Representation by Stephen Armstrong
- Date submitted
- 11 January 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Mallard Pass Solar Farm (MPSF) - Principal Points of Objection. It’s obvious to all that MPSF construction will change the entire character of our rural area which is rich in wildlife and tranquillity. I cannot believe the loss of prime agricultural land is even being contemplated at a time when we need to produce more of our own food in the UK. Solar panels should be placed on all commercial and residential roof tops or brownfield land, not on productive agricultural land. Below are my principal points of objection to MPSF; • Loss of Prime Agricultural Land The Government policy is clear that ground mounted solar sites should use previously developed land, industrial land and agricultural land of grade 3b, 4 and 5 certainly not Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. The selected solar panel area MPSF is proposing to use is 53% BMV land. The latest Government Food Strategy Policy paper June 2022 clearly wants to maintain agricultural production, not to reduce it, particularly in the light of the war in Ukraine and the subsequent global impacts on food shortages and prices. • Site Size, Performance and Location The total site has now increased to 2,238 acres to allow for highway changes for HGV and abnormal loads, creating greater potential for further environmental damage and local disruption. Interestingly the solar panel area has decreased by 263 acres, but can apparently still deliver the same 350MW quoted at Stage 1 of the Consultation. This does not seem credible. The site was selected predominantly for its easy access to the grid, which currently has available capacity. I suspect that MPSF will use the ‘mitigated’ land to expand the site at a later date without going through further planning processes. • Battery Storage Battery Storage is key in helping achieve net zero, but it is a huge safety risk and a major concern for us residents. MPSF has omitted battery storage from the development “at this time”. It seems that MPSF has done this with a strategy to add Battery Storage at a later date to again avoid or side step the required planning process. • Landscape and Visual Effects MPSF will have a major detrimental effect on the local landscape. The solar panels are an enormous 3.3m high, in addition there will be 2m security fencing around the site, an incredible 1320 CCTV cameras at 3.2m high. Light pollution from security lighting will have a high impact on surrounding villages and wildlife. Added this are 84 noisy containers housing inverters/transformers that will be humming 24hours per day. All this will change the whole character and visual appearance of our wonderful area for at least the next 40 years. It will take 15 years before many of the areas can be effectively screened from this monstrosity. • Bio-Diversity and Loss of Habitat The vastness of MPSF will wipe out the habitat for millions of insects, which in turn will reduce the bird species that feed on these insects. Further, other bird species will lose feeding and nesting habitat as will many mammal species, amphibians and reptiles, and the local flora will be devastated. MPSF clearly highlight the many adverse environmental impacts that will occur during the construction phase and subsequent decommissioning, stressing they will do their ‘best’ to avoid them. This is plainly not good enough - MPSF should be held account for the loss of the local Bio-Diversity and Habitat loss during any construction phase, the lifetime if the solar farm goes ahead and any subsequent decommissioning. • Traffic and Transport MPSF will impose huge disruption locally with massive increases in traffic on tiny country lanes which are clearly not suitable for HGV traffic. These country lanes are not constructed for such heavy traffic and huge environmental damage and erosion to road surface will occur causing potholes, dust, road safety and potential accident issues for pedestrians, horse riders, cyclists and motor vehicle drivers for 2 years during construction. The site will have 400 workers with main working hours 12 hours per day Monday to Saturday. More than 54 x 2-way HGV movements per day will affect routes with local villages and Stamford. The site will have 1 main construction compound accessed from a minor road and 6 secondary compounds and all accesses affecting small local roads. • Risk of Flooding As a resident of Greatford for 35 years I have been concerned regarding the increasing incidents of flooding in the village over recent years. It seems inevitable that erecting thousands of 3.3m plastic panels over the MPSF site will simply be adding to the Flooding Risk. The surface water run-off from these huge solar panels has still not been properly considered on areas downstream outside the MPSF site such as Greatford and other villages. As locals we also know that the proposed West Glen River permissive path and Wet Woodland area will be impassable in winter as that area is prone to flooding now. • Archaeology and Heritage Locals are aware of Archaeological remains dating to the prehistoric period are in abundance within the MPSF site and the surrounding area and many are shocked that these will be lost forever under this plastic hell. • Construction Issues During the proposed construction period the piling of the thousands of huge solar panel mounting structures will obviously be extremely noisy – providing noise pollution for all surrounding villages. In addition, this and other construction activities will create huge clouds of dust which will contaminate large areas outside the MPSF site. • Human Rights Concerns I am shocked to discover reported evidence of Uyghur forced labour being used in the supply chain of [Redacted] who is the primary developer of MPSF. Surely activities such as this should immediately disqualify [Redacted] from gaining planning permission for this project. • Contamination Concerns It is well documented that potentially toxic heavy metals and silicone by-products are used in Solar Farm projects. Damaged units or time may release these contaminants into the environment. As such, consider taking soil samples to monitor for potential contaminants.