The controversial solar farm would have covered hundreds of acres of farmland
Plans for a massive solar farm situated on the landscape of the world-famous Richborough Roman Fort have been unanimously thrown out by Dover District Council, ending the battle between renewable energy goals and historic preservation. The controversial Little South Solar Farm, proposed by Norwegian state-owned company Statkraft, would have covered hundreds of acres of farmland directly adjacent to the Roman amphitheatre, beginning just 160 metres from the site.
Despite a planning officer’s recommendation to approve the scheme, councillors voted 10-0 against the proposal at a meeting on November 27. The committee concluded the development would cause “severe” harm to the setting of Grade I-listed heritage assets – a site managed by English Heritage that marks the historic gateway to Roman Britain.
The decision has drawn a division between those seeking to protect Britain’s ancient history and those desperate to modernise the region’s farming and energy infrastructure. The rejection follows four years of anxiety for local campaigners, who argued the scheme was simply in the “wrong place”.
Objections came from Ash, Sandwich, Preston and Staple parish councils, alongside national bodies like the CPRE and Kent Wildlife Trust. In total, 651 representations were made against the plan.
The most contested issue was the visual impact on the Richborough Fort. Opponents described the potential development as a “tragedy of historic proportions,” arguing that the industrial aesthetic would destroy the tranquil, open marshland essential to understanding the site’s significance.
Alex Ridings, co-chair of the Save Ash Level campaign group, said: “We’re delighted by the decision to Save Ash Level and preserve the importance and setting of Richborough Roman Fort – a landscape which has been important to Britain’s history since Emperor Claudius looked out over it in AD43. We hope today’s decision gives hope to the multitude of similar communities fighting behemoth corporations.
“It’s time the government were clearer about the guidelines to prevent schemes like this from even reaching the planning committee stage.” While heritage concerns won on the day, the proposal was not without strong arguments regarding climate change and agricultural survival.
Mark Henderson, Statkraft’s project manager, told the planning meeting that the farm would have generated clean electricity for more than 15,000 homes, saving 20,000 tonnes of carbon annually. He said that the site was chosen for its high solar irradiation and “low-grade” agricultural soil, with surveys showing no evidence of Roman roads crossing the specific development area.
Local farmer Tom Reynolds, urged the committee to see the solar farm as a lifeline for struggling agriculture. Describing himself as a “soil-first” regenerative farmer, Mr Reynolds highlighted the “stark reality” of climate change.
He noted that recent wet planting conditions resulted in complete crop failure in 2019 and 2023, and a 20 per cent loss due to waterlogging this year alone. “This project provides something that farming on this side simply cannot do: long-term stability,” Mr Reynolds said.
“Farmland has always produced energy, historically in the form of food for horses which powered the transport industry. Solar represents not a departure from farming tradition but the next step in its evolution.”
Mr Reynolds argued the project offered a chance for a “dual land use system”, reinvesting solar profits into sustainable farming while creating a biodiversity corridor for local flora and fauna. Despite these pleas, the sheer volume of practical objections weighed heavily on the council.
Beyond heritage, concerns were raised regarding:
- Biodiversity: Bodies identified gaps in evidence regarding species protection, specifically fearing for the Lower Stour Wetlands Biodiversity Opportunity Area;
- Flooding: Critics argued water management proposals were inadequate for a site located on a floodplain;
- Traffic and Safety: Local lanes and the A257 were deemed “unsuitable” for the volume of HGVs required for construction, raising fears of road damage and safety hazards;
- Food Security: Several councils disputed Statkraft’s claim that the land was “low grade,” arguing that taking productive land out of commission for 40 years jeopardized food security.
Following the rejection, Statkraft’s Mark Henderson expressed disappointment, stating only that the company “will consider our next steps”. However, campaigners believe an appeal is unlikely to succeed.
They point to the recent Planning Inspectorate decision to dismiss an appeal for a large solar farm at North Court Farm in Ashford. Mr Ridings said: “That decision, regarding a site with significant but lesser protected landscape and heritage conditions to this scheme, gives us strong confidence we won’t see a large-scale solar farm underneath a Scheduled National Monument here”.
