On 15 Apr 2013 at 6:23am Cuban Raft Rider wrote:
I'm all for green alternative energy but would also rather have fields of green to look out on rather than a sea of shiny black made of plastic and chemicals. It does not seem to matter that the area is part of the south Downs National Park.
Check it out here »
On 15 Apr 2013 at 2:05pm Brainiac wrote:
You'll need to provide the application number. You don't appear to be able to link directly to the application itself.
On 15 Apr 2013 at 2:44pm Fairmeadow wrote:
SDNP/13/01071.
Roughly 70,000 solar panels proposed for the SDNP fields just below Malling Down.
Who on earth would think that might be a good idea???
Oh yes, a subsidy farmer anxious to grab a share of your rising electricity bills.
On 15 Apr 2013 at 3:17pm Cuban Raft Rider wrote:
It appears that the SDNP website does not allow you to follow links in to documents.
Planning application ref : SDNP/13/01071/SCREEN | 15 MWp Solar farm | Upper Stoneham Farm Upper Stoneham Ringmer Lewes East Sussex BN8 5RH
On 15 Apr 2013 at 5:45pm Sussex Jim wrote:
This is not the Arizona desert, where nobody lives. Solar panels are a good idea; but in rural Sussex they should only be placed where the landscape is already disfigured, like on existing roofs.
On 15 Apr 2013 at 8:31pm Peter wrote:
Save the planet, go green and thumbs up !
On 15 Apr 2013 at 10:01pm Deelite wrote:
It's huge! And the public consultation period has passed. Something is very awry if the public consultation period for something as controversial as this can pass without anyone knowing about it. What has happened to our local media? Or maybe I was the only uninformed one?
On 15 Apr 2013 at 11:40pm Be bop. wrote:
Ok, if you don't want a solar farm, then we will need an alternative... How about a gas fired power station from fracking? or coal, or nuclear? As no one seems to be willing to turn all those unused electrical gadgets off and save energy. It's got to come from some where. Wind? Oh no, most people already made their point about that. Ok, waste to energy plant? No people had problems with that as well. Back to the cave and rubbing sticks together then.
On 16 Apr 2013 at 6:57am Deelite wrote:
It's the location and lack of publicity that's causing concern, not the creation of a solar farm in itself.
On 16 Apr 2013 at 7:45am Cuban Raft Rider wrote:
There is something seriously wrong with the process here, perhaps it's an April fools that they forgot to take down off the site.
Tnx to Be Bop for waving the inflammatory alternative suggestion around of fracking, grow up and look around you . We live by the sea a with a tidal river. It's electricity generation not rocket science
On 16 Apr 2013 at 11:38am Nixon Scraypes wrote:
I'm glad fracking has been mentioned.Apart from the horrendous amount of harmful chemicals used they also need millions of gallons of fresh water.In dry weather we have hose pipe bans,where are they going to get the water for fracking?No, the question is where are we going to get water from.Big corporations don't have those problems,substantial donations,promises of directorships always smooth the way.It's all to stop" climate change",a theory a lot of people on the forum subscribe to.What I can't understand is why no one draws attention to the aerosol trails in the sky that fan out and cover the sky in a milky haze. It's real,you can see it if you look up from your mobile phone.It's called geo-engineering
On 16 Apr 2013 at 11:48am NutterAlert wrote:
Nutter Alert...Nutter Alert...Nutter Alert.. (Repeat as many times as you need to)
On 16 Apr 2013 at 12:04pm Cuban Raft Rider wrote:
A letter from Vogt Solar to nearby residents says "Public meetings will take place on Monday 29th April at Lewes Town Hall from 3 to 8 pm and then on Wednesday 8th May at Ringmer Village Hall also from 3 to 8 pm"
I am with Nixon Scraypes that as a modern human being I deny all involvement with the advancement of our species, deny all need to use any innovation or engineering achievement, shun all those that strive to technically develop. Plus, any impact beyond the temporary the erection of straw dwellings and the widening of paths made by mountain goats is the fault of all those except my me and my Luddite clan
On 16 Apr 2013 at 12:11pm grafter wrote:
Nixon, have you been reading the unibomber manifesto again?
On 16 Apr 2013 at 3:00pm Rupert Bear wrote:
Deelite, by 'location' do you mean not in my back yard by any chance?
Agree with the lack of publicity though, everyone should be allowed their say, even if it's wrong!
On 16 Apr 2013 at 5:00pm Deelite wrote:
No, I didn't. I meant location.
As it happens I'm not entirely sure it is a bad location (it can't be seen from pretty much all of Lewes can it?). It needs a fair few trees round it though. Slightly unfortunate that appropriate trees will take 100 years to grow to the right size. :-)
On 16 Apr 2013 at 11:15pm Fairmeadow wrote:
... and the trees will then shade out the light.
The SDNP 'application' was just a formal request that a future planning application would not need to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). EIAs cost a lot of money. The SDNP decision was that an EIA will be needed if the application is to go ahead. No consultation with the public because the public are not supposed to know whether or not an EIA is needed.
On 16 Apr 2013 at 11:22pm Deelite wrote:
Ah, that explains it then. BTW the sun is in the sky and at it's strongest to the south. In some situations it can be quite simple to shield something like this from most viewpoints using big trees. As people don't generally live on the sun well placed trees can shield the panels from humans whilst leaving them open to receive the sun's rays.
On 16 Apr 2013 at 11:50pm expat two wrote:
Going back to Nixon's post, are you guys aware that the Canadians have classed fracking protestors as terrorists and affords them the same legal status and intelligence attention as suicide bombers?
Gotta love fundamentalist Conservatives eh?
On 17 Apr 2013 at 11:30am Fairmeadow wrote:
Actually Deelite the sun progresses from the east to the south to the west, and efficient solar panels require a clear view in all these directions. In the case of Upper Stoneham Farm the key landscape views are from the Downs (and the B2192), both to the south and on higher ground.
On 17 Apr 2013 at 12:21pm Deelite wrote:
Your patronising tone does not become you Fairmeadow. I'd have to be very simple to not to know the sun rose in the east and set in the west. As you can see from my posts I am not simple.
It looks to me that there is a reasonable possibility that the plot could be protected from being seen from all points *but* the south by the placement of tall trees. If these trees were placed some distance from the panels to the east, west and north they would only block out the sun very early in the morning and very late in the afternoon. At these times the energy gained from the sun is so small compared to when it is at it's height in the south it is negligible.
If it comes down to choice I'd rather it was seen from a little used plot of land like the South Down in front of it than say, the whole of Lewes town.
And it seems damn site more useful than that other ugly mess recently added to the South Downs landscape to home a second rate team from a vastly overrated sport.
On 18 Apr 2013 at 3:58pm Fairmeadow wrote:
Perhaps the stadium could be roofed with solar panels?
They would certainly make good roofing for the vast number of agricultural sheds that litter the ountryside.
Sorry Deelite, tone wasn't intended to be patronising; rather to indicate that for good efficiency panels need sun for as much time as they can get.
On 18 Apr 2013 at 7:25pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Deelite, the vastly overrated sport keeps the proletariat busy at weekends, and is over the hill out of sight and mind in Sodom and Gomorrah (sorry- Brighton).
Remember- the devil finds work for idle hands.