Representation by Helen Claire Bailey
- Date submitted
- 20 March 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am parish chair of Lullington and am concerned on behalf of myself and other parishioners about the impacts of this scheme both locally and in terms of its impact on national sustainable food production. In addition to the impact on unspoiled countryside, locally one of the principal concerns relates to the suitability/safety of local roads and other infrastructure in the context of a massively industrial development in a rural area. Nationally the sacrifice of productive agricultural land is of significant concern. In the absence of a coherent national strategy balancing the sometimes contradictory priorities of zero carbon energy and delivering sustainable food security, it is critical that each individual solar scheme is subject to objective analysis and challenge. Helen Bailey Concerns regarding NSIP Oakland reference EN010122 This proposal raises significant concerns: 1. It is a huge development in an area of open countryside and represents a worrying trend towards increasing urbanisation of the countryside. 2. The visual impact of this development will be significant with proposed mitigation itself fundamentally destroying the current character of the landscape. There will be significant ongoing noise pollution in a currently peaceful area with potential deleterious impact on local wildlife including populations of bats. 3. A significant impact from glint and glare is admitted within the project proposal. The assessment does not however fully consider impacts on wildlife or on rural users of the lanes around the site (horse-riders and drivers of agricultural vehicles whose eyeline will be above the proposed mitigation). The proposed mitigation will itself make significantly worse the landscape and visual impact of the project. 4. There will be a significant and unacceptable loss of best & most versatile agricultural land (BMV) Even using the current, now out of date categorisation, 60% of the land affected by the proposal is BMV. Many years of improvement since those assessments were made means this percentage is likely to be an underestimate. The loss of BMV is hugely concerning in the context of the need for increased food security and the expansion of more environmentally sustainable farming methods. A linked, general concern is an apparent lack of a clear national strategic and planning framework regarding the trade-off between the mutually exclusive priorities of green energy and green food production. 5. The proposed decommissioning activity will not enable affected land to be returned to BMV at the end of the stated project life making the loss referred to at 4 effectively permanent. It is also concerning that all the investment in respect of this development is controlled overseas. There is nothing presently proposed to mitigate the risk of the overseas investors extracting profits from the UK throughout its operational life and failing to fund the extensive decommissioning costs at the end of the project. 6. Covering the land with glass panels will substantially alter its capacity to absorb rain and claims to the contrary are insupportable. The project includes no plans to mitigate the increased risk of local flooding in what is an already an area in which local roads are regularly subject to flooding. 7. There is a risk of fire inherent in lithium battery storage and the potential for groundwater contamination from waters used to extinguish any such fires. The local road infrastructure would also increase the risk of any incident as local roads and bridges are mostly unsuitable for fire fighting vehicles. 8. Neither the narrow bridge at Walton nor the width and weight limited Chetwynd bridge near Croxall are able to take heavy goods vehicles. This will effectively funnel the traffic associated with the project through relatively few and mostly unsuitable alternative routes. Many of the roads around Walton, Rosliston and Coton in the Elms are narrow and structurally unsuitable for volumes of heavy traffic. Culverts are already massively degraded and the roads full of dangerously large potholes. All of these matters will need close and careful consideration. I am additionally concerned about the lack of a published UK Governmental position paper regarding the ethical sourcing of solar panels and also of the minerals being mined for battery storage. I also feel strongly that consideration of such large scale projects should include the long term risks associated with outsourcing so much of the ownership of vital infrastructure to nations already considered as hostile to our country’s interests. Helen Bailey