The Development is Not Temporary


It is stated an “...operational lifespan of 40 years would be sought, after this point all elements of the Proposed Development will be removed form Site and the land restored to its original use” [QC, p10].  This construction will cost millions, and there is a view that it is extremely unlikely that the site will ever be returned to its “original use”.  It seems more plausible that the lease will be extended, failing which there is concern that the land could be left as contaminated wastelands, condemned for agricultural use.  “It is highly unlikely that the land could return to agriculture in 40 years time” [The problem with Solar Farms, Factors that should be considered in determining applications, page 2].

Considering the decommissioning process, it is unclear as to whether there are any legal enforceable mechanisms to ensure that Energy companies remove their Solar panels and infrastructure at the end of their lease.  It is conceivable that such an operation is not as attractive once the profits have been extracted from the site.  If the energy company, for what ever reason (e.g. out of business), fails to return the land to its “original use", who will absorb the costs for a rapidly deteriorating wasteland that is no longer safe for farming (let alone much else)?  It is not unimaginable that our wildlife and our future generations could be left vast swathes of barren contaminated wasteland.