Representation by Jane Cadel
- Date submitted
- 12 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I live and own land in Careby as have my parents and grandparents before me. We are the oldest family name in the village so have some knowledge of the area. We have been ‘custodians' of land around Careby for over 100 years and understand well the ‘rhythms’ of the land and the natural world that relies on this land for its survival. What you are proposing in terms of: scale … 900 H loss of agricultural, food producing land location … set on prime farming land, visual impact on the area … 3.3m high panels will negatively transform the area from a rural landscape to semi industrial. massive natural habitat loss and long term lasting negative impact on all forms of habitat in the area, not just the proposed 900H site, significant and long lasting environmental damage during construction, the life of the site, and its eventual decommissioning significant impact to the area during construction on roads that are not, and should not, be able to take such volume and scale of traffic required to build such an infrastructure project, and a complete lack of understanding of what happens in 30 years when the site is decommissioned … if it ever will be which is highly unlikely then given it will be considered a brown field site for further development … all makes this scheme completely unacceptable and unjustifiable. I respect that the UK needs to continue to drive the growth of renewable forms of power generation and clearly solar has a role to play in this. But this should never be at the expense of productive, food growing land given the need for increased UK independence in food production highlighted by the recent Ukraine situation. Nor should renewable energy development be at the expense of our natural habitat, which is under constant and increasing threat from man and industrialisation as it is. Finally, the scale of this proposed project will have significant negative impact on the rural community around this, peoples chosen ways of life in this rural area, and during 2 years of construction, real physical impact in terms of transportation, noise and light pollution and overall construction pollution. There have to be alternatives in the UK which are far less aggressive in terms of their negative impact on all the points made above, still have the necessary links to the national grid, and will not have lasting impact on many thousands of local residents who choose to live in the area under question because of its rural nature, expansive environment and scenery, and natural habitat. All of which will be significantly impacted. In every way one looks at this, it is a fundamentally wrong proposal with far reaching and lasting impacts, many of which we do not understand and cannot model, that far outweighs the renewable energy benefits. If fracking is wrong and not allowed because of its poorly understood impacts on our land underground, then Mallard Pass Solar is fundamentally wrong because of its obvious, significant and lasting impacts in many areas overground. There is one prime beneficiary in this. Corporate profit. That is not sufficient to justify the impact this scheme will have. We should be better than this given our increasing understanding of nature, its importance to our lives, and our continued negative impacts on it. This scheme must not go ahead. I sincerely trust that you will wear an environmental and anthropological hat and therefore come to the same obvious conclusion that this may be the right project, but in entirely the wrong area and scale.