Representation by Mrs J Machin
- Date submitted
- 24 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am a neighbouring landowner to the development and comment as follows on the areas of most concern to me in that capacity. The size of the proposed development is visually impactful and due to its scale (4 miles from end to end) has the propensity to damage and harm biodiversity and ecology in the local area. I do not believe that the design as proposed adequately addresses biodiversity mitigation or offsetting so that biodiversity is either a) unaltered or b) enhanced which is the current Government policy. The proposed development removes an unreasonable amount of productive arable farmland from use at a time when the UK should be ensuing food security is protected. There is a balance to be struck between food and fuel in the use of agricultural land. I believe these types of developments should be situated on poorer agricultural land and in clusters to make the best use of that poorer land and to break up the scale and massing for visual impact purposes. It should certainly not be in this location which has a rich history of producing sustainable cereals and root crops. Has consideration been given to the amount of water resources required locally to the cleaning and maintenance of the solar panels? The local water pressure is poor because of inadequate infrastructure. The amount of cleaning and the water required to do this will most likely impact the local communities that are already experiencing poor supply, shortages, and problems in this regard. Why are panels situated on north facing land which one assumes are less efficient? Is this solely to maximise income for the developers? I have a concern about traffic and the movements at the point of construction should the development reach that stage in its current design. The local roads around the area are predominantly single track and the construction traffic for a development of this scale will be unsafe, dangerous and unwelcome not to mention the practical implications of bussing rural children into schools in Stamford and the impact to the wider town. At this scale the landscape will resemble a “rural factory” and be a blot on the landscape with high fences and security lighting at night. It appears to me the developers have sought the grid connection point and secured the land to meet that connection for profit margins rather than sympathetically selecting the most suitable land and connecting this over a wider geography. I am also concerned that the net cost of energy production is inefficient due to the cost of the manufacture of the solar panels vs. the amount of energy they provide. Thus making the scheme an inefficient producer of electricity vs other renewable energy sources.