Representation by Gillian Mary Holland
- Date submitted
- 2 April 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Whilst understanding the imperative to consider national energy needs in the context of global warming and over-reliance on imported energy, solar power is a small part of the solution, and there are far better ways of harvesting the sun’s energy than to allow a [Redcated] global company to take over and install a large-scale solar and storage facility on acres of rural arable land. I do not support the ‘quick fix’ solution of installing unrecyclable solar panels on arable land when the option of installing panels on new and existing buildings has not been addressed. For example, the 238-acre Mercia Park adjacent to junction 11 of the M42 does not appear to have a single solar panel on its roofs. There are existing homes, business parks, schools, and public buildings with acres of roof space. None of the new housing developments in the locality have solar panels on their roofs. I am advised (by my local MP) that the rooftop option is compromised by the lack of capacity/facility for the national grid to harness this power, which is a ridiculous state for our country to be in, and I find it staggering that this option is being ignored in favour of placing panels on green field sites. There seems to be no joined-up thinking on this matter. Are we really going to allow a global company to behave in the manner of foreign-owned private water companies (it is in the public domain how they have fouled up UK rivers and seas for years, and consistently underinvested in infrastructure and improvements), to ride rough-shod over the countryside, take profits and sit as at a distance while the UK is left with dwindling food-production land and, no doubt, the mess to clear up once the life-span of the panels is reached? My issues are as follows: • Inappropriate use of arable land which is needed for UK food security • Loss of green space. The size of the proposed development is out of scale with the landscape and could bring about the merging of villages. The panels, containers, fencing and cameras will dominate, having a negative visual impact on the rural character of the area. • Noise. By making adjustments to the location of the site infrastructure, Baywa-re have already acknowledged the likely noise impact on this locality. The proposed solar farm would undoubtedly have an adverse and unacceptable effect on the peace and amenity of our countryside. And Baywa.re executives and shareholders are not going to be here to listen to it. • Impact on local wildlife that is currently able to travel freely. And the idea that sheep might graze between the panels is almost comedic in its absurd presumptions of a decent life for livestock. • Disposal of the panels when the lifespan of the project is reached. There is no mention of recycling. Ditto disposal of the batteries. How is all this going to be disposed of at the end of its useful life? • Impact of HGVs on roads that are already over-congested with large vehicles contravening weight limits, causing pollution, even more potholes, and clogging up narrow lanes that they should not even be on. A new Walton Bypass (promised for years) has still not been built. The Chetwynd bridge at the A513 has a weight restriction impacting local roads already pounded by excess vehicular traffic, and damaged by increased flooding. The vehicle servicing of a proposal such as this cannot be considered in isolation. There might be a planned construction track within the site, but who would police the roads to ensure compliance? The local roads cannot take more heavy traffic, with or without an on-site construction track. This proposal is like adding more passengers to the Titanic as it begins to list. • This is not really a forty-year plan, it’s a kiss of death for agricultural land. What will happen to the land after solar panel lifespan is reached? Will it then be considered brownfield and made available for further inappropriate development? If not that, even if the fields are subsequently considered to be reusable as agricultural land, how could it seriously be returned to such use once the nutrients are gone and the drainage has been destroyed? BayWar r.e. claim ‘Improved soil condition’ as a direct ecological benefit, but the reality will likely be industrial use of agricultural land which will unlikely ever be used for food production again. • BayWa-re say there will be 150 jobs during the construction phase. They are obviously not offering long-term job security, only temporary assignments. They also say they will give £55k a year over 40 years for the community benefit. The amount equates to a total of £2.2million (which will be worth far less in 40 years’ time) for local causes. I wonder what their profit will be during this time. £2.2 million is a negligible amount of compensation for such rampant destruction. Is this supposed to buy everyone off? No money could possibly compensate. The best benefit to the community would be to refuse this proposal.