To

Chairman Clyst Hydon Parish Council Chairwoman of Talaton Parish Council Chairman Payhembury Parish Council Chairman Plymtree Parish Council

CC Parish Clerks of the four Parishes CC EDDC Councilors

Re: Proposal for a solar development at Peradon Farm

Chairmen and Chairwoman I am sure you are aware of this proposal. A small group of parishioners had a zoom meeting with the developer’s Lightrock Power on the 14th April 2021. These were mainly residents from Tale.

We are starting to become aware of many detrimental impacts from this proposal both in the short and long term. Just a few of these impacts are detailed in attachment one. It is the concerns over the nature and scale of impacts from the proposal that has prompted me to write to you now.

The purpose of this email is two fold;

Firstly to ask your parish council to formally request a minimum 3-month extension to the Lightrock Power resident engagement process and just as importantly the planning application timeline.

Secondly to request your parish council to formerly request the EDDC district councilors responsible for these districts to “call in” this proposal.

Why an extension is necessary?

 The pandemic has prevented a “normal” and thorough engagement process.  Zoom meetings and emails are no substitute for face-to-face meetings, physical maps and drawings. The ability to properly question, scrutinize and understand these proposals is imperative so the residents can jointly work out the full implications and respond.  Many residents do not have access to modern technology or do not feel confident in using them. This discriminates against their right to a proper consultation.  The pandemic has also meant that parishioners are rightly more concerned with matters of health and welfare. This leaves little or no mind space for local planning matters. These three reasons alone mean the current process is unfair and discriminates against the widest range of residents.  The next step in the engagement process for Lightrock Power is to host a virtual village meeting. For the reasons stated above this does not constitute a full and fair resident consultation. Lightrock Power has a timescale that reflects a “normal” working environment. The last 12 months have been far from “normal” and we are still quite a way from what anyone would accept as “normal”. Local residents must not railroaded into a timescale that does not appreciate the challenges of the pandemic.  I understand that Lightrock Power see their approach as creative in this COVID environment, however local parishioners should not be denied a full and accessible engagement approach. The pandemic has created a huge disruption to daily life and business process in the United Kingdom. It must not be the case that Lightrock Power carries on regardless.  If approved this development will be here for 40 years and maybe more. An extension to the timeline now is not unreasonable.  There is precedent for an extension request. The village of Scruton near Lemming Bar in North Yorkshire are going through a similar process with Light rock power, they have asked for an extension and this has been agreed (see attached). Although this just an extension to the consultation process not the planning timeline. That is not acceptable and prevents a fair process. Local residents need greater control of this process; surely we do not just have to follow the bidding of Lightrock Power?

Why should the Parish Councils ask their district councilors to “call in” this proposal?

The current planning process allows for a single planning officer to make the decision whether this type of proposal can go ahead. This has happened recently in Devon. This is a huge devlopment, if allowed it will be in the top twenty largest solar farms in the UK. This decision should not fall to a single person. The scale of this development combined with the impact of the Langford scheme if approved, would mark a fundamental change in the continuity of the local countryside.

By ‘calling in” the proposal there is greater scrutiny of the proposal, by a more senior group at an earlier stage.

We have already seen the unholy mess the Langford proposal has gotten into; the anger it’s created in local residents and the negative publicity it’s generated for local officials. These can be mitigated if the right level of oversight is engaged now.

I hope you will agree that both of these proposals are reasonable and are in the best interest of local parishioners, who want their voices to be heard .It further supports the principle that there should be a level playing field between concerns of the local residents and big business interests.

I would welcome your decision on these two proposals in a timely manner. I have CC’d the residents who were on the Zoom Call on the 14th/4 as I have agreed upon this course of action with them.

I am in the process of putting together a more organised group to support the resistance to this proposal. I will communicate more detail on this to parish councils and residents in shortly.

I am happy to discuss these issues face to face, on the phone or in whatever forum you and parish councils feel comfortable.

Yours Sincerely

Tom & Kes Devine

Attachment One

Information from Zoom Call on 14/4/2021

Full details will be confirmed from Lightrock power, but here is just a selection of the impacts, as we understand them today.

 This project is not being led by a group of well meaning local farmers who want to do their bit for renewable energy. This proposal is instigated by Lightrock Power. Lightrock Power scour the countryside for suitable sites for solar farms. They then approach land owners and pursuade them of the benefits to them of turning over their land for solar power. This is a huge business. Lightrock Power are backed by Bluefield Solar, a multi million pound energy investment fund based in Guernsey. Bluefield currently has an extensive portfolio of solar farms and renewable assets. In the financial year ending 2019, Bluefield Solar generated £44.92 million pounds of profit before tax . For more detail go to Bluefieldllp.com  148 acre proposal. This is on top of the 150 acre proposal at Langford, just 1 mile away.  Estimated 1,800/2,000 panels per acre. So 266,400 to 296,000 panels.  The panels are fixed on frames and secured to the ground by piles driven into the ground. So at 6 piles per panel we can expect between 1.6 million and 1.8 million piles to be driven into the ground.  Lightrock Power accepts there are genuine concerns over the ethical sourcing of solar panels from China. They have not yet committed to where the panels will come from. However China is by far the cheapest supplier of solar panels.  2 x Inverter buildings 7m x 2.5m x 3 metres high to house the inverters. A building to house the substation (sizes not know at this time)  The whole development with be protected with a 3-metre fence with CCTV Cameras at regular intervals. This will equates to several miles of fencing.  Clearly the visual impact will be significant.  6 month build programme: projected to be summer 2022  5 days a week 8am to 6pm  Three-acre compound built either at Marsh Corner or opposite Peradon Cottages. This is to load, and unload vehicles and store equipment.  Heavy equipment delivered on HGV articulated lorries.  There two primary traffic flows; o Heavy goods Vehicles/ articulated lorries. o Contractor’s vehicles.  Estimated traffic flows. 10 vehicle movements an hour, so one every 6 minutes.  10 hours a day 60 a day, 300 a week, 1,300 a month for six months  Clearly there will be less as the project progresses so lets assume  3 months at 1,300 and 3 months at 900 = 7,800 vehicle movements in a six-month period.  Lightrock Power stated that they had already agreed in principle with the EDDC highways department that the preferred in and out route for traffic is from the A30, past Escot and through Talaton.  It is only fair that the implications from the traffic flows and noise from construction must be fully communicated to all impacted residents, not just those who live within the sight lines of the development. The traffic impact to residents of Talaton alone must be a huge concern that is not yet understood by those residents.  Lightrock Power stated they had agreed in principle with the EDDC that a full environmental impact assessment is not required. Even though Best Practice as recommended by the BRE is to always carry out a full EIA. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) also believe a full EIA is a vital prerequisite in all large-scale schemes. Lightrock Power has said their audits carried out by their contractor surveyors are more through and are “better than best practice” but no detail has been provided as yet.

This final point is crucial in the context of resident engagement. The answer to so many questions from Lightrock Power is” we don’t know yet” or “we can’t answer that until the planning stage” However by the time residents get those answers the consultation phase is over.

Lightrock Power can present a case to local planning showing how they engaged the local community, but what it wont show is that the local community were unable to comment on many of the key implications. This is further compounded by the pandemic. This simply not fair and stacks the deck in favour of the developer.

This is why an extension is vital and why this proposal must have greater oversight by being “called in”.