BREAKING: Environmental Health Objects
NEW DEADLINE: DEC 19thAn official Memorandum from the Council's Environmental Protection team has concluded that noise emissions from the site are "unlikely to be acceptable".
- Operational noise predicted to be +12dB above background levels ("Significant Adverse Impact").
- The applicant FAILED to assess construction piling noise, validating local concerns.
- No detailed mitigation measures have been identified.
The Deadline Has Passed
Application Expiry Date: 19th December 2025
Total Consulted: 73
Comments: 131
The Community Voice
The community has spoken with a united voice. Crucially, this opposition is driven by the residents most severely affected.
Local Impact Breakdown
- Tunstall Village (Nearest) 23+
- West Appleton (Nearest) 9
- Surrounding Villages* 14
- Total Immediate Area 46
*Includes East/West Appleton, Hackforth, Hornby & Catterick.
Commercial Interests
Analysis of Support
- Landowners (Beneficiaries) 2
- Construction Co. (Beneficiaries) 3
- GSC Grays Agents 4
- Independent Locals 4
Note: GSC Grays act as agents for landowners with a proven track record of promoting solar developments.
"Genuine community support is statistically negligible."
The UK is Watching
It’s not just Tunstall. People from across the country are signing our petition to stop the industrialisation of prime farmland.
Terence
Chelmsford • 3 weeks ago
"If we keep covering all of our arable land with solar panels there will be no place to grow food crops... also with the short life of most panels there will then be the problem of disposal."
Stephen
Leicester • 2 weeks ago
"Why are these Solar farms being built? One word: Greed... This government needs to invest in locally produced electricity."
S. (Supporter)
Derby • 2 weeks ago
"The UK as a whole is now drowning in solar panels - villages are being surrounded... there will be nothing ‘green’ about importing food because we can’t grow any!"
Takes 30 seconds. Join 597+ others.
The 10 Reasons It Must Be Stopped
You don't need to be a planning expert to see why this application is flawed. Click any card below that concerns you to jump straight to the objection form.
THE 2039 SCANDAL: Material Misrepresentation?
"Developers cannot rely on infrastructure not yet funded, approved, or built."
We have uncovered official data from the NESO (National Energy System Operator) register. Row 2119 explicitly lists the connection date for this project as 2039
FAILED POLICY TESTS:
The NPPF and National Policy Statements (EN-1 and EN-3) require infrastructure to be:
- DELIVERABLE
- VIABLE
- CAPABLE OF TIMELY IMPLEMENTATION
A project waiting 14 years for a grid connection fails all three. To claim otherwise implies "early operation" where none is possible, which constitutes material misrepresentation to the Planning Authority.
This mistake was maintained in a subsequent version which moved the project to Row 2119 (checked 11th Dec). We managed to save the original spreadsheet before it was amended.
Download Original Saved Evidence (Row 326)
The Grid Reality Checklist
"Undue reliance on speculative future grid reinforcements undermines the planning balance."
The True State of the Grid
Yorkshire & The Humber: A forensic look at the DNO's own data.
1. The Simple Truth
Across Yorkshire & the Humber, the electricity grid is already constrained. Northern Powergrid’s own datasets show that many substations are heavily loaded, some exceeding practical limits, and the network relies on constraint management tools.
There is no published dataset that proves spare, unconstrained capacity exists. Claims that “the grid can take it” are not evidenced by data.
The Most Important Fact
“Northern Powergrid publishes extensive data on network assets, utilisation, and operational stress, but it does not publish any dataset demonstrating firm future grid deliverability or guaranteed export capacity for new generation projects across Yorkshire and the Humber.”
2. What the Datasets Actually Show
A. Substation Heatmaps
- SHOWS: Percentage loading & growth pressure.
- DOES NOT SHOW: Guaranteed spare capacity.
B. Live Operational Metering
- SHOWS: Real power flows day-to-day.
- REALITY: Published because constraints are real.
C. Embedded Capacity Register
- SHOWS: Accepted offers.
- DOES NOT SHOW: If they can actually export.
D. Long Term Development
- SHOWS: Planning assumptions.
- DOES NOT SHOW: Firm delivery commitments.
