Back to list Mallard Pass Solar Project

Representation by Anthony John Orvis

Date submitted
25 February 2023
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. We moved to Essendine from rural Dorset thirty nine years ago. We wanted to live in an area as similar as possible to the one we left - open, rural, undulating land. We have not been disappointed, with our children and now grand-children enjoying living in the countryside. This development would have a deleterious impact on our lifestyle and well-being. 2. The size of the scheme would dominate the area and change its nature from that of a rural landscape to an industrial one. 3. The scheme would be many times the size of any other UK solar farm in operation. This must call into question the reliance on any extrapolation of information gained from other solar farms to the proposed development. 4. The capacity of the development is not given thereby nullifying all claims regarding output and contribution to “net-zero.” As the benefit benefit of the the scheme is not quantified, it should be rejected. 5. The life of the solar farm not stated, thus it cannot be defined as “temporary.” The consequential effects of this are not considered. Indeed it goes to question the basis and premise of the Application, and whether or not it is fundamentally flawed. 6. The necessary detail and quantification of many elements of the Application are absent thereby making proper analysis impossible. 7. The Application includes many misleading statements and illustrations. 8. The land is undulating, not flat as is recommended for of solar farms. Flat land is technically preferable and installations are easier to screen. 9. The amount of mitigation required goes to demonstrate that the undulating landscape is not suitable with only one half of the land within the order limits intended to be used for solar panels. 10. Views across the landscape from PRoWs would be destroyed by arrays of solar panels and, eventually, any screening of the panels. In the PEIR the Applicant accepted this stating, “views may change from open outlook across agricultural fields, to views of Mallard Pass Solar Farm – across the Proposed Development.” 11. Proposals to screen some the solar panel area rely on newly planted trees and hedgerows. These would not be fully effective until after fifteen years. 12. The scheme, and other similar ones, would reduce food production, in particular, cereals and oilseeds. Although this scheme has to be considered as a stand alone development, the cumulative impact on food production of this and other schemes should be acknowledged. 13. Proposals for “dual agricultural use” have not been developed beyond that of a vague idea and should be discounted. 14. There are no benefits for the local community. 15. The methodology for determining the ALC of the site did not follow published guidelines and the conclusions drawn are questionable. 16. The analysis of traffic during the construction process does not give sufficient weight to the level of intimidation that would be experienced by users of the narrow roads. 17. The impact of any roadworks carried out in Essendine has not been assessed. There was no consultation on this nor on the Compulsory Acquisition proposals that were introduced at the Application stage. This a a major fault in the consultation process. 18. Assessment of alternatives to some of the key proposals in the Application are not analysed in sufficient depth. 19. Some of the factors that should be taken into account when assessing climate change are absent. 20. The corporate structure of the Applicant is unclear. On the basis of published accounts, neither shareholder has the funds to carry out the development. 21. There is no guarantee that funds would be available for decommissioning. It is likely that the development will be sold on, complicating further the funding for any decommissioning 22. Undertakings given regarding the Supply Chain are not deliverable.