The Dorset Wildlife Trust (DWT) launched a campaign to stop the development of Rampisham Down as a solar park in February 2015. As part of that campaign, the DWT also suggested that an alternative site had been found.
The alternative site is an important ancient national monument and does not have planning permission for a solar park. In addition, the alternative site does not have the previous industrial use as a brownfield site.
Without the proactive investment of British Solar Renewables (BSR) in developing Rampisham Down as a solar park, the additional landscape benefits for local people are unlikely to be delivered. Costs for removal of the remaining masts are estimated at £600,000. In addition, thousands of tons of concrete remain buried below ground making the land unsuitable for farming.
BSR does not plan to conduct major groundwork excavations to remove the underlying concrete ground works as this will create more disturbance to the soil structure. At the same time, BSR recognizes the area as an SSSI and has a strong track record of delivering wildlife benefits.
Despite this, the RSPB SW also supported the DWT campaign via twitter and social media.
When questioned about this, RSPB SW press officer, Tony Whitehead, said that the RSPB was supportive of solar parks but was also supportive of the Dorset Wildlife Trust campaign. Why? RSPB SW has links to the Dorset Wildlife Trust via Miles King, a freelance consultant working at RSPB Lodge Hill and Natural England.
The RSPB SW pointed to the BRE National Solar Centre Biodiversity Guidance for Solar Developments as the best practice.
This is surprising as this report was produced in consultation with several wildlife charities, including Buglife, Eden, The National Trust, Plantlife and the RSPB.
John Feltwell, Trustee of Buglife was a lead consultant on this report and has been working in conjunction with British Solar Renewables for some time. In addition, British Solar Renewables was a founding partner of the BRE National Solar Centre at the Eden project which develops the national guidelines.
More significantly, within this BRE National Solar Centre report, there is a case study for the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust. The Wiltshire Wildlife Trust developed a solar park on their land as they recognized the benefits to wildlife.
Therefore, the Wildlife Trusts, a national charity, has led a high profile campaign against a renewable energy solar park and turned public opinion against BSR (over 10,000 signatures gathered) despite one of their Wildlife Trusts investing in a solar park on their own in-trust land.
The Dorset Wildlife Trust campaign did considerable damage to public opinion of solar parks, and turned ordinary households against this technology, thus helping the oil and gas industry. It will take thousands of pounds of marketing effort to regain consumer trust in solar parks by the solar industry.
In the 2000’s, the CPRE led similar campaigns against wind turbines. Now the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts are doing similar damage to public opinion for renewable energy, which leads one to question what their motives really are.
Instead of working with the public to promote renewable energy to tackle climate change, the Wildlife Trusts and RSPB have whipped up public opinion that gains them publicity in the guise of caring for wildlife, and consequently pitching renewable energy against wildlife.
Having worked in marketing for over 25 years, and witnessed how the multinational machine, from supermarkets to banks, manipulates charities and communications for its own gain, time and time again, this is very sad to witness.
The solar industry and wildlife charities are on the same side.
Another negative sentiment gaining ground from anonymous letters written to local papers is that solar parks are an eyesore and a waste of productive farmland. Someone is suggesting that solar parks are detrimental to local food production. Again this is stupid thinking, as renewable energy has a great deal to offer to farmers.
Renewable energy (i.e. wind and solar) helps to support traditional family farmers such as at South Torfrey Farm, by providing an additional income stream and thus protects the land from being sold off to property developers. Traditional family farmers provide our rich heritage of local food vs imported food so are also on the same side as renewable energy. Many of the solar PV installations are on barn roofs and less productive land.
The real damage being done to the countryside is from property developers, road building, transport, oil and gas, and multinational supermarkets.
The sooner the Wildlife Trusts, RSPB and CPRE recognize this the better.
Alison Fogg – Wildlife campaigner.
March 2015 https://www.lanteglos.org.uk/blog/
