Representation by Sophie Hall
- Date submitted
- 17 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am resident in Chippenham and I am employed in the bloodstock industry by an employer who is also based in Chippenham. I object to the Sunnica scheme for the following reasons: • The siting of 31 hectares of batteries in close proximity to residential areas. There is a significant risk of death and serious health issues from toxic fumes from any fire. These battery fires are impossible to put out. • It is possible that Newmarket could be affected by a battery fire, resulting in the need to evacuate thousands of horses as well as the people. This will not be possible. • The scheme will take nearly 3000 acres of productive farmland. Not only will this result in a loss of food security, but will cause more food miles and thus more carbon used than the scheme will mitigate. • The scheme will destroy the biodiversity of the area. Habitats will be destroyed, construction will drive wildlife away and 30 miles of security fences will impact the movement of wildlife. • The visual landscape which is currently attractive, rolling countryside will be turned into an ugly industrial landscape. The view from the Lime Kilns in Newmarket is famous for its uninterrupted view all the way to Ely Cathedral. This is a world-famous site for racehorse training, which has been unaltered for hundreds of years. It is what makes Newmarket unique in the racing industry and beyond. No amount of mitigation will help with this. It cannot be underestimated how adversely this scheme will affect Newmarket and the racing industry which provides its main employment and economy. • There is no plan for decommissioning when the scheme ends. • The huge increase in traffic during the construction phase in an area where the roads will struggle to accommodate this increase. The impact on village residents and local road users will be unacceptable. • The scheme is unlikely to contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions. The production, shipping, installation and running of the sites will produce more carbon than is saved, together with the increased carbon footprint of importing more food to replace what we can no longer grow on these sites.