Why This Matters
Planning decisions are being made on the assumption that "capacity exists". But the data shows constraint management, not abundance. Communities are being asked to accept permanent countryside loss without evidence that the power can actually be delivered.
A 40-Year Industrial Power Plant
The planning application ZD25/00369/FULL seeks to build a 22.5MW ground-mounted solar farm on agricultural land between Tunstall and East Appleton. This is not a temporary diversification. It is the 40-year industrialisation of our countryside, proposed by a developer with a precarious financial history and based on the same false promises of "biodiversity net gain" that were broken at the adjacent site.
National & Regional Media Coverage
The press are waking up to the scale of the crisis in North Yorkshire. Independent investigations validate our concerns about food security and landscape industrialisation.
"Food Shortage Concerns"
A major new report highlights the risk to Best and Most Versatile (BMV) farmland raised by Tunstall Parish Coucil.
"Critics argue that taking such productive land out of use undermines the country’s ability to feed itself... North Yorkshire is bearing the brunt of solar industrialisation."
The article reinforces our objection that the cumulative loss of agricultural land in this specific area is unsustainable.
"Smothered with Solar Panels"
An investigation into the 300+ solar applications threatening to change the character of the county forever.
"Residents feel like 'prisoners in their own homes'... blaming a lack of government protection for food security as an 'unforgivable omission'."
Highlights the "salami-slicing" of the countryside and the feeling that communities are powerless against big firms.
"Controversial" Plans for a "Third" Farm
The Darlington & Stockton Times has also highlighted the growing concern, branding the plans as "controversial" and noting this is the third large solar farm proposed for the immediate area.
THIS IS NOT A STANDALONE SITE. IT'S A PIECEMEAL INDUSTRIALISATION.
This Isn't Just Farmland, It's Our Heritage
The developer's reports "forget" to mention that this industrial site will destroy the historic setting of our village's oldest properties. Public records show Low Pasture (a 1700s woodcutter's cottage) and **Hollin Farm (formerly known as 'Hollin Close')** were integral parts of the historic Hornby Castle Estate.
The exceptional, unspoilt vista from the public footpath today.
The 1930 Hornby Castle Estate sale map, identifying the properties.
The 1930 sale document proving the historic rights of Low Pasture.
The developer's heritage assessment **completely omits** these **Non-Designated Heritage Assets (NDHAs)**. This is a critical failure. National planning policy requires their protection. This isn't just a field; it's the historic setting of our community.
THE APPLICANT IS IGNORING OUR ACTUAL HISTORY.
Read the Conservation Officer's Report → | See the 1930 Estate Document →
The National Picture: Why This Fight Matters
This isn't just a local issue. A report from the CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) highlights the nationwide threat. Here’s what’s at stake and why your objection is so important:
1. It's an Industrial Power Plant
The developer uses "green" language, but CPRE is clear: "These are not ‘farms’, they are industrial-scale power stations... surrounded by high-security fencing, CCTV, and floodlighting." This is the 40-year industrialisation of our countryside.
2. There is a Better Way (Brownfield First)
Objecting isn't "anti-solar." It's "pro-smart-solar." CPRE argues we must "use the vast areas of south-facing commercial rooftops... on warehouses, factories, car parks." The argument isn't "No to solar," it's "Yes to solar, but in the right place."
3. It's a National Food Security Crisis
As the CPRE notes, "...using land which is designated for food production is irresponsible." As a nation 40% dependent on imported food, sacrificing productive farmland makes us all less secure. This isn't a NIMBY argument; it's about national interest.
4. You Can't Assume Planners Will Stop It
The CPRE report warns that "National planning policies... are being ignored" and "local planning authorities... are failing to apply them." Only a strong public response can force the council to uphold its own rules and protect our landscape.
The True Cost: "Middle of an Industrial Site"
This BBC Look North report shows the devastating personal impact of large-scale solar. Crystal and her family moved to Exelby for the quiet life, the wildlife, the perfect place to raise a family. Now, plans for a solar farm mean their house will be surrounded, with panels 2.6 - 3 meters high.
