Councillor |
Very unimpressed that local councillor failed to attend! |
Other- County Councillor |
Where is OLIVER! |
Other- County Councillor |
I am very disappointed that Mr Helmsley did not attend the meeting - this is a very important decision and I want and expect the council to be well informed. |
Size – too big |
a much smaller site. |
Size – too big |
Happy for it to go ahead art smaller capacity ie around half the size proposed so that it is not as close to the village as proposed |
Size – too big |
If it is 3b land then a smaller version of what has been proposed would be better. |
Size – too big |
Too Big for Langham |
Size – too big |
Too big by far in comparison with size of village |
Size – too big |
The proposal seems to be too big. |
Size – too big |
Question 3b [lose countryside for 30yrs] only if a smaller area. |
Size – too big |
It's a big site which will have a massive change to our village. |
Size – too big |
I am not anti-solar but the site is too big. |
Size – too big |
It could work as a smaller site to the south west of the airfield. |
Size – too big |
Moderation is the key. |
Size – too big |
Only in favour if size smaller. |
Size – too big |
Too big. |