Back to list Sunnica Energy Farm

Representation by Say Not To Sunnica Action Group Ltd (Say Not To Sunnica Action Group Ltd)

Date submitted
16 March 2022
Submitted by
Non-statutory organisations
  1. The application is so lacking in information that the EIA is defective, the consultations undertaken insufficient, and the Secretary of State cannot properly assess and approve such an imprecise scheme. 2. The application also falls outside of the definition of NSIP in the Planning Act 2008 in that it is able to include development not associated with energy generation from the scheme; it cannot therefore be consented. Further, it is unclear whether this is a proposal in reality with the principal purpose and use being that of battery storage with an ancillary solar energy farm attached, and in any event whether the battery storage proposed is excessive or disproportionate. This too would not be within the powers of the Planning Act 2008. 3. The proposal is also defective in that site selection and reasonable alternatives have not been properly considered. Such proper assessment of alternatives is required by the EIA Regulations and at common law. 4. The scheme cannot be built without compulsory purchase, yet the scheme fails to meet the statutory and policy test for use of such powers. 5. It also fails properly to apply existing NPS policy, development plan policy, the NPPF and other relevant government policy. 6. As to the scheme as a whole, its exceptionally large size, disaggregated form and its design causes significant harm over an extensive area which can neither be justified in its own terms nor in comparison to reasonable alternatives. It is an inefficient use of the land proposed to be developed and used for the scheme, in particular compared to the existing use of the land for agriculture. 7. This disaggregated, unplanned scheme, partitioning and damaging the rural agricultural landscape, by its design maximises the harm to communities, segregates rural villages and places them effectively permanently in an industrialised landscape. 8. The effectively permanent lifespan of the scheme exacerbates the various harms to communities and occupies valuable capacity at Burwell substation for its duration for a comparatively carbon inefficient electricity generating scheme. 9. The environmental assessment, especially from the perspective of the carbon lifecycle of the scheme, is defective. It fails properly to assess embodied carbon, does not take proper account of, for example, the production and replacement of plant and machinery, nor decommissioning and overestimates generating capacity. The carbon benefits of the scheme have been exaggerated and there is a lack of material information on the lifecycle of the scheme as a whole. 10. Grid distribution is inadequately considered and the claimed benefits of local electricity distribution (e.g. to Cambridge) are exaggerated. There are minimal benefits of the scheme to the local area and substantial harm over an extensive area of the locality within which it is proposed to be developed. 11. The assessment of the importance and value of agricultural land and soils within the scheme is incorrect, improperly grading the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) of the land proposed to be utilised. 12. The British Society of Soil Science guidelines have not been followed correctly. The policy and guidance of the government and DEFRA is not met. The conclusion of Sunnica that over 95% of the land is not ‘Best and Most Versatile’ (BMV) is wholly erroneous and there has been a clear failure to follow and apply relevant guidance and policy. Over 100 hectares of land is grade 2 ALC as shown on the Natural England ALC maps. Despite requests to carry out soil sampling and check the claimed results of Sunnica, the landowners and Sunnica have thus far rejected all requests to enter any of the land that is the subject of the DCO to carry out soil sampling. 13. The soil types underlying the scheme are exceptionally versatile, being able to grow a variety of high yielding and high value vegetable and grain crops. These soil types are a rare national resource that require to be protected. There is no evidence of any attempt to avoid, mitigate, or minimise BMV land loss in the design of the site. 14. The draft DCO does not control decommissioning in sufficient detail to ensure the scheme’s removal and return of the land to the quality of the existing agricultural land and landscape. Decommissioning generally has been inadequately considered and it is not clear what the requirement in the draft DCO is attempting to secure. The scheme is claimed to be a temporary land use. This is disputed. 15. The impact and harm of the proposal to the unique and world-renowned Newmarket equestrian industry has neither been recognised nor assessed and will be significant. 16. The harm of the scheme to heritage and cultural assets and their significance, including designated and non-designated assets, has not been properly assessed or mitigated. 17. Similarly, the substantial harm of the scheme to landscape affected including valued landscape has not been properly assessed or mitigated. 18. For both residents and tourists, the impacts of the scheme are inadequately considered, including use of local roads and PROWs. 19. As a high power electrical installation, there is also a significant threat of noise pollution from the electrical infrastructure proposed including inverters. 20. The assessment of potential harm to protected species, ecology, and sites of biodiversity value is inadequate. Effective mitigation is likewise inadequately proposed. Further, the requirements of biodiversity gain are not met. 21. The proposal causes disruptive and damaging impact of construction effects including construction traffic on rural roads through rural villages during the extensive construction period, as well as periodically throughout the life of the scheme and at decommissioning. The assessment fails to recognise the degree of harm that can be caused by such traffic in particular on sensitive uses on such routes and on communities, and also applies an incorrect methodology in assessing traffic movements. 22. The Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) proposals are inadequately explained, assessed and justified. The BESS as proposed are segregated and require extensive take of productive agricultural land located within the countryside. They are as such an inappropriate industrial use which would cause significant harm to the landscape. The safety considerations relating to the battery storage facilities have been inadequately considered. 23. The impact of glint and glare on horses in training, recreational horse riding, and other outdoor pursuits and land uses is inadequately assessed. 24. The impact on recreation including walking, riding, cycling and other outdoor pursuits is inadequately assessed and underestimated. 25. The impact on tourism is inadequately assessed and considered. 26. The assessment of hydrology, flood management and drainage are inadequate. There is a lack of information concerning the use and mitigation of impact on land which is currently susceptible to flooding, the impact on chalk streams and change in runoff. 27. The impact locally on the residents of parishes and communities within the area, their amenity and well-being, would be significant and has not been properly assessed. 28. The assessment of the economic impact and socio-economic impact of the scheme is inadequate and fails to recognise the harm it would cause to the area as a whole. 29. The scheme must be proven to be deliverable and economically viable. This has not been demonstrated. 30. There has been a failure to properly assess and mitigate the cumulative impact of the scheme. Such cumulative impact is not only with existing solar related development (such as at Burwell) but also the impact of the proposal itself, namely of the cumulative impact of the proposed Sunnica development sites upon the area and its communities as a whole. 31. Having regard to the Rochdale principle, there is insufficient evidence to make a proper assessment of the likely impact of the scheme without further details. 32. The planning objections to the scheme are extensive and are not outweighed by the alleged need and other factors put forward by Sunnica in its favour, which are exaggerated and not justified. There is almost total opposition to the scheme locally including by all the elected local authorities and communities. The claimed public benefits of the scheme clearly do not outweigh the inevitably significant harm that it would cause. 33. The Sunnica proposals comprise a very substantial, poorly devised, damaging scheme which is unplanned, inadequately justified, and which would cause substantial and effectively permanent harm to the land and landscape, as well as harm to rural businesses and communities in the area. None of these would benefit from the scheme being imposed upon them. This is in addition to the scheme being progressed contrary to strong and sustained widespread objections and policy. 34. The Secretary of State is not empowered to confirm the draft DCO and in any event should reject the application. 35. We reserve the right to add to or amend our representations in the light of new or additional evidence produced by the developer or other parties.