As Crystal says, their rural home will become "literally... the middle of an industrial site." Fenced-in footpaths are described like "being in a prison camp." Crystal's husband Nigel is clear: "I would not want to stay here." This is the disproportionate harm the Tunstall proposal inflicts.
Impact: Noise & Disruption
This video footage from nearby Skeeby Solar Farm highlights the harsh reality communities face: months of extreme noise pollution during construction. Piling rigs generate noise over 100dB, shattering the peace alongside constant HGV traffic.
The developer hasn't provided a proper Noise Assessment for Tunstall, legally required to assess impact on residents (like Low Pasture, Phil Kirby Racing) and wildlife. With Enviromena's history of costly refits (£3m recently), this disruption could return for maintenance and decommissioning.
Impact: Our Bronze Age Heritage
This recent video highlights the Bronze Age burial mound (tumulus) known as Milky Hill, right here in our parish. Featured on Piper Neil Clarke's channel, it's a locally cherished, nationally important heritage site, valued for its history and beauty.
Historic England **OBJECTS** to the plan, stating it will harm the barrow's significance by eroding its rural character and commanding views. They found the developer's assessment **"insufficient"** and require more information before the plan can proceed.
Impact: Loss of Wildlife Habitat
This video shows huge flocks of geese using the open fields proposed for the solar farm. This area provides vital feeding and resting grounds for these and other bird species, particularly during migration and winter. Local evidence confirms Red List species like Curlews also breed here.
Covering this land with thousands of solar panels and security fencing will destroy this habitat, displacing wildlife and disrupting local ecology. The developer's claims of 'biodiversity net gain' are questionable given the flawed surveys and immediate loss of this valuable open space.
Proof: Council Was Misled on Grid Capacity
This is the official video of the NYC Strategic Planning Committee (July 8, 2025) approving the related Brompton-on-Swale solar farm.
At 50:01, a Councillor supports approval *specifically* because he believes the Leeming/Skeeby grid connection would then be "at capacity," putting a "cap on the risk of endless cumulative applications."
The Tunstall application, connecting to the *same* substation, proves this was wrong. The committee was materially misled, and is now at risk of repeating this error.
Detailed Reasons to Object
1. PREMATURITY: The 2039 Scandal
NESO data (Row 2119) indicates a grid connection date of **2039**. Approving this now would create a 'stranded asset' with zero public benefit for 14 years. The application is premature and should be refused.
2. Council Confirms: 'Unacceptable Noise'
Environmental Health (27 Nov 25) states noise will be **+12dB above background** ("Significant Adverse Impact") and confirms the applicant **failed to assess piling noise**, risking animal welfare. **NPPF Para 191 (Dec 2024)**.
3. Grid Overload & Flawed Justification
Developer's website claims "grid capacity" justifies the site. This is false. Public documents (Grid Note) prove **Leeming Bar substation is at capacity** and requires "switchgear replacement." The Council must not ignore this critical fact now that the 49.9MW Brompton BESS is *approved* and a 57MW Scruton BESS is *accepted* for the same connection.
4. Cumulative Impact (133.9 MW Total)
This 22.5MW site forms a massive **133.9 MW** industrial cluster (inc. approved 49.9MW Brompton BESS, accepted 57MW Scruton BESS & connected 4.5MW Stripe Solar @ E.Appleton) all targeting the overloaded Leeming Bar substation. Contrary to **NPPF Para 180(e)** regarding cumulative effects of pollution/development.
5. Heritage Harm - HE Objects
Historic England **OBJECTS**, citing harm to the setting of nationally important Bronze Age Barrows (inc. Milky Hill). Finds developer's heritage assessment **"insufficient"**. **NPPF Para 205** requires 'great weight' be given to conserving designated heritage assets.
6. Highway Safety Risk
NYC Highways **reject applicant's HGV plan as unsafe** for Catterick Lane junction, demanding passing places. 36 weeks of construction traffic (up to 32 HGV movements/day) endangers users. Violates **NPPF Para 115** (Safe and suitable access).
7. Loss of BMV Land (Misrepresentation)
The developer claims this site is 'poor quality' land. This contradicts the official Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) Report submitted for the immediately adjacent site (Ref: 15/00448/FULL, Document 1138168).
