Representation by Heather Hooper
- Date submitted
- 28 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sir / Madam, I am writing to you to raise my objection to the proposed Mallard pass Solar farm: I have a number of objections as follows: The size and scale of the solar farm, the proposed solar farm is 8 times larger than any current UK solar farm with panels over 3M in size. The total site has increased by 23Ha to 906Ha (2,238 acres) to allow for highway changes for HGV and abnormal roads, creating greater potential for environmental damage and disruption. The solar panel area has decreased by 106Ha (263 acres) but can apparently still deliver the same 350MW quoted at Stage 1 of the Consultation. How can this be possible? The site was selected predominantly for its easy access to the grid, which currently has available capacity. How do we know the solar area won’t be expanded at a later date? Unbelievably, the proposal is to use good quality agricultural land over 2238 acres of land! That will no longer be able to contribute towards food production, The UK has one of the lowest food security positions in the first world and the wanton destruction of agriculture land is beyond belief. The 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, not Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. The selected solar panel area MPSF is proposing to use is 53% BMV land. The latest Government Food Strategy Policy paper June 2022 clearly wants to maintain agricultural production, not reduce it, particularly in the light of recent activities with Russia/Ukraine war and subsequent global impacts on food shortages and prices. The UK energy policy and security of energy to make us self-independent is not addressed with this short term deployment on agriculture land, the opportunity is failing to leverage billons of SQM of commercial premises, government premises, MOD land etc, offshore wind and nuclear, this would give a level of power generation significantly higher than a proposed 2348 acres of glass, and would have the added benefit of not destroying agriculture land. If the government could get past its 5-year government term short sightedness and address food and energy security in the correct and sensible way it would be obvious that this and future proposal of agriculture damage and destruction is not acceptable. Battery Storage: Battery Storage has conveniently been omitted from the initial proposal; however, it is accepted that battery storage is needed to help balance the National Grid with solar, however this is not without risk, what commitments and legally binding clauses will the government apply to ensure that battery storage for this installation is not added at a later date. “Landscape and visual effects considered to be of major/moderate significance” cite MPSF. solar panels up to 3.3m high, 2m security fencing, 1320 CCTV cameras at 3.5m high, security lighting, 84 containers housing inverters/transformers, will change the character and visual appearance of our area for at least the next 40 years. It will take 15 years before many areas can be effectively screened from the impact. The proposed site and plan fails to adequately address the potential for additional flood risk caused by surface water run-off from the panels, the impact has still not been properly considered on areas downstream outside of the site e.g. Greatford. The West Glen River new permissive path and Wet Woodland area will probably be impassable in winter as that area easily floods. The proposed site has a large amount of known archaeological remains dating to the prehistoric period are in abundance within the Solar PV site and its surrounding area” It is yet to be determined if all areas can be built on. “The proposed development would change the character of land parcels lying within the wider and peripheral setting of several listed buildings”. Considering that this site is deemed to be national strategic value, how is the UK government allowing, a third-party company with strong links to China and Reported evidence of Uyghur forced labour being used in the supply chain of [Redacted], to be the primary developer. If this site is of genuine national interest, then why would the government not take ownership and build, operate and run this and many more solar, wind and nuclear sites?: like we used to with BNFL and make this a strategically owned asset, instead of going in a race to the bottom with the lowest bidder? Ask yourself this question, How did that work out with Russia and China in both telecommunications, food and energy security? This unfortunately shows again a level of short sightedness across central government when working through Strategically important security, energy and food policy. I look forward to the above objections being taken into consideration as you review the proposals that have been put forward, I remain hopeful that common sense and strategic thinking will pre-vail and that the UK Government will actually make the correct decision and put the views of its electorate ahead of short-term third-party business based in Canada/China who will no doubt sell this on as a financial government underwritten asset to a third party fund/bank.