Kay Green with a book produced by her publishing house, Early Works Press.
Solar Panels in the Country Park – ecology or politics? III
Hastings Borough Council (HBC) passed a resolution at the Cabinet meeting on 7 January to spend up to £80,000 investigating whether to install three solar farms, two in Hastings Country Park and one in Upper Wilting Farm in Crowhurst. In this third interview HOT’s Chandra Masoliver asks Kay Green, publisher, bookseller and blogger, her opinion of this proposal, and the public’s reaction to it. Kay is a active member of the local Labour Party, currently helping to set up the Labour Women’s Forum to increase the party’s involvement with local and community-based campaigns.
CM: Are you in favour of installing solar panels?
KG: That’s actually quite a hard question to answer. I suspect many solar panels shouldn’t be necessary. I suspect if we’d had a government that took all our environmental and energy problems seriously, we would be using less energy, using it more efficiently, and we’d be a long, long way ahead of where we are today. We’d be using things like tidal and wind energy, but unfortunately our government appears to be made up of people who benefit, one way or another, from fossil fuel companies, and people who simply don’t realise how urgently we need to change.
But, as things stand, I appreciate that Hastings needs to try out every conceivable idea that might either reduce our shameful dependency on dirty fuel or reduce the fuel bills for a constituency where many people are really struggling, and many more see their household finances teetering at the ‘just hanging on’ stage.
One of the problems of having a government of millionaires is that they simply don’t notice things like the frustration of over-charged tenants who can’t use their roofs to cut energy bills because their roofs aren’t their own property.
What do you think of HBC’s chosen site in the Country Park, and should they be more consultative as to suitable sites?
Oh my – I’m glad you asked that question, because it’s precisely the question hundreds of people have been agonising over in pubs and social media, and reading in the local papers, and it’s the wrong question. HBC have not chosen a site, and they have no intention of doing anything whatsoever without a consultation.
I went to the last HBC Cabinet meeting for several reasons, one of which was to hear the council officer’s report into what they thought might be feasible and economically viable. Let me underline this – the officer who presented the report did not say it was a good idea – his job is to give accurate information to councillors, and what he said was that, of the very limited further possibilities for solar power, these sites were the most feasible.
Nor were any councillors ready to accept that as a go-ahead – not even the “cautious” go-ahead claimed by Hugh Sullivan’s article in Hasting Independent Press (HIP, 11.01.2019). What that Cabinet meeting did was to agree to give themselves some time, and a budget, in order to consult with technical and environmental experts, and to conduct a consultation with local people to find out what people’s priorities and red lines were.
In the HIP article Hugh Sullivan suggests that Council Leader Peter Chowney’s view is that “the only constraint should be economic viability”, but it is the government’s financial and legal restrictions which rule out anything but commercially viable schemes. Similarly, we do not, as Sullivan suggested, have to rely on an “implication” that the Council would not proceed against environmental advice – in fact Chowney stated that if Natural England came back with a ‘no’ on environmental grounds, that would be the end of it.
I am astonished to see that three of the people who were at the Cabinet meeting have written to the Hastings and St Leonards Observer (18.01.2019) as though there was a decision to place solar panels in the Country Park without consultation or concern for the environment. Andy Patmore and Rob Lee, the Conservative councillors at the Cabinet meeting, both wrote clearly that they didn’t want the solar panels, but offered no viable alternatives. They were also adamant that they didn’t want money and time spent on those consultations – so they didn’t want to be consulted? So why are they now complaining?
What is your opinion of Amber Rudd launching an appeal? Is this turning into a political issue?
It most definitely is. Amber Rudd is in a very precarious position in Hastings, not just because her comfortable majority has disappeared as the government has got more unpopular, but also as a member of the party that’s responsible for a whole series of new government regulations that have sabotaged our council’s more progressive environmental decisions. She would have to be very creative to make herself appear anything but an obstacle to green thinking.
