Solar farm or eco-lodge in Green Hollow

Economically, solar gives 15 permanent jobs, 120 temporary construction jobs, and £2.5m/year in business rates-stable, year-round income. The lodge gives 25 permanent plus 40 seasonal jobs and £1.2m visitor spend, but it needs a £600,000 sewage upgrade, so net public cost is higher. Socially, the lodge may create more local service jobs and support hotels/farms, but seasonal work is less secure; solar creates few jobs but rates could fund services. Environmentally, solar is low-carbon and can allow sheep grazing, but it fences 90 ha and is visible from a national park viewpoint; the lodge depends on dark skies and quiet footpaths, so it could damage the very asset it sells if visitor numbers rise. The solar farm's visual impact is reversible after 25–30 years; the lodge's sewage and traffic may be permanent. On balance, solar has stronger predictable economic benefit and lower infrastructure cost, while the lodge has stronger local employment but greater environmental risk to the landscape.

Support the solar farm, but attach conditions. The £3m fund would not need to cover the whole project; it could part-fund the 6 km grid connection and a local training scheme, while the developer funds construction. The business rates of £2.5m/year dwarf the £1.2m visitor spend and give the council recurring revenue for services. The 15 permanent jobs are fewer than the lodge's 25, but they are year-round and the 120 construction jobs provide short-term income; the lodge's 40 seasonal jobs may not retain young families. Opportunity cost: by choosing solar, the council forgoes the lodge's 25 permanent jobs and visitor spend, and may lose tourism growth. Mitigate by using some rates to support existing hotels, footpath maintenance and dark-sky lighting. Conditions: screen the solar farm from the national park viewpoint, require a community benefit fund, and guarantee sheep grazing and local hiring. If the council's priority is immediate job numbers rather than stable revenue, the lodge could be chosen; but then the £600,000 sewage cost must be funded, leaving less for other development.

Conflict: national park visitors and hotel owners value the open view and dark skies, while the solar developer needs a large fenced site and grid connection. A 40 MW array on 90 ha could be visible from a viewpoint and may introduce lighting/security, undermining the landscape that supports tourism. Management: use a landscape sensitivity map to move the array away from key views and ridgelines, keep a buffer of unglitched pasture, use low-reflectivity panels and no permanent floodlighting, and bury the grid line along existing roads. Set up a community liaison group with the national park authority, hoteliers and farmers, and a community benefit fund (£ per MW) for footpath and dark-sky projects. Monitor viewshed photos and visitor surveys before and after. If monitoring shows unacceptable visual impact, require further screening or a reduced array. This does not remove the trade-off, but it makes it negotiable and reversible.