Representation by Nicola Catherine Younger
- Date submitted
- 27 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The size of the development is too big for the site proposed and the surrounding area. Whilst I agree with renewable energy, this will be the largest solar plant in the UK (over 8 times larger than the current largest solar plant) in the smallest county and in a rural area on BMV land. Government guidance is very clear that energy projects should NOT be built on BMV land and the amount to be used is in breach of Government guidance. The tests used to determine the quality of the lane across the site are also an area of concern. The tests need to be verified. We will lose prime agricultural land which is very much needed, especially at the moment and this requires our protection. We should be producing more of our own food rather than importing everything and therefore we must protect and use our land for this purpose. The developers have failed to engage with the communities or our Member of Parliament, [Redacted]. They did not even turn up to a meeting that was arranged in Essendine and pulled out at the very last minute. The consultation summary from the developers in their application is inaccurate in several areas. There is a huge amount of local opposition from our small, rural communities and it is now the intent of the developers to request compulsory acquisition rights which was definitely NOT made clear during the consultation process. The traffic issue will be an enormous issue to such a small community and the size of our roads will not cope with the intended amount of construction and traffic. There are several schools along the route which my children attend and this causes a real concern for me. At a meeting at Ryhall Village Hall, the developers informed me that there would be 58 trucks per day going along a route which included a secondary school with 900 pupils, staff and parents together with a smaller primary school and nursery school. This is not acceptable and is a safety concern. Accidents WILL happen! In addition, the disruption to the whole community over the period of 2-3 years will be horrendous and our small rural roads will not cope with the sheer volume of traffic proposed. This development will affect many villages, hamlets, schools etc and residents for many years. Construction companies will not be mindful of the rural landscape and our inadequate roads and routes will not be able to cope. There will a loss to the natural environment and our MP believes that the developers assessments of the impact of the development on our landscape are flawed. More investigations are required to ensure any long lasting changes to the land are properly considered. The area is also home to many wildlife including rare bird species and the site is near Rutland Water and evidence shows that birds can mistake solar panels for water resulting in disruption to their habitats. There are existing flood risks and a flooding history in the area that has not been adequately considered in this application. Some of the solar panels are proposed to be placed very close to the roads and the glare from the panels will be a risk to drivers in an area already suffering a high level of road accidents. As the development is so vast, the changes to the landscape and communities that will be affected will totally impact negatively upon our mental/physical health and that of everyone in the surrounding areas. It is likely to have a detrimental effect on local businesses which are reliant on tourism and our rural landscape/community. I am concerned about the well documented accusations against [Redacted] for human rights abuses in their supply chains particularly in respect of Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province of China. The US government has already sanctioned some of their suppliers. I also understand from our MP, [Redacted] that there are substantial concerns over the financial record of [Redacted]leadership team and their suitability to construct a project this big. Also there are questions over the net carbon benefit of the project and the accuracy of the forecasts for the amount of energy that the project is likely to produce. [Redacted] has informed us that the consultation summary submitted by the developers is inaccurate in several areas, including misleading and false claims over topics discussed with her at meetings. There is no time limit on the planning consent for this development. There should be a clear timeline if the assumptions and promises in the application are to be feasible and accountable.