I really do think this is a class issue from a financial point of view – for example, I remember going to Amber Rudd’s office a long time ago with a contingent of people talking to her about tax justice. She just could not see what the problems were. One of the issues that came up was a government rule-change that had put a stop to schemes for building energy-efficient houses. Rudd’s reason for this was that “some builders didn’t like the restrictions”. She saw only an obstacle to developers’ profits. She said it didn’t matter because people could buy their own solar panels to put on their roofs, and could get government money to do so.
I pointed out that only those who owned their own houses could benefit from this, and she just didn’t agree – and now the government has ended the feed-in tariff anyway, so everyone’s lost the benefit of that option. It really doesn’t look good for the Conservatives, while the Labour Party has a good, businesslike commitment to green energy, infrastructure and jobs.
If you’re enjoying HOT and would like us to continue providing fair and balanced reporting on local matters please consider making a donation. Click here to open our PayPal donation link. Thank you for your continued support!
27 Comments
Also in: Energy
« Hands off, HBC – let Natural England form its own opinion!Solar panels in the Country Park – ecology or politics? II »
It really does tell you about the quality of this publication when you see repeated interviews from this nasty local non-entity. Why you believe Kay Green’s opinions on anything at all are worthy of publication at all merely confirms that this pathetic little local organ is a mouthpiece for the also rans, and in Green’s case the ‘never will runs” – even as a candidate councillor for an already hopeless local Labour Party.
Censure that.
Comment by CHRIS KINGSLAND — Sunday, Aug 18, 2019 @ 13:56
Wake up, people. By trying to trash each others’ arguments, you are falling in to the trap laid by politicians – the old “divide and rule” tactic. We should be united against the common enemy – this Council. Whatever our political affiliations (the minority) or those with none (the majority) we share common interests. Read the later article about Hastings Borough Council “telling” Natural England what to say. Then decide who you trust – the Council or your family, friends and neighbours.
Comment by David Stevenson — Monday, Feb 11, 2019 @ 12:52
Gary Wood, thank you for your response to my comments. If the chance of housing on this site is “vanishingly remote” due to its status as AONB that is great news – by the same logic the possibility of solar arrays must also be vanishingly remote. I really hope that is true. Sadly, the reality on the ground is that the High Weald AONB Unit is a much-weakened body (as the Rocklands debacle amply demonstrated) and we all need to take responsibility ourselves for what goes on in our back yard. I am quite certain that a brown field site that has been used for industrial scale solar development will be ripe for housing further down the line. You ask me for alternatives – these do exist in abundance. The comments section of a HOT article is not the place to start listing them (and nor am I an expert) but, inspired by your example, may I suggest that HOT approach Energise Sussex Coast to set out for us all the realities of local green energy potential? That way we will all be properly informed and can take the discussion from there.
Comment by Richard — Friday, Feb 8, 2019 @ 18:48
Well said Gary Wood, you have addressed many of the inaccurate arguments in this thread and saved me a lot of time! People really need to get more informed before trashing other people’s comments.
Comment by Anton — Monday, Feb 4, 2019 @ 20:16
Ms D – I didn’t trash 99.9% of correspondents. And you can’t possibly know whether “most people” are against the proposal, let alone purport to speak for them. Such statements do make it hard to take you seriously.
I responded to some of the substantive points that were raised, and since you have at last made a decent point rather than vented spleen, I’ll respond to that.
The Local Plan is a complex document that (at best) tries to balance competing pressures. On the Country Park, the Development Management Plan (6.297) says “Environmentally sensitive projects for sustainable energy generation could also be considered.” So the PV plan is not ruled out, and you are objectively wrong here, Ms D.
The same paragraph also says “Within the park, any development would be limited to facilities that enhance the park environment and the ‘visitor experience'”. These two sentences seem to pull in opposite directions – some might argue they are mutually exclusive. The plan also calls for protecting habitats.
What we have is competing benefits: One the one hand, renewable energy – good. Generating revenue for the town – good. On the other, damaging habitats – bad. Spoiling natural views – bad. To characterise those you disagree with as satanic power-abusing money-grabbers on the one hand, or small-minded nimbies on the other, really doesn’t help.
Neither does claiming to speak for “most people”, when you can’t possibly know what “most people” think, and when you’re not elected to represent anyone.
