Romney Marsh Solar Farms: FHDC Asked for a Cumulative Impact Rule That Already Existed

A non-lawyer councillor stopped Folkestone & Hythe District Council’s solar motion. Five minutes later, Chief Executive Dr Susan Priest read out the repair — but national policy and FHDC’s own papers already required cumulative effects to be assessed.

By The Shepway Vox Team

“It’s not. It’s not at our level. We can’t do it.”

With those nine words, Cllr Jackie Meade (pictured) pulled the handbrake on a Folkestone & Hythe District Council motion tabled by Cllr Alan Martin over three enormous solar schemes proposed across Romney Marsh.

The wording had already been altered before Full Council on Wednesday, 22 July and the agenda carried a supporting document entitled “Motions report v2 Planning comments”. Yet members became tangled over whether cumulative impacts could legally be treated as a planning consideration, and Chair Cllr Paul Thomas suspended proceedings for five minutes.

When they returned, Thomas handed over to Chief Executive Dr Susan Priest (pictured). She read the amended motion into the public record, including its demand that government should:

“change legislation so that cumulative impact can be treated as a material planning consideration on decisions that are made where numerous applications in an area come forward.”

It passed unanimously.

There’s one rather large fly in the solar ointment: cumulative effects can already be assessed under the national infrastructure regime, the Secretary of State is expected to weigh them, and host councils can put them before the Planning Inspectorate. FHDC’s own Chief Planning Officer had done that less than 24 hours earlier.

The council may therefore have adjourned to repair a muddled description of the law, only to return with its Chief Executive reading out a request for Parliament to create machinery already sitting in the rulebook.

A motion already on its second draft

Cllr Alan Martin (pictured) said Cllr Stephen Scoffham had suggested “valuable additions and suggestions” and a revised motion had been circulated before the meeting.

It called for a cap on Best and Most Versatile agricultural land converted to solar use and a national spatial strategy. But it still promised to “reaffirm that cumulative impact must be treated as a material planning consideration”.

The wording had survived drafting, publication, planning comments and a pre-meeting alteration.

Scoffham stressed he wasn’t opposing renewables, backing “the right solar in the right place”. His concern was the clustering of schemes around grid capacity, high-quality farmland and the absence of a national plan.

“What we’re looking at is a bonanza, a sort of dash of solar, a sort of modern gold rush.”

Villages don’t experience three sets of construction traffic separately because three developers have three application numbers. Roads, drains, farms and wildlife don’t read consultation timetables.

The Shepway Vox Team had already reported that FHDC intended to pursue cumulative effects through Relevant Representations, Local Impact Reports and Statements of Common Ground, urging the Planning Inspectorate to examine overlapping impacts together.

Meade spots the loose floorboard

Meade said she supported roughly 80% of the motion, then reached its opening proposition:

“The problem I have is the very first point. Reaffirm that cumulative impact must be treated as a material planning consideration. It’s not. It’s not at our level. We can’t do it.”

She proposed asking government to change the law and widening the demand beyond the current schemes because a fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh or eighth might follow.

Meade was right that FHDC won’t determine South Brooks Solar Farm, South Kent Energy Park or Shepway Energy Park as ordinary applications. The Planning Inspectorate examines them and the Secretary of State decides; FHDC participates as a host authority.

The original wording blurred those roles. But “FHDC isn’t the decision-maker” doesn’t mean cumulative impacts can’t be considered unless Parliament changes the law. Somewhere between those propositions, the planning compass began pointing towards the car park.

The rules already require it

Planning Inspectorate guidance says cumulative-effects assessment arises from environmental impact assessment law. Promoters must examine how their scheme combines with existing and approved projects.

The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy requires Environmental Statements to assess cumulative effects and says the Secretary of State should consider long-term and cumulative harm. EN-3 adds that where solar farms gather around grid capacity, applicants should consider the combined consequences of locating them near other generating stations and energy infrastructure.

Cumulative impact wasn’t waiting outside Parliament with its hat in its hand. It was already inside.

The real weaknesses concern which projects enter each assessment, whether promoters use compatible evidence and what weight the Secretary of State gives the combined harm.