That report (June 2015) proved that 29-33% of the adjacent site is Grade 3a (Best and Most Versatile) land. Soil quality does not simply degrade at a boundary fence. The applicant's claim that this site is entirely non-BMV is a material misrepresentation that conflicts with Written Ministerial Statement HCWS466 and NPPF Para 187(b) (Dec 2024).
8. A 'Trojan Horse' Application?
This plan excludes a northern parcel (closer to Tunstall) where the developer has a commercial "overage" payment due to NYCC. Evidence (like their ALC report covering the *larger* area) shows intent to develop this land later, likely after the fee expires. This is a phased application hiding the true cumulative impact.
9. Flawed EIA Process
Historic England stated initial info was **"insufficient"** for EIA screening (ZD24/00527/EIASCR). Council proceeded without requiring a full EIA regardless. Process built on flawed foundation. (CPRE: "local planning authorities... are failing to apply [policies]").
10. Harm to Residential Amenity
Unfair site choice concentrates 40-year industrial impact (noise, visual intrusion) directly onto neighbouring homes (e.g. Low Pasture). Contrary to **NPPF Para 135(f)** which requires a high standard of amenity for existing users.
11. Loss of Vital Wildlife Habitat
Applicant's ecological assessment is factually incorrect. Local evidence confirms Red List breeding birds (Curlews, Oystercatchers) use this land. Breaches NERC Act duty & **NPPF Para 186(a)** (Refusal if significant harm not avoided).
12. Proven Biodiversity Failure
Developer's website promises "net beneficial gains for biodiversity." This is non-credible. The company associated with the dissolved site next door is linked to **Stripe Solar Ltd**, which the ECR confirms is the customer for *both* the existing East Appleton site *and* this proposed Tunstall site.
13. Noise Pollution
Months of construction noise (piling >100dB, HGVs) will shatter rural peace. No baseline noise assessment provided for construction. Violates **NPPF Para 191** (Mitigate adverse impacts on health/quality of life).
14. Accountability & Decommissioning Risk
Developer's website promises restoration will be "secured via planning condition." This is worthless. The parent group has **£11.6M losses**, the project company is **DORMANT**, and the linked company **Stripe Solar Ltd** saw its sister company next door **DISSOLVED**. A multi-million-pound, underwritten bond is essential.
15. Failure to Prioritise Brownfield
This objection is not "anti-solar." It is "pro-smart-solar." National policy (**NPPF Para 124**) dictates that effective use of land (rooftops and brownfield) must be prioritised *before* destroying productive countryside.
16. No Net Economic Gain
The proposal offers no significant, lasting local employment. It merely relocates economic activity from the sustainable, long-term business of agriculture to a remote energy company with minimal staffing needs, causing a multi-generation impact on heritage agriculture supply chain employment opportunities.
17. Threat to National Food Security
This appears a deliberate attempt to circumvent national policy. The Written Ministerial Statement (HCWS466) is unequivocal that "best agricultural land must be protected for food security" and developers must avoid BMV land. The applicant has not met this onus, posing a direct threat to our national resilience.
18. Fire Safety & Access Risks
The application fails to meet **National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC)** guidance. Internal access tracks (5m) are too narrow for aerial appliances (req. 6m). No details on water tanks or future BESS plans. This poses an unacceptable safety risk contrary to **NPPF Para 102 (b), 116 & 135 (f)**.
Important Documents & Evidence
National Planning Policy Framework (Dec 2024)
The Government's planning policies for England. Key paragraphs include 180 (cumulative impact), 191 (noise), and 135 (amenity).
Read the NPPF →Official Planning Application
View the full application (ZD25/00369/FULL), documents, and comments on the Council Planning Portal.
Go to Portal →Northern Powergrid ECR (Feb 2025)
Public grid register. Confirms Tunstall (22.5MW - Stripe Solar), Brompton BESS (49.9MW - GRID), Scruton BESS (57MW - Balance Power) & E.Appleton (4.5MW - Stripe Solar) connect to Leeming Bar.
Download the ECR File (.xlsx) →Grid Note - PROOF OF OVERLOAD
Proves the Leeming Bar substation is at capacity and requires a 'switchgear replacement' *before* new connections can be safely added.
