Representation by Rachel Burt
- Date submitted
- 1 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
food security crisis The UK is facing a food security crisis of a scale never seen before as a result of the Ukraine conflict affecting food imports and hikes in energy prices, climate change impacts (making seasonal patterns of rainfall less dependable, with longer and deeper periods of drier weather and drought increasingly likely, hotter temperatures causing wildfires), post-Brexit and pandemic eras increasing the need for home-grown food reliance and the increase in population growth, particularly in the East of England where it is estimated 1.2 million new homes will be built by 2050: Water Resources East Emerging Regional Plan. As a result we will need the 906 hectares of prime agricultural land, proposed for Mallard Pass site, to be retained to meet these growing pressures on food production. Taking prime land out of agricultural use will push even more growing of food to other countries, in fact increasing water security issues in water stressed countries as well as offsetting our carbon reduction to other countries! Inefficiencies in solar power and energy lost compared to other renewable energy sources The energy generated by the proposed solar farm (11%) is inefficient compared to other renewable energy sources such as on-shore wind and off-shore wind. Energy Trends” - produced by BEIS: 30th June 2022. The plant utilisation factor for solar in 2021 was 10.1% compared to on-shore wind at 23.3% and off-shore wind at 37.5%. In addition, transport of solar energy through pipes to sub-stations means a further loss in power generated and inefficiencies. Solar is most effective when the energy created is used at source such as solar panels/tiles used on roofs of houses. Furthermore, under the UK energy long-term contracts that have been set up, renewables are the FIRST energies to be switched off when the National Grid is at capacity, with fossil fuels given priority. Until these contracts are renegotiated by government, increasing supplies of renewable energy generated will be wasted and lost. Damage to local biodiversity The current land retains 100% of biodiversity including crop nesting birds, deer and protected species such as kingfishers and barn owls to name a few. The solar farm mitigation under biodiversity net gain requires full mitigation of habitats plus 10%, however this is not possible in the local area and under Biodiversity Net Gain, it is permissible to offset this elsewhere in the country at a cost to the local area where there will be a net loss to 100% biodiversity. In addition, the proposed size of the panels (3ft) and volume (7,00 solar panels) in the SMALLEST COUNTY IN THE UK will severely affect the local wildlife that remain with evidence from other UK solar farms showing long and painful deaths to wildlife caught up in the parameter fences. Flooding There is an increased risk of flooding caused by the solar farm that has not been mitigated against. with wetter winters and flood events already being witnessed by climate change, thus increasing risk to life as well as homes. Increase risk of local global warming and fire The sheer number and size of the solar farm will contribute an estimated 2 degree (36 Fahrenheit) increase in local temperatures as a result of the heat generated by the solar panels, affecting biodiversity as well as increasing the risk of fires as recently evidenced elsewhere in the country on solar farms (Verwood, Dorset). Forced labour Lastly, but by no means any less priority, I am deeply concerned by evidence of forced labour in the supply chain of the primary developer [Redacted]. My questions still remained unanswered from your Stage One consultation. Reiterated here again for response: Why isn't disused land (industrial sites) or brown field sites being used? Or indeed - why are domestic solar panels not being considered and offered to local residents? If a quarter or half of local residents were offered solar panels to be placed on their roofs (or in gardens) this would equate to the same energy if not more being generated and used at source to meet the national net zero requirements. This option would be far more sustainable and factor in low/no regret solutions as houses are there for eternity compared to the 40 year horizon of solar farms, which then has the regret option of needing the land back for food production and in order to meet the Government's 25 Year Environment Plan biodiversity targets. This current proposal is short-term, investor greed! How will you mitigate the affects on well-being and health? Such a shockingly intrusive eye sore on our countryside will have a huge impact on wellbeing and health. I have spoken to many residents who are genuinely depressed and anxious at the proposal - mainly the sheer size and loss of our beautiful countryside, wildlife and social amenity. Indeed, not to mention the huge disruption building the site will cause. How will this be done at net zero? And a request...Please supply all of the environmental assessments (eg Habitats Directive, Biodiversity Net Gain, Strategic Environmental Assessment, etc) conducted to date and/or point me in the direction of where I can find them. The news of this imminent proposal comes at great sadness for most of the residents affected. I understand it is private landowner(s) that ultimately will benefit from this farm and of course the investors too. It won't be the environment and certainly not humans that will benefit. Net zero ambitions can be met in coordinated, joined up, long term schemes that are not at the detriment to current environmental landscapes.