Representation by Terence Arthur Cross
- Date submitted
- 25 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Mallard Pass Proposers, I write to express my strongest objections to the proposed Mallard Pass solar project. While agreeing in principle to the need for advancing sources of green energy, in this case I believe that: • The area/size of the proposed project is inordinately huge. It would be, by an order of magnitude, by far the largest in the UK and also one of the largest internationally. • At Lincolnshire’s latitude, it seems likely to be half as efficient as the established Cleve Hill project, and therefore using twice as much green space and/or agricultural land per unit of power generated. The nature of the many objections lodged against the Cleve Hill project would additionally apply here. • While I acknowledge the need for green energy, the UK also has a continuous need for food production, which is significantly short of UK food needs. This situation has recently been exacerbated by Russia’s war against Ukraine and its effect on global food production and supplies. The energy costs/pollution involved in importation of food to replace local production potential that would be lost from this agricultural land does not seem to have been taken into account, nor that of the more recent major increase in the UK market prices / cost of farm produce. • This project would utilise green agricultural land and valuable wildlife habitats when surely there are many possible brownfield sites, albeit individually smaller, upon which ‘solar farms’ would have a far smaller impact. Have any such alternatives been assessed – I’m not aware of any. • In coming from a mining background and career I am accustomed to seeing the need for projects to establish bank guarantees or escrow funds to pay for eventual environmental restoration. Sustainability guarantees are key requirements for any new project approvals. While this project is not mining, I feel that eventually the solar panels and related infrastructure will need to be replaced or removed. I see no adequate guarantees or provisions for that within this project. In the event that the project were ultimately to be abandoned, for any reason and at any stage, that could leave a vast amount of potentially toxic substances merely degrading in the countryside, or needing recycling, with taxpayers being left to bear any remediation costs. • I have not been able to ascertain from which country all the equipment imports are planned to be supplied. Most similar equipment seems to be imported from China these days because of cheap, perhaps even forced, labour there. I’m not aware of anything in this project proposal that would give due consideration to UK manufacture should the project proceed. Surely this should be considered? . I am also concerned about loss of personal amenity by restrictions that may affect public footpaths and their environs that I use regularly. Yours sincerely, Terence Cross (a resident of Greatford)