“Natural England is committed to working closely with the developer and the local planning authority to ensure that, if planning permission is granted, the development will take place in ways that minimise any impact on the natural environment.” (NE, speaking on their web site about British Solar Renewables, West Dorset District Council, Rampisham Down, and its wildlife.)
Rampisham Down was purchased by the Higher Hill Farm Partnership over two years ago as a brownfield site with SNCI status and an environmental management plan in place. It had all the infrastructure in place to comply with the government’s recommendations for renewable energy developments so British Solar Renewables began the planning process for a solar park which would include the management of the derelict site to enhance the rather run-down habitat and improve its biodiversity. BSR were at that time working closely with Dorset Wildlife Trust on the environmental management plans for this site and other solar parks in East Dorset. They were discussing using them as part of DWT’s Living Landscapes programme and everyone was looking forward to the opportunities this would bring for ecological study and improvement of habitat. Indeed, BSR were asked by Dorset Wildlife Trust to help improve a heathland SSSI as part of a solar development at Parley Court near Bournemouth, and BSR agreed to fund the purchase of more of that land for approximately £375K, thereby further enhancing the habitat.
Rather late on into the planning process, NE designated the site as SSSI. Dorset Wildlife Trust immediately changed their position and since then, despite professing to be ‘working closely with the developer’, both organisations have refused to engage with the scientific evidence, which puts the owner of the site and the developer in an invidious position.
Various bloggers, including representatives of both the RSPB and DWT, began a public campaign comprised of information that is at times very misleading, innacurate and on at least one occasion, unnecessarily hurtful. In one post, Miles King takes Professor Sir Ghillean Prance (ex-Director of Kew Gardens) to task for his religious views, and pokes fun at his Christian beliefs. He uses a man’s faith to discredit a world-renowned botanist and dismiss his considered opinion. He also suggests that Angus Macdonald grows acres of maize on his Somerset farm for the biomass industry. Angus Macdonald is fundamentally opposed to the growing of first generation crops for the production of energy. Blogger Mike MacCarthy’s piece in the ‘Independent’ is almost entirely factually inaccurate; that it passes as journalism, let alone science, discredits that whole profession. (These factually inaccurate blogs are available on the BSBI web site, which is also surprising.)
The DWT public campaign is called ‘Save Rampisham Down’ – but from what? The case for refusal of planning permission depended upon DWT/NE proving the proposed activity would cause irreparable harm to a very special site, hence their regular use of pictures of nodding wildflowers, rare fungi and adders accompanied by words like ‘destroy’. In fact, under the watchful eye of DWT themselves, the site has degraded to the point where overgrowth of the lowland acid grass is stifling the growth of the very species we are all trying to preserve. The evidence presented to the planning committee by both sides did not support the DWT/NE case and permission to develop and improve this site was unanimously granted to British Solar Renewables.
Despite being ‘completely destroyed’ in the early 1980’s, the land has been slowly recovering. It came to the notice of Dorset County Council who in 1996 designated it SNCI. The BBC left in 2011. In the intervening years, despite its SNCI designation and the environmental management plan drawn up with DWT, the land was regularly sprayed with broad-leaf weed killer, used as a rubbish tip for food waste, otherwise generally abused and ignored until plans for its revitalization were put forward by BSR. In the summer of 2013, it came to the attention of Natural England who wanted to block the solar park so designated it as SSSI. But the degraded site did not fit under any of their existing categories, so they made one up at the last minute, a point not lost on the planning committee. NE created a new category as a knee-jerk reaction to block the development.
If Natural England would make good the statement on their website, this would be a four-way winning situation – for the site, its wildlife, the community and the environment. But their volte-face in this case demonstrates how problematic this designation can be for the communities who have the misfortune to live nearby. The very popular plans for the regeneration of the site, the enhancement of its ecology, the benefits to the local economy and the production of renewable energy have now been put on hold.
Hannah Lovegrove
