Planning – Application Comments

Planning Objection
Applications 25/01471/EIA (Lime Kiln, 49.5 MW) and 25/01472/EIA (Bottom Railway,
26.4 MW)
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally object to the planning applications submitted by Abei Energy
Green VII Ltd for the construction and operation of two large-scale solar farm
developments in Bedfordshire:
o 25/01471/EIA - Lime Kiln Solar Farm (~49.5 MW)
o 25/01472/EIA - Bottom Railway Solar Farm (~26.4 MW)

1. Loss of Agricultural Land (Both Sites)
Together, the schemes would result in the loss of more than 100 hectares of productive
farmland, including Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land.
This directly conflicts with:
o NPPF Paragraph 174 - requiring protection of BMV land
o Bedford Local Plan Policy 46S - prioritising previously developed land
The applicant has not demonstrated that lower-grade land or brownfield alternatives
have been adequately considered.
2. Visual Impact and Landscape Character (Both Sites)
Both proposals would introduce industrial-scale development into open countryside.
o Lime Kiln: The Landscape and Visual Assessment admits Major adverse effects
on Wymington Bridleway 2a.
o Bottom Railway: Significant harm to rural character, particularly in elevated and
open views.
These impacts conflict with Local Plan Policy 57, which requires renewable schemes
to avoid unacceptable landscape and visual harm. Planting mitigation will take years to
take effect, leaving prolonged landscape damage.
3. Impact on Cultural Heritage (Both Sites)
The Cultural Heritage Desk-Based Assessments identify high archaeological potential
at Lime Kiln and substantial below-ground sensitivity at Bottom Railway. This is
incompatible with NPPF Paragraph 194, which requires proper assessment and
protection of heritage significance. Limited trial trenching is insufficient for
developments of these scales.
4. Ecology and Biodiversity (Both Sites)
Both sites support protected species, including great crested newts, bats, breeding
birds, hedgerows, and priority grassland. Habitat loss, particularly for great crested
newts, contravenes NPPF Paragraph 174, which requires net gains to biodiversity?not
merely mitigation.
5. Cumulative Impact (Both Sites, Wider
Regional Context)
The cumulative impact of these two proposed solar farms must be considered in the
context of the existing and emerging solar landscape across Bedfordshire and
Northamptonshire.
Existing Local Cumulative Impact
Within 5km of the application sites are multiple operational solar farms, including:
o Odell Glebe Solar Farm
o Glebe Farm Solar Energy Park
o Little Irchester Solar Farm
o London Road Irchester Solar Farm
Local Plan Policy 57 requires cumulative landscape, biodiversity, and community
impacts to be fully assessed. This has not been done.
Major Solar Proposals in the Wider Region (NSIP-Scale)
Both Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire are currently identified as locations
for multiple large-scale solar developments, including two Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) with enormous land-take and environmental impacts.
These must be acknowledged when considering cumulative landscape and agricultural
effects.
Green Hill Solar Farm (NSIP Proposal - Northamptonshire/Buckinghamshire)
o Approx. 1,200 hectares (3,000 acres) - comparable in size to Heathrow Airport
o Up to 500 MW output, powering 115,000+ homes
o Accepted for examination June 2025
o Public hearings began October 2025
o Examination ongoing until March 2026
o Strong community objection citing countryside industrialisation and loss of
farmland
This proposal spans rural Northamptonshire, affecting areas around Grendon, Mears
Ashby, Earls Barton, Walgrave, and parts of Buckinghamshire.
East Park Energy (NSIP Proposal - Bedfordshire/Huntingdonshire)
o 776 hectares (nearly 2,000 acres)
o Output sufficient for approx. 108,000 homes
o Submitted to the Planning Inspectorate
o Includes large energy storage systems
o Significant concerns recorded by CPRE Bedfordshire and local communities
Regional Impact Context
When these NSIP schemes are considered alongside the Lime Kiln and Bottom Railway
proposals:
o The region is facing unprecedented industrialisation of agricultural land
o Large-scale cumulative landscape change will occur
o Loss of productive farmland will be severe and irreversible
o Community impacts will be highly magnified
The applicant has not acknowledged this wider context. Yet national policy requires it.
Under NPPF Paragraph 185 and Local Plan Policy 57, cumulative effects must be
properly assessed before approval.
6. Traffic and Accessibility (Both Sites, Severe Impact
on Podington)
Both applications would result in hundreds of HGV movements on rural lanes over a
prolonged period. The narrow roads in and around Podington?especially the
dangerous corner near Greys Manor in Podington?are unsuitable for heavy
construction traffic. Combined with speeding Santa Pod traffic, this raises safety risks
contrary to NPPF Paragraph 110.
7. Glint and Glare (Both Sites)
Both Glint and Glare Assessments identify potential impacts on:
o The Midlands Mainline
o Local airstrips (Wollaston-Tower Farm, Prospect Farm)
o Residential receptors
Even "low-intensity" glare presents a risk under NPPF Paragraph 185, which requires
adverse impacts to be avoided.
8. Lack of Community Support (Both Sites)
The applicant's own Statement of Community Involvement shows limited support, with
significant objections focused on landscape harm, loss of farmland, and cumulative
industrialisation. Under NPPF Paragraph 8, sustainable development must have strong
community support?these proposals do not.
Conclusion
Planning applications 25/01471/EIA (Lime Kiln) and 25/01472/EIA (Bottom
Railway) are unacceptable. They:
o Remove valuable agricultural land
o Cause substantial landscape and visual harm
o Threaten heritage assets
o Fail to secure biodiversity gain
o Do not address cumulative impacts, including major NSIP-scale solar proposals
o Introduce highway safety concerns
o Pose glint and glare risks
o Lack robust community support
When considered together with the wider regional context?including Green Hill Solar
Farm and East Park Energy?the cumulative impact becomes wholly unacceptable.
I therefore respectfully request that Bedford Borough Council refuses both
applications.

