Farmland is for food, not energy

I am appalled at the planned photovoltaic (PV) panels [‘Solar farm size of 86 football pitches, Gazette, September 2].

Farmland should be used for food, not energy - PV on houses avoids loss of fields or natural areas.

Land is a huge carbon store, increased by vegetation, but installing PV damages carbon, and restricts vegetation on the land.

Rewilding is the best way to increase carbon - mixed woodland stores several hundred tonnes per hectare, far more than arable land, and it increases over a long period.

Europe has a third more trees today than in 1900. Most were not planted, but grew on abandoned farmland. Letting nature help to meet the challenging government tree targets would be efficient and cheaper.

If all 700,000 new houses built in England since 2019 had 4 kw on their roofs, providing 2,800 MW, panels would generate 3,000 kwh annually – our use is 2,500 kwh.

A big advantage is avoiding electrical losses between solar farms and users – which is particularly relevant for high loads, such as charging electric vehicles. Also, the panels could help keep houses cooler in the hotter months.

The council leader has changed council governance, so it should be no problem for him to require PV on new houses under the Climate Action Plan.

Chris Lowe

Hackington Road, Tyler Hill

■ In the space of a few months we have had two planning applications for solar farms in the area, one of which is at Old Wives Lees.

The developers spout on about the many tons of carbon that will be saved, but does that take account of the carbon spewed out by the trains, boats, planes and lorries that will be used to transport the food that could be grown locally were the farmland used as intended?

If all new houses were fitted with solar panels, the land could be saved, but those in government would sooner see the country smothered so they can tick boxes.

L D Goddard

Ashford