Plan for massive solar farm sparks fears for Lingfield landscape
Opposition group Haxted Mead United (HMU) said the development will "remove valuable farmland" and scar the rural area by affecting rights of way, walking routes and local wildlife.The site is also a known floodplain, particularly in winter, the group added, while construction would "bring heavy vehicles to narrow roads, causing congestion, noise pollution and potential damage".
HMU are currently raising funds to commission risk assessments into its above concerns.The group said that, while supporters of renewable energy, "this isn't about sustainability but profit. "It sets a dangerous precedent for industrialising green-belt and farmland all over the UK."And, as well as citing viable alternative locations such as "former industrial land and and commercial rooftops", they also point out that a similar 61 acre (25 hectare) development is already underway in neighbouring Edenbridge.
However, a spokesperson for Belltown Power called the project "thoughtfully designed," adding that they have "engaged with all residents within a 2km radius to gauge their views". Based on that feedback they have "minimised the visual impact of the project" by incorporating new hedgerows and trees, floodplain wildflower meadows and "2.5km of new footpaths to connect existing routes and provide scenic walks along the River Eden".They added that they will "continue engaging with the community throughout the planning process."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK hedge fund Marshall Wace posted mixed returns for July, source says
LONDON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - British hedge fund Marshall Wace returned mixed results in two of its funds in July, a source close to the matter told Reuters on Monday. Co-founded by British financier Paul Marshall, the $76.9 billion firm returned 1.6% in July culminating in a 6.1% performance for 2025 so far in its Eureka Fund, the source said. The hedge fund's Market Neutral Tops fund returned -0.22% for July and is up 10.99% year to date the source added. Systematic stock trading hedge funds, like Marshall Wace, are up roughly 10% for 2025 so far, said Goldman Sachs on Monday.
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
In Ecuador, environmentalists worry Noboa is unwinding nation's green reputation
When Ecuadorians voted two years ago to block oil drilling in Yasuni National Park, it was a triumph for environmentalists seeking to protect one of the most biodiverse places on Earth. And it was in character for a country that was first to enshrine the 'rights of nature' in its constitution and is home to parts of the Amazon rain forest and the Galápagos Islands. But recent moves by President Daniel Noboa have alarmed environmentalists and Indigenous leaders who say the country's green reputation — and its protections for civil society — are unraveling. Noboa's administration has moved to scrap the country's independent Environment Ministry. It's pushing legislation ostensibly aimed at choking off illegal mining, but which critics fear will devastate nonprofits. The National Assembly — pressed by Noboa — approved a law last month allowing private and foreign entities to co‑manage conservation zones that critics say weakens protections and threatens Indigenous land rights. And Ecuador just signed a new oil deal with Peru that could accelerate drilling in sensitive areas. Natalia Greene, an environmental advocate with the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, said Noboa's decision to fold the Environment Ministry into the Ministry of Energy and Mines will speed up mining just as Ecuador is grappling with a surge in illegal gold mining tied to organized crime. She called it 'like putting the wolf in charge of the sheep.' 'The government's intention is very clear — to be a machine gun of extractivism,' she said. Noboa has defended the ministry moves and other changes as necessary to cut costs, reduce bureaucracy and address Ecuador's financial crisis. Officials argue that consolidating ministries will make decision‑making more efficient. Neither the Ministry of Energy and Mines nor Noboa's office responded to questions from The Associated Press. Indigenous rights at risk In July, Peru and Ecuador signed a deal for Ecuador's state oil company to sell crude directly to Petroperu and link its southern Amazon reserves to Peru's Norperuano pipeline, with drilling eyed for January 2026. Environmental groups say it could fast‑track drilling in sensitive areas while skirting safeguards and Indigenous consultation. Peru's Achuar, Wampis and Chapra nations denounced the plan in a public letter, saying it would gut long-standing protections that require communities be consulted before projects move forward on their lands. They warned the pipeline already averages 146 spills a year and that expanding it would be 'a grave threat to the Amazon and to Indigenous livelihoods.' 'They are going to violate all our rights to enter our territories and extract the resources they want," said Nemo Guiquita, a Waorani leader with the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon. She said Indigenous communities fear a surge of oil and mining projects across ancestral lands, threatening both ecosystems and livelihoods. 'There will be a weakening of environmental protection,' she said. 'There will be a lot of deforestation, contamination of rivers and destruction of the ecosystem, which is vital for our existence as Indigenous peoples.' Ricardo Buitrón, president of the Quito‑based environmental group Accion Ecologica, noted that the changes come just months after Ecuadorians voted to keep oil in the ground in Yasuni, a decision the government has yet to fully enforce. 'We have gone back decades,' he said. 'A development model is being prioritized that does not care about protecting ecosystems, but about extracting natural resources to the maximum.' Fears that proposed law will harm non-governmental organizations The proposed law that has alarmed nonprofits is formally called the Organic Law for the Control of Irregular Capital Flows. But activists call it the 'anti-NGO' law, saying it could impose heavy burdens on nonprofits and force many to close. The measure applies to more than 71,000 organizations nationwide, giving them six months to re‑register with the government, submit detailed financial records and disclose foreign funding sources. The government says the law is needed to prevent money laundering and political destabilization. Critics warn it could instead silence dissent by placing organizations under sweeping controls. Noboa submitted the bill to the National Assembly on July 29, giving lawmakers until Aug. 28 to act before it automatically becomes law. 'This has been hard for us,' Guiquita said. 'Practically, Indigenous organizations live mostly from donations and NGOs. The government is weakening us in every space.' 'It represents a threat because they could dissolve us under any pretext,' Buitrón said. 'This reminds us of what we already lived through a decade ago, when they tried to shut down some organizations in the country.' Regional and global stakes Kevin Koenig of Amazon Watch, a U.S.-based nonprofit that advocates for Indigenous rights and environmental protection in the Amazon, said the country's changes are part of a wider rollback. 'We are seeing a sweeping package of regressive reforms that are rolling back environmental protections, Indigenous rights guarantees, and threatening basic civil liberties like the freedom of speech and assembly,' he said. 'What it suggests is the massive expansion of oil and mining, particularly in the Amazon region.' Koenig said the changes send troubling signals ahead of COP30, the United Nations climate summit set for Brazil later this year. Similar trends are unfolding in Peru and El Salvador, where governments have limited environmental oversight, and in Brazil, where licensing for Amazon projects has been weakened. Mobilizing resistance Civil society groups are mobilizing against the changes. Greene said organizations have reactivated the Asamblea Nacional Socioambiental, a national coalition of environmental and social movements, and are planning legal challenges, demonstrations and appeals to international bodies. Many fear Ecuador's role as a global green pioneer is unraveling. 'Our only crime here has been protecting our territory, protecting our traditions, protecting our way of life,' Guiquita said. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why has Kemi Badenoch fallen out with Liz Truss?