Please see Documents tab for comments

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to OBJECT to BOTH of the below planning applications.

25/01471/EIA for Lime Kiln (Podington side of the railway line)
25/01472/EIA for Bottom Railway (Wymington side of the railway line)

My family and I are residents of Podington.

I have read the planning applications for the proposed solar sites.
I have attended Parish council public meetings.
I have listened and talked to neighbours.
I have seen other solar constructions within the parish.
I have written to the applicant with questions, on numerous occasions.
I have received no reply from the applicant despite them stating they will get back to me.

I attach below a letter previously written about a month ago to Podington Hinwick and Farndish Parish council.
I have re addressed it to Bedfordshire borough council Planning department.
I have not changed my feeling towards the planning application since writing this letter.
I have attended a parish council open meeting where the Parish council explained why they are objecting to the two applications.
A lot of time has been spent by the councillors who represent our parish reseaching the two applications.
I strongly agree with the MANY concerns raised by the parish council.
I strongly agree with and support the Parish councils decision to OBJECT to both applications.

This should be treated as one application not as two separate applications. The sites are both clearly linked. "Two sites" is misleading.
The planning application/s lack integrity. Too many copy and pastes. Obviously no real time spent "on site" gathering accurate data.


"Dear Bedfordshire borough council planning department

I have been aware and have been thinking about the proposed solar farm for quite a while now.

Unfortunately I could not attend the developers meeting at Podington United Services Club. Instead I filled out an information request on Abei energy's website asking some questions and requesting some additional information. Unfortunately they have not provided me with a response.

If I was to stand on the Northamptonshire/Bedfordshire border with my back to Wellingborough, Bedford in front of me, the A6 on my left and the A428 on my right I can see a very green and currently unspoilt corridor of countryside made up of woods, river, farmland, wildlife habitats and small villages.

Commercial and residential development in this small area of North Bedfordshire has occurred and, in my opinion, has had a negative impact on its surroundings. Recently wind turbines and solar farms, previously Santa Pod and Chettle's/Wykes engineering and potentially to come large scale residential developments in areas such as Sharnbrook.

We have "got used" to the traffic from Santa Pod, the smell from Chettle's, the noise and visual impact of the wind turbines. However I believe we are at our limit for industrial development in this area. I do not think we can absorb any more of this kind of development without losing what makes this area a very special pocket of the countryside.

For the past 40 years I have regularly enjoyed the freedom of the footpaths and bridleways around the parish. I enjoy the peaceful quiet time exploring. I enjoy seeing the plants and wildlife changing throughout the seasons.

About a year ago I walked the footpath from Stonepit Cottages, across the fields towards Wymington. I turned right before the railway bridges and headed along the path towards Great Hayes Wood. Badgers, deer, birds, woodland, plants, everything I wanted to see while out for a relaxing walk. That was until I reached the current solar farm.
Walking between 6' high metal fencing and row upon row of solar panels and their supporting structures felt more like walking through a Wellingborough Industrial estate. Barely any wildlife, no vegetation other than grass, no crops, no cattle but I think there were some cctv cameras!