Comment by Gary Wood — Monday, Feb 4, 2019 @ 13:48
Instead of trashing 99.9% of the commentators on this issue Gary Wood needs to take an unbiased view of the reasons why most people are totally against any solar installation in our country park. It would also be a good idea for him to take a few moments to read the outcome of the rigorous and comprehensive Local Plan consultation overseen by the the Independent Government Inspector which has now been ratified and agreed by this council. If the council has no intention of honouring the Local Plan Policies and agreements and recommendations, what was the point in holding this hugely important consultation?
The installation of solar panels on our Country Park would be against the Policies and statutory indications as set out in this Plan. This council needs to state that they will adhere to the laws in place concerning the country park here in Hastings and that they will honour the ratified Policies contained within the Hastings Local Plan.
Comment by Ms.Doubtfire — Thursday, Jan 31, 2019 @ 09:03
I am sorry Kay Green, you need to read my comments again and get your facts straight. My comments have been published on HOT and in the Observer. I never suggested that we shouldn’t build a ground solar array in the country park. If you read my comments carefully I argued that it was pointless spending ANY money on feasibility studies when the Council hadn’t consulted Natural England first. Natural England have implied in a number of their published papers that building ground solar arrays in or NEAR SSSIs should be avoided. If they were to object it wouldn’t matter how much money you spent on consultants, the idea wouldn’t pass the planning stage.
Comment by Cllr Andy Patmore — Thursday, Jan 31, 2019 @ 01:10
David Stephenson – call me egocentric, but I’d like to think that Kay was invited to talk about the solar panels as a result of my comment that articles up to that point were from a Tory opposition councillor and the Chair of FOHCP – both against the proposals. Well done HOT for getting some balance.
Can’t say the same for the cheap points, cynicism and lack of reason in the comments. Funguy – there is a difference between choosing a site to put PV panels on, and choosing a site to do a feasibility study on. Hastings Resident – who gave you the right to speak for the people of Hastings? Mrs D – criticising an income generation study on the grounds that it will get us into debt is just economic illiteracy. The point is, will it make a profit? If we think it might, let’s do a detailed study to make sure.
Some of the more sensible comments:
JB – times change, and so must strategies. So the study should review habitat impact, and potential improvements (using the revenue) elsewhere in the park. But it should also factor in the effect of long-term climate change on habitats.
Christine & Richard: the danger of redesignating a site from other use to brownfield to housing is vanishingly remote. It will still be AONB, and subject to national planning constraints. Can you find a precedent?
Richard: What better alternatives do you propose? Achievable ones, I mean.
Bea: there aren’t that many council-owned rooves that can take weight, certainly not 10 acres fo them. HBC is looking at PV panels on Muriel Matters House and an industrial unit. If these prove successful, no doubt more investment will happen. Small wind turbines are barely economic. It’s the big ones (like at Romney, and Polegate) that are viable. One was proposed off Queensway, but that didn’t work out, probably because you need several together to get economies of scale. They are much higher maintenance than PV panels.
I love the Country Park – the woods, the glens, the cliffs, the views. So I walk past those fields pronto. But if I did pause there, I’d get a warm glow from seeing green energy being generated, and watching rabbits still frolicking by the hedgerows. I’d get an even warmer glow knowing the revenue enabled repairs to the path below Rocklands (hint hint).
Comment by Gary Wood — Tuesday, Jan 29, 2019 @ 21:40
Firstly, I have to ask who is Kay Green and how has an article dedicated to her opinions on these solar panels and the government been posted. Just because she is an author, blogger and a Labour party member ??
Turning to this £80K survey Cllr Chowney wants to spend. I wonder what the cost of that consultation and massive report on the redevelopment of White Rock cost by some foreign consultants cost. Must have surely been in the six figures for it.
As for the reference made by Mrs Doubtfire about the constant “mud slinging,” it is just so depressing and really childish. And of course the current flavour of the month is Labour telling us what is wrong and how they can fix it all.
On this PWLB money and the council throwing millions at these various acquisitions of commercial properties. The way is has been going on has been rather a clandestine process. Nobody really knows how these sites have been selected. Who recommends them. What professional advice they get and how it is ultimately determined on the purchase within HBC itself.
