Representation by Victor Le Grand
- Date submitted
- 15 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Further and critical scrutiny is required for a project of this scale, as: The sheer size of the project means that it will be unusually intrusive, over an unusually wide area, and for a number of settlements. This is reflected in the distribution of ‘receptor points’ for example. Put simply, it will be more difficult to manage and mitigate its impacts than would generally be the case for a project of this nature. The scale of the scheme appears to be driven not just by national energy needs, but by its profitability. It is not yet clear that the UK needs this concentration of energy capacity but it appears that Sunnica may do so, in order to generate the transactional profits of buying and selling into the grid. Mega-projects are widely recognised as carrying exponentially higher delivery risks (and just a workforce of 1,200 implies that this is a major project). An unexpected change in the costs or availability of key materials and components for example could put the project at risk, and in turn force economies in the environmental mitigation or safety measures, at a point in the project when external scrutiny is more difficult and potentially compromised by wider interests. Both the financial and the environmental sensitivities require closer scrutiny, at the very least. And the capacity of Sunnica to manage a project of this scale, and to operate an installation of this scale, are also relevant questions in this respect. While solar energy is environmentally sound in principle, the associated infrastructure may not be; both the battery storage and the extension to the Burwell sub-station in particular should be subjected to a full environmental cost-benefit analysis. And it is not clear how concerns around the safety of the battery storage technology will be addressed, or even if they can be adequately addressed, for an installation of this size. There may also be an indirect economic impact locally as it is not clear how property values - and for most of us, our house is pretty much our only significant asset - will be affected. Again, this is a risk which will be borne locally, and in proportion to our personal assets may be somewhat higher than that being taken by the company. In summary, it appears that this is a project in which the gains will be recovered elsewhere, while the risks and environmental costs are borne locally, by those of us who will have to live alongside it, both as a construction site and as a factory. All of these imbalances are exacerbated - perhaps even largely caused by - the scale of the project, and it should not be allowed to proceed at this level without clear and robust justification.