I was very sad and disappointed. I now try and avoid this route.

Instead, I now mainly head out towards Farndish and Wymington walking on the bridleway from Gold street or cycling the BOAT from Wymington road. If a Solar "industrial estate" was to be built here I would again feel very sad and disappointed. Wildlife habitats would not be created, they would be lost. Farmland would be lost. Unspoilt undeveloped land would be lost. A sense of freedom would be lost.

I appreciate the above is a bit emotional and not necessarily the type of information to use in an argument against a planning application however it is how I (a village resident) feel.

I understand a need for renewable "greener" energy.
I do not understand fully the effectiveness of current solar farm and wind turbine solutions. I am wary of them for the above and below reasons.

My reasons AGAINST ANOTHER Solar farm:
o Industrialisation of the countryside.
o Loss of wildlife habitats.
o Environmentally damaging.
o Negative impact on countryside enjoyment.
o Existing open footpaths becoming enclosed fenced off corridors (There have been too many footpaths closed/lost within the parish).
o Fencing stopping mammals from moving across the countryside.
o Negative impact upon the visual amenity.
o Loss of farmland (surely, we need as much as we can?).
o Construction traffic over Hinwick bridge. It is already dangerous with poor visibility. It has previously had structural issues.
o Inefficiency of solar panels and their battery storage requirements.
o Developers have said solar farms provide grazing land. I have never seen sheep or cattle grazing between solar panels.
o Developers will surely need to cut grass to maintain equipment. This will limit wildlife variety.

Other questions/considerations in my head:
o Are rural solar farms a short term fix to unrealistic targets rather than a long term effective solution to an energy requirement.
o If solar is effective then I believe that the best location would be on warehouse roofs, in cladding etc. No loss of green space/countryside. This may take longer to achieve but is surely a better option.
o Urban/industrial locations are likely closer to the grid? Less need for miles of electric cables to be installed below ground. More accessible for transport/construction.
o Is energy and profit from projects staying within the UK economy?
o Not that many years ago the majority of the village and local land owners were against the proposed application for 9 wind turbines. The arguments put forward by "CLOWD" (part funded by local landowners who own the land in the current solar application) in reducing the number of turbines to 3 are still surely relevant to the solar proposal???. Visual impact, inefficiency, traffic, construction noise, etc
o Farmers advocate the need for biodiversity for productivity. A solar farm would not increase biodiversity.
o If biodiversity is required then set a side these areas to wilding?
o We have recently lost large areas of woodland at the great hayes and Gold street through to Farndish. These may have been planted as "crops' or have been "diseased". It felt wrong seeing these areas being harvested and habitats being destroyed. Yes they may have been replanted but will take many years to grow back.
o Was the recent planning application approved for hardstanding on the Wymington road gateway? Is a hardstanding really needed here for agricultural purposes or is it for future solar farm access?
o Why were all the trees cut down on the Wymington road? Were they diseased? or is this to provide the "lines of site" described in the planning application?
o Other current and proposed local solar sites. With those already constructed eg Great Hayes, Santa Pod/Odell, near Wellingborough prison and on the old Irchester quarry and those proposed on the nearby "Green Hill" sites of Bozeat, Grendon etc is there just too much black instead of green?


I understand there is a need to make a living. I hear farming is currently unprofitable and hard work. I understand there may be different landowners involved in the proposal. I understand one of them may not live in the area. I understand developers may be providing opportunities for "hard up" farmers and "opportunistic land owners". I understand if profit is a priority land owners have the right to, within the law, make "best" use of their land.

We all have a small fenced off garden next to our houses. We look after our gardens.
Beyond our gardens we have farmland and countryside.
Whilst the majority of us do not own this land I believe we all have a responsibility in maintaining its current status.
We need to protect and preserve our countryside, green spaces, farmland, and the biodiversity living within it."



As before I object to the two planning applications.

Dear Planning Department,

I write to express my concern to the proposed construction of Solar Farms at the two sites in between Podington and Wymington.

I have lived in Podington for 39 years and have seen the wind farms and solar farms being built locally and many housing developments.
I feel that our farmland and rural habitats are gradually being eroded.

