South Brooks Solar Farm: FHDC Signals ‘Holding Objection’ Over Romney Marsh Risks

“It just feels a bit fait accompli.”

With those words, Cllr Adrian Lockwood (Lab – pictured) put his finger on the unease running through Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s Planning and Licensing Committee. At an extraordinary meeting on Tuesday 21 July, councillors considered the officer report on the proposed South Brooks Solar Farm Lydd against an awkward backdrop: national policy strongly favours large renewable-energy schemes, the Secretary of State will make the final decision, and Romney Marsh risks being asked to shoulder the burden before the evidence has caught up.

FHDC’s Head of Planning, Llywelyn Lloyd, answered with something stronger than the written recommendation. The council could issue a “holding objection”, he suggested, until the concerns in the report had been addressed.

In plain English: not an outright refusal, but certainly not a green light.

“There’s a lot more work for you to do and we’re not happy,” Lloyd explained. The proposal drew nods around the chamber, was accepted by the councillor moving the recommendation and her seconder, and appeared to have changed the political meaning of the council’s response.

South Brooks isn’t small potatoes. Blue Planet Solar Ltd (ultimately owned by EDF Energy) is proposing a 500MW solar farm spread across approximately 1,208 hectares near Lydd and south of New Romney — just 19 hectares smaller than Heathrow Airport’s 1,227-hectare airfield boundary, or roughly 98% of its size. It would include five principal land parcels, underground cables, battery storage, access tracks and up to two substations. Panels could reach 4.5 metres in flood-risk areas; substations could stand 15 metres high, with lightning-protection masts reaching 25 metres. Construction could last four years and the scheme would operate for 60.

Romney Marsh ward member Cllr Tony Hills (Con) didn’t mince his words.

He described South Brooks as “potential environmental vandalism” and called the Marsh “the gift from the sea”, shaped over more than a thousand years. “If it is compromised, it could be lost forever,” he warned.

For Hills, the nub of the matter was water. Climate change was making the management of flows increasingly difficult, he said, while South Brooks and the other schemes gathering on the horizon threatened “the very survival of the Romney Marsh as we know it”.

“We are playing with fire, or in this case water,” he added. He said he hadn’t met a single resident who supported the scheme, although that was his account rather than a formal survey.

The officer evidence gave his warning some backbone. Large parts of the site lie in Flood Zones 2 and 3. Beneath the fields sits a web of ditches, watercourses and historic drains, while high groundwater means surface water can’t simply be allowed to soak away. The applicant still has to complete detailed flood modelling, drainage work and climate-change projections, including the consequences of tidal-defence breaches and sea-level rise across the proposed operating life.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee (Con – pictured) then opened another front. Why 60 years, she asked, when 40 years is the typical period referred to in national policy? That was another 20 years without crops, she said, alongside four years of construction traffic, visual intrusion and unanswered questions over battery fires.

Officers acknowledged that 60-year solar consents had been granted elsewhere and could still be described as temporary because the land would eventually return to agriculture. But “temporary” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Sixty years is a working lifetime, several local-plan cycles and long enough for today’s schoolchildren to reach retirement before decommissioning begins.

The ground itself is among the best in the country. Surveys covering 812 hectares used mapping, soil pits and 406 auger borings. Of that area, 678 hectares — 84% — were provisionally identified as Best and Most Versatile farmland, meaning Grades 1, 2 or 3a. Almost 400 hectares of the overall site remain outside that completed survey area, so the final figure could climb higher.

The land-use figures were tucked away in the applicant’s biodiversity material. More than 600 hectares are used for cereal crops, with around 300 hectares under non-cereal crops or temporary grassland. Cllr Paul Thomas (Ind) called the potential loss of 600 hectares of crop-producing land “absolutely shocking”.

“It’s just not acceptable,” he said.

Traffic brought the temperature up another notch.

Cllr Polly Blakemore (Green) said peak construction could raise traffic volumes by about 30%, while heavy-vehicle traffic on the B2075 could increase by more than 87%. She wanted the council’s response “beefed up”, particularly because three large solar schemes could end up relying on the same modest road network.

Cllr Clive Goddard (Con) was blunter. The proposed access points were “terrible”, he said — “accidents, death, etc, etc, waiting to happen”. He also challenged proposed working hours of 7am to 7pm, warning that residents could face lorries arriving even earlier and waiting outside sites before the gates opened.

The applicant predicts up to 472 additional daily movements at peak construction, including 242 HGV journeys. Yet its Transport Assessment assumes a 24-month construction period, while other documents allow up to 48 months. That contradiction matters: spreading work over twice as long could alter traffic patterns, disruption and cumulative effects.

Cllr Thomas widened the lens. Dungeness A was already undergoing a ten-year boiler-removal programme, Dungeness B faced decades of decommissioning, and further solar proposals could pile more traffic onto the A259, Lydd Straight and Hammonds Corner.

“When you look at that and you look at how much traffic is gonna be on those roads, it’s unbelievable,” he said.

Drainage maps dating back to 1462 had been opened to the developer’s hydrologists, Thomas told the committee, so they could understand how the Marsh’s historic system had changed. That work was essential because disturbing old field boundaries, drains or watercourses could have consequences far beyond the trench being dug.

“This potentially could have a significant impact on the drainage of Romney Marsh,” he warned.

Battery storage added another sting. Officers said Kent Fire and Rescue Service would need to examine separation distances, access, fire containment and the management of contaminated firewater. Parcel C sits much closer to New Romney and Greatstone; the more isolated Parcel A may be safer, although its landscape and heritage effects would still need testing.

This wasn’t an anti-solar bunfight. Cllr Stephen Scoffham (Green – pictured) said new energy sources were “absolutely essential”, but argued that the country needed “the right solar in the right place”. Cllr Mike Blakemore (Green) echoed him: climate change couldn’t become an excuse for schemes “of the wrong scale or in the wrong place”.

Nor were councillors content with loose promises of jobs and cash. The developer’s proposed community fund could provide up to £200,000 a year, while construction might employ as many as 600 workers. Members wanted a better fund, local recruitment and legally enforceable commitments. As Cllr Mike Blakemore put it, “if this is going to go ahead, let’s get the best community fund we possibly can”.

Then came the sting in the tail.

Before the vote, Lloyd listed the additions councillors wanted: panel and substation heights, working hours, dangerous junctions, local jobs, tourism, food production, protected wildlife sites, battery fires, drainage, climate uncertainty and the full cumulative effect of Dungeness and other schemes. He also said the recommendation would include a holding objection. Cllr Hollingsbee and Cllr Mike Blakemore accepted the change.

But when Chair Jackie Meade (Chair – Lab – pictured) read the final motion aloud, the words “holding objection” weren’t there. The motion endorsed the report and authorised officers to include “the points raised and discussed this evening”. Nine councillors voted for it, one against and none abstained. The transcript doesn’t identify the dissenter.

That leaves one loose end flapping in the Marsh wind. Did the committee formally adopt Lloyd’s holding objection, with the Chair’s summary merely folding it into the evening’s agreed points? Or did the crucial wording fall between the debate and the vote?

The published minutes and FHDC’s final response to Blue Planet Solar will provide the answer. Until then, the message from the chamber is clear enough: the council isn’t opposing solar power, but South Brooks hasn’t yet proved it belongs here.