Stay Home - Protect The NHS - Save Lives

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.