I understand that there will be a commitment to restore the land (after the solar farm's useful life) to present state.
This land is being sold by landowners for monetary gains to developers and I can see that promises and commitments waning over 40 plus years.
`
I appreciate the need for alternative energy but feel that prime agricultural and rural areas around our villages are not the places for development.
Surely urban and industrial locations would give better access to the grid?
This area is being spoilt visually and in the volume of countryside available for wild life and for us and future generations using footpaths for healthy recreation.

I understand that for construction a route would be used that would take traffic over the small stone bridge outside the entrance to Hinwick Hall.
This is a narrow, single carriageway bridge and entirely unsuitable for construction traffic.
The immediate approach to this road from Wellingborough?Irchester/Wollaston is a fairly steep decline and can be hazardous with the volume and size of traffic at present.

From February to mid November there are multiple largish events at Santa Pod which produce a large volume of vehicles of people attending.
For these events to take place there are already large vehicles and trailers arriving and departing around the event.
These are intrusive but manageable. An increase would not be manageable.

The vehicles would then need to go along the village High Street that is often narrowed with traffic for the local lower school.

At the other end of the village going towards Wymington there is a bottle neck on a very sharp bend with VERY poor visibility.
An increase in traffic here would be dangerous and especially so if a greater volume of larger vehicles were to use it.

At the two bridges there is very often a problem with vehicles stuck under the bridge.
There are sharp turns and poor visibility around this area.

I really do not think this is a suitable site for these two developments.

I do hope mine and other local people will have their concerns taken into account.

Objection to Planning applications

1) 25/01471/EIA Lime Kiln
2) 25/01472/EIA Bottom Railway

We wholly support the objection submitted by Podington Parish Council. Their detailed response is far more thorough and professional than the applications themselves.
We agree with all the points raised and feel particularly well placed to comment on the challenges that already exist on the narrow and winding road through Podington.
The public parking along the road for the school and on the High Street compromise the ability to drive through the village safely. There is a completely blind summit at the junction of Vicarage Lane and the High Street and other junctions have poor visibility. The two sharp corners and narrow road at the Wymington end of the village make it completely inappropriate as a route to the proposed sites.
We have recent personal experience of a large vehicle colliding with us at What Three Words location ///revived.eggshell.hotdog. We were stationary but a driver with inexperience of the road and a heavy load was unable to stop in time.
The impact of Santa Pod traffic through the village is significant and often hard to predict.
The residents have already raised concerns about road safety prior to these applications and the parish council is we understand in dialogue with the Borough Council about lowering the speed limit.
The solar farms seem ill conceived on a number of fronts we are grateful for the hard work of the parish council supporting the village with their objection.

· 25/01471/EIA for Lime Kiln (Podington side of the railway line)
· 25/01472/EIA for Bottom Railway (Wymington side of the railway line)

I formally OBJECT to the two applications for "temporary" planning permission for 25/01471/EIA and 25/01472/EIA.

As a resident in Podington, I wish to make it clear that I do not oppose change nor the need to create energy from non-fossil fuels. However, I have many concerns about these two applications. They are badly drafted with many errors and an astonishing lack of attention to detail. For example, the Environmental Impact Assessment Constraints for both applications are missing.

The proposed change of use for 40 years cannot be considered a "temporary" change. This terminology appears disingenuous and minimises the actual long-term impact of the development.

I also note that the developer, ABEI Energy, is not experienced in developing, operating or decommissioning solar panel farms. There is no evidence provided that they have the necessary technical or management competence to deliver, as their applications clearly demonstrate. For example, the developer assumes that energy will be generated over the full 40-year period but does not factor in the four-year construction and decommissioning periods. The solar farm's energy contribution is therefore overstated. Likewise, the developer does not explain how the electricity will be connected to the National Grid nor provide environmental assessments of the connection strategy.

The UK Government has a "Clean Power 2030 Action Plan". Whilst claiming they are contributing to this Plan, the developer in fact proposes beginning in 2031 with years of preparatory and building works. This means that they cannot contribute to the Plan in time. Their argument that they are contributing to UK Government policy is clearly inaccurate.

The developer's claim of only 20 HGVs per day for six days a week for both sites during construction is unrealistic. No provision appears to have been made for minibuses, fuel or waste removal lorries and other such vehicles. Likewise, no provision has been made for the movement of up to 341 workers per day. There is no traffic impact assessment for workers' vehicles if they choose not to use the proposed voluntary Park & Ride, which itself lacks a confirmed location. In addition, the traffic data provided by the developer is inaccurate, for example, the claim that only one bus was recorded in a 7-day period.

