Findings from the KSCA Community Survey, conducted between 8 June and 1 September 2025, confirm that over 90% of respondents oppose the proposed Kingsway Solar scheme for South East Cambridgeshire, with more than 86% objecting in the strongest possible terms.
Download a copy of the report here: Community Assessments of the Proposed Kingsway Solar Project 2025
Of the 211 local residents surveyed, 194 (91.9%) expressed primary concern about the impact on local landscapes, while 90% cited destructive effects on nature, wildlife and agriculture. Other key concerns included the scale of the project, the encirclement of villages, and poor communication from the developer, Kingsway Solar (Downing Renewables, a subsidiary of the venture capital group Downing LLP).
Main priorities and concerns
The survey included six sections and provides a comprehensive view of residents’ priorities and concerns. Our detailed 25-page analysis explores the full dataset, highlighting several important findings:
- Residents are not opposed to renewable energy, but want it delivered in a local, fair and environmentally responsible way
- The project has eroded public trust through poor consultation, communication failures and perceptions of “greenwashing”
- People value the countryside for wellbeing, farming and wildlife, and see its loss as too high a price for this development
- There is strong support for alternative green solutions, such as rooftop solar, smaller-scale projects and community-owned schemes.
In open comments, residents describe the industrialisation of open countryside and farmland as ruinous to local lifeways and landscapes, an irrevocable loss for future generations, and a threat to food security, with poorly characterised health and safety risks.
While there is strong support for Net Zero, the 3,079-acre Kingsway Solar proposal is widely regarded as wholly inappropriate for this unique, undulating landscape of rolling fields, traditional hedgerows and open views, much of which is classified as Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.
In contrast to accusations of ‘NIMBY-ism’, survey findings show that respondents ranked losses of landscape amenity, nature and agricultural land (90–98%) more than five times higher than falling property values (10–15%).
Overall, 75% of respondents said they hope the scheme will be rejected outright, while 25% felt that, if it proceeds, it should be significantly reduced in size. Only two respondents (<1%) expressed unconditional support for the proposed scheme.