An enormous array of solar panels in a field.

Around 52.352486,1.473284 although Google Maps still shows just a field.

I was a little surprised as it is in pretty good farm land and I thought
they weren't supposed to use that.

Still, money talks.

Cheers

Dave R

"David.WE.Roberts" wrote in message
...

An enormous array of solar panels in a field.

Around 52.352486,1.473284 although Google Maps still shows just a field.

I was a little surprised as it is in pretty good farm land and I thought
they weren't supposed to use that.

Still, money talks.

Cheers

Dave R

Obviously more profitable milking the population...

Chris Hogg wrote:

There's one being completed a few miles from us, a mile or so SE of
Hayle in West Cornwall. It's roughly at the junction of Wheal Alfred
Road and Drannack Mill Lane, Google Maps 50.177, -5.388. A
south-facing slope, perfectly good farmland AFAIK. Google Maps shows
the field being harvested for hay, with no sign yet of the solar
panels.

What is currently claimed to be the UKs largest solar farm has
been built close to me. It seems to be a particularly suitable
location.

http://www.larkenergy.co.uk/news/uk-...rid-connected/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-22272632

Even CPRE like it:

http://www.cpreleicestershire.org.uk...old-solar-farm

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

Maybe its a solar panel test field.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"David.WE.Roberts" wrote in message
...
An enormous array of solar panels in a field.

Around 52.352486,1.473284 although Google Maps still shows just a field.

I was a little surprised as it is in pretty good farm land and I thought
they weren't supposed to use that.

Still, money talks.

Cheers

Dave R

Now we know where to rehome the badgers then.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On 10 Oct 2013 20:09:11 GMT, "David.WE.Roberts"
wrote:

An enormous array of solar panels in a field.

Around 52.352486,1.473284 although Google Maps still shows just a field.

I was a little surprised as it is in pretty good farm land and I thought
they weren't supposed to use that.

Still, money talks.

Cheers

Dave R

There's one being completed a few miles from us, a mile or so SE of
Hayle in West Cornwall. It's roughly at the junction of Wheal Alfred
Road and Drannack Mill Lane, Google Maps 50.177, -5.388. A
south-facing slope, perfectly good farmland AFAIK. Google Maps shows
the field being harvested for hay, with no sign yet of the solar
panels.

--

Chris

On Friday, October 11, 2013 9:09:11 AM UTC+13, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
An enormous array of solar panels in a field.

Don't you need sun for them?
At least they don't make a noise and kill birds.

On 11/10/2013 08:48, Richard wrote:
"David.WE.Roberts" wrote in message
...

An enormous array of solar panels in a field.

Around 52.352486,1.473284 although Google Maps still shows just a field.

I was a little surprised as it is in pretty good farm land and I thought
they weren't supposed to use that.

Still, money talks.

Simply untrue. Unless you are suggesting that the local planning
authority has taken a bribe. In any case it is not particularly good
farm land being classified as grade 3 and the complete installation has
to be removed after 25 years and the site restored to the original state.

The actual planning application is here.

http://www.waveney.gov.uk/egov_downl...1_today.pdf€Ž


--
Peter Crosland

On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide verifiable
facts in an argument!

Lee

On 11/10/13 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 11/10/2013 08:48, Richard wrote:
"David.WE.Roberts" wrote in message
...

An enormous array of solar panels in a field.

Around 52.352486,1.473284 although Google Maps still shows just a field.

I was a little surprised as it is in pretty good farm land and I thought
they weren't supposed to use that.

Still, money talks.

Simply untrue. Unless you are suggesting that the local planning
authority has taken a bribe.

Are you that naive?

Of course theytake the (equivalent) of bribes.

And openly admit it.

" we could oppose tescos development, but they would take it to appeal,
get a load pof laweyers in, cost te local taxpayer a firtune, and
porobab;y win, because we cant afford the lawyers theyand experts they
can. Omn the orther hand, they have promised to ugraded teh road to
that area so that saves us money"

"the word has come down from CPHQ that we have to let the windmills get
built, so the whip is out: you will pass this ill advised application
nod sagely at the outrageous and false claims made for its
justification, if you want to have any hope of staying in the
consrevative party, and theres a nice little sinecure as chairman of the
local renewable energy committee for you if you do."

Hell Tim yeo even admitted it.


In any case it is not particularly good
farm land being classified as grade 3 and the complete installation has
to be removed after 25 years and the site restored to the original state.

manambly at taxpayer expense since the company hwo built it will long
have vansihed by then.

The actual planning application is here.

http://www.waveney.gov.uk/egov_downl...1_today.pdf€Ž




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 11/10/2013 09:53, Lee wrote:
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide verifiable
facts in an argument!

Nothing like a few facts to confuse the issue!


--
Peter Crosland

In message , Lee
writes
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide
verifiable facts in an argument!

Correct!