The proposed route through Podington, a small rural village, is completely unsuitable and raises serious safety issues. There will be a large amount of extra traffic on roads that were not designed for heavy vehicles. Known blackspots for HGVs and other larger vehicles include several 90-degree blind bends, the crossroads at Airfield Road, the narrow Hinwick Bridge (a listed building) and the low railway bridges. The route also passes a busy primary school. The vague promise to try to avoid deliveries during school drop-off and pick-up times seems spurious and not relevant to the needs of the school. In addition, the environmental pollution from heavy traffic during construction will be considerable.

In conclusion, local residents in Podington face significant upheaval for more than 40 years. This represents an unacceptably long time of noise, environmental pollution, disruption and heavy traffic. I urge the Planning Authority to reject both applications or, at the very least, require a substantial and independent reassessment of the energy projections, traffic plans, construction timelines, grid connection strategies and the developer's capability to deliver.

Dear Sir

I am writing to object to the above planning applications for the Solar Farm installations at Lime Kiln and Bottom Railway.

The reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. The use of prime agricultural land for this development.
2. The inadequate road through Podington to the construction sites for heavy construction traffic (very narrow road with sharp bend and poor visibility).
3. The impact of a large workforce in and around Podington.
4. The dangers to pedestrians and horse riders and also children going to and from Christopher Reeves school in Podington..
5. The impact on the destruction of natural habitats for wildlife and the eco system.
6. The impact on an area of natural beauty and surrounding conservation area caused by heavy industrial traffic and increased emissions and noise from this increase in traffic.

Resident of Podington



1st October 2025

References
· 25/01471/EIA for Lime Kiln (Podington side of the railway line)
· 25/01472/EIA for Bottom Railway (Wymington side of the railway line)


I wish to oppose the planning application for the above
- I am concerned by the loss of green space and the removal of many aspects of the landscape to even gain access to the proposed sites.

- Why do the access points to the work have to be gained through the village? If planning is considered, there needs to be a great deal more thought put into the position of any access points and the impact they may have.

- The local roads are already compromised with extremely poor road surfaces. HGV's using them on a regular basis, will only make this situation worse. There is also a severe underestimate as to the amount of traffic that will pass through the village and will cause safety issues around the school and the High Street and an increase in pollution levels, which is detrimental to everyone.

- The data produced appears to be a copy and paste exercise and I would be reluctant to accept any of the figures quoted.

- We need to ensure we have food security with our growing population and not commit to losing more land. Farmland is needed.

- The applications lack accurate detail. There would be a significant impact on the residents and the local environment which would be detrimental to everyone.

The applications should be refused.

Christopher Reeves V.A. Primary School
Chellington Church of England Federation
Hinwick Road, Podington
Nr. Wellingborough, Northants NN29 7HU




30th September 2025

Writing on behalf of the Governors of Christopher Reeves School

References
· 25/01471/EIA for Lime Kiln (Podington side of the railway line)
· 25/01472/EIA for Bottom Railway (Wymington side of the railway line)

There are many areas of these applications that give cause for concern not least the loss of green space and the removal of many aspects of the landscape to even gain access to the proposed sites. A major cause of concern for the school, is the increase in road traffic over a period of up to two years - the amount of vehicular movement estimated by the company is totally unrealistic. With the HGV's required to bring in the equipment and extra traffic needed to transport the workforce as well as many other requirements over this period, will inevitably cause an increase in CO2 levels. There does not seem to be any information provided on the increased exhaust levels that there will be and the implications this could have.
There is acknowledgement of the school and that they will try to avoid drop off and collection times. This is not sufficient there are many times when traffic is increased (school also runs a breakfast club and afterschool activities as examples) Manoeuvring around school traffic can be difficult at the best of times - the increase of HGV's and traffic hazards for the parents and children is just not acceptable.
Looking at the figures as estimated by the Parish Council, there could be up to 20 HGV's a day as well as the possible coaches, mini-buses and cars required for the workforce. This does not include any other equipment that may be needed. The fact that the company applying for the planning is unlikely to be the one carrying out the work is worrying and gives no confidence that there will be any commitment by the applicants in respect of the concerns of the local communities.
Why do the access points to the work have to be gained through the village? If planning is considered, there needs to be a great deal more thought put into the position of any access points and the impact they may have.
The governors wish to put in their objections to the existing plans. Much needs to be done to reduce the impact on the community and the local environment to make these plans viable.

