Representation by Catharine Helen Weaver
- Date submitted
- 6 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
As an environmentalist and climate campaigner, I started by supporting Mallard Pass in principle. Understanding its full extent and nature, I now strongly object on ethical, environmental, national and personal grounds. 1. [redacted] operates primarily from China and has alleged links to human rights abuses in Xinjang, including the forced resettlement, re-education and labour of Uyghurs. The US government’s commerce department has already sanctioned [redacted] by seizing four shipments of goods supplied in this way. No firm linked with human rights abuses should operate in the UK. This would be unethical. 2. Highly productive farmland would be taken out as at least 41% of the area is classified as Best and Most Versatile. Government guidelines stand clearly against its being lost to food production. This would threaten future national food security. 3. The scheme covers an area larger than that of Stamford, right next to the town and near several villages. We locals would be affected by the need to re-route traffic, by noise, light and atmospheric pollution and by the loss of attractive landscape. This would be environmentally destructive. 4. Developers of greenfield sites need to demonstrate an uplift of 10% in biodiversity. In this case, at least in the short to medium term, habitat would be lost and biodiversity reduced. Canadian Solar offer no evidence that the 98 national statutory wildlife sites would be protected. Indeed, disturbed, polluted countryside would lose much of its plant, bird, insect and animal life. In one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, we cannot afford to lose yet more habitat for skylarks, barn owls and quails, let alone brown hares and hedgehogs; yellow hammers, lapwings, kestrels, buzzards and red kites; geese, herons and egrets. This would be environmentally damaging. 5. Several areas in the scheme are already at risk of flooding. Rapid rainwater run-off from the panels would be less well absorbed by the ground, especially by soil structurally damaged by construction traffic; topsoil would be washed away; flooding would increase in low-lying areas. 6. The narrow lanes between villages to the east, north and west of Stamford provide attractive cycling, walking and driving routes, serving both for recreation and as the by-pass that we lack; they reduce congestion in Stamford, allowing alternative access to the town and to the A1 north or the A15. Construction traffic would make them unattractive and dangerous, often impassable. Solar panels, once installed, would spoil the landscape. Our quality of life and environment would suffer. 7. On a personal level, I believe my lifestyle and health would be seriously impaired. [Redacted] and anxious to maintain fitness, I cycle almost daily from my home in Uffington to Belmesthorpe and thence to Stamford or to Ryhall and Essendine and I often pass other cyclists. I avoid cyling on the relatively dangerous 1175 and I minimise polluting car journeys into Stamford, demonstrating daily my commitment to carbon reduction. I should be happy to see wind turbines nearby. I believe solar panels should be placed on all suitable buildings, public and private, as they are on my own home. We should not have to accept them on such an enormous scale in our countryside.