Representation by Delyse Ray
- Date submitted
- 2 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am objecting to this application because I do not believe it is as "green" as Sunnica suggest. Its large size and the carbon footprint of its components and then its end of life disposal after a short life of 40 years are likely to create more carbon in its lifetime than it saves. It is important to look at the longer term bigger picture and not make poor decisions that will make matters worse in the long run. Using good arable land should be a non starter as there are other alternatives already being implemented by local councils in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. Solar panels on commercial roofs, housing and on brownfield sites with smaller local battery storage has proven to be more acceptable and the numbers of such sites could be quickly and easily increased. Solar panels and large battery storage areas on productive arable land has implications for the countryside environmentally and food security. I do not consider the detail in the application is sufficient for such an important decision. How is the site going to be returned to farmland after 40 years? What is the carbon footprint of doing so? How are batteries disposed of and at what cost? Who fits the bill if Sunnica go bankrupt? Details are also poor in regard to the dangers of battery storage. Details of one small fire safety test are insufficient when considering the damage previous fires have done in less populated areas around the world. Sunnica says "Precise number and dimensions to be fixed at the detailed design stage if approved", surely full details should be given before approval. Further more the following are quite unacceptable considering the risks associated with battery storage. Appendix 16D BESS. Housing in metal containers. These should also be fire suppressant and be insulated against extremes of climate especially heat. 3.1.2 Comment is invalid because of climate change. 4.1.7 Using the word unlikely when talking about fire spreading is unacceptable. Proof should be given that fire cannot spread or even start. In conclusion, better environmentally friendly options are possible and could be implemented more quickly with less destruction to communities, productive land and the environment.