Representation by Helen Woolley
- Date submitted
- 22 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Mallard Pass Solar Farm Relevant Representations Submitted by: Helen L Woolley BSc (Hons) and Geoffrey W Woolley We object to the Mallard Pass Solar Farm proposal because: 1. The primary driver for site selection is proximity to a grid connection and reasonable alternatives have not been properly considered and evidenced. 2. The application lacks detail in some key areas, particularly visual impact and some information is misleading which will make it difficult for the Planning Inspectorate and Secretary of State to make a fully informed decision on the proposed scheme. 3. The location & significant size of the scheme dramatically changes and damages the rural agricultural landscape, negatively impacts visual amenity with a detrimental effect on mental health and well-being of residents, segregates rural villages and effectively places them permanently in an industrialised landscape. 4. The topography of the site is such that the mitigation proposed will only offer limited screening and in some areas no meaningful screening at all. All the proposed new hedge planting and the height of hedges will dramatically and materially change the current open landscape and long vistas. 5. There will be loss and disruption to wildlife particularly in the construction phase and this will have to be recovered before any biodiversity net gain is achieved. 6. The ALC soil classification shows that there is significant land classified as Best and Most Versatile land. This means the site is inappropriate and outside the guidelines of National Policy. 7. The amount of land taken relative to its output of energy, the level of mitigation required and the loss of good quality farmland is out of balance at a time when food security as well as energy security are key government priorities. 8. There is comment about agriculture continuing within the solar area. These are just ideas with no detail or commitment. 9. The scheme cannot be built without temporary compulsory acquisition powers yet the extent and detail of these were not clear in the Statutory Consultation. As residents, who would be directly affected by these powers, should they be granted, it raise very significant concerns. 10. Across the site there are many heritage properties both designated and non-designated. Collectively they form an intrinsic part of the landscape. It is well recognised that landscape setting is an intrinsic part of the heritage asset and if the landscape surrounding the heritage asset is changed, in this case covered in solar panels, the value of the heritage asset designated or not is lost. 11. As regular users of local PRoW our experience will be dramatically changed from open views across undulating countryside to one of walking alongside high fencing, reduced views and limit the opportunity to see wildlife in their natural habitat. This will negatively affect recreational enjoyment and so our mental & physical health and well-being. 12. There is no scheme end date, so the scheme is effectively permanent. This exacerbates the various harms to communities, removes farmland forever and poses questions about the validity of the claims on biodiversity net gain and carbon calculations. 13. Noise is a major concern, with noise likely from both the panels and inverters. Given the quietness of our location to north of the site and the prevailing wind from the south-west noise pollution could be a major issue resulting in loss of tranquillity impacting our everyday lives. 14. There has been a failure to properly assess and mitigate the cumulative impact of the scheme alongside other planned local infrastructure projects. There are plans for substantial house building projects in the area which will use similar traffic routes as well as other solar projects. 15. There are no meaningful benefits of the scheme to the local area and substantial harm over an extensive area of the locality within which it is proposed the scheme is developed. 16. We reserve the right to add to or amend our representations in the light of new or additional evidence produced by the developer or other parties.”