Romney Marsh Solar Farm Approved 8–4: What Folkestone & Hythe Councillors Were Told, What the Papers Contradict, and What Happens Next (25/0542/FH)

Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s Planning and Licensing Committee has approved planning application 25/0542/FH for a 40-hectare (98.8-acre) solar farm on land opposite Marten Farm, St Mary’s Road, Romney Marsh, after a long committee debate that ranged from flood risk and farmland quality to grid capacity, traffic and the enforceability of decommissioning.

The decision was made last night at a meeting chaired by Cllr Jackie Meade, with councillors voting eight in favour and four against, with no abstentions, to grant permission in line with officers’ recommendation—and with an additional “soil management plan” condition added during the meeting following members’ questions and residents’ concerns.

The development, promoted by EnviroMena, is described by the council as a 16MW scheme capable of powering around 10,600 homes. The officer report frames the proposal as a temporary 40-year permission for a solar farm with associated infrastructure and landscaping.

What was approved on St Mary’s Road

The approved scheme is for a ground-mounted solar photovoltaic array on Romney Marsh farmland, with a perimeter security fence and access and operational infrastructure typical of solar developments. The committee report describes a package that includes PV panels, transformers/inverters, security fencing, CCTV, lighting, access tracks and landscaping, granted for a temporary period of 40 years, followed by restoration to agriculture.

In planning terms, the “temporary” label is important: councillors were asked to judge whether the land-use change is acceptable for a full generation. As one ward member, Cllr David Wimble, put it, “Forty years of panels, fences, substations and access tracks is not temporary in planning terms.”

The location is also sensitive in technical terms. The officer report records that the site sits in Flood Zone 3 and is bounded by key Romney Marsh drainage features—the Eastbridge Sewer to the north and the Clobstone Sewer to the south—highlighting why so much of the evening’s discussion turned on the marsh’s managed drainage system and the role of the Internal Drainage Board.

Officers also reference a set of proposed controls and mitigation. These include (among other matters) conditions dealing with drainage, construction traffic, landscaping and biodiversity, and a specific condition requiring restoration and agricultural use after decommissioning, “with the exception of some landscaping retained.” 

The report also points to substantial environmental “gains” claimed by the applicant. The proposed biodiversity net gain is stated at 80.92%, well above the statutory minimum required for most developments.

The argument that carried the vote: benefits outweighed harms

Officers framed the recommendation as “finely balanced”, but ultimately advised members that the harms did not justify refusal when weighed against national policy support for renewable energy and the scheme’s claimed biodiversity gains. The landscape and visual section acknowledges that “There is some landscape and visual impact”, including the assessment that four properties would experience “significant” effects, but concludes that effects are moderate, localised and reversible in the long term and do not outweigh the benefits.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob – Green, moving approval, said she had “a lot of sympathy with local residents” but argued the committee must give “great weight” to low-carbon energy, pointing to biodiversity net gain and the need for speed in scaling renewable generation. 

   

Cllr Mike Blakemore – Green, seconding, said the report showed most impacts were “largely confined to the site itself” and that the scheme was “well thought through”. 

Supporters also emphasised the contrast between this district-level application and much larger Romney Marsh proposals expected to proceed as nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) decided by the Secretary of State. Several councillors argued that, whatever one thinks of the broader wave of solar proposals, this application was a “known quantity” over which the district could at least impose conditions.

The objections: flood risk, drainage pipes, farmland and grid constraints

Four speakers addressed the committee, three against and one for.

Amanda Farrant – pictured, speaking for Hands Off Our Marsh, said residents were “not against renewable energy” but objected to “the wrong project in the wrong place”, citing “major gaps and inconsistencies” in material on drainage, soil, heritage and visual impact. She urged deferral and a site visit, stating the marsh’s drainage pipes “have been historically crucial” and warning that damage could cause “costly untold problems”.

Cllr Colin Woollard, speaking for Newchurch Parish Council, described four large schemes facing the Marsh and said the parish was “unanimous in opposition”. He challenged the application’s handling of drainage and said it was “alarming” that the Romney Marsh Internal Drainage Board (IDB) was not involved. He also asked for an enforceable decommissioning bond “rather than the Council relying on corporate goodwill 40 years from now”. 