Pauline Cameron (Governor)

Mrs Jane A Robins
9 Hornbeam Close
Podington
Wellingborough
NN29 7HZ

janearobins@gmail.com

October 1st 2025

Planning Services
Bedford Borough Council
4th Floor
Borough Hall
Cauldwall Street
Bedford
MK42 9AP

To whom it may concern,

Re; Objection to Planning Application 25/01471EIA and 25/01472EIA - Solar Farms on Land North of Podington Road and West of Main Railway Line, Wymington.

I am writing to formally object to these two planning applications, which propose change of use of agricultural land to solar energy production with associated infrastructure, landscaping and access works.
I have many worries but poor quality control in the planning application and lack of attention to detail from ABEI Energy is a major concern.
ABEI Energy appears to have no experience of Solar farm development in the UK and are employed in a speculative enterprise around the UK.
There are too many Solar projects already in operation or proposed within our local area ( within a 5 mile radius of Podington village, covering hundreds of acres).
Environmental Impact Assessment Constraints
There are 7 for 25/01472 and 6 for 25/01471: All are unavailable.
Environmental and Emotional Impact is considerable:
Disturbance to biodiversity, disruption and loss of countryside rights of way, loss of agricultural land for food production. All these are of massive importance for people's general health and well being. Food security is a major issue now and in the future. The pandemic highlighted these problems. We, the public and government organisations should be supporting our farmers to produce food. Solar production should not be on agricultural land but on the roofs of logistic buildings, houses and other areas which do not impact the countryside.
Trees, hedgerows, verges and woodland need to be preserved to help mitigate the effect of climate change and loss of biodiversity. The Landscape and visual impact of this site will be immense.

Unsuitable access and the road network around the proposed site.
The proposed route from Irchester, through Podington village has narrow twisting roads with several blind bends and a narrow bridge at Hinwick. The railway bridges cause problems regularly. The gradient of the lay of the land along the proposed access route brings severe safety issues.
Environmental pollution from such a heavy amount of traffic during construction on a small rural village will be considerable. The numbers given of lorries, deliveries, personnel is farcical in its naivety! The traffic volume will be excessive.
Solar panels cause contamination of the soil. De-commissioning must be part of the planning application with binding guarantees to ensure the removal and restoration of the site. There is no provision for long term aftercare.

Conclusion
This proposal fails to adequately satisfy the tests required for a development subject to EIA. it does not meet policy requirements for renewable energy projects in sensitive landscapes.

Please confirm receipt of my objection and I request to be notified of any decision made.

Yours faithfully
Jane Robins

Mr D W H Robins
9 Hornbeam close
Podington
Wellingborough, NN29 7HZ


1st October 2025
Planning Services
Bedford Borough Council
4th Floor, Borough Hall
Cauldwell Street
Bedford, MK42 9AP

