Representation by Virginia Moggridge
- Date submitted
- 15 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to this scheme on the following grounds: Environment: 1.Greenhouse gases - my concern is that the project, including manufacture, construction, maintenance and decommissioning, will create more carbon than it saves. Where is the proven, scientifically verified and peer reviewed evidence of real, environmental benefit and sustainability? What is the point of this project if this is not a reality? Agricultural 1.We cannot afford to lose valuable agricultural land, which is capable of contributing quickly to food security particularly at a time of worldwide concerns about food and energy security. 2. In addition, the timeline for this so-called solar farm (in reality a battery storage unit) is not capable of supporting renewables quickly - food security and bio-diversity is needed NOW. Battery Safety: 1. As a local resident I am extremely concerned about the dangers of the massive batteries which are proposed. I understand that they are proven to be capable of producing toxic fumes in normal use above a certain core temperature and also if ignited and furthermore, that such a blaze CANNOT be extinguished by conventional means - they are simply left to burn, sending toxic air pollution into residential areas, schools, and shopping areas. 2. Further, I understand that such fires can and do burn for weeks - where are the rigorous safety precautions and continuity plans? I have not seen any evidence that this aspect is being taken seriously. Disproportionate Size of project: The sheer scale of this is indefensible in such a rural location. To impose, against the will of the local population, the installation of over 1 million panels, destroying 2,500 acres of productive land which is designated as GMV (good most versatile), together with 77 acres of battery storage (close to local homes, see above) is simply ludicrous. In addition, this consortium has no experience of such a project, which would, at current projections, be the largest in the world. Local Impact - Health & Well-Being: 1.As we emerge from the crippling effects of the global pandemic, the local communities which would be affected by this are just beginning to re-establish some form of normal life. To subject thousands of residents to years of heavy construction traffic rumbling through villages and towns, which do not have the road or rail infrastructure even to begin to manage it, together with the ceaseless noise and disruption of construction, is contrary to all the evidence of what is needed for healthy life and well being. 2. Closing footpaths, removing open spaces from public and agricultural use, destroying wildlife habitats - this is not what renewable energy is about. Consultation: To say there was full and proper consultation is farcical. Sunnica resolutely refused to engage with local residents and our local MPs, and instead hid behind PR mechanics, staged 'information' sessions, and were never prepared to address the deeply held, legitimate and well informed objections of thousands of people. They will not be the ones living with the consequences of this inappropriate, ill conceived and blatantly green washing scheme.