Representation by Jo Boyd
- Date submitted
- 16 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am NOT against renewable energy, indeed I lived in one of the first solar assisted houses, however the scale of the proposed Sunnica site is too large, too close to dwelling and potentially dangerous. My key objections are: • Output – the proposed plan cannot generate sufficient electricity to fill the extremely large BESSs and so the company behind it seems to be using solar panels as a smoke screen to be eligible for NSIP status for the company to make huge profits by using them to store and trade electricity at a great cost to the people and landscape directly affected • Safety – The track record of lithium-ion batteries is not a good one. They can (and have) catch fire which then cannot be doused with water. Sunnica have allowed for sumps beneath the batteries to prevent water escaping, but nothing can be done to supress the fire and it will burn for days, releasing toxic fluoride gas. To even suggest putting these near primary schools and housing seems absurd • Inappropriate land use – Using good arable land to house the solar panels is contrary to the ‘green’ promise of the development as crops which would have been grown will have to be imported creating many unnecessary food miles • Supply of materials – The production of the batteries and solar panels involves using precious raw materials, and questionable human rights practices. It also requires electricity elsewhere generate by coal power which goes against the ‘green’ premise of the development • Disruption – The 340 daily lorry movements through and around village roads (often narrow and with weight limits imposed) and the noise pollution during construction will hugely affect the surrounding areas • Wildlife – huge areas of wildlife will be lost or disrupted. The promise off-set land will be behind safety fencing, cutting off establish tracks and unable to be seen enjoyed by the public • Decommissioning – There appears to have been very little detail given in relation to the end of life of the site. Sunnica have not satisfactorily answered the question of what should happen should they be out of business in 40 years’ time. The pads the BESS are based on would not be removed and the solar panels it is not cost efficient (or currently possible) to recycle the 1 million plus redundant panels • Sunnica– throughout the process they have shown disregard and contempt for the people whose lives they will be disrupting. Their initial literature was misleading, using maps with place names removed and pictures of open sites (whereas this one will be screened). Their zoom consultations were orchestrated such that they could pick and choose questions to answer and gave no opportunity for follow-up questions. Their over-due appearance at a public meeting was a farce. Their presentation glossed over any negative aspects and then they ‘did not know’, ‘did not have the information’ or blankly refused to answer questions put to them. They did very little to address concerns that were raised and did nothing at all to win the public over