Read the Grid Note →Scruton BESS FAQ (Fence Dike Ln)
Developer (Balance Power) FAQ confirming the 57MW Scruton BESS project connects to the **Leeming Bar substation** (Est. 2030).
Read the Scruton FAQ →Developer's Public Record (Stripe Solar)
Public Companies House records for Stripe Solar Ltd (08105442), listed in the ECR as customer for *both* the existing E.Appleton site *and* the proposed Tunstall site.
View Company Overview →View Filing History →
Historic England Objection
HE **OBJECTS** due to harm to Bronze Age Barrows, finding developer's assessment **"insufficient"**.
Read Historic England's Letter →EIA Screening Report
Shows Historic England found info **"insufficient"** early on, yet Council decided no full EIA needed.
Read the Screening Report →Council Meeting Minutes (July 8, 2025)
Official minutes confirming the committee was incorrectly assured the grid connection would be "at capacity" after the Brompton application.
Read the Minutes →Developer's Initial (Wider Interest) Plan
This "early draft" layout was sent by the developer's PR team (Alpaca) to the Parish Council (Sept 2024). It shows their interest in a much larger area, including the northern 'overage' land, proving the current plan is 'salami-sliced'.
View the 'Alpaca' Plan →Developer's Present (Reduced) Plan
The final, submitted plan, which excludes the northern parcel—likely to avoid a payment to NYCC, which expires in 10 years.
View Current Plan →Highways Authority Concerns
NYC Highways **reject** applicant's HGV plan as unsafe, demanding passing places near Catterick Ln junction.
Read Highways Response →Developer Financials (Public Record)
Applicant's 2024 report (Companies House) showing **£11.6M loss**, **£26.2M net liabilities**, and **DORMANT** project company.
View Filing History →Developer Personnel Link (Anesco)
Press release showing Enviromena's CCO was Sales Director at Anesco (original developer of failed adjacent site) during its 2015 planning.
Read Press Release →Adjacent Site: The 2015 'Promise' (Condition 1(r))
The "Biodiversity Management Plan" was not just a suggestion; it was a formal, legally-binding Condition 1(r) of the original planning permission **15/00448/FULL**. This is the plan that was later broken.
Read the 'Promise' (Biodiversity Plan) →Read the Granted Permission (See p.2) →
See all files for 15/00448/FULL →
Adjacent Site: Proof of Failure (2021)
A 2021 monitoring report for the adjacent site (**15/00449/FULL**) shows promises were broken: the Hazel Coppice 'southernmost row... died' (p.24).
Read the 2021 Failure Report →See all files for 15/00449/FULL →
Adjacent Site: Final Accounts (Public Record)
The 2022 accounts for East Appleton North Solar Ltd (adjacent site) from Companies House, filed before its dissolution.
View Filing History →Adjacent Site: Company Dissolution
The official Companies House Gazette Notice confirming the company for the failed adjacent site was **DISSOLVED** in April 2025.
View Filing History →CPRE Report: The Problem with Solar
Report from the Campaign to Protect Rural England on why industrial solar on farmland is the wrong choice.
Read the CPRE Report →National Food Security Policy
Official government and parliamentary statements (inc. HCWS466) establishing the policy to protect BMV land.
Read HCWS466 →Read GOV.UK Policy →
'Salami-Slicing' Article
Northern Echo article reporting on the Tunstall plans, questioning if the proposal is being "salami-sliced" to avoid scrutiny.
Read the Article →Green Pledges & Higher Bills
Guardian explains how green levies are set to increase energy bills for UK households - a major concern during the cost of living crisis.
Read the Article →Noise Impact Assessment
The developer's Noise Assessment (Nov 2025). Fails to model construction noise.
Read Noise Assessment →Design & Access Statement
Applicant's main planning document detailing the proposal and construction.
Read DAS →How To Object
The best way to object is by email (Steps 1-3 below). A personal email has the **most weight** in planning.
Alternatively, you can use the official council portal, but our email helper is easier.
You MUST PASTE this text into the new email.
Step 2: Click to Email the Council(Note: This will Cc the campaign and the Case Officer, Jessica Harrison.)
Step 3: Sign the Petition
Sign the Petition