Concerns are growing over the risk of a “catastrophic” fire or explosion at a huge solar farm being built in Kent.

A renowned scientist, an MP and almost 100 residents are among those fearful of such an incident at the battery storage unit at Cleve Hill Solar Park, near Faversham.

Physicist Sir David Melville CBE, who lives in the town, has warned at least one blaze or explosion is a “statistical certainty”.

The professor, who worked for NASA on the moon landings, has urged planning chiefs to reject Cleve Hill’s battery safety and management plan, which he argues is inadequate.

Meanwhile, Faversham’s MP Helen Whately has written to the fire minister to convey the many concerns raised about the solar farm, which is set to be the UK’s biggest.

Residents fear the 25-acre battery storage system – which will store the energy generated by the 880,000 solar panels – could put their lives at risk.

Mrs Whately says there is “no way” the plans should go ahead without “proper assurances” over safety.

For more than five years, campaigners from Graveney and the surrounding area have fought against the solar farm. But despite their efforts, it was given the green light in May 2020.

Fresh concerns have been raised after Cleve Hill submitted its battery safety and management plan for approval by Swale Borough Council (SBC).

Sir David, who was vice-chancellor of the University of Kent from 2001 to 2007, said: “Building and keeping safe what could be one of the largest batteries in the world is a tremendously complex and technical task, requiring expert detailed scrutiny.

“With limited advice from Kent Fire and Rescue Service and none from the Environment Agency, Swale Borough Council planners are ill-equipped to make such a crucial decision, especially when the plan is so inadequate.”

He added: “It is a statistical certainty that at least one fire or explosion will occur at some point during its lifetime.

“Just one such battery incident could be catastrophic for the Faversham neighbourhood and its people.”

In Cleve Hill’s submission to the council, the firm describes how it plans to install 112 cabinets containing the Lithium Ferro Phosphate (LFP) batteries, which are widely perceived to be the safest of their type.

But the Faversham Society, which has been spearheading local opposition to the solar park, points out there have been more than 65 fires and explosions reported in similar battery storage systems across the world to date.

The group has highlighted an incident in April 2021 when the battery system of a solar panel array, with LFP units, on the roof of a shopping centre in Beijing exploded, killing two firefighters and injuring a third.

If the units were to catch fire, an issue also arises in how the blaze would be extinguished.

The lithium in batteries cannot be put out with water. Therefore the focus shifts to using the water to cool the surrounding units to prevent them also bursting into flames.

But Sir David says the quantity of water required to prevent the fire from spreading – in what is known as a thermal runaway incident – is enormous.

The rocket scientist told KentOnline the volume of water the developers have indicated will be stored on-site could be less than a quarter of what would be required.

Campaigners also raise concerns regarding what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of litres of contaminated water created by such an operation.

Matthew Hatchwell, who lives less than five miles from the proposed site, said: “Obviously the risk of a fire or a runaway thermal event is very worrying and the fact that there have been a lot of other battery fires in other contexts since the technology has been developed is really worrying.

“As a neighbour, I’m obviously concerned for the outlying communities – Whitstable, Canterbury, Faversham, Graveney and anyone living anywhere close to the site – but my background is in wildlife conservation, so I’m particularly concerned about the impact on the natural environment from any fire.

“Specifically, I’m really worried that they haven’t taken into proper consideration firstly the amount of water that is necessary to control a thermal runaway event and secondly I don’t think they have considered what to do with all the contaminated water that would result from trying to control a fire on that scale.

“It would be an absolute disaster if contaminated water were to make it out into the Swale estuary, which is an internationally designated protected area, but equally it would be an absolute disaster if contaminated water was allowed to simply soak into the water table.

“The chemicals that would be leached into the water following a runaway thermal event are extremely nasty. Clouds of gas which are quite possible as the result of a fire would be extremely damaging to humans and I suspect nobody really knows what the impact would be on wildlife - but we don’t want to find out, we really don’t want to find out.

“The biggest worry is that there is absolutely no way that they can guarantee that there won’t be a fire or an explosion, so it is a possibility that they have to plan for.”

A number of houses back onto the 1,200-acre site.

Samantha Bowen, who lives in Graveney, said: “To fear a potential catastrophe being built in our village is a step too far.”

Work began at the plot – which is the size of 20 football pitches – last autumn and construction is expected to be completed by next May.

SBC must meet a statutory deadline to rubber-stamp the battery safety plan or the decision will be passed to the Secretary of State. KentOnline understands SBC’s deadline has been extended to the end of October.

MP Helen Whately campaigned against the solar farm before it was approved and has since met with the developers several times to press them on local concerns.

The Conservative said: “Local residents and I fought this development all the way, and ultimately we lost the argument.

“But the developers still have to prove that it’s safe.

“The local council will judge their battery safety management plan, but I’m going to speak to the fire minister to raise residents’ concerns at a national level.

“If they can’t provide proper assurances, there’s no way it should go ahead.”

KentOnline approached both Cleve Hill and SBC several times for comment but no responses have been forthcoming.

Kent Fire and Rescue Service also declined to comment ahead of a decision made on the battery safety plan.

In its submission to the planning committee, Cleve Hill said: “This battery safety management plan has been prepared in consultation with relevant consultees, the Health and Safety Executive and Kent Fire and Rescue Service, to prescribe measures to facilitate safety during construction, operation and decommissioning of the battery energy storage system, including the transportation of new, used and replacement cells both to and from the development.

“The measures prescribed in this battery safety management plan shall be implemented to reduce the risks of a potential thermal runaway and fire occurring, reduce the impact of a potential thermal runaway and fire event should it occur and detail the protocols to be implemented.

“At each project phase the primary objectives were defined as follows, to ensure the safety of employees, contractors, and members of the public, to reduce the likelihood of a potential thermal runaway and fire event, to minimise the consequences of a potential thermal runaway or fire event and to ensure plans and procedures are in place to safely and effectively manage a potential thermal runaway and fire event.”