Representation by John Bruton
- Date submitted
- 28 February 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
• Vast development on greenfield land – 2500 acres (11 times bigger than any operational solar plant in UK • Developed by a company which is not an energy producer and is using the project as an economic vehicle for profit. • Sunnica’s balance sheet is in negative balance which raises the issue of what happens if they were to go bankrupt in the course of development or the lifespan of the project. • No benefit to local area or people- no net gain of affordable electricity – no employment of local people as proposed constructors not local • Not a carbon neutral plan – either in terms of footprint or net energy gain. Panels use finite non-renewable materials in construction and are likely to be transported from China • Unethical products – made in country run by a totalitarian regime who promulgate modern slavery • Concrete – 100 acres – will cause further depletion of resources using more carbon and ultimately become waste to be disposed of. • Pollution – noise of construction – dust over a two year construction period – dust and fumes from construction causing increase in morbidity and mortality in cardio-respiratory disease and malignancy. • Road damage – the roads in the area are already in a fragile state and the huge increase in heavy construction traffic will cause further deterioration • Impact on natural environment – loss of wildlife habit during development – with inadequate provision of protected habitat during development – species including stone curlews, brown hares and several bat species – loss of grassland flora. • Visual impact – cursory appraisal of viewpoints and contours – comment in consultation that the local land is “flat” – there is a rise of 4 m in South west view from our property (OS confirmed) – giving apparent height of panels 6.5 m on the horizon. • Inadequate screening – immature planting will take 20 yrs to reach effective height (developers admission) – this is half the lifespan of the project. • Fire risk – lithium ion batteries have a well know fire risk from portable devices to industrial battery plants – they have been banned in Arizona – fire in Liverpool – inadequate provision for fire management – risk to life and landscape – potential for wild fire in an area with low rainfall. • Lack of guarantee of adequate decommissioning in terms of protected fund and restoration of land to agricultural land • Loss of food production at a time where we have population growth and an economic and environmental need to produce our own food. • Devaluation of property prices – there will be a selective devaluation of local properties which will reduce opportunity for people to realise their assets at a later stage. (may be necessary for pensions and care funding purposes) • This a relatively short term plan with the potential for waste • If solar panels were thought to be necessary they could be fitted to property – all new builds domestic and commercial and retro fitted to existing properties