Representation by Robert Love
- Date submitted
- 17 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am a local resident to the development. My representations/concerns/objections are: Proximity to housing - visual impact. Proximity to housing - Safety - Proven serious fire risk with likely evacuations etc and huge harm to anyone exposed. Sprawling nature. It will be possible to walk/drive from one village to the next and then some, and not see a break in panels. If the site was one (huge) congruous block, then at least you could accept its existence in one place, but it will be "everywhere" Loss of high quality agricultural land (even more so in this post Russian invasion world) Lack of remediation guarantee at end of 40 years. Lack of remediation guarantee within the 40 years if solar becomes obsolete? Fusion or another clean source could prevail rendering the site commercially unviable. Is the site left to rot for 15-20 years until the 40 years is up? Further loss of biodiversity Sheer Scale. This will be an "area defining" development in a rural setting, that will bring nothing positive to the area and will disproportionally (and therefore unfairly) impact local residents amenity. The vast majority of other large energy generation projects are far from housing and do not engulf multiple settlements or swamp rural locations. Fundamentally the site is inappropriate for the setting. In any kind of regional sequential testing exercise (has this happened?), there must be previously developed land, whether it be brownfield, or large scale retrofitting to industrial rooftops, where the visual damage is already done and battery storage can still easily be installed and serviced; not in open rural countryside at huge scale.