Romney Marsh Residents Unite to Stop Mega Solar Farms on Prime Farmland

A community Petition opposing large-scale solar farms on Romney Marsh was presented to full council on 1 October 2025. The petition – titled “Stop industrial-scale solar sprawl on Romney Marsh” – was delivered by parishioner Amanda Farrant and bears 414 signatures. It urges the council to “oppose the spread of oversized solar and battery storage NSIP schemes on Romney Marsh’s prime agricultural land”. Petitioners warn that multiple proposals could cover thousands of acres of Grade 1 and 2 farmland, endangering local heritage and tourism, increasing flood and fire risks, and offering little benefit to the Marsh communities.

Campaigners’ Concerns

Campaigners say the recent crop of plans threatens valuable arable land. The petition notes that up to 5,000 acres of good farmland – about 25 family farms’ worth – could be lost under proposals from at least six developers. This matters because most Romney Marsh soils are top-grade; nationally only 17–20% of farmland is Class 1 or 2. Government policy explicitly advises placing solar arrays on poorer or brownfield sites rather than the best soils. Opponents argue that converting the Marsh to vast solar ‘power stations’ would violate local plan policy (HW3) forbidding loss of the “best and most versatile” land.

The petition also highlights threats to the Marsh’s character and communities. Proposed sites lie close to historic villages and at least four ancient churches, and would potentially dominate views across the Marsh. As one petition note puts it, industrial farms could “destroy the spectacular views across the Marsh” that local tourism and leisure businesses rely on. Some sites are in Flood Zone 3, raising safety concerns: planners warned that siting batteries on the marsh could endanger residents in a storm surge. The petition specifically cites the danger of lithium-ion battery fires, noting that large storage banks carry a risk of “unextinguishable” blazes and toxic smoke.

Petitioners emphasise that they are not ‘anti-solar’ per se, but seek more sustainable siting. They support renewable energy on derelict sites and buildings, and even new nuclear at nearby Dungeness, but say “gigantic solar power stations” on prime farmland are unacceptable. In their view, covering 10% of the Marsh with panels would undermine food security (the UK already imports ~40% of its food) and risk a local exodus of young people as farms vanish.

Council Debate on 1 October

At the council meeting on 1 October, lead petitioner Amanda Farrant  (Hands Off Our Marsh – Pictured) presented the petition to Councillors and invited debate. She detailed the scale of the proposals: three NSIP schemes alone would span “around 8.5 square miles or 10% of Romney Marsh,” roughly equivalent to “the size of about three Gatwick airports”. Farrant stressed that council planning policy (HW3) forbids taking the best land, noting: “We are not against solar energy, but we are against building such vast solar energy and battery storage power stations in the wrong places”. She warned that the Marsh’s ancient drainage system and sea-wall management would be put “at risk” by such development, and that industrial parks of panels and batteries would harm wildlife and obliterate heritage vistas. Farrant urged councillors to “do everything in [their] power to protect Romney Marsh’s unique environment and ecology… its heritage, and the unique character and sense of place”.

After the presentation, debate opened. Every Councillor spoke in support of examining the petition. Cabinet Member for the Environment, Cllr Stephen Scoffham – pictured –  praised the petition as “timely… measured” and “very well expressed” – the first such professionally argued petition he’d seen. He emphasized the petition’s point that the schemes are massive in scale: “A huge amount of land, 10% of the marsh, three times the size of Gatwick Airport… it will totally change that area. And… the Southbrooke scheme will surround Lydd with solar panels,” he noted. Scoffham, who holds the council’s climate portfolio, said clean energy is essential but must be balanced by local impact. He questioned who would benefit, pointing out that the Marsh farms’ output would far exceed local need and likely be sold to distant utilities. He cited Britain’s largest solar park (Cleve Hill) – signed to supply retail giant Tesco and oil major Shell – as evidence that these are really “solar power stations” for big business, with local people left to pay the price. He warned that Romney Marsh’s open fields and high-grade farmland would be turned into an “industrial landscape” of panels, destroying landscape and heritage. Scoffham agreed any solution must cut carbon, but “scale and location are critical” – he favored using non-farmland sites (roofs, brownfield and landfill) instead of sprawling ground arrays. Scoffham moved that the petition be referred for full scrutiny: option B on the agenda – sending the issue to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee for detailed consideration.

