Wiltshire Council renews opposition to Lime Down Solar Park

Pro-solar Liberal Democrats were against the 'industrialisation' of the countryside. Pro-countryside Conservatives wanted to protect the rural landscape. Reform UK, later in the meeting, would call for the council's net zero targets to be scrapped completely, telling the Lib Dems: "you can't have it both ways."

The debate took place in the first 'normal' full council meeting since the May election – the first full council meeting, in June, had been all about deciding who would wield power. 

Around half the councillors were not in office when the solar scheme was last debated – so this was their first chance to have a say. 

Island Green Power, who were not in the council chamber for the debate, say the solar arrays would generate 500 megawatts of electricity - enough to power around 115,000 homes.

No councillor will get a vote on the scheme – due to the scale of the project it is deemed a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and planning permission will be granted or refused by Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Ed Miliband.

The debate - which ran for almost an hour and a half - heard that Lime Down Solar Park would cover an area between Malmesbury to the north and Chippenham to the south four miles wide, and two miles deep. 

Solar panels would stand at 4.5 metres tall – the height of a double decker bus, and a UK-first. 

A number of battery storage systems would be built. One would be the height of a five-storey building. 

A 20km cable to the substation at Melksham would require a corridor 60 metres wide. It would pass under the M4 and the Bristol to London railway line. 

For this reason, many councillors used the word "industrial" to describe the scale of the proposed development. 

Liberal Democrat councillors Martin Smith and Jon Atkey, who proposed the motion, said it would "create an industrialised landscape to evolve into a permanent scar on the county's countryside."

Cllr Smith (Sherston) said Lime Down is "no ordinary solar farm" and had particular ire for the developer's owner, Macquarie Group, which he said: "pretty much plundered £4 billion from Thames Water, effectively bankrupting them," and for the nine landowners  - some aristocrats - who will "benefit massively".

Cllr Atkey described the scheme as a "hostile takeover of our countryside" and called on colleagues to send a message to IGP, that: "development in Wiltshire must be shaped by the people who live here, not imposed in spite of them."

Council leader Ian Thorn said supporting the motion was "about democracy." 

"Local people who will be directly impacted by these proposals will have little or no say," he said.

He also criticised the developer for failing to engage with the council.   

Cllr Ed Rimmer (Reform, Salisbury Bemerton Heath) called the application "a vast developer-led scheme that threatens our countryside." 

Cllr Chuck Berry (Conservative, Minety) said that "certain garments do not suit certain bodies. "Rooftops, not crop tops," he said. 

Cllr Phil Alford (Conservative, Melksham Without) called it a "hideous blot on the landscape."

Cllr Bridget Wayman (Conservative, Nadder Valley) called for a moratorium on the building of all solar schemes and wind turbines in Wiltshire. 

And Cllr Chris Brautigam (Reform UK) said developers were only building solar farms because of "unjust subsidies" and, on net zero, said: "the science is not fixed."

The motion called for the council:

• To confirm its decision to strongly oppose the proposed Lime Down Solar Park scheme, based on the planning reasons previously given by Council, recognising the requirement of the Council to assist the applicant and for officers to remain even handed throughout the process
• To note that the Council has previously requested that IGP’s statutory consultation exercise should be repeated.
• To ask the Leader to formally write to IGP and the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) drawing attention to the serious inadequacies of IGP’s statutory and ‘targeted’ consultation exercises, calling for them to be repeated with all consultation open to the general public.
• To continue close co-operation with all interested parties including the representatives of SLD, their consultants and advisors as well as other Lime Down groups (for or against) in a balanced way to ensure that Council can continue to be an independent and objective body. 

It passed 85 to nil, with six abstentions.