Representation by Tracey Matthews
- Date submitted
- 19 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to lodge my thought of opposition to the Mallard Pass proposal to build a large solar farm around the village of Essendine, Rutland and surrounding areas. This planned development should not be built for the following reasons: 1. Mallard Pass would be eight times larger than the U.K.’s current largest solar plant. At 2175 acres its equivalent to 1400 football pitches and bigger than 2 European countries. It is too large for Rutland and it’s so big that the decision on whether to build it does not sit with Rutland County Council– instead having to be approved by the Government. 2. We would lose acres of prime, graded agricultural land. At a time of global food insecurity, we must strengthen our food production capacity, not convert good land into solar plants for the next 40 years. This land should remain agricultural and the government should support the farmers to grow for the UK. 3. The plant would damage Rutland biodiversity and local habitats and ecosystems, particularly putting at risk Rutland’s rich birdlife and deer. The developers have already missed off whole species from their biodiversity ‘assessments’ and several wildlife experts are deeply concerned about the proposals. 4. The developers recognise that solar panels cause increased risk of flooding but claim that our communities rarely experience floods – this is wrong! As we know, flooding is increasing in our area. For example, Saint Mary Magdalene Church in Essendine has seen increasingly frequent flooding over the last 10 years, and the Reverend has raised her concerns with our Rutland MP that the solar plant will only exacerbate this trend. The solar panels will cause water to run-off in concentrated areas and cause further problems. 5. We will lose access to many of our local paths in the area and these paths will be surrounded by high security fencing. No longer will we be able to walk our dogs in the peace, quiet and picturesque beauty of the countryside - the very reason I purchased a house and chose to live here. This in turn will negatively effect house prices and tourism. 6. The local roads around the area are not suitable for the high levels of construction traffic and the amount of heavy lorries which will be required to access the site to build, along with a large workforce. The whole community will suffer from increased noise from construction traffic and high levels of air pollution. 7. The efficiency of the planned panels is pitiful at 11% efficiency, this is not worth tearing up our countryside for. 8. In addition to all of this there is much evidence of Uyghur forced labour in the supply chains of the primary developer [Redacted], and those of their supplier and partner [Redacted]. [Redacted] has been implicated as benefiting from the forced labour of the Uyghur people and has already had multiple shipments of its solar panels seized by the US government for their complicity in these abuses. Their supplier and partner [Redacted] has been formally sanctioned by the US commerce Department for contributing to the organisation of China’s Uyghur concentration camps. I asked myself would I trust this developer to look after local communities and the environment during the construction process and once in operation and the answer I came to was no. [Redacted] are not demonstrating they are an ethical provider and the UK Government should reject the plan purely on this fact. 9. My deduction after reviewing all the information I could access is that the size and placement of this solar farm is entirely about profit. The solar farm will take two years to build and will be in place for a minimum of 40 years affecting future generations not just ourselves. Also what is the developers plan for decommissioning the panels after the 40 years and the subsequent environmental waste? 10. I fully support the UK investing in UK solar to create the energy we require, however not at the cost of our countryside and agricultural land / food security. There are initiatives on Royal Air Force (RAF) stations across their estate to cover roofs and airfields in panels, why can’t this be implemented across all military and MOD sites - particularly as there are so many abandoned stations across the UK. All supermarkets, shopping centres and sporting grounds could do the same. 11. We can be far wiser about how we do this!! Let’s do it for the right reasons in the right places. 12. If the current Mallard Pass plan was to go ahead it would have an enormous impact on the visual landscape, environment and the well-being of the entire community. For that reason I completely and utterly disagree with this application and want the application to be refused.