Representation by Pamela Adams
- Date submitted
- 27 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
My family and I have lived in Toft for some 23 years, not three miles from where the proposed site MP will be located just off the increasingly busy B6121. Currently we are fortunate enough to still enjoy some unspoilt countryside on our doorstep, a prime consideration when purchasing our property. This is despite the considerable construction of dwellings in both Bourne and Stamford that has also had an impact on the density of traffic on the B6121 . Whilst I am in favour of more sustainable forms of energy, there is surely a better method of producing this other than eating up the 2,238 acres of agricultural land that this development proposes to use? For example, solar panels along motorways, the roofs of properties and business premises and, on roofs of the already unsightly warehouses and distribution centres. These solar panels will be manufactured in China and I have huge concerns relating to the reported evidence regarding Uyghur forced labour used in the supply chain of [Redacted] which is currently under investigation and scrutiny by its own shareholders, surely this is not something we should sanction? Also, has any account been taken for the realistic costs to the environment of transporting solar panels from China? Shipping would involve burning some 1,575,00 gallons of marine fuel in the process which in turn, will detrimentally affect marine life. The production techniques being used in China in making the solar panels are also questionable in sustaining a pollution free environment. For example, the use of coal fired power stations. This may be happening in China but these are global issues affecting every one of us. Does Net-Zero only apply in the United Kingdom, shouldn’t we be concerned globally? This development appears to me to be a cheap fix in terms of producing energy from a monetary point of view but in terms of the effect on the environment, the costs would be catastrophic. The mitigation and enhancement measures suggested in the Mallard Pass's (MP) Stage Two consultation will not, address the ‘impact’ of the project because no matter what ‘buffer zones’ are put in place it will be impossible to conceal solar panels of 3.3m high, 2m security fencing, 1320 CCTV cameras at 3.5 m high, security lighting and 84 containers housing invertors/transformers. How will it be possible to ignore the fact that they are there? Also, the prospect of the disruption that would be caused to residents just in light of the construction of the site is inconceivable. This, in terms of environmental damage, noise pollution and road safety. The piling of solar panels mounting structures of up to 2.5 metres deep will be noisy. In addition, the disruption caused by up to 400 workers over two years on site from 7am to 7pm Monday to Saturday, and 54 HGV movements to and fro each day along 3 major routes with one main construction compound and six secondary compounds will be chaotic for the local roads. Further, construction of this site is proposed on prime agricultural land but government policy is clear that ground mounted solar should use previously developed land, contaminated land, industrial land and agricultural land of grade 3b, 4 and 5. However, 53% of the land to be used in this proposal is BMV land, (best and most versatile). It is ‘the government’s policy to protect the nation’s best and most versatile land for agricultural production’, according to the British Society of Soil Science (BSSS) government guidance document published in January 2022 [Redacted] therefore, why does the proposal ignore this fact and propose to build on 53% of best and most versatile land? Should we just waiver this directive as it does not fit in with the proposal? I believe strongly that this construction would have a hugely negative impact on the quality of life of residents and future generations due to the loss of beautiful, rural and scenic farmland. I do not believe the mitigation plans put forward by MP will in any way compensate for this proposed and irreplaceable loss. The proposed building on BMV land at a time when it is essential to increase agricultural production goes against government policy, and seems to smack in the face of current economic issues. The safety, mental health and wellbeing of residents will undoubtedly be negatively impacted and for those with a stake in the housing market the increased traffic and noise pollution will detrimentally affect house prices at a time when the public are already struggling with the issues of inflation. By condoning this proposal, we are also condoning forced labour practices with a complete disregard for Net-Zero if it is not on our own doorstep.