Representation by David Hunt
- Date submitted
- 2 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
1 The proposal is also defective in that site selection and reasonable alternatives have not been properly considered. Such proper assessment of alternatives is required by the EIA Regulations 2 The proposed scheme causes significant harm over an extensive area which can neither be justified in its own terms nor in comparison to reasonable alternatives. It is an inefficient use of the land proposed to be developed and used for the scheme, in particular compared to the existing use of the land for agriculture. It partitions and damages the rural agricultural landscape, by its design maximises the harm to communities, segregates rural villages and places them effectively permanently in an industrialised landscape It also fails properly to apply existing NPS policy, development plan policy, the NPPF and other relevant government policy. EN-1 Section 4.6 addresses Criteria for “Good Design”. 4.6.3 “In the light of the above and given the importance which the Planning Act 2008 places on good design and sustainability, the Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that energy infrastructure developments are sustainable and, having regard to regulatory and other constraints, are as attractive, durable, and adaptable (including taking account of natural hazards such as flooding) as they can be. In doing so, the Secretary of State should be satisfied that the applicant has taken into account both functionality (including fitness for purpose and sustainability) and aesthetics (including its contribution to the quality of the area in which it would be located, any potential amenity benefits, and visual impacts on the landscape or seascape) as far as possible”. 48.4 “Utility-scale solar farms are large sites that may have a significant zone of visual influence. The two main impact issues that determine distances to sensitive receptors are therefore likely to be visual amenity and glint and glare. These are considered in Landscape, Visual and Residential Amenity (Section 2.51) and Glint and Glare (Section 2.52) impact sections below.” 49.5 “. Developers are encouraged to design the layout and appearance of the site to ensure continued recreational use of public rights of way, where possible during construction, but in particular across the operation of the site, and to minimise as much as possible the visual outlook from existing footpaths”. 3 Solar is the least efficient form of renewable energy certainly in terms of land use and also a carbon inefficient electricity generating scheme, especially from the perspective of the carbon lifecycle of the scheme, is defective. It fails properly to assess embodied carbon, does not take proper account of, for example, the production and replacement of plant and machinery, nor decommissioning. The generating capacity is claimed at the full capacity of the panels and not the actual energy generated which is by government's own figures is around only 10% of the actual capacity. The carbon benefits of the scheme have been exaggerated and there is a lack of material information on the lifecycle of the scheme as a whole. 4 The scheme is claimed to be a temporary land use. This is disputed 5 The proposal causes disruptive and damaging impact of construction effects including construction traffic on rural roads through rural villages during the extensive construction period, as well as periodically throughout the life of the scheme and at decommissioning. The assessment fails to recognise the degree of harm that can be caused by such traffic in particular on sensitive uses on such routes and on communities, and also applies an incorrect methodology in assessing traffic movements. 6 The impact of glint and glare on horses in training, recreational horse riding, and other outdoor pursuits and land uses is inadequately assessed. The impact on recreation including walking, riding, cycling and other outdoor pursuits is inadequately assessed and underestimated. The impact on tourism is inadequately assessed and considered. The assessment of hydrology, flood management and drainage are inadequate. 7 There is almost total opposition to the scheme locally. The claimed public benefits of the scheme clearly do not outweigh the inevitably significant harm that it would cause.The proposals comprise a very substantial, poorly devised, damaging scheme which is unplanned, inadequately justified, and which would cause substantial and effectively permanent harm to the land and landscape, as well as harm to rural businesses and communities in the area. None of these would benefit from the scheme being imposed upon them. This is in addition to the scheme being progressed contrary to strong and sustained widespread objections and policy. These massive industrial scale solar plants are taking over the countryside, in lincolnshire there is currently 14,0000 acres planned it is an unprecedented, unwanted attack on the countryside, the farming industry and general population. Solar should be put on roofs, there are currently by BER figures over 250,000 ha of commercial rooftop available, but of course this would not benefit "big business" (pension funds, charities, airlines, shipping, etc, etc) and particularly developers who facilitate them by getting the planning just anywhere, selling the sites on along with their carbon credits for massive profits and the companies "claiming" they are now "Net Xero" this is a greenrush in the name of Net Xero. It is destroying peoples lives and livelihoods, there are people in Mallard Pass who just like us have invested their life savings in property and a business in tourism which will be decimated. The struggle alone to try and stop these unnecessary unproductive solar power stations (most definitely not farms) is all consuming and damaging to the health of anyone living close to them. Not to mention the possible health side effects of living next to one with all the electromagnetism.