Dearie me, they're at it again. Former Tory leader Liz Truss and current Tory leader Kemi Badenoch are involved in another nasty spat, mainly about the infamous mini-Budget introduced by then Prime Minister Truss in September 2022. Badenoch has invoked that calamitous – and deeply Conservative – fiscal event in an otherwise routine attack on the government. Truss, ever ready to defend her record, because no one else will, has hit back and told Badenoch she's wrong and needs to do some more thinking, a particularly hurtful jibe when Badenoch thinks herself one of the brainier kids in the Westminster playground. Amusing and mildly diverting as it may be, this minor row also tells us some much bigger things about the Tory dilemma. What did Badenoch say? That Labour is even more incompetent than Truss was: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-Budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Is that new? Not really. Only a few weeks ago, the shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, evicted from ministerial office by Liz Truss when she formed her short-lived government, laid into the mini-Budget and apologised for it. Badenoch, meanwhile, has said she doesn't know whether Truss is still in the Conservative Party, and implied she doesn't really care either way. She's long let it be known she'd prefer Truss to just go quiet for a while. Badenoch has also been disobliging about the Sunak administration 'talking right but acting left'. But Sunak, like Johnson, May and Cameron, has, so far, preferred to ignore the present controversies and policy shifts, such as Badenoch's 'net-zero sceptic' stance. What's the Truss defence? The usual – her supposedly brilliant plan to turbocharge the British economy was thwarted by a terrible econo-bureaucratic blob and those, to the visionary Truss, idiots at the Bank of England. But increasingly she is having to adapt her line because of attacks from her own party (if she is indeed still in it), which means slagging off the administrations that came before her – Cameron, May, Johnson – and after, Sunak and now Badenoch's performance as leader of the opposition: 'It is disappointing that instead of serious thinking like this, Kemi Badenoch is instead repeating spurious narratives. I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated.' Er... weren't they both members of these dreadful governments? Yes. Truss continuously from 2012 to her ousting in 2022, and Badenoch from 2019 to 2024. Indeed, it was Truss who promoted Badenoch to the cabinet as international trade secretary. Neither showed much dissent, publicly or privately. Why are they scrapping? Neither wants to take responsibility for their own failures as a party leader, and that can inevitably lead to blame throwing for their disastrous showing at the election, and subsequently. But all politicians in all parties who find themselves thrashed by the voters are faced with this excruciating dilemma as they enter the wilderness of life in opposition: Do they denounce the record and policies of the government they were apparently happy to be a part of? Or do they defend their record instead? Do they agree with the voters' verdict or not? And if they want to, or have to, admit 'mistakes', are they going to be big or smaller ones? How to play it? By ear – there are no hard rules. Back in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher, as leader of the opposition, did well out of renouncing most of what the Heath government had done because it ended in such chaos, and Thatcher was (like Badenoch today) a relatively junior cabinet member who could claim some innocence. In due course, because public opinion had shifted during the Blair years, David Cameron found that he'd have to criticise Thatcher herself, so he declared that 'there is such a thing as society' and told his fractious party to 'stop banging on about Europe'. Ed Miliband, after Labour's defeat in 2010, never seemed able to make up his mind about whether the Brown administration (in which he served) had failed, and, if so, how and why. Try as he might, Nick Clegg could never grovel sufficiently for what he did on tuition fees in the coalition government, and the Lib Dems were so punished at the 2015 general election that they were left with eight MPs compared to the 56 elected in 2010. At the moment, the Conservative-led government of 2010 to 2024 has few friends and many critics, the most vociferous being some of its leading lights. In this respect, the party is behaving more like Labour traditionally does after a defeat. Thus, after the 1974-79 Labour government fell from power, it was attacked by the Bennites on the Labour left for being too right-wing, and by the social democrats on the right for being too left-wing. Eventually, the long passage of time made arguments about pay policy, union power and unilateralism irrelevant. One day, when people have forgotten who Truss and Badenoch were, they may be ready to give the Tories a hearing. But, with Farage on their right flank, with no qualms about slagging off the last government, the Conservatives may not have the luxury of time to settle their differences and focus their attacks on him.
