Object

Representation ID: 4297

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Topcroft Parish Council

Developers can therefore use the document to justify an application in an area that is considered less sensitive to their proposals

Object

Representation ID: 4298

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Topcroft Parish Council

In general terms Rural River Valley LCAs (e.g. Market Lane, Shotesham and Fairstead Lane, Hempnall) are considered more sensitive to solar PV proposals than plateau farmland LCAs (e.g. the area around Tivetshall / Great Moulton). Therefore the danger for all of us fighting the East Pye proposal in its entirety is that while it may help some parishes to build a case for certain fields to be excluded the developer could seek to replace those lost fields by including extra sites elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 4302

Received: 30/07/2025

Respondent: Saxlingham Nethergate Parish Council

Number of people: 3

The aim of the study is to provide guidance for those seeking to identify suitable sites for the location of energy generation, storage and transmission projects.

Developers can therefore use the document to justify an application in an area that is considered less sensitive to their proposals

Object

Representation ID: 4303

Received: 30/07/2025

Respondent: Saxlingham Nethergate Parish Council

Number of people: 3

A key objective is to: "assess the landscape susceptibility of different types and scales of energy development/infrastructure in relation to the seven generic landscape types identified in the district (A: Rural River Valley, B: Tributary Farmland, C: Tributary Farmland with Parkland, D: Settled Plateau Farmland, and E: Plateau Farmland, F: Valley Urban Fringe and G: Fringe Farmland)) as defined in the South Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment , along with the 20 geographically discrete landscape character areas identified in the assessment."

In general terms Rural River Valley LCAs (e.g. Market Lane, Shotesham and Fairstead Lane, Hempnall) are considered more sensitive to solar PV proposals than plateau farmland LCAs (e.g. the area around Tivetshall / Great Moulton). Therefore the danger for all of us fighting the East Pye proposal in its entirety is that while it may help some parishes to build a case for certain fields to be excluded the developer could seek to replace those lost fields by including extra sites elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 4306

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council

The stated aim of the document is to provide guidance for those seeking to identify suitable sites for the location of energy generation, storage and transmission projects and although the SPD study says it relates to the following solar photovoltaic schemes: "small scale up to 5MW, medium-field scale up to 15MW, and larger-scale 15to 50MW” it also says that the funding for the project: "has enabled the council to commission a study to assess the sensitivities and capacities of the various landscapes of South Norfolk district to accommodate energy-related NSIP and non-NSIP projects." So, there is a reference to it being relevant to NSIP schemes.

We consider that while the document may be appropriate for smaller scale schemes determined by the local planning authority, we fear that some aspects of the SPD could be used by NSIP developers to facilitate their mega solar projects.

In order to clarify the scope of the document to avoid potential unwarranted interpretations it should be clearly stated that this document is only relevant to planning decisions made by the local planning authority and is not to be applied to NSIP schemes.

Object

Representation ID: 4307

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Hempnall Parish Council

A key objective of the SPD is to: "assess the landscape susceptibility of different types and scales of energy development/infrastructure in relation to the seven generic landscape types identified in the district (A: Rural River Valley, B: Tributary Farmland, C: Tributary Farmland with Parkland, D: Settled Plateau Farmland, and E: Plateau Farmland, F: Valley Urban Fringe and G: Fringe Farmland)) as defined in the South Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment , along with the 20 geographically discrete landscape character areas identified in the assessment."

This could provide useful guidance for small scale developments but there is a danger that NSIP developers could exploit references to less sensitive sites, particularly if they are excluded from areas of higher landscape value. The problem we foresee for those of us fighting the East Pye proposal in its entirety, is that it might help some parishes to build a case for certain fields to be excluded but then the developer could seek to replace those lost fields by including extra sites elsewhere.

Therefore, it is really important that the SPD clearly states that it is not applicable to NSIP applications.

Object

Representation ID: 4355

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Broads Authority

1.5.2 this section sets out the study area and states ‘excluding areas within the Norwich City administrative boundary’. Should it add ‘and excludes the area within the Broads Authority Executive Area where the Broads Authority act as the Local Planning Authority’, to make clear why the area to the east is excluded?

Support

Representation ID: 4366

Received: 31/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

The stated aim of the document is to provide guidance for those seeking to identify suitable sites for the location of energy generation, storage and transmission projects and although the SPD study says it relates to the following solar photovoltaic schemes: "small scale up to 5MW, medium-field scale up to 15MW, and larger-scale 15to 50MW”, it also states that funding for the project: "has enabled the council to commission a study to assess the sensitivities and capacities of the various landscapes of South Norfolk district to accommodate energy-related NSIP and non-NSIP projects." So, there is a reference to it being relevant to NSIP schemes.
CPRE Norfolk - The countryside charity. Page 2
Registered charity number 210706. The CPRE logo is a registered trademark.
We consider that while the document may be appropriate for smaller scale schemes determined by the local planning authority, we fear that some aspects of the SPD could be used by NSIP developers to facilitate their mega solar projects.
In order to clarify the scope of the document to avoid potential unwarranted interpretations it should be clearly stated that this document is only relevant to planning decisions made by the local planning authority for schemes with a size of up to 50MW and is not to be applied to NSIP schemes.
A key objective of the SPD is to: "assess the landscape susceptibility of different types and scales of energy development/infrastructure in relation to the seven generic landscape types identified in the district (A: Rural River Valley, B: Tributary Farmland, C: Tributary Farmland with Parkland, D: Settled Plateau Farmland, and E: Plateau Farmland, F: Valley Urban Fringe and G: Fringe Farmland)) as defined in the South Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment , along with the 20 geographically discrete landscape character areas identified in the assessment. "
This could provide useful guidance for small scale developments but there is a danger that NSIP developers could exploit references to less sensitive sites, particularly if they are excluded from areas of higher landscape value. The problem CPRE Norfolk foresee for those who are campaigning against NSIPs proposals as a whole, is that it might help some parishes to build a case for certain fields to be excluded but then the developer could seek to replace those lost fields by including extra sites elsewhere.
Therefore, it is really important that the SPD clearly states that it is not applicable to NSIP applications