Representation by Mr M R Chapman
- Date submitted
- 17 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am a local resident who will be affected by this development directly I have diligently attended the webinar’s and consultation meetings, I have read with interest every report published by MPSF, and those in the media, I have shared in discussions with local people and I have done my own private research online and via various publications relating to this subject. I have found nothing to persuade me that siting a large scale solar farm on the outskirts of Stamford is a good idea, not for the planet, not for the population at large, and not for the local residents. There are of course, a myriad of reasons why I believe that a solar farm of this scale is not suitable here (as listed below) but in trying to distil my thinking I have concluded that, for me at least, it is the re-purposing of 2,238 acres of productive, attractive rolling countryside for an industrial project that would simply not make sense to site here were it not for the accident of a new local substation. This appears to be the motivation for the proposed location and everything hinges upon it. In my opinion this is not a sound reason on which to base such a significant decision spanning the next 40 years to affect our green and pleasant land. There are so many valid reasons why I believe the choice of site is a flawed one and I have listed them below. Site selection 1. I have not been convinced that other sites have been properly investigated as alternatives with substations close by. Some references have been made to other sites explored and rejected but no concrete data has been made available, have these studies really taken place? 2. The project proposals refer to the ‘flat land’ of Lincolnshire whereas the actual land selected is by no means flat. The project spans the very southern border of Lincolnshire much of it into Rutland – this is rolling rural countryside; my own property is on top of a hill. The visual impact on the landscape will be dramatic, in spite of the mitigation plans the area will be profoundly different for us and all who live here for the best part of a generation, and maybe forever. This is gently rolling countryside, and a Solar farm will be visible from so many angles, it will change the nature of the landscape, quite literally; has the site selection been given due consideration with regard to the visual damage likely given its topography? 3. The loss of agricultural land is even more of a key issue given the pressure on food production in the UK. This land is indeed viable for food production and its grading is on the edge of ‘highly productive’. Overall, it would represent a significant loss to the productivity of the region, just at a time in our history when the stakes are becoming much higher; is it a responsible decision to take this much useful agricultural land out of production? 4. The 10% biodiversity net gain the project must demonstrate appears to require significant setting aside of productive land for the purpose. How appropriate is it to propose a project designed to improve the environment and meet our national targets when so much mitigation is required to maintain the status quo to achieve it? Scale 1. The scale of the project is completely disproportionate to its setting, the additional mitigation proposed is undoubtedly helpful but it does not change the overall volume of the Solar Farm footprint and its domination of the landscape; will this effectively change the rural landscape to an industrial landscape in one fail swoop? 2. Is it destined to be bigger than any other UK solar farm to date – without any sound basis beyond a pure profit motive? The changes to both the acreage to be included and the number of panels to be installed has apparently not changed the potential output; does this means the original proposals were understated, overstated or just not accurate? 3. Not only will the panels themselves mimic a sea – but the scale of the fencing will be overwhelming, both in height and volume. We have asked to see a panel on its stand – but no example has yet been forthcoming. Will 560,000 3.3m high panels, miles of 2m high security fencing and solar stations or shipping containers dotted about the landscape truly be considered an acceptable price to pay for ‘green’ energy? 4. It will dominate this rural landscape and the rural communities within it. Stamford and its environs have long been dependent upon tourism to remain active and vibrant. If we diminish the landscape in this way, we will inevitably risk the health of local businesses and consequently jeopardise this historic Market town and its supporting villages; are we prepared to risk the health of our important local assets in this way? 5. Our open access to the countryside will be lost – instead we will walk between high perimeter fencing with CCTV and possibly drones monitoring activity – a very different experience! 6. The potential impact on the mental health of residents is also a factor which must not be overlooked – changing the rural setting will have an impact on the communities that live here, where is our commitment to mental wellbeing as a prevention rather than cure? 7. It may likely increase a flooding risk to those areas already vulnerable to river flooding; again, should we not be looking at avoiding making things worse from an environmental standpoint? Heritage and Archaeology 1. Many of the local villages have some conservation status areas, alongside Stamford with its notable Grade 1 architectural listings – is it really appropriate to site it here just because of the convenience of a local substation? There are certainly heritage and archaeological concerns – and this is a decision that will have a minimum 40 year lifespan, so there will be no going back! Traffic and Transport 1. The road network, although a rural one, is now attracting cyclists, horse-riders and walkers – alongside extensive vehicle use. The ‘glare and glint’ implications will significantly increase the dangers for all road users. There are already issues concerning the quarry trucks and increased traffic on roads not designed to withstand the weight and size implications – a solar farm will further exacerbate these problems, particularly during the construction phase. 2. The high fencing with associated lighting and surveillance will increase light pollution, reduce privacy and may put the safety of our residents, both human and animal at greater risk. 3. The 2 + years of construction will have a considerable negative impact on the local residents – with noise, pollution, safety risks heightened on the use of the rural road network Construction phase 1. My home will be directly affected by the traffic implications of the construction phase. The compulsory acquisition rights look set to potentially alter, disrupt or extinguish various access points to my property along the roadside affected. How will I know what the exact implications are over a two-year period (and maybe longer) for my day-to-day activities? Will there be any protections in place to preserve my own rights of access and use of the public road on which I completely depend? What safety measures will exist to ensure all the road users properly adhere to the inevitable variable traffic management procedures? 2. My home will also be directly affected by the noise, pollution, and potential damage to the environment during the construction phase. What measures will be in place to negate/mitigate these risks and ensure that we are adequately protected from the negative impact of this phase alone? Beyond my significant concerns listed above I also asked various questions in my previous letter that I don’t feel have been adequately answered – so I’ve listed them again below 1. How does the scheme fit with the UK strategy for renewables? How does it compare on potential efficiency and effectiveness? There are previous controversial schemes around the world that have been unable to deliver on their promises to achieve power production levels – can we be certain this could even reach its claimed potential? 2. We now understand that the power will not be stored locally as originally thought but we still don’t know what kind of carbon footprint is made from the production of the panels themselves? 3. Can we understand what kind of due diligence will be undertaken to ensure Windel Energy and Canadian Solar will make good ‘community partners’ in this endeavour? We now understand Windel may not be part of the longer-term picture, reigniting fears that companies ‘front’ projects such as these with no intention of being around to see through their early commitments or work in partnership with the community. 4. What are the implications for land previously in Countryside stewardship schemes? The Government have invested in these schemes on behalf of the taxpayer, will this negate this earlier work? 5. Does the siting of a solar farm locally mean we would be excluded from any future Government schemes to improve biodiversity? (The ambition for 30% of land to be protected to boost biodiversity by 2030, for example?) 6. How does a scheme like this deal with the privacy issues of its local residents? How might we know if drones and CCTV are being properly policed? 7. And where does all the money go? Does it leave the country for Canada and China? And can we be sure that we in the UK are not exploiting Human rights elsewhere for our environmental ambitions? And what of the taxes, where will they be paid? 8. Will it stop here? Once a project such as this gets underway does it open the doors to more development of this kind? What guarantees might exist?