WHITESTONE SOLAR FARM DEVELOPMENT – SECOND CONSULTATION
Feedback from Jake Richards, Member of Parliament for Rother Valley – October 2025
As the Member of Parliament for the Rother Valley constituency, I am writing in response to the second round of consultation for the Whitestone Solar Farm proposal.
Since the first consultation, I have met regularly with your team and with residents across the affected communities to raise their concerns. While I note that the revised proposal includes some changes, including a reduction in the overall site area by around 25%, I do not believe these go far enough to address the fundamental issues identified in my first consultation response.
I acknowledge the specific changes made around Brampton-en-le-Morthen, Ulley, Upper Whiston, Harthill and Woodall. The introduction of additional offsets, the removal of certain fields, and steps taken to reduce visual impact in some areas are welcome. However, the proposal still represents an enormous industrial-scale development across Green Belt land. Despite the revisions, large parts of open countryside remain affected, and the cumulative visual and environmental impact on our villages would still be severe.
In addition to meetings and correspondence with residents, I also ran my own constituency-wide survey about the Whitestone proposal. The feedback was overwhelming in opposition to the development. Residents from across the affected areas raised strong concerns about the loss of agricultural land, the visual impact on the landscape, and the scale of the project. Many also questioned the suitability of constructing such a large solar farm within the Green Belt and expressed frustration at the lack of clear local benefit. These views have been consistent throughout my engagement and underline the depth of feeling within our communities about this proposal.
I have also reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement (Volume 1, Chapter 4: Alternatives and Design Evolution). While it outlines some design changes, it is clear that many of the concerns I raised in January 2025 have only been partially addressed or remain unresolved. Issues such as construction vehicle access, battery storage safety and siting, the proximity of panels to residential areas, and the lack of firm commitments on community benefit and local employment are still outstanding. The design refinements described are modest and do not materially reduce the overall impact on the Rother Valley’s countryside or its residents.
In my January 2025 consultation response, I set out a number of matters that I expected to see addressed before the second consultation. These were:
- It should be significantly scaled back, especially in the more sensitive areas close to the village boundaries of Brampton, Ulley, Upper Whiston, Harthill and Woodall, and around individual houses that are currently proposed to be surrounded by solar panels.
- Access for construction vehicles needs to be carefully considered and away from any routes regularly used by walkers, cyclists, and horse riders.
- Visual impact must be mitigated by significant boundary tree buffers around each site.
- Battery storage systems and transformers must be sited well away from residential areas and ensure the visual and noise impact is minimised – and health and safety concerns are taken into account.
- All public footpaths must be maintained and not confined to narrow corridors between rows of solar panels. Additional permissive footpaths should also be provided where there are existing paths used by walkers which are not defined as public rights of way.
- All of the sites must be developed in such a way that new and diverse habitats are created including new woodland, retention and enhancement of all hedgerows, and wildflower meadows created. There will also be opportunities for areas with poor drainage to create ponds and wetland areas as well as drainage from the solar panels to be via open water swales and balancing ponds, all of which can provide habitats for wildlife.
- The development should provide clear community gain through a voluntary community fund or other mechanisms such as cheaper electricity for households most directly affected.
- The developer should use local contractors and labour during construction and ensure local people are trained to service the development once operational.
I recognise that the latest version of the proposal now includes measures to deliver a biodiversity net gain, which is a positive step. However, there are still key elements of my original consultation feedback that have not been properly addressed. Many of the most sensitive areas remain affected, and local residents continue to feel that their communities will bear the brunt of this development without clear or fair benefit.
Whilst I fully support the principle of expanding renewable energy generation, this must not come at the expense of our communities. I therefore remain opposed to the Whitestone Solar Farm in its current form and I would be grateful, therefore, if my objections could be recorded and considered as part of the consultation. I would ask that any further changes lead to a more community-led proposal that genuinely responds to local concerns.
The second round of consultation has opened to provide feedback on the updated plans for the Whitestone Solar Farm proposal. The consultation will run from Tuesday 16th September until Tuesday 28th October.
I want to be abundantly clear: I will oppose this application due to the sheer size of the proposal and the effect on certain communities.
