Aldenham solar plant will impact 'Radlett to Elstree to Bushey'

We calculate there would be around 125,000 solar panels, each about 2 metres by 2.8 metres and mounted on stands in parallel rows across 20 fields, covering a total of 320 acres of agricultural land.

Plus there will be 20 shipping containers containing large industrial lithium-ion storage batteries – each with four external industrial air conditioning units running 24/7 and other large equipment including inverters and transformers spread across the fields, plus cabling between everything and a control room.

The whole site, which is essentially a huge industrial plant, will be fenced in with 2m high wire fencing and CCTV cameras, giving it the appearance of a prison camp.

This land between Letchmore Heath, Elstree and Radlett contains a number of well used public footpaths and bridleways and these will be fenced in on both sides, also with 2m high wire fencing and CCTV cameras.

The whole site area is within the Metropolitan Green Belt and this application would therefore be a totally inappropriate development in the green belt. It is agricultural land suitable – and currently used – for growing crops for animal and human consumption. It is around one third of all the agricultural land in the Parish of Aldenham.

The brown/grey fields near Letchmore Heath have been identified to build a solar farm on. Credit: Google Maps

The owners have stated that the solar plant will operate for at least 35 years, although this period could be extended by up to 10 further years. After that the equipment will be removed and disposed of (hopefully by recycling) but the land will never be returned to agriculture. So it will be lost for ever if the plant goes ahead.

Related: Aldenham Estate owner on why she wants to see solar farm on her land

The solar plant application documents (now over 100 of them!) include reports on how parts of the land can be returned to a wild state to increase biodiversity. There is no doubt that this could be achieved regardless of whether the application gets approval, perhaps as part of the new post CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) farming support systems being introduced by DEFRA over the next few years. The fields certainly do not need 35 or more years to “recover” from the excesses of the past 40 years of intensive farming encouraged by the CAP.

So, where will the electricity we need in future come from? Well here are some of the sources:

Nuclear power – new nuclear power plants are being built to replace those built in the 1950s and 60s. These can provide the “base load” needed for the grid so there is always electricity available.

Wind power – especially offshore such as in the North Sea. This is now providing a significant amount of power, sometimes 15 per cent of the total.

Tidal generation – still in experimental pilot stage but promising for the future.

Biomass generators – these use controlled burning of plant materials (with carbon capture).

Hydro-electric – plants are being built in Scotland and Wales plus “inter-connector” cables are being laid from Norway from hydro generators there.

Geo-thermal power – possible inter-connectors being considered from Iceland.

Solar PV panels – installed on domestic and industrial buildings plus alongside roads and floating on the sea. These produce electricity directly for the buildings, not into the grid. Solar panels are very inefficient in UK weather conditions (typically 12 per cent of quoted maximum capacity).

In addition, much better thermal insulation of homes and other buildings plus use of passive air and ground source heating systems will reduce the amount of electricity needed to heat buildings in future.

We are very concerned about how such a massive industrial project can be proposed under what is essentially the domestic planning system. We think such a huge project if needed at all should be part of a well considered long-term strategic plan and implemented by a specialist team of experts in energy generation and industrial projects.

Hertsmere’s planning team – as with every similar team in other councils – simply do not have the specialist expertise to be able to understand the technical details and implications of such an industrial scheme. They can – and presumably have – sought advice from various experts to help in their evaluation. They have also been helped considerably by literally hundreds of local residents who have spent many days and weeks pouring over the documents, speaking to the authors and discussing with independent experts to research the issues and provided detailed comments to the planners.

We have a democratic system in this country so we elect officials to represent the public view. This application has had far more objections than any other plan ever received by Hertsmere. We hope that this important factor is considered by the councillors and any officials working for the council and public.

Almost every consultee excluding those with a relationship to the applicant have opposed this scheme on historical, agricultural, environmental, flooding and technical issues.

The applicant has continued long after the closing date (in February) for public comments to send in dozens of new documents, revising, amending and changing the details of the project without any further opportunities for the public to comment again. Now, with all the changes, it is unclear what the exact details of the project are.

The most recent documents submitted make clear that from Radlett to Elstree to Bushey not even every household which will be affected by the intense glare from this project has even been informed, let alone the parents driving children to and from school and local commuters. The impact such a massive project would have on our community is still not understood by many of the people living here.

It must be rejected by Hertsmere.

Clive Glover

Radlett