Representation by Liz Heesom
- Date submitted
- 13 January 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Despite the reductions proposed in the revised scheme, the scale of the Mallard Pass solar farm is still enormous and will have a hugely negative impact on the countryside, farms and villages nearby. High grade farming land is to be given over to 3.3metre high solar panels. The provision of “permissive paths”, however well screened, does not mean that people’s enjoyment of the countryside will be ‘enhanced’; on the contrary, no one will be able to enjoy accessing the paths anywhere near the proposed site. Visiting both public presentations, I was particularly bemused that there were no efforts to show what effect this development would have on a huge swathe of countryside by the use of models, superimposed landscape photography or what the visual and experiential impact would be on residents, walkers or drivers in the area. That seemed to imply that the impact would be so very damaging that it would not help their cause. Certainly the simulations provided by the Mallard Pass Action Group of aerial footage indicating both scale and visual impact of the development were extremely concerning: a huge area of arable farmland reduced to an intrusive industrial site. The development and continual maintenance of the site will generate noise, disturbance, traffic and intrusion into the lives of many local people. Moreover, solar farms gain their energy from sunlight, so the claims of huge amounts of electricity being produced are very much bound by the amount of sunshine and daylight, unlike wind farms which can produce energy day and night. There has been no mention of the unsustainability of the manufacture of the panels themselves, not produced in the UK or even in Europe, but probably in China, with all the transport, lack of transparency and potential labour anomalies involved. These remain issues of great concern. And, not least, there has been very little discussion about who will actually benefit from this vast scheme. I presume the farmers leasing the land? users of yet more electricity? And above all the Canadian (?) company itself, and their shareholders, rather than the ordinary people living nearby and being so terribly impacted by this intrusive development scheme.