Still it’s only public money isn’t it and from what I have read about this buying commercial sites with other councils they can go cap in hand to get some more
Comment by Bolshie — Tuesday, Jan 29, 2019 @ 12:05
It is becoming very clear that this council needs ‘reining in’ before they land our town in massive debt. Clearly Chowney and his pals have every intention of spending this £80k they have earmarked for this crazy project and once again we will be the losers one way or the other. Now they have discovered the bottomless pit of money via the Public Works Loan Board they are akin to children let loose in the sweetie shop. No stopping them.
And Kay Green would be well advised to concentrate on the issue in hand here and stop trashing the government in every other sentence. This is becoming a very boring trait with some Labour supporters now. Corbyn did it when he came down here recently….no constructive suggestions…just a determination to insult the opposition. So very childish.
Comment by Ms.Doubtfire — Monday, Jan 28, 2019 @ 09:15
It seems to me (although I admit I am a bear of very little brain) that spending £80k on the feasibility of putting solar panels on two sites one of which is in an AONB is putting the cart before the horse. Surely if limited funds are to be invested in developing more green energy across the borough then the investment should be in a proper feasability study into just that. Has this been done or are we just to take the Head of Income Generation’s word for it?
I fully support any plan to develop sustainable “green” energy and using as little of the stuff as we possibly can. However, I can’t see how this scheme would lower anyone’s energy bill as any income from the power generated would go to the council who on the evidence I have seen so far would not be worthy guardians of it.
Comment by Pooh — Sunday, Jan 27, 2019 @ 17:19
With reference to Nick Perry’s earlier comment that “It seems my first heartfelt comment about Kay Green has been censored by HOT,” I would like to point out that we don’t do censorship. There are rules about what you can write about other people in a public forum, and we consider that his first comment about Kay Green transgressed two of our comments guidelines by being both offensive and being potentially libellous, and we have therefore not published it.
Nick Terdre, Editorial Organiser, HOT
Comment by Nick Terdre — Sunday, Jan 27, 2019 @ 12:11
Thank you for the political lecture. The people of Hastings do not want solar panels in their country park regardless of their political affiliations. The people of Hastings are not anti green energy. Everyone realises we need to do more to tackle climate change and there are plenty of places the council could choose to place them without ruining an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Comment by Hastings Resident — Sunday, Jan 27, 2019 @ 11:47
Speaking as a former Labour voter who naw feels totally unrepresented, I’d like to point out that what becomes so tiresome is the usual excuse of Labour supporters that Labour cannot offer any democratic alternative to the governments diktats. Kay Green says: “it is the government’s financial and legal restrictions which rule out anything but commercially viable schemes.” But there is nothing wrong with commercially viable schemes as long as they benefit the majority and do not harm the natural environment or the enjoyment of it. There would be no need for an expensive consultation if those criteria were met.
If a Labour dominated council can offer nothing better than the Tory Government line, then what is the point of claiming that they are our democratic representatives at all? It reminds me of the way that Jeremy Corbyn as Opposition leader has offered the country no alternative to Brexit, even though he knows that the majority of the country are now against it.
The problem in both cases is that we have no opposition so why do Labour Party members carry on pretending that we live under a representative democracy, when it is clear that our democracy is actually broken?
Comment by Michael Madden — Sunday, Jan 27, 2019 @ 09:18
Yet another hair brained scheme that will never happen . This time costing local tax payers £80,000 to debate.
The simple answer by HBC should be a firm ‘No thank you very much’. ‘You must be joking’ ‘We just saved £80,000. Oh, we can put the public toilets back in to use.’
That would make locals feel they have a council that speaks for them.
The people of Hastings don’t want solar panels placed in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Don’t pretend to negotiate this one HBC. The panels are fine, just put them somewhere slightly sensible.
This council is very fond of proclaiming how much it values its natural treasures. How much it values awards for outstanding achievements in the the Country park. Yet it continually comes up with projects that would be laughable ,even if desirable ,whilst showing blatant disregard for the preservation of the country park ,despite claiming awards for just the opposite.
