Representation by Peterborough Ramblers (Peterborough Ramblers)
- Date submitted
- 28 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
Locating such a huge industrial development to utilise spare capacity of a sub-station is treating the countryside as an industrial commodity. There is more to the countryside than simple economic efficiency. It's appalling that such a massive solar farm has even been considered as more important than the impact on the landscape and local communities. Shame on the money makers heading up these multi-national corporations for placing so little worth on the countryside and people who live here. Local ecology and bird Life: We are very disappointed that the so called environmental studies have been for only a few months - there is no way you will fully understand the annual and season and long term issues that you will impact over such a short period of study. Landscape and visual Impact: We are against using unspoilt, productive farming and wooded landscape to put sheets of plastic in? Why not look for brown field sites? The proximity to a sub-station should not be the only deciding factor in placing these panels in otherwise productive farmland. Archaeology and local heritage: Creating a single physical development with an exclusion zone in the middle of the open countryside which has several footpaths and places of interest and local heritage is a high price for the local communities to pay. These assets have little or no financial value so the developers are threatening to lay waste to them all. If we are seeking green energy for the betterment of the environment then please do not spoil the environment in so doing. The irony is too important to ignore! Traffic, access and construction: The imposition of perimeter wire fences (3m high!) is going to create a monstrous scar across the landscape - blocking views, disrupting access. At least when Rutland Water was imposed it had positive community value in the landscape - a solar farm is just a mass of metal, plastic and fences scarring the landscape! Agriculture & Land Use: We do not agree with removing perfectly good agricultural land when we still need to import food stuffs to the UK – current shortages can’t go on. We should be preserving this good agricultural land and only using brown field sites, old quarries etc - land which has low value for agriculture for solar farms. It seems that the proximity of a sub-station is dictating where to put solar panels regardless of the negative impact on other land uses. The pressure to accept Europe's largest solar farm just to make good use of capacity in a sub-station is just lunacy. These panels should be distributed across the country to where the energy will be used, minimising the environmental impact of their placement. Flood Risk: The water catchment area of these solar panels will be several times that of the floor space they occupy therefore massively increasing the amount of rain water normally collected in this area. I doubt very much whether anyone from the developers has calculated the increased amount of extra water that these solar panels will collect and the impact on the water table and local flooding. Tourism: Local tourism will be negatively impacted by having acres of fields covered in black solar panels? Stamford and the surrounding area is a beautiful natural landscape. The developer is however immune from this because they don't actually care about the impact on tourism and the related local economy. Recreation & Amenity: Erecting high fences, creating huge exclusion zones, adding black lifeless sheets of plastic and steel to the landscape - these will only have massive negative impact on recreation and amenity. Footpaths diverted, high fences instead of hedgerows and trees, lifeless landscape, these will have a huge negative impact on everyone’s enjoyment of the countryside.