Sunderland AFC’s proposal for a large solar farm on green belt land, adjacent to its Academy of Light, has ignited a fierce backlash.
Local residents accuse South Tyneside Council of “greenwashing,” using environmental claims to justify inappropriate development.
The controversial plans, submitted in early July 2024, seek permission for a 40MWe ground-mounted photovoltaic array across land east and west of the training centre, with a proposed operational period of 30 years.
Ian Forster, a former councillor who has lived in Cleadon since 1987, expressed significant concern about the plans. He recounted that following the establishment of the Academy in the 1990s, local communities received assurances that no further major development would occur.
“This site is both a wildlife corridor and a natural green belt, serving as a divide between the areas of South Tyneside and Sunderland. It will be absolutely decimated if this solar panel farm goes ahead. There’s going to be lots of habitat,” Mr. Forster said.
He added that despite raising concerns with both the council and SAFC, their pleas have “fallen on deaf ears,” leading him to conclude that the sole motivation for the project is financial gain.
“I ask that the council, planning committee, and people of Whitburn, Cleadon, and East Boldon to look at the evidence and tell me if this makes sense,” Ian added.
“The residents of Cleadon are not anti-renewable energy, let’s get that straight. It’s not just the case of our backyard. What you see now is a precious farmland. When it’s gone, it’s gone,” the former councillor said.
Nigel Bundred, a Whitburn resident, described the land as “the last green belt that is between Sunderland and South Tyneside.” He emphasised its value for residents’ “to get quality of life, to be able to walk through and get a better mental state.”
“You are going to lose the field views, lose a green belt, which is a fundamental part of the Whitburn conservation area and what’s worse joining two towns together, which is unnecessary.”
Bundred challenged Sunderland AFC’s claims regarding power supply to homes, stating: “The club keeps claiming it’s going to provide power for so many homes. It’s not. They’ve admitted it’s a private company they’re supplying. They are not supplying any homes. So it’s not to the benefit of any of the neighbours or residents. It’s only to the benefit of Sunday FC to earn money. And that’s not right for the council to agree to that, given the major problems.
“The proposal is “criminal. It is destruction of land and nature with no good purpose. Removing this land for private commercial gain is totally unacceptable”, Mr. Bundred said.
Can’t read the full story? Watch the interview here:
Colin Campbell, another resident of Cleadon Village since 1973, suggested: “Sunderland AFC’s true motivation is to inflate the club’s value by transforming green belt into ‘grey belt’ for potential housing sales.”
He noted that solar panels could be installed on the stadium roof or cover the vast car park, negating the need to develop green land.
Mr. Campbell said: “What they are really trying to do is to steal green agricultural land for their own financial purposes. And once it’s gone, it is gone forever and we are no longer a village.”
Colin also mentioned the club’s past commitments: “As they’ve got a farm, they promised they would never do this. They were obviously lying then.”
“There’s going to be a fence here, there’s going to be power packs for batteries, there’s going to be a power station or power transformers to feed it into the grid. This will just transform this from green agricultural land to basically building land.”
Meanwhile, a 61-year-old Whitburn resident of five decades, described the proposal as “a scam.”
Tracy Oliver, questioned the operational viability of solar panels given her belief in ‘chemtrails’ blocking the sun.
“I cannot see the point in this field. Which box are they ticking?
This is never going to end, would it? If this proposal is approved and our residential area becomes industrial, what next will they want from us in the next few years?,” she said.
A Cleadon resident, identified as Clair, raised specific objections regarding the design and environmental assessment. She stated: “I object because the design approach is fundamentally flawed with a solar scheme designed around the desires of SAFC in an area of green belt on the edge of a conservation area that STC should be safeguarding, and which the applicant in their Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has stated ‘the nature and scale of the proposed development is such that the magnitude of change it exerts is judged to be high… the resulting landscape effect is therefore assessed as major adverse.'”
She added: “There is no logical rationale for clustering solar array around village settlements along the main road and footpaths connecting the villages of Whitburn and Cleadon to the coast. There is no evidence that STC and the applicant have truly assessed the worst-case environmental, social and human health effects of the proposed development.”
Public Opposition and Council Response
Residents from Cleadon, Whitburn, and East Boldon have actively campaigned against the proposal, with local petitions gathering significant support. One such petition, initiated by Nigel Bundred, has reportedly collected over 2900 signatures calling for the rejection of the solar farm plans.
The planning application documents acknowledge the impact of the proposed development. The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) states that “the nature and scale of the proposed development is such that the magnitude of change it exerts is judged to be high… the resulting landscape effect is therefore assessed as major adverse.”
The club’s planning statement, submitted by Cundall on behalf of SAFC, seeks full planning permission for the solar farm, including ground-mounted photovoltaic arrays, a substation, transformer stations, and various other ancillary infrastructures.
It specifies that the total development area, including a construction laydown area, is estimated to cover approximately 48.2 hectares. While the club asserts the proposal will contribute to their ambition of becoming a net-zero club and providing clean energy for up to 9,700 homes, residents like Clair maintain that the design is “fundamentally flawed,” prioritising the club’s desires over the protection of the green belt and conservation area.
As of the time of publication, Sunderland AFC, South Tyneside Council’s planning committee, South Tyneside Council, and councillors contacted for comment have yet to provide a response.
The date for consideration of the proposal is yet to be announced.
Leave a Reply