Representation by David Bryant
- Date submitted
- 16 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
My main concerns and objections about the proposal to build a vast solar power station across over 2000 acres of agricultural land in the heart of a rural area are: The scale of the development. 2,105 acres will have a huge impact on residents across a much larger area, as they travel through a solar power station instead of attractive agricultural countryside on their way to and from work and leisure locations. This will probably cover the largest area of any power station site in the UK - 5 times bigger in area than Hinkley Point C nuclear plant but producing only a tiny proportion of the power output. Loss of agricultural land. Increasingly the value of agricultural land in enabling our national food supply to be in our own control is being recognised. Government guidelines are clear that energy projects should not be built on best and most versatile land. Despite this, 41% of the proposed site is BMV and the rest is graded 3B. This land will be lost to agriculture for at least 40 years and probably much longer, with no guarantee that de-commissioning and returning the land to agricultural use will be funded at the end of the useful life of the power station. The loss of biodiversity and potential damage to the local environment. Traffic. In the middle of a rural landscape and adjacent to the ancient town of Stamford, there is no road infrastructure to support the building or ongoing support of this vast generating station. This will create serious safety problems as well as major inconvenience for residents across a much larger area than the proposed generating plant. Negative health impact on local population of 30,000+ people. This area with its narrow lanes, paths and bridle paths provides recreation for many walkers, horse riders, and increasingly cyclists. The physical and mental health benefits of taking this recreation in the fresh air and attractive countryside are huge and increasingly recognised. Providing questionable opportunities for walking routes through the power station is no alternative and will be adversely affected by the constant low level noise created as well as the disastrous visual impact. Sub station - the major reason for choosing this site is the commercial benefit of using "spare" capacity in the existing sub station at Ryhall. This capacity was presumably built for a reason and given planning consent for that purpose. What has changed so that this capacity is no longer needed? Will using the capacity for this power station result in a need to build more capacity in the future for whatever it was built for? Human rights. Links to Uyghur forced labour by the primary developer [Redacted], who have had shipments seized by the US Government. I am also concerned by [Redacted] links in their supply chains and through their board members to the companies [Redacted] and [Redacted], both of which have been sanctioned by the United States Commerce Department. The financial record of [Redacted] owners is concerning. What confidence is there that this construction site will not be left half built if [Redacted] hit financial problems. Government power generation strategy. There is no robust government strategy to guide the appropriate development of the right mix of power generation capacity across the country. It is largely left to the market and is consequently driven by relatively short term financial considerations and opportunities. National security. With the probability that much of the plant and its supporting technology will be supplied from China, what consideration has been given to ensuring that this element of our national infrastructure will not be vulnerable to foreign cyber attacks in a fast changing international political situation?