Representation by J R Wright
- Date submitted
- 19 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
As a local resident who frequently walks and cycles in the area of the proposed development, I strongly object to the proposed solar farm for the following reasons: Site size& location - The size and location of this massive development is totally inappropriate to this rural location. It will transform the current agricultural area into an industrial eyesore Although the solar panel area has decreased by 106Ha (263 acres), the total site has actually increased by 23Ha to 906Ha (2,238 acres) to allow for highway changes for HGV and abnormal roads, creating greater potential for environmental damage and disruption. Landscape & visual effects - You accept that the “Landscape and visual effects are considered to be of major/moderate significance” . Any development of this scale with solar panels up to 3.3m high, 2m security fencing, 1320 CCTV cameras at 3.5m high, security lighting, 84 containers housing inverters/transformers, will completely change the character and visual appearance of our area for at least the next 40 years. It will take 15 years before many areas can be effectively screened from the impact. Loss of agricultural land- The loss of such a large area of productive agricultural land is not acceptable. The government policy is clear that ground mounted solar should use previously developed land, contaminated land, industrial land and agricultural land of grade 3b, 4 and 5, not Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. This is correct policy to allow the development of solar power in response to tackling the climate change merency. The selected solar panel area MPSF is proposing to use is 53% BMV land. The latest Government Food Strategy Policy paper June 2022 clearly wants to maintain agricultural production, not reduce it, particularly in the light of recent activities with Russia/Ukraine war and subsequent global impacts on food shortages and prices. Bio-diversity and loss of habitat - MPSF clearly highlight the many adverse environmental impacts that will occur during the construction phase and subsequent decommissioning, stressing they will do their best to avoid them. To achieve the 10% bio-diversity net gain will only be possible with ongoing investment and management as well as setting-aside huge areas of productive land. Most construction companies have a very poor record of ongoing management of biodiversity once the development has been built Traffic & transport Disruption, traffic, road safety and potential accident issues for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers for 2 years - With up to 400 workers on site working 7-7 Mon-Sat; with over 50 2 way HGV movements per day; 3 major road routes assigned affecting local villages & Stamford; 1 main construction compound and 6 secondary compounds and access points all affecting local roads, the vast development area will become a no-go area for walkers and cyclists during the construction period. Such a loss of amenity as well as the dangers created by such an industrial development is simply not acceptable. The 3 new permissive paths totalling 2.9 miles and some picnic benches will not compensate for the loss of pleasure experienced by residents walking, riding or cycling existing routes Archaeology & heritage The environmental statement says that “Archaeological remains dating to the prehistoric period are in abundance within the Solar PV site and its surrounding area”. It is yet to be determined if all areas can be built on and if the development is allowed will seriously damage our archaeological heritage.