Login Register

20-hectare solar energy park proposal for farmland in Lincolnshire

By East Lindsey Target  |  Posted: July 11, 2012

SUN POWER: A new Solar Park is proposed for Croft by Juwi Renewable Energies Limited, similar to this pictured, which will enable sheep to graze the land while it is in use. (Picture supplied)

Comments (0)

A NEW renewable energy project is proposed in Croft, which will produce electricity by harnessing the power of the sun.

Juwi Renewable Energies Limited has submitted plans for a Solar Park on land at The Hollies in Croft to East Lindsey District Council.

If approved, the development would consist of 42,000 photovoltaic cells, similar to those used on residential buildings, which would produce enough electricity to power 1,820 homes.

Head of acquisition at Juwi, Richard Seaman, said: "When there was the first big rush for solar power most people were going for high radiation areas such as Cornwall. But the Lincolnshire coast also has good radiation.

Related content

"The point with solar is it's less intrusive, it's aesthetically more pleasing.

"Although it's a vast area, the actual panels are tilted to around 800mm off the ground at the bottom and 2.2-2.5-metres high at the top edge."

The site lies 100-metres north of the existing Hollies Wind Farm and the solar park would be constructed on a 35-hectare area of Grade Three agricultural land. It is proposed the actual panels will take up just 19.5 hectares and that the land underneath will provide significant sheep grazing.

The Hollies site has been carefully selected because of its southerly aspect and open landscape but the developers say the park will be completely screened from passers by.

The electricity produced will be transferred to the National Grid via an underground cable from the application site to an existing overhead line within the landholding.

Mr Seaman, added: "We are only using Grade Three to Five land, we don't want to take good land out of the food cycle. With this, the PV park can cohabit with agricultural use well so you can still have sheep grazing on there so the farmer can still use that land.

"From the point of view of Skegness, people associate it with being bracing. We are hoping people will be able to say it's got to be sunny because it's got a solar park, so there's maybe some news for tourism there."

If approved, construction is expected to start in September and be up and running by the end of the year.

Chairman of Lincolnshire County Council's Environmental Scrutiny Committee, Colin Davie, said solar panels were one form of renewable energy the authority supports.

He said: "I am supportive of solar in principle, provided the routing of the power to the network is underground and doesn't involve any additional cabling.

"We believe Lincolnshire should press ahead on renewables in the right location and we favour solar over wind any day of the week."

Read more from East Lindsey Target

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • DufferBadge  |  July 12 2012, 2:26PM

    Hi eatmygoal "All need to be given equal consideration though" Yes there have been studies that have argued against climate change but these have been overturned by subsequent research. The evidence stated to refute climate change tends to be either out of date or come from a non-scientific source e.g. Heartland Institute, Lord Moncton etc. so I don't agree that they should be given equal consideration - in the same way I don't think that Creationist "theory" should be given equal consideration to the Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately the vigorous lobbying of climate change sceptics and poor reporting by mainstream press (the Daily Mail have admitted then run stories that they know are rubbish, just because it stirs up a good reaction) mean that perfectly reasonable people like NigelSparky would rather believe sources with no scientific background or proper research, over someone who has studied for years and actually knows a thing or two about the subject.

    |   2
  • Mr_Sneer  |  July 12 2012, 1:57PM

    "as over the last few years the renewable energy industry has also become a multi billion pound industry." Indeed. Just ask Al Gore who used some of his vast wealth to purchase a Malibu beach front property, whilst simultaneously pontificating about the dire consequences of rising sea levels. Still, even if the do rise, we can't blame him... he offsets the damage of his extravagant lifestyle by buying carbon credits from himself. Suckers! :D

    |   -3
  • eatmygoal  |  July 12 2012, 12:03PM

    The fact that science and has been wrong before and constantly shifts is true. However to hope that this is the case alone is naive. But what you have highlighted is a lovely problem thrown up by the media. Firstly the well known Daily Mail issue of grouping everything by whether it causes or cures cancer "for example too many cups of coffee in a day will increase your chances of cancer, which is bordering on scaremongering". It is scaremongering and probably never said such a thing or was a rogue group getting noticed against those boring ones they say it is fine. Secondly The claim that a 4-minute mile was impossible as told by scientists was and is a widely propagated myth created by sportswriters and debunked by Bannister himself in his memoir. That is why we have to be careful in drawing conclusions for an against climate change simply from the media alone. Dufferbadge, there are a number of studies which do show climate change but there are those against. All need to be given equal consideration though.

