In launching the targeted consultation (Wednesday 7 January and Wednesday 4 February 2026), Kingsway Solar has proposed a series of changes to its solar farm scheme. While presented as refinements, these changes reveal a pattern of increasing development density, loss of mitigation and planting areas, and displacement of impacts onto land and routes that were not previously affected.
Fewer planting and mitigation areas, more panels
Across the revised layouts for Development Areas A, B and C, land previously identified for ecological mitigation and landscape enhancement has been reduced or removed altogether. In several cases, these areas are now proposed for solar panels or associated infrastructure, with no alternative mitigation land identified elsewhere.
This is particularly evident in Land Area A, where Kingsway proposes additional panels in an area it describes as having “limited constraints”. In fact, land closest to the A11 was previously protected due to highly significant archaeology, with Historic England highlighting the need for appropriate buffer zones. This land was excluded from earlier layouts not only because of archaeological sensitivity, but also because of its role as an indicative ecological and landscape enhancement area.
Land Area A is already the most densely developed part of the scheme, with documented impacts on ground-nesting birds, barn owls and turtle doves. Adding more panels here increases ecological pressures while removing opportunities for meaningful mitigation.
Wildlife impacts intensified and displaced
Many of the proposed changes across Areas A, B and C would disrupt or remove wildlife habitats, not reduce impacts.
Rather than mitigating harm, the revised layout displaces ecological impacts elsewhere, increasing pressure on species already affected by the scheme. Ground-nesting birds, barn owls, turtle doves and other protected species face loss of habitat, disturbance during construction, and long-term enclosure of feeding and nesting areas.
These changes significantly undermine claims that impacts can be offset through design or management alone.
Density and displaced impacts on public rights of way
Rather than reducing impacts, several of the proposed changes shift them to new locations. Panels removed from Areas C3 and C4 — including in response to concerns about visual impacts on the area’s historic character — have been relocated to Areas C1 and C2.
This relocation has brought development much closer to public rights of way that were not previously affected. In Area B, new panel fields would directly border the Icknield Way, replacing open countryside with continuous solar panels, fencing and CCTV, and introducing persistent inverter noise. Walkers could spend 20–30 minutes moving through a visually enclosed corridor, fundamentally changing the experience of one of Britain’s oldest paths.
Similarly, in Area C, the revised layout would permanently alter the character of valued local routes, with no remaining “breathing room” on the site to absorb impacts without harming access or landscape quality.
Biodiversity Net Gain in doubt
The cumulative effect of these changes raises serious questions about whether Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) can realistically be achieved. Mitigation land has been lost or compromised, impacts have been displaced rather than reduced, and no ecological surveys were presented for Areas C1 or C2, despite these areas now being proposed for significant new infrastructure.
At the same time, all new panel locations in Area C are on Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land, increasing BMV land under infrastructure and further limiting opportunities for habitat creation, restoration or continued productive use.
Why this matters
Taken together, the targeted consultation proposals point to a scheme that has become denser, more constrained, and less capable of mitigating its impacts. Planting and enhancement areas have been squeezed out, wildlife impacts intensified and harm to public access and landscape character displaced rather than resolved.
This consultation is therefore a critical opportunity for residents to comment on changes that introduce new impacts without adequate mitigation or assessment.
What you can do: Tell Kingsway this is not what you asked – respond directly by email at enquiries@kingswaysolar.co.uk or by post to FREEPOST DOWNING KINGSWAY (no stamp required). If emailing, please copy KSCA at hello@kingswayaction.org into your email.
For further information visit the Kingsway Solar website: https://kingswaysolarfarm.co.uk/consultation