I was contacted recently by local residents for my archaeological and heritage opinion of the proposed solar farm that is likely to soon be a blight on our landscape. The sheer scale of the site from Frickley Country Park all the way to Moorhouse, on green belt, will encroach onto our heritage and green space all the way to our neighbouring hamlet of Moorhouse and it’s farms and equestrian centre. Planning application documents note a lack of public interest in what was very limited public consultation, highlighting how short sighted the efforts were to actually consult residents, with just 100 or so South Elmsall homes being invited to a small event. No effort was made to consult with the various local heritage, wildlife/conservation, sporting etc societies and groups who exist in South Elmsall. I was not even aware of the application until alerted by a concerned resident.

When I was approached by concerned residents I made clear that sadly there is very little known archaeological information in the area of this proposed solar farm, not because none exists but for the very simple reason that this green belt farmland has never really been subject to such investigations. This left us with the rather strange situation that I couldn’t recommend the residents oppose the development on heritage grounds, simply because the developer and planning process being handled by Wakefield Council had not even consulted with heritage groups and heritage professionals as part of the application process. I of course have my own personal concerns, as a resident, which I made clear in my own opposition to the proposed development.

Hooton Pagnell Parish Council have held full public consultations and opposed the application on a number of key areas of concern, and I wholeheartedly support their objections and appeal to South Elmsall residents to also put in objections whilst the planning portal is active. Local South Elmsall and South Kirkby Councillors Steve Tulley and Michelle Collins have also lodged their own objections to the proposal, for which I give them credit. They said: “While residents support renewable energy in principle, this proposal conflicts with several national and local planning policies. The harm to green belt, biodiversity, agricultural land, amenity and flood safety significantly outweighs the benefits.”

Despite the application being submitted on the 26th of August, and the limited public consultations having already occurred, it was not until the 23rd of September that Glyn Davies, Senior Archaeological Officer with West Yorkshire Archaeological Services, noted in his own letter to Wakefield Council that the developers had forgotten to consult on heritage. He said: “I have looked at this application and note that I can find no appraisals or heritage statement relating to archaeology on the planning web site. The Historic England Record does not record any known heritage assets on the proposed development site although there are significant areas on the east edge of the site that contain post medieval ridge and furrow. Considering the scale of the proposed development I would expect desk based assessment as a minimum to start assessing the archaeological potential of the site. The site is on the southern edge of Wakefield with much of it within south Yorkshire. And they will likely have comments on the proposed development as well. I would therefore recommend that a desk based assessment is undertaken to assess the archaeological potential of the site.”

I am thankful for Glyn Davies’ comments to the planning team at Wakefield Council on this oversight and pleased that his thinking mirrors my own advice to local residents on this matter. I urge Wakefield Council to reject this application and once again request that Wakefield Council and others seek out more appropriate public consultation methods in future, and reach out to people like myself and our local heritage groups in future. Wakefield Council must do more to understand that local groups exist and heritage must be valued, just because South Elmsall is on the borders of the district doesn’t mean it should continue to be a dumping ground for undesirable industry.