Representation by Dr Catherine Judkins
- Date submitted
- 17 March 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to the proposal because: 1) Loss of vast area of highly productive, arable farmland. This is meant to be avoided and is contrary to planning policy. Claims that land is ‘poor quality’ are disputed. Soils around Isleham are high quality. Independent analysis is essential before any decision about the scheme can be made. 2) Significant harm to our heritage, cultural heritage/ village identity, sense of place. Archaeological assessments are inadequate. Part of the proposed East A site is a memorial (the site of a post-WW2 plane crash in 1949). It has been left undeveloped. This site cannot be drill-piled and covered in panels and fencing. There has been no assessment of the harm caused to this memorial site, nor the inevitable damage to any buried artefacts. 3) Assessment of loss of long-term agricultural jobs and skills, as well as jobs that support our agricultural industry, has been inadequate. 4) Economic harm to the racing industry hasn’t been considered, despite it being one of the main areas of employment here. Losses to the racing industry, and its supporting industries (which I worked in), must be assessed. 5) There will be significant loss of, and disruption to, wildlife habitats. Mitigation proposals are insufficient. Rare and protected species in some areas haven’t been considered. Local knowledge/ input has been ignored. 6) Potential damage to waterways – especially the Lee Brook chalk stream that feeds into the River Lark. Inadequate assessment of the inevitable harm to these chalk streams. 7) Loss of visual amenity and impact on mental health caused by the omnipresence of the scheme (which encroaches right up to village boundaries and even up to people’s gardens in some areas). The spread-out design means there is no escape from it. Screening mitigation is wholly inadequate. Many areas cannot be screened due to their elevation. E.g. elevated easterly outlook from Isleham is open, tranquil, agricultural countryside, characteristic of this area. Replacement of this defining vista with vast arrays of panels, a huge battery storage compound and miles of fencing constitutes a complete re-writing of the local landscape. This harms the sense of place and identity. 8) This development is too large to sit sensitively within the landscape. 9) The cumulative impact – both from the 4 Sunnica solar areas and the many other solar farms and other developments in this area - has not been adequately assessed. This does not comply with planning policy. 10) The combined output of nearby existing ground-mounted solar schemes in operation/under construction is over 400 MW. There is no justification for a further 500 MW development over and above these, taking away even more valuable farming land. 11) Many recreational routes in the area will suffer permanent visual harm. Some will likely be damaged during construction. E.g. the popular paths around the River Lark and Lee Brook, as well as U6006 (the historic Icknield Way) and the areas around the Limekilns/ Snailwell. The impact on PRoW has been inadequately assessed. PRoW closures over the construction period will restrict movement of people between villages, leading to isolation. 12) The safety of the huge Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) compounds is concerning. Inadequate information has been provided to assess the fire safety plans, air quality modelling etc. Li-ion BESS pose a known fire hazard. BESS are currently inadequately regulated. The siting of these so close to homes has not been justified and is contrary to consultation feedback. Noise pollution is also a concern. 13) Large amount of BESS seems excessive as ‘supporting equipment’ to the solar farm (and therefore not part of the NSIP process). Concern that the real aim of the scheme is energy trading. 14) Discriminatory statutory consultation (favouring those with access to computers and competent users) and lack of engagement with communities (especially the travelling community) means that a significant proportion of local residents were unable to raise concerns during the consultation. True assessments of the scheme were impossible from the minimal information they were provided with. Developer has repeatedly failed to respond to written questions submitted before/ during/ after consultation. Consultation feedback not acted upon. 15) Significant lack of information in the DCO application about many issues means that it still cannot be fully assessed and should not be approved. 16) Carbon neutral claims are disputed. Development of this size and scale, and with the amount of materials that need to be manufactured, imported and transported, is inconsistent with claims. Developments that cannot be carbon neutral in their lifetime undermine the Government’s net zero targets. Removal of vast areas of greenfield land, and the potential knock-on effect of increasing food imports, further undermines these targets. 17) Concerns about purchase, supply chain, lack of materials, etc means that there is a risk of the development being approved, but not deliverable, adding further anxiety to local residents. 18) Traffic impacts underestimated. Scheme would significantly affect my ability to get in/ out of the village for work, school and classes, recreation etc. Isleham, and other villages, have limited parking – they cannot support likely opportunistic parking by staff vehicles. 19) Assessment of alternative sites is inadequate. Justification for this location is insufficient. 20) Insufficient details about decommissioning, and the funding of this, means that it cannot be assessed at this stage.