Representation by Adrian Gombault
- Date submitted
- 8 January 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I have a number of concerns about the development. First and foremost, the sheer, unprecedented scale of the installation is just way out of proportion to the nature of the environment and the small villages which surround it. Its impact on the area would be immense, and it would constitute a scar on an essentially rural landscape which would be to the detriment of far more than merely live and walk in the area. The high fencing necessary to protect the site, the floodlighting and the solar panels themselves will all be totally out of keeping with the essentially rural character of the area, which is so much appreciated by the many who live here, who take recreation here and who pass through it, and is so vital to the wide biodiversity of fauna and flora that it now contains. Second, it is my understanding that this land is prime agricultural land, which is presently used for crops. It makes no sense whatsoever to convert this land to sterile usage, when, as a nation, we are over-dependent on imported grains and the like, a fact that has been highlighted by the recent war in Ukraine. There is the added concern over what will become of this land, once the solar farm has served its term, as it is by no means certain that it will be, or will be able to be, returned to agricultural use. Better by far to look for unused brownfield and poorer quality sites, most obviously the numerous former MOD and abandoned airfield sites which abound in this area. Also the rooftops of commercial buildings and factories, perhaps? Third, there are associated risks which pose a threat to nearby communities. Flooding is one of which I am aware. Perhaps a greater one is the threat from lithium batteries used to store surplus electricity, which I understand can be prone to emitting toxic fumes. As someone whose home is situated within a mile of the site, I am very worried about this aspect from a personal health point of view, and also because of the very real threat to the value of the property which I have lived in and extensively improved for more than forty years now. Fourth and finally, I am extremely concerned about the potential fire risk which Mallard Farm would present to my and other neighbouring properties and indeed villages. A recent study by [Redacted], a leading provider of fire suppression technology, indicates that solar farm fires are seeing a sharp rise, and highlights that the industry could possibly be misjudging the threat of fire and urgently needs to address the issue. There is a wide number of ways in which fires can be caused on solar farms, and some of them can be associated with the character of the Mallard Farm development, including flooding, damage from wild animals and, in particular, faults occurring in sub-standard equipment, given that the solar panels in question are known to be sourced from China, where it is believed they are manufactured using labour from the oppressed Uyghur minority population. A recent fire in California, which scorched 1,127 acres, started merely when a bird flew into a pair of wires, creating an electric circuit and a shower of sparks, and resulting in catastrophic damage. The company who wish to develop the Mallard Pass site apparently have no experience of building a site of this magnitude, and should not be given licence to experiment at the potential expense of the established local community. Like many others who are against this proposal, I am completely in favour of the search for alternative sources of energy, and am not against solar panels in principle, although I do believe there are more efficient and productive options available, including, notably, off-shore wind, but also hydro and the relatively unexplored tidal. It is just that this development appears, to myself and to most if not all of the local community, to be palpably the wrong size in the wrong site. Moreover, as I have already mentioned, it is proposed by a new and relatively unknown consortium, which has no previous experience of a site of this magnitude and which, it appears, uses goods manufactured by forced labour in the Uyghur territories of China. In view of all the above points, I feel strongly that this proposal should be rejected out of hand, and more suitable alternative sites be sought instead.