Representation by Nigel R Woolley
- Date submitted
- 12 January 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly object to the nature of this proposal and shall submit more detailed comments during the examination of the application The proposed MPSF is not a farm but is industrialisation and a blight on a vast tract of our countryside. The proposed development, and its sheer scale, is highly detrimental to many local communities and the environment we all love to live in. The nature of this proposal clearly demonstrates that the developers care not one jot for the these local communities, their mental well being or their quality of life. This development is opportunistic, exploitative and purely driven by commercial gain and not part of any structured program for greener energy development. Their are evidenced human rights issues over the producers of these solar panels which further demonstrates their lack of caring for anyone adversely affected. Our Government should not be doing business with these people. Central and Local Governments should remember that we live in a democratic society and it is a resounding NO vote to this proposal. Taking no notice of this local feeling by our own Governments would leave these communities feeling angry, saddened and abused. MPSF would cover vast swathes of our local landscape, a substantial proportion of which is traditionally used for the growing of cereal and food crops. This development would be a minimum 25 – 30 year commitment to change of use for this land. If it is Central Government policy to be relaxed in sacrificing large quantities of agricultural food production in preference of energy production then I fear this lacks foresight and is a misguided policy. Their are serious question marks over the affect on the local bio diversity. Their are many unsubstantiated claims in the proposal and and I do not trust the developers to share a long term commitment to this project and long term compliance. Here are some examples - a. Mitigating and providing enhancements to the community and environment ‘where possible’. b. New planting for enhanced bio-diversity and connectivity ‘is being considered’ c. Existing hedgerows and ditches will be retained ‘where possible’. d. Landscape enhancement opportunities ‘are being explored’ Under Ecology you state ‘It is our intention that the onsite woodlands, trees, hedgerows, ditches and other important areas of habitats that supported protected species will be retained ‘so far as is feasible’ within the solar layout. There is as serious question mark over the ability of [Redacted] to display a positive affect on either the local environment and/or its bio-diversity. Disruption. The small roads traversing our villages are already under extreme pressure from heavy traffic and poor maintenance by councils, especially in winter. Cars trying to dodge potholes whilst passing trucks using them as cut throughs. Our local roads are used recreationally every day by teams of cyclists together with many dog walkers, joggers and some horse riders. The vastly increased volume of heavy traffic and worker’s transport will accelerate the wear and tear on our roads and raise substantially the risk to normal day to day and recreational users. Traffic in Stamford is already at a critical level with long queues and much street parking. The pressure of yet more increased traffic is unimaginable. This disruption would be for at least two years! I would urge the Government to turn down this proposal in accordance with the wishes of the local communities as I believe that this proposal lacks balance, fairness and credibility