Cllr David Wimble argued national policy requires protection of the “best and most versatile agricultural land”, and raised the practical issue of “grid connectivity”, warning that constrained networks can lead to “generation without delivery”. 

For the applicant, EnviroMena planner Stephen Bainbridge said the committee report showed “no technical objections” and “a robust suite of planning conditions”. He disputed claims about drainage evidence, saying “Of course, we know where the pipes are. I’ve got the map of them here,” and told councillors the connection point “is on the site”. 

The committee’s scrutiny: where members pushed hardest

Most of the detailed probing came from Cllr Paul Thomas (Ind) and Cllr Gary Fuller (Lib Dem).

   

Cllr Thomas challenged the scheme’s headline benefits, citing the Design and Access Statement claim that a 16MW scheme could power 10,600 homes and calling the implied “per home” figure “laughable”, arguing the presentation risked overstating benefits. 

He also focused on drainage and the proposed access works, pointing to drawings he said showed a bridge and culverts carrying the Clobstone Sewer, and asked why there was no condition requiring the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) to pre-approve designs and maintenance of inlet/outlet screens. 

Officers responded that the IDB had been consulted and raised no objection, and that planning conditions should not duplicate other regulatory regimes. That position aligns with government guidance cautioning against conditions that require compliance with separate regimes such as building regulations or other statutory controls.

Cllr Thomas also cited Kent Fire and Rescue comments—seven safety points—arguing only a small number were reflected in the report. Officers said the fire comments were “generic” and referenced battery storage, which is not part of this proposal. 

On grid connection, Cllr Thomas noted documents asserting the scheme benefits from a direct national grid connection, but asked why there was no certificate or confirmation proving it. Officers replied that the applicant said it had “Gate Two approval” and that, in any event, if there were no connection the scheme would not be built, meaning there would be no impacts. 

Cllr Fuller asked how long landscaping would take to “integrate”, queried wildlife lists and terminology, raised the risk of flooded ancillary equipment, and questioned irradiance/glint impacts on amenity. Officers replied that landscaping establishment is typically judged over years and maintained through the landscaping condition; Kent Ecology and Environmental Health had raised no objection; and the mitigation proposed was considered sufficient. 

Internal contradictions and tensions across the paperwork

Objectors repeatedly alleged inconsistencies “within the documents and across the documents”. The committee debate surfaced several areas where the narrative is, at minimum, under strain.

“No internal roads” versus “access tracks”
The officer report states that “No internal roads or hard surfaced footpaths are proposed,” emphasising minimal permanent surfacing. Yet the description of development includes “access tracks,” and members discussed passing places and road upgrades as part of construction management. The practical reality—temporary or not—is that vehicles and plant will require internal movement routes, and the documentation relies on definitions of what counts as a “road” versus a “track”.

“Avoid impacts on existing drainage systems” versus a new culverted access arrangement
Members raised the apparent conflict between policy language about avoiding culverting and drawings that, on their reading, involve culverts under a new or upgraded access crossing. Officers replied that the existing crossing is already culverted and the proposal is an “upgrade” that would also require IDB approval outside the planning system. The scheme may therefore be consistent with a “replace/upgrade existing culvert” approach, but the committee’s concern was that critical drainage functions could be affected during construction and in operation—precisely where the marsh is most sensitive. The report confirms the drainage context: Flood Zone 3 and major sewers bounding the site.

Grid connection: “immediate capacity” language versus “no planning requirement to prove it”
The report notes the Design and Access Statement claim of “immediate capacity” at the connection point. Yet the applicant’s update letter (summarised orally to members) said there is “no planning requirement” to provide grid connection proof and that limited weight should not be given to renewable benefits for lack of that proof. Officers then adopted the “if there is no connection, it won’t be built” logic. That argument is familiar in appeals and inquiries: some planning cases contend it is illogical to reduce weight for benefits if the scheme would not proceed without a connection. But other planning commentary and parliamentary material has argued that grid availability can be a significant factor in deliverability and location choice, and that decision-makers have struggled with how to weigh it.

