Representation by Sara Caswell
- Date submitted
- 15 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I reject the Sunnica application fully, I live in the village of Kennett and as a resident here I have some objections to this proposal. • road closures will impact on my commute and my leisure interests as horse rider • restricted access to green areas- including footpath and bridleway closures, with no improvement to access after. • will change the area in a dramatic way from rural farming to industrial. • loss of outside green space • property values will be and have already been negatively affected • battery storage creates the danger of fires, toxic gasses, thermal runaway could potentially kill • increased traffic in our small rural villages lacking crossings and traffic calming measures, will make it increasingly difficult to enjoy the countryside • Village roads within and between very old villages containing many listed buildings and monuments. They are not designed for large HGV’s. In many places such vehicles will be unable to pass without taking up the whole road. As I have a horse and ride all around this area and manage the local bridleways forum this will have a huge impact on the enjoyment of mine and many others lives. The points I would like to raise about this application in relation to equestrian access are: - It is essential that mitigation is put in place for all PROW: • directly affected by the development, during the construction phase, and to ensure adequate reinstatement post construction • indirectly affected by the development, to ensure that equestrians can still use the routes safely with construction works going on in close proximity There are historic routes which do not currently appear on the definitive map which need consideration. There are a considerable number of these across all parishes affected by the development. Definitive Map Modification Orders are being submitted for these routes immediately, and thus must be considered throughout the planning phase of this proposed development It is noted within the Design and Access Statement section 5.3 Permissive Paths that 3 permissive routes will be created. It is unclear from the documentation: 1 where exactly these routes will run too and from. The maps referenced do not clearly show the specified routes 2 what designation the ‘permissive route’ will have. It is essential that equestrians are seriously included within the design and specifically of these routes and thus they are designated as a bridleway as a minimum why these routes will be ‘permissive’ and not dedicated routes. A permissive route can be closed/removed at any time, therefore the expectation with a development such as this would be that additional PROW created to safeguard its existent in perpetuity