Representation by Sophie Louise Rixon
- Date submitted
- 17 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Achieving a truly greener lifestyle is a balancing act. Increasing use of natural energy by erecting one of the largest solar farms in the world in the green fields of a relatively small and densely populated country would be environmentally costly in other respects. Construction would cause pollution. For example, according to ‘Say No to Sunnica’ (henceforth SNS), probable importation of panels and batteries from China, together with the project’s ‘poor’ design, would produce a ‘huge carbon footprint’, university analysis showing that the scheme would ‘create more carbon in its lifetime than it ever saves’. 2500 acres of arable farmland would cease production for at least 40 years, perhaps rendering the UK more dependent on imports with consequent environmental costs and arguably increased vulnerability in politically uncertain times. The roaming, feeding and nesting grounds of wildlife would be damaged: according to SNS, the local Wildlife Trust described the scheme as ‘the worst design they’d ever seen’. Furthermore, the adverse effects might outlast the farm. SNS states that in the Development Consent Order application, ‘Sunnica have not provided details of how they plan to de-commission the site, or how they will fund this’. Disposal of millions of panels and batteries may prove difficult: according to SNS, no recycling facility currently exists in the UK. And the destruction of beautiful countryside may be permanent. SNS asserts that there is ‘no guarantee’ that the agricultural landscape could, or would, be restored, the land becoming a brownfield site ‘ripe’ for development. The question is whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. In ‘The Daily Telegraph’, 14/02/2022, Charlie Brooks stated, ‘The solar panel element of this development is…a red herring. After all, this part of the UK gets only 1,600 hours of sunlight per annum. This scheme is actually about buying electricity off the grid during the day, storing it, and then selling it back during peak hours at a higher price’. Thus, SNS states, the scheme would generate ‘huge profits for Sunnica’s Spanish owners’. However, I do not believe that sufficient financial benefits would accrue to the British, and sufficient natural energy be generated, to offset the enormous damage done. SNS claims that the UK grid can manage a limited amount of solar power. We should first exhaust less environmentally costly options, namely installation of panels on suitable buildings, which SNS asserts has proven successful in Germany, and erection of ground-mounted solar on brownfield sites which, according to SNS, is the preferred government strategy. I would oppose a project of this size, in such a location, irrespective of the company involved. However, the alleged financial standing, and inexperience, of Sunnica are concerning. SNS states that the ‘financial position of Sunnica Ltd is negative in their last set of accounts’, raising the question of who would be responsible for constructing, maintaining, and de-commissioning the site in the event of bankruptcy. Moreover, SNS avers that Sunnica has ‘no experience’ of building BESS (which are potentially dangerous) on the scale proposed, i.e. the current largest in the world.