Representation by Christine van Geersdaele
- Date submitted
- 1 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Size of Development: Mallard Pass would be by far the largest Solar Plant in the UK to date. Full and proper consideration is essential to assess the wider implications of the project. Poor Consultation: The developers failed to engage in good faith with the community. I have attended some of the “events” and asked specific questions of the organisation. Answers have been vague, misleading and, in cases, unavailable. Local Opposition: There is significant opposition and yet the voices appear unheard. Misleading Consultation Summary: The consultation summary submitted by the developers in their application is inaccurate in several areas, including misleading and false claims over topics presented at “consultations”. Compulsory Acquisitions: Were never discussed at any consultation or were even in the previous literature. This has been included at the last minute. These acquisitions are not clear and the effect on the area not understood. Human Rights Abuses in Supply Chains: There are well documented accusations against [Redacted] for human rights abuses in their supply chains, particularly concerning Uyghurs in the Xinjiang province of China. Should this country be tacitly approving these abuses? [Redacted]: Is a very small organisation, suitable for a project such as this? BMV Land: Government guidance is clear that energy projects should not be built on BMV land. The level of BMV land on this site is unacceptable and in clear breach of Government guidance to developers. BMV Testing: There are concerns over the accuracy of the testing methods used to determine the quality of the land across the site. These tests should be revisited and verified. Loss of Agricultural Land: The loss of such a huge area of productive land is unacceptable, especially in times of threatened food security. The recent global and national challenges have highlighted the need for sustainable and self sufficient food production. Traffic: The rural road network is not appropriate to accommodate the level of traffic this development would require, the proposed “one way” systems to not mitigate the issues. Local roads have busy, yet limited, footpaths and cycle ways. Loss of Natural Environment: There are concerns that the applicant’s assessments of the impact the development would have on the landscape are flawed. There is currently a technical landscape and visual assessment underway but more investigations are required to ensure any long-lasting changes to the land are properly considered. Damage to Biodiversity: The area is home to a plethora of wildlife, particularly rare wild bird species. The assessments taken by the developers have not properly explored the impact this development would have on these rare species. Local bird experts have raised concerns with me that some species have been missed altogether. Flood Risk: This is an area where parts are flooded regularly but this has not been adequately considered in this application. It was ignored at the consultations. Time limit on Planning Consent: There is no time limit on the planning consent for this development. The “promises” in the development must be time controlled and specific, not the current vague comments. Energy Production: There are questions over the accuracy of the forecasts for the amount of energy the project is likely to produce. If the estimates are inaccurate, the whole thesis behind the supposed benefits of the project is in question. These forecasts must expertly re-evaluated. Technology Suitability: The loss of land and habitat suggests that the scale of such a project limits the overall benefits. I have investigated the losses for installing wind turbines of a similar output and the area is far smaller – confirmed by the developer. Government Energy Strategy: Appears lacking and missing. Surely a development such as this should firstly be evaluated against the country’s energy needs and plans before so much land is lost.