I also recognise that the consultation period set by Whitestone is very close to the minimum required under the Planning Act 2008. Considering the scale of the proposal, I believe this period is too short and does not allow residents and local stakeholders sufficient time to review the consultation materials and prepare an informed response. I intend to raise these concerns with them at our next meeting.
My position has remained unchanged. I am opposed to Whitestone. I have held regular meetings with residents and the developer since the plans came out in November 2024. I am pleased that regular meetings I have held with the developer has resulted in significant changes and a 25% reduction in the scale of the plan.
But nonetheless, the revised plan outlined in the latest documents is not good enough. Whilst I am supportive of the government’s plans for more renewable energy to cut bills and end our reliance on foreign supplies, my priority is always my constituents. Residents in the affected areas – Harthill, Woodall, Aston, Kiveton, Brampton-en-le-Morthen and Ulley – are rightly worried about this and I will stand with them. I urge residents to engage with the consultation and share your views.
The dates for the public consultation events are as followed:
2nd October 10am-2pm Thurcroft Gordon Bennett Memorial Hall, S66 9DD
3rd October 1pm-5pm Todwick Village Hall, S26 1HJ
4th October 10am-3pm Conisbrough Ivanhoe Centre, DN12 3JX
7th October 3pm-7pm Harthill Village Hall, S26 7YL
8th October 3pm-7pm Ravenfield Village Hall, S65 4PT
14th October 3pm-7pm Ulley Village Hall, S26 3YD
15th October 12pm-4pm Whiston Village Hall
I encourage as many residents as possible to attend these public consultations.
If you are unable to attend, you can submit feedback by:
• Completing an online feedback form, available at https://whitestonesolarfarm.co.uk/contact-us/
• Completing a paper feedback form, which can be picked up at one of the public consultation events or upon request
• Send an email to [email protected]
• Write to Whitestone Solar Farm, Freepost SEC Newgate UK Local (no stamp required)
Important documents 
Whitestone 2 consultation booklet: https://whitestonesolarfarm.co.uk/…/Whitestone-2…
Updated Whitestone 2 masterplan: https://whitestonesolarfarm.co.uk/…/Indicative…
Whitestone 3 consultation booklet: https://whitestonesolarfarm.co.uk/…/Whitestone-3…
Updated Whitestone 3 masterplan: https://whitestonesolarfarm.co.uk/…/Indicative…
https://national-infrastructure-consenting.planninginspec…
All documents available here: https://whitestonesolarfarm.co.uk/document-library/
Whitestone: UPDATE
Many residents will be receiving updated plans from the proposed Whitestone solar development in our area.
I want to be clear: I cannot support these plans. I have been holding regular meetings with residents and the developer. I am pleased that this has resulted in some significant changes and a 25% reduction in the scale of the plan. It is welcome that particular areas which local residents sought to be protected have been.
But nonetheless, the revised plan is not good enough. Whilst I support the government’s plans for more renewable energy to cut bills and end our reliance on foreign supplies, my priority is always my constituents. Residents in the affected areas – Harthill, Woodall, Aston, Brampton-en-le-Morthen and Ulley – are rightly worried about this and I will stand with them.
I will continue to work with the developer, urging them to make further changes. And over the coming months, I will be holding further public meetings for residents. Please do keep an eye out for these on Facebook and elsewhere.
The formal application still has not been made. This is likely to occur in the summer of 2026. I hope that further changes will be made before then. In the meantime, if you have any questions, or want to raise any issues with me, please do let me know: [email protected]
For the attention of Whitestone
WHITESTONE SOLAR FARM DEVELOPMENT – FIRST CONSULTATION
Feedback from Jake Richards, Member of Parliament for Rother Valley –
January 2025
As the Member of Parliament for the Rother Valley constituency I have received a lot of
comment and concern from my constituents about this proposal. I have held numerous
meetings across the constituency and published an online survey. This is an ongoing
process and I am determined to represent the views of my constituents to the developer and, as and when the application is made, to the decision-maker.
