Representation by Joanna Plant
- Date submitted
- 28 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly OBJECT to the proposal. In the essence of speed I have not listed all my reasons but here are the main ones: 1. Loss of land for food production – now more than ever we should be growing as much of our own food as possible so we are not reliant on other countries. The sustainability agenda is also a key point here – local food going to local people is far more aligned with the Government’s target of zero carbon than food being flown in from abroad. Apart from being more environmentally friendly, people prefer locally grown produce so they can be sure of the provenance and we wish to support our local economy. 2. We get very strong winds in this area; we live in Uffington and my family previously owned and farmed some of the land in question. In the 70’s, strong winds ripped the entire roof off the water tower. We are regularly at the mercy of these winds which removes slates off the houses and buildings and we have lost trees. The solar panels and infrastructure will therefore be a potential hazard for local people. Apart from the safety aspects, what about the unsightly appearance and the responsibility to clear up when the panels are ripped up by the winds? 3. Glare, mirror effect, vibration and loss of view. My family have lived in Uffington, in one of the most historic listed houses in the local area, for almost 60 years. Last year, I obtained planning permission to rebuild some of the historic barns. As a family we strongly object to the despoiling of the open countryside with this incongruous development which will bring no benefit to us and our neighbours. We have worked hard to cultivate and maintain this part of our countryside, not just for our own benefit but for the enjoyment of neighbours and visitors too. Many people come to the area to walk the footpaths and enjoy the open space, uninterrupted views and wildlife, just as we have done for so long. 4. The building of much needed housing on greenfield land is resisted; so to allow solar farm development on greenfield land when there are many alternative solutions, is blatant hypocrisy. Surely harnessing the power of our oceans has to be the way forward? Another obvious solution is to utilise the industrial rooftops, of which I understand there are in excess of 250,000 hectares in the UK. Going forward, any granting of planning permission for new industrial buildings could be conditioned to include solar roof panels. Or utilising the road networks or unsightly areas? Our world, our climate, our wildlife and the human race are already suffering due to more and more of our green land being given over to industrial uses which is not as nature intended. 5. The lifespan of 40 years quoted for this project suggests that it is just a fad idea. Solar is clearly not seen as a long term solution and what will happen to the infrastructure then? How will it be disposed of? Or will our children and our country just have to suffer these graveyard developments? This is not forward thinking and positive advancement, surely a more practical solution which will serve future generations too without destroying the countryside and contributing to pressures on food availability, can be found. 6. It goes without saying that the wildlife in the area will never be the same again if the project goes ahead. Over the last 60 years we have taking great pleasure in watching the various wild birds, animals and insects thrive, and have encouraged them by managing the land to enhance their environment and habitats. What our pity that our efforts to support these valuable habitats will have been in vain, and worse still, what a great shame that the wildlife will now be driven from it’s natural habitat.