Also grade 3 land ought to grow Wheat OK but perhaps not Leeks and
Brussel Sprouts:-)

--
Tim Lamb

On 11/10/2013 09:20, Matty F wrote:
On Friday, October 11, 2013 9:09:11 AM UTC+13, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
An enormous array of solar panels in a field.

Don't you need sun for them?
At least they don't make a noise and kill birds.

Could they cause reflections that might blind hellicopter or light
aircraft pilots?

8¬)

Pete@
--
http://www.GymRatZ.co.uk
WaterRowers at super special deals and other Gym Stuff

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

On 11/10/2013 09:53, Lee wrote:
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide verifiable
facts in an argument!

Nothing like a few facts to confuse the issue!


Nothing like trimming posts to **** up context.
FYI, my contribution to this thread was the sarcastic:
q
Obviously more profitable milking the population...
/q

I accept your apology in advance to save you trimming and screwing up
context again.

On Friday, October 11, 2013 11:19:00 AM UTC+1, www.GymRatZ.co.uk wrote:
Could they cause reflections that might blind hellicopter or light
aircraft pilots?

They might be visible to enemy bombers.

Only last night an enemy aircraft landed in the Warmington-on-Sea reservoir.

Owain

On 11/10/2013 14:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

On 11/10/2013 09:53, Lee wrote:
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide verifiable
facts in an argument!

Nothing like a few facts to confuse the issue!


Nothing like trimming posts to f*** up context.
FYI, my contribution to this thread was the sarcastic:
q
Obviously more profitable milking the population...
/q

I accept your apology in advance to save you trimming and screwing up
context again.

You really should not lead with your chin. Your poor command of English
is only exceeded by your inability construct a logical argument to
support your point of view. A classic case of not doing some trivially
easy research to see if your argument had any merit.

--
Peter Crosland

On 11/10/2013 10:46, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Lee
writes
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide
verifiable facts in an argument!

Correct!

Also grade 3 land ought to grow Wheat OK but perhaps not Leeks and
Brussel Sprouts:-)

The point the previous poster was unsuccessfully trying to make was that
there was a complete prohibition on using agricultural land which of
course there is not. The other point that is often missed is that the
permissions are conditional on the land being returned to the orginal
use after a period of time usually 25 years by which time the panels
will be at the end of the useful life. Of course it might htne be
subject to another application to install whatever technology is then
available, but this is not a foregone conclusion.


--
Peter Crosland

In message , Peter
Crosland writes
On 11/10/2013 10:46, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Lee
writes
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide
verifiable facts in an argument!

Correct!

Also grade 3 land ought to grow Wheat OK but perhaps not Leeks and
Brussel Sprouts:-)

The point the previous poster was unsuccessfully trying to make was
that there was a complete prohibition on using agricultural land which
of course there is not. The other point that is often missed is that
the permissions are conditional on the land being returned to the
orginal use after a period of time usually 25 years by which time the
panels will be at the end of the useful life. Of course it might htne
be subject to another application to install whatever technology is
then available, but this is not a foregone conclusion.

Yes.

The thought has crossed my mind for here. I have South facing *hot* land
and a conveniently placed 11kV distributor feed. However, there are also
lots of well used public rights of way and, at less than a mile from the
centre of a large village, lots of small boys:-)

There is the opprobrium of joining Harry to consider as well. I think
I'll just go on taking the CAP payments to pad out my pension:-)

--
Tim Lamb

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 11/10/2013 14:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

On 11/10/2013 09:53, Lee wrote:
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide
verifiable
facts in an argument!

Nothing like a few facts to confuse the issue!


Nothing like trimming posts to f*** up context.
FYI, my contribution to this thread was the sarcastic:
q
Obviously more profitable milking the population...
/q

I accept your apology in advance to save you trimming and screwing up
context again.

You really should not lead with your chin. Your poor command of English is
only exceeded by your inability construct a logical argument to support
your point of view. A classic case of not doing some trivially easy
research to see if your argument had any merit.

Sorry. I didn't realise that you were a humourless [insert preferred label].

On 11/10/2013 20:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 11/10/2013 14:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

On 11/10/2013 09:53, Lee wrote:
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide
verifiable
facts in an argument!

Nothing like a few facts to confuse the issue!


Nothing like trimming posts to f*** up context.
FYI, my contribution to this thread was the sarcastic:
q
Obviously more profitable milking the population...
/q

I accept your apology in advance to save you trimming and screwing up
context again.

You really should not lead with your chin. Your poor command of
English is only exceeded by your inability construct a logical
argument to support your point of view. A classic case of not doing
some trivially easy research to see if your argument had any merit.

Sorry. I didn't realise that you were a humourless [insert preferred
label].

Nothing to do with humour when all you can come up with is offensive
language. Resorting to insults just proves the point that you have no
rationl argument.

--
Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2013 08:48, Richard wrote:
"David.WE.Roberts" wrote in message
...

