Representation by Jeremy Francis Hockham
- Date submitted
- 28 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I have a number of objections to the proposed Mallard Pass solar farm development and I would also like to raise a number of points for consideration. 1) Location and scale of the development a. The proposed development covers a huge area of 906 hectares, which is approximately equivalent to 1700 football fields, and would be an industrial scale facility in what is currently a rural community of rolling countryside. The justification for this is primarily based on the location of the substation at Ryhall, which was originally installed to support the electrification of the East Coast Railway. b. The development will fundamentally and permanently change the enjoyment of the countryside by humans and extensive wildlife in the area. Attempts to mitigate the damage caused during and after the construction work will take decades to only partially cover up the impact of the landscape. c. The Proposal claims that the access to the proposed site is good. This is not true. While the A1 is close by, the roads between the A1 and the site are narrow, twisting A and B roads some of which pass local schools. They will not be adequate for scale of construction traffic which will be necessary. d. The claim that Essendine is a semi industrial area and hence will not materially change the enjoyment of the area.. This is a surprise to any living in the area. While there are Industrial units in Essendine most are not visible from the main roads nor the surrounding countryside and do not change what is a rural community. I challenge anyone to drive through Essendine and describe it as semi Industrial. e. It does not appear that alternative locations have been adequately considered during the consultation, which may require investment in a substation but would cause significantly lower environmental impact. i. The East Coast Main line is 393 miles long and has land either side which if developed could provide adequate land for solar development without further impacting the surrounding land. In theory it would only take 32m either side of the entire track to provide the same area in Hectares. ii. Lincolnshire has many disused or partially disused RAF bases, some of which have substations, albeit of lower rating than Ryhall, which could be utilised. Such “brownfield development” would have much less impact than the proposed development. 2) Security of Site a. The Solar panels, the cabling that connects them and the auxiliary equipment includes large quantities of valuable materials. As such the sites will be at high risk of theft both in construction and after completion. Due to the topography of the site and the multiple different areas providing adequate security will be difficult. b. The proposed fencing will be an eyesore, and any planting planned will take decades to cover them, but is also unlikely to be high enough to prevent theft. I am therefore concerned that these will be heightened in future making the current proposal worse. c. The proposed plan also includes a large number of CCTV cameras. These alone will not be sufficient to protect a site of this scale which is in effect a large number of smaller areas. Therefore again I expect these measures to be supplemented in future. d. While it is possible that infra red lighting will be used to supplement the night time performance of the cameras, flood lighting will need to be used when apprehending any thieves which will cause significant light pollution where there is currently none. e. The information provided regarding during the consultation is inadequate and further details need to be provided. f. In light of this the solar farm is likely to look more like a huge prison camp rather that an undamaged agricultural area. 3) Effectiveness of solar Panels a. Solar Panels are approximately 15% efficient whereas wind turbines are approximately 50% efficient b. Wind turbines generate power through out the day whereas solar panels only generate electricity during day light. c. Deployment of Wind turbines is significantly outstripping the use of solar in commercial facilities in the USA d. Since Mallard Pass Solar Farm is proposed by a Canadian Solar, a Company involved in the production and deployment of solar panels, adequate consideration has not been given to alternative technologies to provide renewable power. 4) Flood risk a. I have lived in Greatford for nearly 30 years and the area surrounding Greatford Gardens has been flooded a number of times. b. The idea that covering 463 hectares with impermeable solar panels will not impact the ability of the land surrounding our village to absorb water is extremely difficult to comprehend. It is reasonable to assume that this will probably to increase the flood risk in Greatford. c. The Consultation thus far has not adequately explained how this will be managed and the theorical modelling in the environmental report does not pass the “reasonableness test” passed on decades of living in the area. Further clarification and explanation is required. 5) Independence of UK Energy supply and Limited Contribution to UK PLC a. Canadian Solar use Chinese Producers in its supply chain. b. Canadian Solar was established by a Chinese citizen who went to Canada to Study. Chinese Citizens do not easily move overseas and set up independent companies. However the links between Canadian Solar and Chinese Government are not clear but need to be clarified to ensure that UK energy supply remain independent from foreign powers (ref European dependence on Russian Gas) c. The Financiers behind Windell Energy and Canadian Solar are not clear. d. The only contribution to UK PLC from this development will be the power generated and the employment during construction e. Large scale developments of this nature should also aim to have an accelerator effect on UK economy. f. The financial aspects of this project and the ownership structure of the Proposers need to be clarified. 6) There have been significant changes to the proposals since the initial 2 consultations. These must have been known to the developers at an early stage and therefore to include them at this point suggests that the consultations have been disingenuous and misleading. These changes are; a. Compulsory acquisitions rights along the Bourne Road. This will be highly disruptive to all the communities in the local area in addition to a major disruption to the quality of life of those living in Essendine b. addition of sub station in Essendine. Since the outset one of the primary reasons for this location was to utilise the existing sub station in Ryhall. If an additional sub station is required then this argument is void and other more suitable locations should be considered.