Last year it was the marina/harbour project. An absolutely insane idea. Completely impractical , totally not wanted & would ruin the old town & the natural coastline. Wasted money or what?
In years previously we had the Pelham Conference Centre which was to be built on the beach infront of & blocking views of the Regency crescent
Is HBC only capable of coming up with schemes that are so blatantly stupid that they can never be achieved or is there another agenda here ?
This council operates in very strange ways. Ask yourself why & who benefits from these wild, unpopular, unfeasible, hair brained schemes that waste public money at times of supposed austerity.
One thing for sure, its certainly not the people of Hastings Mr Chowney.
If you like leading a Labour council, Start listening to the people who put you there.
Comment by tony harrison — Friday, Jan 25, 2019 @ 17:49
There are plenty of Council-owned rooves that would be excellent places for solar panels and could be angled due south – what could be better?
The Council could also be investing in onshore wind, and although sites would have to be carefully chosen we are not short of the raw element here. They do not have to be enormous turbines, there is a new generation of smaller wind turbines that could be put on rooves or elsewhere (the end of the pier, for example, or some of our open spaces). Personally I think small turbines are lovely! I have tried repeatedly to find installers who will work in this area, without success. If the Council were to take this seriously with their greater financial clout I am sure they could get one of the installers from outside our immediate area to take an interest.
Incidentally it’s not too late to install solar roof panels. I had a surveyor this morning planning for just that, and there is enough time to instal them and apply for the Feed In Tariff before the deadline. Even if applications are backlogged, payments will be backdated to the application.
So please, let’s press for more renewable energy here – in the right form and the right place.
Comment by Bea — Friday, Jan 25, 2019 @ 11:26
Christine – you are certainly right. This plan came from the Head of Income Generation under the Council’s Income Generation Strategy. Even if we are charitable about the intentions of current councillors, it is clear that a future Head of Income Generation will say to future councillors – we have a ten acre brown field site perfect for housing and worth many millions. It will be very hard to say no at that point and the Country Park will be lost.
Comment by Richard — Friday, Jan 25, 2019 @ 10:25
It seems my first heartfelt comment about Kay Green has been censored by HOT.
Let me say what I meant in softer more editorially sensitive tones…
Funguy is right.
It is magnificent that this piece of Leftist spin will be saved for posterity.
Comment by Nick Perry — Thursday, Jan 24, 2019 @ 23:32
I wonder why Hastings Online Times (HOT) chose to ask Kay Green her opinions on this subject. What relevant expertise does she have? Why not ask a normal member of the public, that is, one who does not have a political affiliation? Her replies avoid the question (typical politician) and are a just a defence of the Labour Council and a criticism of the Conservative Government. Why do these people always have such a simplistic view of the world, dividing everyone into one of two opposing camps? Ms Green says that the Council “have no intention of doing anything whatsoever without a consultation.” How can she be so sure? If they don’t consult with us, will she have the maturity to apologise to HOT readers? How on earth can she complain about Amber Rudd making this a political issue? It is by definition a political issue because the proposal came from politicians! The problem with this country is that we are run by the bankrupt cartel of the Conservative and Labour Parties. Amber Rudd, Peter Chowney and Kay Green are all part of the problem.
Comment by David Stevenson — Thursday, Jan 24, 2019 @ 19:28
Here we go again! Once again wheeling and dealing is going on in the shed in St Leonards! Change of use from Agricultural to another use, the land becomes a brown field site for any type of development especially executive housing with an exceptional view!!!
Comment by Christine — Thursday, Jan 24, 2019 @ 14:12
Here we go again! The fundamental problem is that the measure of viability should not be, as it usually is, economic viability but environmental viability.
The measure of efficiencies i.e a range, which need to be in any recommendation report is what carbon dioxide is saved by installing pv (including all their manufacture/maintenance/replacement costs) versus what the most carbon dioxide adsorbing plants on the site would produce (including their maintenance etc). Money will not ultimately be a question when the planet is dying.
