The Conservative Group at Suffolk County Council has raised serious concerns over the proposed EcoPower Suffolk solar farm and battery energy storage project in Mid Suffolk, warning that residents are being asked to comment on a scheme without having access to the full facts.
As the consultation launches today, Conservative councillors have immediately identified 11 grounds for objection, comprising 60 individually evidenced concerns, across five major themes:
- The developer's own experts contradict its claims about environmental impact.
- Almost 1,000 hectares of Suffolk's best farmland could be lost for up to 40 years.
- Serious questions remain over the safety of the proposed battery storage facility.
- The project is proposed in an area already facing severe water pressures.
- Residents are being asked to judge the scheme before full information about its risks is available.
Councillor Richard Rout, Leader of the Conservative Group at Suffolk County Council, said
"At first glance, this statutory consultation from EcoPower leaves more questions than answers. Important surveys on wildlife, archaeology and landscape are still missing. In places, we can see the value of early engagement, and I applaud local town and parish councils for engaging so fully to this point and securing some concessions.
"However, a lot more needs to be done, and we still have huge concerns over the transport impacts, the damage to the Mellis conservation area, listed buildings, tourism, rights of way and our natural environment and landscapes. Moreover, the battery storage proposals — in the area of a public drinking water source — seem wholly unsuitable.
"As a group, we will be offering to work with local parishes, to help them shape their response, and ensuring the County Council's response is suitably robust."
Councillors are encouraging residents and businesses to take part in the consultation and ensure their views are heard. Conservatives will also work alongside parish councils to review the proposal and raise their concerns.
Councillor Matthew Hicks, Conservative spokesperson for Local Government Reorganisation, Devolution, Farming and Rural Affairs, and the elected councillor for the Thredling division, also said:
"I've had my serious doubts about this proposal from the very outset. While calling themselves EcoPower Suffolk, we need to be clear that this is not a local scheme — it is an international project from a company headquartered in Israel.
"Do they really understand Suffolk and our communities? When they make a simple copy-and-paste error in today's documents, referring to consulting the 'Surrey Wildlife Trust' for a Suffolk scheme, I have to question their professionalism and whether this is just a lift and shift of another project.
"From a rural perspective, seeing that 87 percent of the scheme, nearly 2,500 acres, is our best and most versatile farmland fills me with dread, and on those grounds alone it should be refused. As a nation, we need to ensure that farming pays — we cannot blame the landowners who are struggling to make ends meet due to this awful Labour government."
The Conservative Group will continue to hold Suffolk County Council's Reform UK administration to account throughout the process, insisting on a thorough and robust assessment of the proposal, ensuring residents' concerns are heard and that full information about the potential risks and impacts is made available to local communities.
Notes to editor:
- While EcoPower describes the site as having "limited environmental constraints," its own reports identify significant impacts on the Mellis Conservation Area, the scheduled ancient monument at Cranley, protected wildlife, local tourism businesses and residents.
- Around 87% of the site is classified as "best and most versatile" agricultural land, with no guarantee it will return to food production once the project ends. The proposals would leave cables buried in the land, with no financial bond in place to guarantee restoration.
- The proposal includes a large-scale lithium battery storage facility sited close to local communities and within a protection zone for public drinking water. The developer's own safety documentation acknowledges a residual fire risk in the event of a fire, while the detailed fire safety case, water containment design and emergency plan would only be provided after permission is granted — and the precise storage capacity is yet to be confirmed.
- The site sits within a wholly groundwater-dependent supply zone where new mains water connections are restricted until 2032, yet the scheme would require water for both construction and firefighting.
- Important surveys relating to soils, wildlife, archaeology and landscape impacts have not yet been finalised, leaving communities to consider the scheme without access to the full picture.