In short: the paperwork asserts strong grid credentials, but the approval rests largely on conditions and a pragmatic assumption that commercial reality will govern delivery.

Agricultural land: national mapping versus the applicant’s survey
The report records that government mapping suggests the site “contains some Grade 2 land,” but officers rely on the applicant’s more detailed assessment concluding it is not best and most versatile and is instead Grade 3b. That is not a technical “contradiction” so much as a choice about evidence hierarchy: councillors were effectively asked to accept the applicant’s on-site work as the best available evidence, despite residents pointing to the visible productivity of winter wheat.

Ecology: “intensively farmed” baseline versus extensive bird lists
Officers describe the arable land as intensively farmed and therefore relatively inhospitable for habitat compared with margins and ditches. Yet the report also references bird surveys identifying 37 species, including multiple categories of concern, and relies on mitigation to conclude no significant harm. This can be coherent (a degraded baseline can still support sensitive species, and mitigation can still be judged adequate), but it is another area where residents felt the paperwork’s tone (“low value farmland”) sat uneasily alongside the detail.

“Finely balanced” recommendation and the scope for refusal
Several councillors noted that “balanced” officer language can imply the council could, if it chose, defend a refusal. Officers stressed that they considered visual harm but judged it outweighed. That judgement is at the heart of planning decision-making: weight is ultimately for the committee, provided it acts rationally and with regard to policy.

Was the application determined correctly?

On process, the meeting appears to have followed the conventional route: officers presented the update; objectors and applicant were heard; members asked detailed questions; a motion to approve was proposed and seconded; an additional condition was incorporated; and the committee voted.

The late addition of the soil management condition is also orthodox. Government guidance sets out the six tests for conditions—necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise, and reasonable—and warns against duplicating other regulatory regimes. The soil condition read into the meeting was extensive and, at least in intent, aimed at precisely the kind of construction-phase risks residents described (compaction, handling, drainage interfaces, reinstatement and monitoring).

On cumulative impact, officers repeatedly warned members they must not let pending NSIP schemes “cloud” their decision, even saying councillors “must pretend” those schemes “do not exist” for tonight’s purposes. That is a strong statement. In planning law, cumulative impacts can be a material consideration, but the weight to be given to uncertain future proposals is generally a matter of planning judgement, and decision-makers often give limited weight where the other projects are not yet committed. A recent High Court judgment on cumulative impact in a different context underlined that cumulative impact can be material, but also that weight is for the decision-maker.

Separately, in the NSIP regime itself, the Planning Inspectorate’s guidance expects cumulative effects assessments to consider “reasonably foreseeable” development. That does not compel a district committee to refuse or defer a separate TCPA application, but it does illustrate why residents see the marsh as a system: one scheme can change the baseline against which the next is judged.

On grid connection, the committee took officers’ line that planning is primarily about land use impacts and that a scheme without a viable connection would not be built. As noted above, that logic appears in planning advocacy and some appeal reasoning. Yet there is an emerging policy debate—reflected in parliamentary and planning commentary—about whether grid availability should carry more explicit weight in energy-infrastructure decisions.

What happens next

Now the decision has been made, attention shifts to discharge of conditions and to the separate consents and approvals the report highlights, including that planning permission does not grant Environmental Agency permits. 

Before work can lawfully start, the developer will need to submit and secure approval of key details, including the construction traffic management plan and the newly added soil management plan, alongside drainage and landscaping details.

For residents, the practical “next chapter” will be watched on three fronts: whether the promised technical controls are robust in practice; whether the connection and delivery claims translate into a scheme that actually generates and exports power; and whether this approval becomes part of the “baseline” for larger, Secretary of State–determined proposals.

Local coverage of the applicant and the wider Romney Marsh solar pipeline has already begun. The Shepway Vox Team has published material examining the applicant-side corporate picture and the development’s broader context. The account above relies on the publicly available committee documentation, council sources, and the committee transcript.

What is beyond dispute is the formal outcome: with the chair declaring, “That application has passed,” the St Mary’s Road solar farm now has planning permission—approved, on the night, by eight votes to four.

The Shepway Vox Team

Not Owned By Hedgefunds or Barons