Representation by Andrew Munro
- Date submitted
- 14 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
While I support the need for renewable energy this scheme is not justified by the local impacts and I strongly object. I will be making a written representation covering the following points: LACK OF DETAIL IN THE APPLICATION The application lacks detail and should not be consented based on the information provided. LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND JOBS Loss of high quality productive agricultural land for a generation and lack of detail of how it will be restored. The impact of the scheme on UK food security is significant considering the number of solar schemes nationally and in this area. It will generate minimal local employment after construction, and construction employment will only be transient. There is a lack of detail on decommissioning and a risk that it will never be decommissioned. At the end of its useful life, it will be, in planning terms, “brown field” (previously developed) land ripe for development. INDUSTRIALISATION The industrialisation of an open rural area by PV panels, electricity substations and battery energy storage systems. The inefficient layout spread over an extended area requires multiple substations and multiple battery compounds. Industrialisation is compounded by the proposals for battery energy storage systems comprising numerous steel shipping containers. THE POOR LAND USE EFFICIENCY OF SOLAR PV AND THE EFFICIENCY OF PV ITSELF. Only 11% of the rated maximum output will reach the National Grid on average over a year. There is no local benefit, once power is in the grid it can be used anywhere in the UK. The inefficiency of PV means that larger areas of land are needed than for any other generation technology. BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS There is an acute lack of information in the application on proposals for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). The applicant has identified 31 Ha of land for BESS, far more than that required to support PV generation. These batteries are likely to be used for purposes outside the scope of NSIP associated development. The safety and regulation of BESS is in doubt following numerous thermal runaway incidents. If consented Sunnica could become within the DCO limits the largest BESS system in the world. The potential size means that the emission of toxic gases in the event of incidents poses a serious risk to public health. ALTERNATIVES The exploration of alternatives is specious. There is lack of evidence on search for alternative locations and use made of criteria for search that only this project could satisfy. There is no evidence that alternative locations were properly considered. CARBON NEUTRALITY The scheme is unlikely to be carbon neutral in its lifetime of 40 years, already more than the typical lifetime of solar PV generation of 25 years. This is not a low carbon project. More than 1 million PV panels are highly likely to be shipped halfway round the world. The project itself is carbon intensive with multiple substations and extended cable routes. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN The construction traffic management is misleading and is unrealistic.