Representation by Kathryn Armstrong
- Date submitted
- 11 January 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
My original comments, below, stand. I encountered [Redacted] representatives at a recent presentation, where it became obvious that the marketing of an ostensibly good idea and semantic skills were key characteristics of the session. I felt that they told us what we should hear, although they were very guarded, almost touchy, when probed on the topic of Chinese manufacture, perhaps because the UK’s Foreign Affairs Committee called for a ban on the import of solar panels from China in view of the forced labour used in the supply chain. I have since read that the UK Government recommended actions to be taken to stop the human rights abuses that the Chinese government is committing against the Uyghurs and other ethnic groups. Apparently, [Redacted] may be associated, and is investigating… It is disconcerting that the Mallard Pass master plan is yet to be firmed up, as we all know that it is far easier to manipulate outcomes once the ‘foot is in the door’. For example, the indication of 350MW is probably reasonable for Spain, but not the UK, and the projection is perhaps overegged. I understand that [Redacted] do not have to state exactly how they will proceed until after permission for the structure has been approved. Anyone who has been involved in a major, and in this case, lucrative, project will be only too aware that, if due diligence is not applied, and rigorous checks and controls are not put in place, ‘adaptations’ to the original plans will be slipped in, resulting in a finished article acceptable only to the stakeholders. I don’t believe there will be a sufficiently involved overseer in Westminster throughout the lifetime of this project. Indeed, if the plans are passed, the Government would be going against its advice, stating that “the deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes”. There are also far too many unknowns for me to even begin to feel comfortable with your proposals. For instance, these statements, found during my research, concern me: • “Unfortunately, panels cannot last forever, and there are not enough clear guidelines for dealing with used modules and components….Governments should establish procedures and specify who is responsible for the produced waste.” and • “The National Planning Policy Framework explains that all communities have a responsibility to help increase the use and supply of green energy, but this does not mean that the need for renewable energy automatically overrides environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. As with other types of development, it is important that the planning concerns of local communities are properly heard in matters that directly affect them.” We are not experts in this field, and many people in our community will not be heard because they simply do not know how to start committing their thoughts to paper. These people will not be represented. They/we are the unfortunate spectators in the immediate vicinity of the eyesore (apart from the custodians ((are they?)) of the earmarked Lincolnshire and Rutland fields) and will not benefit one iota. As the CPRE states: “England is facing a tidal wave of solar farms in green belt and rural areas…solar farms should be built on brownfield sites and not in open countryside.” Brownfield sites can be found in abundance if the will is there. The cumulative impact on the area of miles and miles of a conspicuous solar farm, with its huge, humming, battery storage facilities and grand scale security measures of lights and fencing will be permanently detrimental to the fabric, character, quality, and views of the landscape – not to mention the plethora of wild creatures currently thriving in and around the fields. No amount of mitigation will restore their habitats. Solar-powered energy in Britain is inefficient, given our climate. The technology proposed for Mallard Pass will be outdated before the first juggernaut, bringing in the bulldozers, earth-moving equipment, cranes, panels etc. (creating a quagmire, yet more HGV-generated potholes and loss of green verges) thunders along our narrow country roads. Agricultural land must be utilised for just that, especially as we are learning to our cost what happens if we rely too heavily on other countries’ food exports; there are plenty of opportunities throughout the UK to place solar panels on warehouse rooftops within industrialised areas, or alongside rail tracks. Greenfield sites should not be touched – simply farmed. If people want to live surrounded by concrete and plastic, artificial parks, clubs, theatres and picnic benches they choose cities; we chose the modest beauty of unspoilt countryside. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Earlier submission: It appears that Lincolnshire people are being taken as rustic fools if we are expected to stand by and nod in agreement to the above proposal to coat huge swathes of nearby unspoilt countryside in plastic! I wonder what the carbon footprint could be in the manufacturing process of such a massive project – and neither Rutland nor Lincolnshire is anywhere near suitable freight routes to even transport the finished materials. Obviously, I embrace well-thought-out alternative energy innovation, but this appears to be another illustration of the ‘monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend’, coupled with scant consideration given to local biodiversity. I would like to see a computer generated (photo) image of the area in question after installation, together with an estimate of run-off after a storm into a valley already prone to flooding. And what flora and fauna will actually be lost or at best displaced? I have not encountered anyone who supports this monstrosity, and wonder if the plethora of UK brownfield sites have even been considered.