  • nigelsparky  |  July 12 2012, 11:05AM

    Hi Duffer hope you are ok. Like I said before duffer theories by a group of scientists are, in my opinion supposition, no hard facts or evidence. I was listening to a radio programme the other day, regarding Roger Bannister and the 4 minute mile, whereby a group of scientists of the day ,gave a consensus of theories that was widely accepted at the time, that the human body could not stand the and stresses and strains etc. that it would have to endure to run a sub 4 minute mile. Athletes now regularly run the mile some 30 seconds below 4 minutes. There are many other theories that the scientists come out with on a daily basis, that people do dismiss quite readily, for example too many cups of coffee in a day will increase your chances of cancer, which is bordering on scaremongering. It does puzzle me as to why so many people though, readily accept the climate change theory which like it or not is based pure supposition. I here what you are saying regarding the oil companies having a vested interest, and I don't doubt that they will do whatever it takes to discredit people in order to try and protect their business interests. However the same could be said of the renewable energy companies, as over the last few years the renewable energy industry has also become a multi billion pound industry. This can and does apply to the scientists too, as various universities and groups have had their funding cut because they don't subscribe to the climate change theories, whilst others have won additional funding because they do subscribe to these theories. Don't get me wrong I think scientists do a fantastic job and quite often there theories are proved in time to be correct, however until such time when the evidence is produced, I shall remain very sceptical.

    |   5
  • Gnome_Chomsky  |  July 12 2012, 12:01AM

    DufferBadge - Had you not realised that science has been largely disproved by Christianity, using evidence of Divine intervention from the fossil record to prove that God invented dinosaurs to explain stuff to stupid people?

    |   -5
  • DufferBadge  |  July 11 2012, 10:34PM

    Hi Nigelsparky - sorry here to correct you again on this. Climate change is not based on supposition. There have been numerous studies over the last few years that have tested the theories around the issue and the general agreement among scientists is that yes it does exist. The naysayers tend to be either people with a vested interest in not doing anything about it (e.g. oil companies) or people who don't want to believe something like this is happening and are quite happy to deny the opinion of scientists who have spent years studying the subject.

    |   -5
  • eatmygoal  |  July 11 2012, 3:23PM

    "Of course there has been no warming for 14years, hence now called climate change" This contrasts with the Grantham Research Institute who say "But what 'sceptics' always fail to point out is that, based on their logic, manmade global warming has actually 'stopped' nine times since 1970, in 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995, 1996 and 1997. And they fail to mention that the underlying anthropogenic warming trend is clear and unambiguous when temperature data for the past four decades are taken into account." I am not decided on the matter but interested in balance. However some of the renewable projects are at best laughable and at worst corrosive to helping with dealing seriously with climate change if this is their issue. Green Taxes are the worst of all measures.

    |   7
  • Lincsl200  |  July 11 2012, 2:46PM

    I think thats a bit unfair..... Renwable energy is as much about preserving fossil fuel supplies as it is about climate change.

  • nigelsparky  |  July 11 2012, 1:41PM

    Hiya fragpig yes it's meeeeeeeeeee the childish one!!!! Not quite grown up yet as you can see. Woa!! Before you start on me, I happen to agree with you on this one. Wind turbines and the whole renewable energy thing is an absolute scam. The cost in monetary terms is huge and yes without the subsidies it just wouldn't happen. Wind energy certainly is the most ineffective form of electricity generation there is. I have written many posts on this subject with facts and figures and how much electricity they generate, but unfortunately fraggy a lot of people have bought into the climate change thing and are blinded with the "we have to save the planet from the impending doom that awaits us". All this climate change, as I have said many times before, is based on complete supposition, no hard evidence has ever been produced. Climates never stand still and have always been changing since the start of time, long before man came along.

    |   -3
  • Fragpig2  |  July 11 2012, 9:49AM

    Why does no one point out how little electricity this produces. The only way this travesty will go ahead is because of the numerous subsidies paid to the companies involved. Essentially tax payers are paying for the subsidies and also through green taxes on their gas/electric. If Juwi Renewable had to pay for everything out of its own pocket it would not be cost effective. What we have here is venture capitalists raking in government (our) money and producing a token amount of electricity. Onshore wind electricity costs twice as much as gas power station and offshore 3 times as much, they can only operate through subsidies, they of course all require 100% back from coal/gas as the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. We need to start extracting the shale gas, they do it in America safely with no problems (Gasland was propoganda, that tap could be lit prior to fracking, check it out). Americas gas price has halved. We are going to run out of energy as we are going and people will freeze and die. A survey of MP's via The telegraph showed none have any idea how we can cut CO2 by 80% which they bound us to. Renewables just can't do it, we need shale and nuclear and investment. Of course there has been no warming for 14years, hence now called climate change, its funny how the only prediction of manmade calamity comes from computer models, whose every prediction so far with regard sea level and temp has been proved wrong by a very large margin.

    |   -3