Comment by ken davis — Thursday, Jan 24, 2019 @ 13:19
Kay Green is clearly well-meaning and concerned with many of the same issues that worry a lot of us Hastings residents. But it is naive to think that HBC (or any other government, local or national) would ever take a scheme such as this as far as cabinet without having already decided that it is something they want to do – that’s how government works. Of course it IS (despite Kay Green) accurate to say that HBC is planning to put solar panels in the Country Park – if that is not their plan why are we residents spending £80,000 on the idea?! As David Woolf rightly says, it becomes a whole lot harder to turn back once that £80,000 has been spent. It would be much more mature of the council to admit now that the scheme was wrongly-conceived and look for better alternatives. Do they have the maturity to do that? We’ll see…
Comment by Richard — Thursday, Jan 24, 2019 @ 10:56
Funguy’s quotation is so very apt – “when I choose a word, it means what I want it to mean, neither more nor less” (said Humpty Dumpty).
This really sums up how this council operates and unless you have adequate finances in order to take this council to task you are on a hiding to nothing here.
Whatever HBC wants, HBC gets. And woe betide anyone who dare challenge them. A sad situation indeed. They are behaving like bullies and the evidence is becoming clearer by the day.
Comment by Ms.Doubtfire — Thursday, Jan 24, 2019 @ 09:18
This proposal is contrary to all of the council’s statutory obligations, policies, principles and commitments. They need to state publicly that they will remain lawful and adhere to their statutory obligations and stand by the policies, objectives and principles which they have committed to. It is not possible for any council to do anything else and therefore the proposal is a non-starter.
A couple of examples.
The Hastings Country Park Nature Reserve Management Plan –
The Hastings Country Park Nature Reserve Management Plan outlines a clear Vision, together with Site Management Objectives, aimed at fulfilling our statutory obligations, ensuring exemplary site management and restoration and enhancing the visitor experience of this unique landscape in the Borough of Hastings.
Purpose of The Plan – Making the site an example of best practice for landscape and habitat restoration and management.
Hastings Biodiversity Action Plan –
A working tool for the Council and its partners to help deliver its statutory duties and obligations to biodiversity.
It is our commitment to conserving the wonderful variety of wildlife that make up our local biodiversity.
We will ensure that all departmental and corporate strategies recognise potential impacts on biodiversity and ensure that where possible no negative impacts result.
We will incorporate and implement action for national and local priority habitats and species in all management plans for designated sites.
Comment by JB — Thursday, Jan 24, 2019 @ 09:09
I am not sure why some people do not understand why many of us are upset at the council wanting to spend £80,000 to see if it is feasible to put two solar farms in a local beauty spot. Would the solar panels add or detract from the natural beauty of the country park? If you can answer that question then you don’t need to spend £80,000 looking into it.
Comment by Eye on the ball — Wednesday, Jan 23, 2019 @ 22:44
The circular logic of saying that the council have not chosen the site, but the site has been chosen because it is the only feasible site reminds one of a certain character in Alice through the looking glass – ‘“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” but Alice was not convinced. Nor am I. A government consisting of Millionaires is not an accurate description of the conservative cabinet. There are a few wealthy people in both labour and conservative parties. Amber had some money but lost most of it in unwise speculation. Mother Teresa is only a millionaire because, like so many people with a house in London, she has seen its value increase to a stratospheric degree. For being leader of the 7th wealthiest country in the world she earns a sum most bankers would laugh at – £153,000 per year. That is what Jeremy will earn if he becomes prime minister. We do not have a kleptocratic ruling class, whatever Kay Green tries to imply. Expenses fraud was equally carried out on all sides of the house. So returning to the actual questions put before her by CM the answer is that the Labour council is considering putting solar panels on two sites at the most loved and precious nature reserve under the control of the council and will spend £80,000 on a report into that proposal.
Comment by Funguy — Wednesday, Jan 23, 2019 @ 21:45
A budget of £80,000 for a feasibility study, if spent, would make any cash-strapped council rather committed to the project. A little bit pregnant, if you get my drift. The lack of alternative options for the local generation of green energy is a fallacy, and the fact that the concept was submitted without seeking the views of Natural England or the AONB leads me to the conclusion that it was nothing more than a greenwashed revenue generation idea.
Comment by David Woolf — Wednesday, Jan 23, 2019 @ 20:34