Representation by James Bolitho
- Date submitted
- 25 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Having worked in an environmental planning department at county council level and consulted on Environmental Impact Assessments in previous roles, I have tried to keep an open mind to this proposal. As a local resident who now lives, works, and uses the area for recreational purposes I have several concerns: 1) Size and Character Impact on Local Area: Even though the size of the area to be covered by solar arrays in the proposal has been reduced during the consultation process, I still believe the sheer size of the proposal is out of character with the sense of place of the area. Rutland is the smallest county in England consisting of small villages, market towns and rolling countryside so having the largest solar farm in the country is completely at odds with this. In my opinion the industrialisation of arable and pastoral land will be detrimental to the residents and varied wildlife and will diminish the area’s sense of place and identity which will in turn affect the property values in the area, people’s health and well-being and be an unwanted scar on the local landscape. 2) Impact on Wildlife and Destruction of Prime Agricultural Land: This proposal is going to have a massive impact on the environment as alluded to several times throughout the initial draft proposals and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Whilst I do support the habitat enhancement and mitigations / buffer zones, I feel at its current levels, as I have said previously during the public consultation process, that it doesn’t go anywhere near far enough to compensate for the overall impact of the proposal. I do not believe the current provisioning of Green Infrastructure go far enough to link up the existing fragmented woodlands and habitats and the requirement for new and improved road infrastructure in and around the site will further exacerbate habitat fragmentation. I am also concerned by the disruption that will be caused to many species which are mentioned in ecological survey reports. Moreover, I still believe that many species that are common in the local area have been somewhat dismissed as being in low numbers that they are not seen as relevant. I quite often see Barn owls in the vicinity of the Uffington Lane area and, as you will be aware, they are a key indicator of biodiversity health. Also, at appropriate times of the year I regularly see hare, deer, foxes, Red Kites, Osprey, Corn Bunting, Yellowhammer, Little Owls, heron and Egrets around the area of the proposed site which tends to suggest to me that the biodiversity in the area is not as devoid of wildlife as some sections of the EIA would have you believe. In addition, I travel through the proposed area every week along the permissive footpaths that run through most of the proposed area. Large areas where the panels are going to be placed were / are under arable crop rotations. The EIA states that over 40% (216ha) of the affected area is rated Grade 3a and above. Government guidance seeks to protect the “best and most versatile” agricultural land from significant, inappropriate, or unsustainable development proposals, and to promote the sustainable management of all soils. Additionally, this proposed loss of agricultural land is at odds with the current world situation with the war in Ukraine and the pressures of climate change and government strategy for more home-grown crops to help mitigate against food shortages. The pressures of the more extreme weather conditions are further compounding the need for as much farmland as possible across the country to be producing food in more sustainable ways and this proposal looks to be removing approximately 216ha of prime agricultural land and 531ha food producing farmland in total. 3) Flooding Risk My concerns from the previous phases of consultation still stand; increased surface run off from the solar panels will cause increased pressure on the local land and water courses. Regardless of the land predominantly being Environment Agency Flood Zone 1, it doesn’t mean the area doesn’t flood. I have seen flooding on Field 5 as listed in Figure 3.2: (Field Numbering System). This field is proposed to be covered with solar panels; this part of the proposal needs to be revisited I believe, especially with regards to buffering next to the lane that runs between Field 5 and 7. 4) Visual Impact and Recreational Amenity Whilst I would praise the attempt to provide enhancements, I have to consider the following: do I want to go for a walk or sit on picnic benches surrounded by 3 plus metre sized solar panels enclosed by 2-meter-high fencing with security cameras and lighting etc. The answer to this is no, not really! I am sure I am not alone and it is going take many years for screening to be sufficient enough to hide the approximately 3 plus metre-high solar panels and the associated substation compound buildings. This will have an impact on my own and my family’s mental health and well-being by not being able to enjoy walks so readily in our local area. 5) Construction Phase I have concerns that during site construction there will be significant noise disruption from increased traffic on our local rural infrastructure and the long working hours of 7am to 7pm and potential pile driving that is mentioned during installation phase of the solar panels. It is generally a quiet rural area so sound travels. For example, in Ryhall and the majority of the villages surrounding the proposed site, the East Midlands Main train line can be heard quite clearly so I find it hard to believe the somewhat optimistic assessment of the noise disruption being short lived as the installation moves across the site. This will have an impact on peoples mental health and well-being in their own homes. I also have concerns over the proposed route for site traffic down Uffington Lane from the A6121 which will mean large HGV traffic will be traveling down a lane. You cannot get two cars to pass each other at certain points in the lead up to the Ryhall substation from this direction without them having to mount the verges so this suggests this is not suitable for HGV traffic. In addition, I run down Uffington Lane regularly within the proposed site operation times of 7am to 7pm Monday to Saturday and regularly see other cyclists and runners. I worry that the additional site traffic and operational traffic will make the lane unsafe especially during the construction phase. In conclusion: Overall, local residents are having to take on a massive national burden in our local area with this proposal and with very little in the way of compensation (i.e. some enhancements to Rights of Way and a couple of park benches). I recognise that there is a need for alternative energy provision and understand the value of solar farms. However, when weighing up the loss of agricultural land compared to net biodiversity gains that are claimed in the EIA, I am not totally convinced that this proposed development has fully considered the destructive short term and long term environmental impacts that will inevitably occur. As far as I am aware, data and case studies around the impact of large-scale solar farms like this in the UK are not currently available or conclusive especially with regards to biodiversity gains. With regards to current levels of species in the local area I would prefer to see net gains in biodiversity through the implementation of more sustainable farming practices in the area. This could be achieved with a land advisor working with local farmers in the area through the deployment of more wildlife rich field margins and the enhancement of hedgerows whilst maintaining the agricultural and rural character of the area. Whilst I appreciate the need for more sustainable energy sources, I have to question the need to take away vast areas of agricultural land to try and achieve these goals. More suitable applications for solar panels would be to put them on brownfield sites nearer to urban areas or commercial parks where demand for power is greatest. Solar panels could be fitted to the roofs of factories and commercial buildings and through more favourable grants for private owners to have them installed on their own properties for example. In my opinion the developers are playing down the actual true impacts of this development with local residents having to bear the brunt of this for years to come.