Dear Sir / Madam

RE: Objection to Planning Application Reference 25/01471/EIA for Lime Kiln,
I am writing to voice my objections to the planned solar farm near Podington. As a resident of Podington village it causes great distress to me and the community that this poorly conceived and planned project has got to this point in the planning process. By what appears to be a renewables speculator business ABEI Energy Green VIII Ltd with no prior experience in the United Kingdom.
Lack of attention to detail and poor quality control throughout the planning application. There are multiple errors for example there is more than one bus that runs through the village per week. There is a school bus 2 twice a day and public bus 4 times a day during weekdays. Also the line of sight from the access of the planned site is on the wrong side as they appear to think that we are in Europe.
Gradient and the meandering of the road with multiple blind bends are a major safety concern. Plus the seasonal traffic from Santa Pod. This is only a narrow country road and cyclists also use this route frequently.
This is an arable farming area, with ancient hedgerows, trees and woodland plus G3 level fields. Food security and preservation of the local environment should be highly regarded, which this plan has not considered. There seems little actual thought and planning into the route access to the site. On the Wollaston road at Hinwick Hall there is a narrow and weak bridge, which is only suited for single file traffic. Then going through Podington, apart from the diesel emission from heavy vehicles, with stop starts to pass parked vehicles on the road through. The twisting route passes a busy school. There is another narrowing of the road at manor farm where large vehicles can not pass each other. Piggy corner is another problematic blind bend which even 2 cars find it difficult to pass. The number of HGV deliveries estimated in the data per day is also confusing. The plan does not calculate that the construction traffic has to return from the site; with this in mind these numbers should at least be doubled. So this is a huge impact on a small village with inadequate access roads for such a large construction site.
Also the numbers of road traffic accidents that have been stated from the plan, which the statistics have been provided by Bedford Borough Council, are totally inadequate as the area does not include Airfield cross roads, Hinwick Hall bridge and Podington Road which are notorious for accidents some that have resulted in fatalities.
There is no consideration for the green lanes and paths of the area. One of these seems to be used as the access to the site. The amount of extra ground work and destruction of the countryside to allow large and heavy vehicles to operate is more detrimental even before they build this unwanted solar farm. The countryside will never be the same and even though there is a 40 year plan where it should be returned back to its original state this will be impossible to achieve plus there is no drawn up execution for said restoration.
Leeching of heavy metal and other contaminates into fertile land is another missed environment impact assessment that has alluded the writers of this ill made plan. There is no mention of how the drainage of the site of our existing waterways will be carried out and the fact that they appear not to realise that there are any water ways. The drainage to this area is very problematic as the road floods and can be impassable under the bridges multiple times a year. This is another sign that the planners of this have not any idea what they are doing.
Within a small radius of Podington there are already way too many solar farms built and more in the planning process. It appears to be an opportunist timing to try and put this planning application through, as there is no future development plan at this moment for the area, so taking advantage of the disorganised situation. Also if as stated the environmental objective is to contribute to the "UK Government Clean Power 2030 Action Plan" it is too late as the start of construction is delayed way after the year 2030 so if the primary objective of the change of usage must be declined.
The public has no access to the constraints on the development reports by consultants, which are not available. Rights of way, Areas of agricultural interest, flood zones 2 and 3, IMRZ great crested newts and Network Rail. We should know the status and or decision outcome, which gives me reasons to be skeptical whether these mentioned constraints have been conducted in the correct manner.
The calculations in most parts of the plan show an inept ability for accuracy, detail and quality control. For example; Lime Kiln transboundary assessment is based on the capacity of 71MW solar farm, not 49.5MW (para 4.1.1). Then in section 4.3.2 are copied and pasted from the other application for planning of the second solar farm planning reference 25/01472/EIA Bottom Railway, claiming that the capacity of each is 73.98GWh even as they are different sizes. With another coming up in the transport number of vehicles being directly copied for both even though the construction tonnage is different.
The lack of transparency and up to date informing of this plan. The fact that the small window of opportunity to raise objections or concerns as I write this statement, that will be closed tomorrow shows the nefarious attempt of the ABEI Energy proposers of this plan. I want to be informed of all present and future correspondence and reports regarding the planning application reference 25/01471/EIA for Lime Kiln, via letter.
Yours Sincerely


David W H Robins

Dear Borough Councillors,

I am writing as a resident of Podington, to register my OBJECTION to planning applications 25/01471/EIA and 25/01472/EIA for two large solar farms proposed on green space and farming land located between the villages of Podington and Wymington.

My main objections to these two applications are as follows:

o The high level of traffic disruption that would be created in Podington and surrounding road network. The proposed route from the A509 to the sites near Wymington is totally unsuitable for the type and quantity of vehicles that would be involved in transporting equipment and materials, as well as the many workers arriving and departing each day.
o Increased risk of accidents resulting from this traffic, and the negative impact on health of residents and in particular, children from Christopher Reeves Primary School, from the additional diesel and noise pollution.
An alternative route via the A6 would be imperative in order to mitigate these risks.
o The environmental impact of extensive green space and ecologically-managed farming land being lost to hundreds of solar panels on both sites that together incorporate an unacceptably large area for the locale.
o The evidence of poorly conceived planning and inaccurate detail and analysis contained in the developer's planning application for change of land usage.

Please would you confirm that my objection has been received.

I wish to register my objection to the planning applications 25/01471/EIA and 25/01472/EIA for two solar farms to be located between Podington and Wymington.

My objection is on two grounds:
1. The proposed transportation of materials and equipment during the construction is from the A509 via the village of Podington. This carries accident risks and also exhaust pollution.
It would be far more efficient and carry less risks if the transportation was via the A6, with only a short distance on the outskirts of Wymington.
2. Environmental impact of converting rural farming land into industrial use / hundreds of solar panels.

Please confirm you receipt of this objection.
Thank you and kind regards,