FHDC had already done it

The most awkward evidence came from FHDC itself.

On 21 July, the evening before Full Council, its Planning Committee considered the Chief Planning Officer’s South Brooks report. It identified cumulative effects involving the other two solar NSIPs, the permitted Martens Farm solar park and the decommissioning of Dungeness.

Officers listed combined construction traffic, loss of Grade 1 and Grade 2 farmland, visual harm, effects on farming and tourism, heritage and homes. On agricultural land, the report said:

“The cumulative impact of the development, together with the other NSIP solar farm proposals, has not yet been fully assessed in relation to Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.”

That doesn’t say cumulative impact is legally invisible. It says the assessment is incomplete.

Cllr Jennifer Hollingsbee (pictured) reminded Full Council:

“The head of planning has been able to put that into a planning speak, if you like, to send a response to the government.”

“Planning speak” had identified cumulative effects on Tuesday. By Wednesday, councillors were being told legislation needed changing before they could be treated as a planning consideration.

Into the long grass

Martin welcomed Meade’s proposal as “a really good strengthening” and said:

“In fact, when we were drafting the motion, we knew that we’ve got no decision-making power anyway.”

He said the aim was to keep “ramming that message home”, suggesting the planning team’s wording might not be as strong as members wanted.

There’s nothing wrong with politicians wanting more welly than an officer’s report. But stronger wording isn’t stronger when it misdescribes the rules.

As the amendment was read aloud, the chamber became confused over which part remained. Martin accepted that “the first bit of the first bullet point” was wrong, but then said:

“And seeing we’re not a decision maker, I don’t see why we need to be bound by planning rules there because we’re representing our residents’ views and our views as members.”

That was rather like arriving at Lord’s with a football and arguing that the supporters’ feelings mattered more than the rules.

Thomas called the adjournment.

The Chief Executive reads the repair

Priest read the revised motion from beginning to end. Her involvement doesn’t prove she drafted it, supplied legal advice or vouched for every word; the five-minute discussion wasn’t public.

Even so, this wasn’t a councillor waving a scribbled note on the back of fag packet from the back row. The proposition emerged from an officer-supported adjournment and was formally delivered by FHDC’s Head of Paid Service before members adopted it unanimously.

The council had a Chief Executive, a statutory Monitoring Officer, Democratic Services, a Chief Planning Officer’s report and a document headed “Planning comments”. That’s quite a collection of belts, braces and spare string.

The institutional question remains: who checked the motion, who advised during the adjournment, and why did nobody publicly explain that cumulative effects were already part of the NSIP regime?

Meade deserves credit for spotting that something didn’t fit. The five-minute cure, however, doesn’t appear to have diagnosed the ailment correctly.

The real gap

The policy concern is genuine. Cumulative assessment can exist in law yet remain fragmented in practice. Promoters may use different baselines or devise mitigation project by project while the same roads, drains and landscapes carry the combined burden.

FHDC should demand a common baseline, joint traffic modelling, combined drainage work, coordinated landscape analysis and one assessment of the effects on farming, tourism, wildlife and settlements.

Those would be meaningful reforms. Asking Parliament to make cumulative impact visible when it’s already in the rules diagnoses absence where the real problem is fragmentation, inconsistency and uncertain weight.

Martin later called the solar process “chaotic and a little bit scary”.

For five minutes in the council chamber, the phrase fitted rather closer to home.

Read the guide first

The motion commits FHDC to producing a clear guide explaining how residents can take part in national infrastructure consultations.

That’s worthwhile. The process is awash with acronyms.

Before handing out its guide, FHDC should publish every version of the motion, the full planning comments and any legal or Monitoring Officer advice. It should identify who drafted the final wording and explain precisely what legislative power it believes is missing.

The council began with the right concern and confused wording. Meade found the loose floorboard, the meeting stopped, and the Chief Executive returned with the repair.

Unfortunately, the replacement plank appears to wobble too.

Unanimity can pass a motion. It can’t rewrite the law.

FHDC’s guide may help residents navigate the maze.

It’ll be more useful if the council reads it first.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness