Please feel free to use the Objection Template below. This is not a comprehensive or detailed objection at this point, but it does cover the key issues. We will be adding a more detailed template once we enter the Planning Inspectorate stage, which is likely to be in February. In the meantime, you can use the below template as a base, when emailing your local representatives, and other organisations. Do personalise it to suit your location, views and concerns.

Template: Objection to Light Valley Solar Project

To: [Insert Name/Title – e.g., Rt Hon [Name], MP for [Constituency] / [Council Name] / Light Valley Solar Project Team]
From: [Your Name]
Address: [Your Address]
Date: [Insert Date]

Subject: Formal Objection to the Proposed Light Valley Solar Project

Dear [Recipient’s Name],

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Light Valley Solar Project, as currently outlined on the developer’s website and consultation materials. This proposal raises significant concerns for local residents, the environment, and the long-term character of our rural communities.

1. Lack of Meaningful Consultation

Despite claims by Light Valley Solar of widespread engagement, many residents remain unaware of the project. The consultation process appears developer-led and superficial, falling short of genuine community participation.
Although the company stated that 12,500 postcards were sent to properties within a 2km radius of the proposed cable corridor in November 2024, these were not received by households in the are. The statutory consultation stage was poorly advertised, with improvements only following community pressure.
This lack of transparency undermines public confidence in the process and breaches the spirit of fair consultation.

2. Inappropriate Use of Greenfield Land

This development targets prime greenbelt and open countryside rather than prioritising brownfield, industrial, or redundant sites, which are far more appropriate for renewable infrastructure.
As MP Keir Mather has stated, “We will adopt a brownfield-first strategy... protecting our natural landscapes.”
This proposal contradicts both national and local planning policies that promote sustainability, proportionality, and protection of rural heritage. The project’s scale and siting are simply too large and in the wrong place.

3. Scale and Landscape Impact

At 1,020 hectares, this is an industrial-scale installation that will irreversibly alter the landscape character of North Yorkshire. It will dominate views, overwhelm surrounding villages, and permanently transform an area currently defined by its rural charm.
The land agreements—lasting up to 60 years—mean this impact would extend across generations. Moreover, the developer has not provided a clear cumulative impact assessment alongside other planned energy infrastructure in the area, preventing an informed understanding of the overall loss of countryside.

4. Construction Traffic and Road Safety Risks

The proposed three-year construction phase will generate substantial HGV movements through narrow rural roads. These routes are not built for heavy traffic and pass close to schools and pedestrian areas, posing serious safety and congestion risks.
Damage to roads and disruption to daily life would be unavoidable and unacceptable.

5. Harm to Local Amenity and Biodiversity

The project will introduce industrial infrastructure into a living, working countryside, overshadowing public rights of way, spoiling scenic views, and fragmenting vital wildlife corridors.
These effects are irreversible and would severely diminish the amenity value of an area cherished by walkers, cyclists, families, and nature enthusiasts. Once biodiversity is lost, it cannot easily be restored.

6. Loss of the Best and Most Versatile Farmland

The proposed site encompasses large areas of productive, high-quality agricultural land — some of the best and most fertile farmland in the region. If approved, the scheme would take this land out of food production for decades, at a time when maintaining domestic food security is a national priority.
Once developed, such soils cannot easily be returned to their previous agricultural productivity. Sacrificing some of the UK’s best farmland for industrial energy infrastructure is short-sighted and inconsistent with long-term sustainability goals.

7. Concerns About Ownership and Accountability

Light Valley Solar is owned by Macquarie Asset Management, the same entity associated with Thames Water’s financial difficulties following aggressive debt-loading and dividend extraction.
Given this track record, there is deep concern that profit, not sustainability, is the driving force behind this project. The community must not bear the long-term environmental and social costs of a short-term corporate investment.

8. Impact on Archaeological Sites and Historic Heritage

The proposed development area includes land rich in archaeological potential and lies close to several listed buildings, historic field boundaries, and heritage landscapes that contribute to the area’s distinctive rural identity.
Large-scale groundworks, trenching for cables, and installation of infrastructure risk damaging or destroying undiscovered archaeological remains, as well as diminishing the setting of designated heritage assets.

I am not opposed to renewable energy or solar power—I support the transition to clean energy. However, this project, in its current form and location, fails to balance environmental goals with social responsibility and landscape preservation.

We urge [the relevant authority or MP] to:

  • Reject this proposal in its current form; or

  • Require a full re-evaluation prioritising brownfield alternatives, genuine local consultation, and cumulative impact assessments.

Thank you for your time and for representing the interests of our communities and countryside.

Yours sincerely,

 


[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Contact Details]