Independent Cllr Paul Thomas (New Romney) seconded the motion and echoed these points. He recounted Romney Marsh’s half-century history as a hub for clean power – two nuclear stations at Dungeness, the south’s largest onshore wind farm and Kent’s first solar farm all lie here. But he noted the proposed mega-farms (Shepway EP, South Kent EP, South Brooks SF) would take “10% of the agricultural land” and blatantly breach local policies (CC6 and HW3) that forbid using the best and most versatile land. Thomas pointed out that two of the schemes would reach into Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and that linking them requires new substation and cable tunnels under the Marsh – with work across the A259, A2075 and dozens of lanes. He warned that construction would drop “thousands of square metres of concrete” on high-grade soil, damaging drainage and even sewers. Crucially, Thomas noted that the huge battery banks proposed “play no part whatsoever in carbon-free generation,” serving only to make the schemes financially viable while adding fire and contamination risk. If any element were flawed, he said, the projects would impose “catastrophic and irreversible damage for the very fabric which has made Romney Marsh such a unique place”.

Addressing concerns about residents’ wellbeing, Cllr Tony Hills (Walland Marsh, ) said locals are “very concerned” and warned that once the Marsh is industrialized “that’s it – there’s no going back.” He said the situation felt like a slow-motion disaster: “It’s a major, major catastrophe waiting to happen, like a slow motion car crash.” Several parishioners have already found houses unsellable; Hills noted that some owners “can’t sell a house. Their house prices have dropped like a stone” since the plans became public. He said councillors must back the community: “Whatever we do, we should support our residents.” He welcomed the call for scrutiny (“I’ll be really happy to debate and drill down and get some firm evidence there.”).

Cllr David Wimble (Reform UK, electoral ward – pictured) likewise agreed with the petition. A local farmer, he declared an interest in the Marsh’s irrigation system: his family farm has “mile after mile of clay drainage pipes” running under fields. He warned that 5-metre-tall panels require deep foundations – “big concrete footings” – which “will go through the very pipes that will stop the marsh from flooding. So I think it’s inevitable”. Wimble said he was not opposed to solar per se, but insisted arrays should go on every roof, barn or disused site, not on greenfields: “KCC have got 18 landfill sites… That’s where you should be putting solar farms, not on Greenfield farmland”. He, too, offered to assist scrutiny work and said he supported Scoffham’s motion.

Labour Cllr Adrian Lockwood – pictured, thanked the petitioners and all councillors for their input. He recalled that his MP had raised similar points. Acknowledging Romney Marsh is indeed very flat and sunny with a good grid link, he said he understood why developers are attracted here. However, he argued the district should only take its “fair share” of national energy needs, and that current plans are far beyond that: “This is totally disproportionate,” he said.

Other Conservative councillors also voiced support. Cllr Alan Martin (Con – pictured) said he “fully support[s] this petition,” having signed it himself as a resident. He decried what he called “a tsunami of completely independent developments” being proposed without any masterplan. Martin recalled that earlier in 2025 the council leader had written to the Secretary of State asking for a coordinated approach. He urged that the council itself step up: he recommended updating the corporate plan and local strategy to clearly reflect residents’ views on energy development. He agreed with other speakers that detailed review by scrutiny would be appropriate.

Leader of the Council Cllr Jim Martin (Green – pictured) also affirmed his commitment. He thanked Amanda Farrant and the campaigners for their “wonderful presentation”. He confirmed that he had already written to the national Energy Secretary on this issue, but promised to follow up: “I will happily present the petition to the Secretary of State… and I would ask the petitioners to give me a bullet point summary of the points you made during your wonderful presentation. I will happily pass all that up with a perhaps less bland letter to the Secretary of State”. He said the council will formally submit the petition and signatories (a “relevant representation”) when the schemes reach the Planning Inspectorate stage. Leader Martin concluded that he would support referring the debate to Overview & Scrutiny for a thorough examination.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee (Con – pictured) who closed the debate bypraised the petition as “brilliant… really well done” for sharpening the council’s focus. Noting similar battery-storage applications submitted in nearby Ashford, she urged that the scrutiny review cast a wider net: “not just the ones in our area, but the fact that this is happening all over,” she said, and suggested the council develop policy to cover regional projects.

Unanimous Referral To Scrutiny

With no opposition, the council unanimously agreed to pursue Option B from the petition report: referring the issue to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration. Chair Cllr Anita Jones (pictured) noted the formal motion to refer and, with all Councillors in agreement, declared it “passed” without a recorded vote. The council formally received and noted the petition, and endorsed the principle of investigating the community’s concerns. (As councillors observed, final decisions on any NSIP applications would lie with national government.) The meeting closed with residents and campaigners commended for their engagement and with the council pledging to press ministers for answers on Romney Marsh’s future.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent Is Not A Crime