An enormous array of solar panels in a field.

Around 52.352486,1.473284 although Google Maps still shows just a field.

I was a little surprised as it is in pretty good farm land and I thought
they weren't supposed to use that.

Still, money talks.

Simply untrue. Unless you are suggesting that the local planning authority
has taken a bribe. In any case it is not particularly good farm land being
classified as grade 3 and the complete installation has to be removed
after 25 years and the site restored to the original state.

Ah. Another good long-term solution to the energy shortages that are soon to
become the norm in this banana-republic-in-the-making, then ...

Arfa

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2013 20:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 11/10/2013 14:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

On 11/10/2013 09:53, Lee wrote:
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide
verifiable
facts in an argument!

Nothing like a few facts to confuse the issue!


Nothing like trimming posts to f*** up context.
FYI, my contribution to this thread was the sarcastic:
q
Obviously more profitable milking the population...
/q

I accept your apology in advance to save you trimming and screwing up
context again.

You really should not lead with your chin. Your poor command of
English is only exceeded by your inability construct a logical
argument to support your point of view. A classic case of not doing
some trivially easy research to see if your argument had any merit.

Sorry. I didn't realise that you were a humourless [insert preferred
label].

Nothing to do with humour when all you can come up with is offensive
language. Resorting to insults just proves the point that you have no
rationl argument.

--
Peter Crosland


Well I thought it was funny. Perhaps you didn't get the subtlety of his
humour ... ?

Arfa

On 12/10/2013 02:57, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2013 20:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 11/10/2013 14:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

On 11/10/2013 09:53, Lee wrote:
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide
verifiable
facts in an argument!

Nothing like a few facts to confuse the issue!


Nothing like trimming posts to f*** up context.
FYI, my contribution to this thread was the sarcastic:
q
Obviously more profitable milking the population...
/q

I accept your apology in advance to save you trimming and screwing up
context again.

You really should not lead with your chin. Your poor command of
English is only exceeded by your inability construct a logical
argument to support your point of view. A classic case of not doing
some trivially easy research to see if your argument had any merit.

Sorry. I didn't realise that you were a humourless [insert preferred
label].

Nothing to do with humour when all you can come up with is offensive
language. Resorting to insults just proves the point that you have no
rationl argument.

--
Peter Crosland


Well I thought it was funny. Perhaps you didn't get the subtlety of his
humour ... ?

You mean as subtle as being hit round the ear with a brick?


--
Peter Crosland

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 6:27:44 AM UTC+1, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 12/10/2013 02:57, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2013 20:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 11/10/2013 14:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

On 11/10/2013 09:53, Lee wrote:
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide
verifiable
facts in an argument!

Nothing like a few facts to confuse the issue!


Nothing like trimming posts to f*** up context.
FYI, my contribution to this thread was the sarcastic:
q
Obviously more profitable milking the population...
/q

I accept your apology in advance to save you trimming and screwing up
context again.

You really should not lead with your chin. Your poor command of
English is only exceeded by your inability construct a logical
argument to support your point of view. A classic case of not doing
some trivially easy research to see if your argument had any merit.

Sorry. I didn't realise that you were a humourless [insert preferred
label].

Nothing to do with humour when all you can come up with is offensive
language. Resorting to insults just proves the point that you have no
rationl argument.

--
Peter Crosland


Well I thought it was funny. Perhaps you didn't get the subtlety of his
humour ... ?

You mean as subtle as being hit round the ear with a brick?

damn! you mean somebody's done that to you already?

Jim K

"Jim K" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, October 12, 2013 6:27:44 AM UTC+1, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 12/10/2013 02:57, Arfa Daily wrote:


"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
On 11/10/2013 20:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 11/10/2013 14:31, Richard wrote:
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...

On 11/10/2013 09:53, Lee wrote:
On 11/10/2013 09:50, Peter Crosland wrote:

The actual planning application is here.

Oh dear, look this is Usenet, you are not supposed to provide
verifiable
facts in an argument!

Nothing like a few facts to confuse the issue!


Nothing like trimming posts to f*** up context.
FYI, my contribution to this thread was the sarcastic:
q
Obviously more profitable milking the population...
/q

I accept your apology in advance to save you trimming and screwing
up
context again.

You really should not lead with your chin. Your poor command of
English is only exceeded by your inability construct a logical
argument to support your point of view. A classic case of not doing
some trivially easy research to see if your argument had any merit.

Sorry. I didn't realise that you were a humourless [insert preferred
label].

Nothing to do with humour when all you can come up with is offensive
language. Resorting to insults just proves the point that you have no
rationl argument.

--
Peter Crosland


Well I thought it was funny. Perhaps you didn't get the subtlety of his
humour ... ?

You mean as subtle as being hit round the ear with a brick?

damn! you mean somebody's done that to you already?

Jim K

Not hard enough though.