Representation by Elizabeth Marlow
- Date submitted
- 12 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Mallard Pass Solar Farm 1.Concerns regarding construction traffic access routes to proposed site. A project of this scale will necessitate thousands of HGV traffic movements, both during the construction phase, and in the future, to decommission or replace the panels & battery storage units. The consultation document issued by [Redacted], completely fails to address the impact on the wider local road network, the town of Stamford, or surrounding villages that may find themselves on the route of HGV convoys delivering plant, machinery, manpower and infrastructure to the site, over a period of many years. Access for construction traffic from the A1 could be directly through the centre of Stamford, or more likely for HGV traffic, through Sidney Farm Lane (which transects a large residential area), and the village of Great Casterton, directly passing local schools (Great Casterton CofE primary, and Casterton College.) Stamford, a beautiful historic market town with over 600 listed buildings, narrow streets and with only one, weight limited bridge crossing over the River Welland, is a totally unsuitable route for HGVs, but could still be subjected to many additional vehicle movements bringing the construction workforce to site. Vehicle vibrations will damage the fabric of the town, and the rise in air pollution will not only, adversely impact on the health of residents, but cause damage to the stone facades of the buildings. Stamford would no longer be a pleasant destination for local residents, or tourists to visit. Likewise, the route via the historic village of Great Casterton would ruin the every day lives of the residents with noise and pollution, as well as posing a serious accident risk in the vicinity of the schools. The A1 is already, a very heavy traffic route, with entry and exit slip roads that fall well short of modern highway design standards. Each year there are many serious, and fatal accidents on A1 between Peterborough and Grantham. The addition of the construction traffic for Mallard Pass will only exacerbate the shortfalls this section of A1 as a road, and increase the risks, to other users of the route. Similarly, if construction traffic were to approach the site from the east, Bourne, and the villages of Greatford, Braceborough, Barholm, West Deeping, Tallington, Uffington, Carlby, Ryhall and Essendine, would be decimated, by the volume of HGV traffic involved. Ultimately, it will be the local authorities that will foot the bill for the repair, and maintenance of the local highway infrastructure that will be damaged by the thousands of additional HGVs and other vehicle movements associated with the project. And, it will be local residents who will pay the price, with the effects of air and noise pollution on their health, and some may even lose their lives, not only as a result of pollution, but also being involved in an RTA, outside schools, on the local rural roads, or the A1. RAIL ACCESS should be considered as THE ONLY SAFE AND PRACTICAL OPTION for a project of this magnitude. The installation of sidings, off the main line at Essendine, would provide direct access to the site, not only during the construction phase, but also, throughout the operational life of the site, and for future replacement of panels / ultimate decommissioning. More importantly, access by rail would ensure that the lives of residents in the surrounding towns and villages, will not be blighted by the huge number of road traffic movements generated, by a project of this scale. Access by rail would be more environmentally friendly, as these Chinese made panels will be arriving in UK by ship, and could be transported directly from the sea port to site. The proposed Mallard Pass site cannot be considered a suitable location for a solar farm of this scale, unless ALL ACCESS to site (materials and manpower), during construction, operation and decommissioning is BY RAIL, rather than by road. 2. Mitigation proposals. The proposals to mitigate the visual impact of the project are woefully inadequate, and will only reach maturity, long after the useful life span of the solar panels. So, the beautiful rolling countryside, to the east of Stamford will be lost to locals and visitors, for decades to come. 3.Decommissioning of the site. In 20 years time, when the solar panels have reached the end of their life (and, long after the companies behind this proposal have disappeared - having ‘lined their pockets” from the green revolution bandwagon), the responsibility and COSTS involved with decommissioning, and the timely disposal of defunct, and decaying panels and battery storage units, could ultimately fall on the landowners, and possibly, local authorities / national government. Defunct solar farms will become the coal mining slag heaps, of the modern era, unless, robust, legally enforceable, decommissioning and restoration contracts, together with up front funding for decommissioning, are in place. “Englands, green and pleasant lands” will be blackened with tens of thousands of acres of abandoned solar farms, with the battery storage units, in particular, presenting risk of environmental pollution as they decay. 4. Loss of productive agricultural land. The siting of this proposed solar farm is on productive, agricultural land, some of which is undulating in nature, and with possibly, less than ideal orientation for maximum efficiency of the panels. It appears that, in some parts of the proposed site, significant supportive structures may be required to optimize the orientation of the panels to the sun. Solar farms work best on level, open sites – redundant airfields, of which, there are many, are ideal. (North Luffenham, for example.) Or, the vast brownfield sites on the former steel works at CORBY, with existing excellent road and electricity infrastructure, should be considered as “first choice” locations. Whilst, green energy projects, and national energy security are important, food security is equally important. Brownfield sites should be prioritized, and incentivised, as locations for energy production, rather than sacrificing thousands of acres of productive agricultural land. Clearly, agricultural land is being targeted for these projects because it is cheaper to lease /purchase than brownfield land. This is a classic example of business seeking to maximize their profits by the cheapest development option. But, long term, the cost of importing food (economically, environmentally and socially) will far outweigh the cost of using existing brownfield sites. The potential, for significant negative impacts, of the Mallard Pass Solar Farm proposals, on the lives of local people, and local road infrastructure should not be under estimated, particularly, in respect to access to/from the site.