Back to list Mallard Pass Solar Project

Representation by Jennifer Margaret Issitt

Date submitted
27 February 2023
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. Size of Development: If constructed, Mallard Pass would be by far the largest Solar Plant in the UK to date. As such, full and proper consideration is required to assess the greater impact this project would have. 2. Poor Consultation: Throughout the consultation process the developers failed to engage in good faith with the community. 3. Local Opposition: The 1,042 consultation responses from a small rural community highlight the level of opposition. 4. Misleading Consultation Summary: The consultation summary submitted by the developers in their application is inaccurate in several areas. 5. Compulsory Acquisitions: The intent of the developers to request compulsory acquisition rights, not least on Bourne Rd, was not made clear during the consultation period. 6. Human Rights Abuses in Supply Chains: There are well documented accusations against [Redacted] for human rights abuses in their supply chains, particularly concerning Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province of China. The US Government has sanctioned some of their suppliers. 7. [Redacted]: There are substantial concerns over the financial record of [Redacted]leadership team and their suitability to construct a project of this magnitude. 8. BMV Land: Government guidance is clear that energy projects should not be built on BMV land. The level of BMV land on this site is unacceptable and in clear breach of Government guidance to developers. 9. BMV Testing: There are concerns over the accuracy of the testing methods used to determine the quality of the land across the site. These tests should be revisited and verified. 10. Loss of Agricultural Land: Agricultural land is a key national asset that requires protection. This application does not satisfactory mitigate a loss of this asset on this scale or convincingly demonstrate that the land will ever return to food production. 11. Traffic: The rural road network is not appropriate to accommodate the level of traffic this development would require. The presence of schools along likely traffic routes is also a serious safety concern. 12. Loss of Natural Environment: There are concerns that the applicant’s assessments of the impact the development would have on the landscape are flawed. There is currently a technical landscape and visual assessment underway but more investigations are required to ensure any long-lasting changes to the land are properly considered. 13. Damage to Biodiversity: The area is home to a plethora of wildlife, particularly rare wild bird species. The assessments taken by the developers have not properly explored the impact this development would have on these rare species. Local bird experts have raised concerns with me that some species have been missed altogether. 14. Flood Risk: There are existing flood risks and a flooding history in the area that has not been adequately considered in this application. 15. Recreation, Mental Health, Physical Health: The unprecedented size of this development and the fundamental changes to the landscape and communities affected will negatively impact the Mental and Physical health of residents. This has not been fully considered by the applicant. 16. Time limit on Planning Consent: There is no time limit on the planning consent for this development. There needs to be clear timelines if the assumptions and promises in the application are to be feasible and accountable. 17. Solar Panel Glare: The site is near Rutland Water, home to many rare bird species. Evidence shows that birds can mistake solar panels for water, resulting in major disruption to their habitats. Likewise, glare from solar panels can represent a risk to drivers in an area already suffering a high level of road accidents. 18. Carbon Benefit: There are questions over where the panels will be built and with what energy. In China for example it is not uncommon for panels to be built using power generated by burning coal. When shipping is considered, will this project actually have a net-carbon benefit? 19. Energy Production: There are questions over the accuracy of the forecasts for the amount of energy the project is likely to produce. If the estimates are inaccurate, the whole thesis behind the supposed benefits of the project is in question. 20. Local Economy and Business: Local businesses reliant on the tourism draw of nature will suffer. The benefits the applicant claim the community will enjoy do not take account of the population demographics and types of employment that characterise the area.