The main concern is the sheer scale of this proposal, covering some 3,500 acres of
agricultural land in the Green Belt. The development of a 750 MW solar farm will be by far the largest in the country and its impact on the rural parts of my constituency will be vast. It will fundamentally change the character of this largely arable farmland – land which is required, by planning policy, to be kept permanently open, to one of an industrial nature. It is my view that, before the next formal stage of this planning process the following is necessary:
- It should be significantly scaled back especially in the more sensitive areas close to the village boundaries of Brampton, Ulley, Upper Whiston, Harthill and Woodall and around individual houses that are currently proposed to be surrounded by solar panels.
- Access for construction vehicles needs to be carefully considered and away from any routes regularly used by walkers and cyclists.
- Visual impact must be mitigated by significant boundary tree buffers around each site.
- Battery storage systems and transformers must be sited well away from residential areas and ensure the visual and noise impact is minimised – and health and safety concerns are taken into account.
- All public footpaths must be maintained and not confined to narrow corridors between rows of solar panels. Additional permissive footpaths should also be provided where there are existing paths used by walkers which are not defined as public rights of way.
- The Government’s Action Plan for Clean Energy recognises the vital importance of restoring our nature depleted country and states that we should therefore ensure delivery of our climate and nature targets wherever possible in an integrated and joined up way. It is recognised that solar farms can bring significant biodiversity net gains way above the 10% statutory minimum. All of the sites must therefore be developed in such a way that new and diverse habitats are created including new woodland, retention and enhancement of all hedgerows, and wildflower meadows created. There will also be opportunities for areas with poor drainage to create ponds and wetland areas as well as drainage from the solar panels to be via open water swales and balancing ponds, all of which can provide habitats for wildlife.
- A large part of the site south of Brampton is designated in the Rotherham Local Plan as a non Statutorily Protected Site for nature conservation where it is the policy not normally to permit development. An exception should only be made where the need for the development in that location outweighs both the impact on the site’s intrinsic interest and any broader impacts on the national network of protected sites, and that adequate mitigation and/or compensation measures can be delivered. In view of this the land should be excluded from this development unless the mitigation and compensation measures proposed can ensure its nature conservation value is maintained and enhanced.
- The Government’s Action Plan makes it clear that those communities that are asked to host energy infrastructure should feel tangible benefits from the role their areas play in building a low cost, clean energy system. It says that ‘Whilst we want to accelerate infrastructure delivery, project developers must be clear that government expects them to continue developing for communities and nature. We are not writing a blank cheque for low quality applications that fail to consider these outcomes’.
- The Government plans to publish new guidance on voluntary community funds so that communities benefit in a fair way that compensates them for hosting this energy infrastructure. It is therefore clear that, as part of the DCO process, the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State will want evidence of the community gain from this development with information on the mechanism for delivery. It is therefore incumbent on Green Nation to seek views from each community affected by this development of local schemes that can be funded by the developer. This might also include cheaper electricity to those households most directly affected. I hope I can play my role in that consultation process.
- This development should use local contractors and labour during the construction stage and to train up local people to service this development once operational. Local job creation must be at the heart of this development.
- In conclusion, I would expect ongoing discussions with myself as a representative of residents’ interests within Rother Valley and trust that the feedback provided above will be fully incorporated into the next formal stage of this development proposal.
Yours sincerely
Jake Richards MP
Today (4th March), Whitestone have published their response to the recent consultation. As I have consistently said, I will fight this plan. Regardless of party politics, this is a project that will harm our area – and I will stand up for what is right.
I met with the company yesterday to once again press home the strength of feeling from across our community. I made it clear – as I have consistently – that residents’ voices must be heard and respected.
Following sustained engagement from our office, alongside the efforts of John Healey and the powerful response from local residents, the developer has confirmed a 37% reduction in the scale of the project. This is welcome, and some acute concerns have been met. But it’s not close to being enough.
Too many problems remain. Many residents are rightly worried about the impact on our countryside, local infrastructure and long-term implications for the area. We want to protect as much of our green space as possible – for today, and future generations.
This is not the end of the process by any means. The fight has just begun.
Over the coming weeks, I will be arranging further engagement with constituents to ensure your views continue to shape what happens next. And now, we turn to beginning to build a formidable campaign against this proposition which I intend to lead.
Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to write to me, attend meetings, and engage constructively. Your voice matters, and it is making a difference. Now is the time to fight for your area.