Representation by Paul Allen
- Date submitted
- 26 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Please find my comments, concerns and considerations about the proposed Mallard Pass Solar Farm Development: Proposed site objection The size of the proposed site is utterly astonishing, with it being 8 times bigger than any existing solar plant in the UK. The physical footprint is thousand acres of primary agricultural land but also includes grassland and wet & wildflower woodland. The sheer scale of this proposal will have a severe impact on local ecology and wildlife, alongside rural landscape and visual impact. In a world where we are currently experiencing global food supply shortages, whilst having the essential need for the UK to have a resilient and sustainable food production over the long term, why are we allowing a proposal to eradicate and sacrifice finite arable productive farming land. The planning process stipulates that you should not build ground mounted solar farms on best and most versatile land with land grading of 1, 2 or 3a ratings. It appears that the proposed Mallard Pass area has 53% of it being best and most versatile land. This is over half of the proposed site being agricultural and fertile land, this alone seems a reason to reject this proposal. Proposed contractor concern Windel Energy, being one of the key proposers and partners, is a privately held company only founded 4 years ago in 2018. They have renewable proposals and projects in the pipeline, including Mallard Pass but yet, they have not delivered one single renewable project. This is extremely concerning, considering this project is 8 times bigger than any existing solar plant in the UK. I question their experience and their motives and see it as a possible ruse to sell on the project to the highest bidder post a successful conclusion if they were to get one. This has been declared as a NSIP project, which indicates its importance by needing Government approval. So, why doesn’t this project have clear requirements and guidelines for these 3rd parties to adhere to and ultimately go out to tender on their experience and proficiency in these types of projects. It feels the government is being led by the nose by the contractor instead of the other way around. Biodiversity impact I moved to Braceborough over 12 years ago, with its main attraction being a rural village surrounded by beautiful countryside, walks, variety of plant and animal life. The Mallard Pass proposal acknowledges that there will be many adverse environmental impacts during the construction and decommissioning phases of this project, and they will do their best to avoid them. We all know that any adverse impacts to the biodiversity environment is nye on impossible to recover post the damage by the nature of how fragile these environments can be. Can we really look the other way! Landscape & Visual objection This is an aspect of the planning consideration and I feel strongly that this project is going to change and destroy the character of the surrounding area that we live and preside in. Again, the Mallard Pass project has declared that the impact will be of major / moderate significance. The main reason being the solar panels to be installed are 3.3 meters high, which are huge. Additional to this, there will be 2m high security fencing around the site, 1320 CCTV cameras on 3.5m poles, security lighting, 84 x 3.2m high shipping / storage containers for the transformers and converters. Somewhat likened to an open prison, this will clearly obstruct and be an eyesore on the landscape for miles, considering the 2.2 thousand acres of the site footprint. Traffic & Transport objection This proposal has a 2-year construction timeline, with a maximum of 400 staff at it’s peak. This is going to cause a huge amount of local disruption with dust, damage, noise and potentially road safety issues with roads and areas that the construction lorries will traverse not having paths or being adequately wide enough. The 400 workers will be working 12 hour days, 6 days a week, with an additional 54 2-way HGV movements per day. The suggested main inbound route to the site is just not suitable for this level of construction traffic. Route 1 suggested by Mallard Pass, sees lorries exiting off the A1, through Casterton, past primary and senior schools, through the outskirts of Ryhall up to Essendine to the sub-station. There are school traffic calming zones, horse bridal ways, established cycle routes, narrow roads and several dangerous junctions for the lorries to traverse. Routes 2 & 3 suggested, have similar or worse concerns. General & Future I have to ask myself, do I trust a private developer that will be motivated to maximise revenues and minimise costs to look after local communities and the environment during the construction process once in operation...my answer is, I very much doubt it. The surrounding area of Stamford has significant archaeological & heritage presence, with the likely occurrence of archaeological remains and sites on the proposed Mallard Pass location. The area we live in has fantastic markets, historic market town of Stamford, Burghley House with some lovely historical assets. I believe this kind of industrialisation of this countryside is going to impact these heritage assets with only being 2 or so miles from the Stamford area. The performance of the solar farm will not be 350MW, as we know solar energy is one of the least efficient ways of producing renewable energy. Over an average year it will only produce 11% of what is stated and only on certain days when the weather conditions align and of course not at night! We shouldn’t forget that if approved it will take 2 years to build and will then be in place for a minimum of 40 years affecting future generations. So, in conclusion and based on just the few objections above, I can’t sit back and allow this terrible mistake to go unchallenged and therefore for clarity, I am totally opposed to the Mallard Pass Solar Farm Development.