Representation by Aleksandar Holliday (Aleksandar Holliday)
- Date submitted
- 2 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am the nephew of a Ryhall resident, and have many grave concerns about this project, which i have learned about through my friend. Construction issues: * 2 years of noise, light pollution, disruption and damage across 2,105 acre site and surrounding area. * Cabling to new sub-station may now run through Essendine with Mallard Pass seeking compulsory acquisition ‘rights’. * Extensive traffic measures through Ryhall, Essendine, Great Casterton and surrounding areas especially in the vicinity of 7 construction compounds. * 80, 400 and 1000 tonne HGV loads. * Up to 400 workers a day on-site; working hours 7am-7pm Mon to Sat. * Public rights or way (PRoW) will be closed and/or diverted when required. * Complete uncertainty for future generations as the application has no time limit. * Will the funding be secure for decommissioning, if not there could be a solar graveyard when it shuts down? Operational issues: * Site 2,105 acres (c1,300 football pitches), solar area 1,052 acres (1,312 acres including field margins). The sheer unprecedented scale and topography means you cannot eradicate or screen all the adverse impacts. * No benefits directly for the community, the energy produced will be used across the UK as required. The electricity tariff fr locals will not be cheaper as a result. * The local landscape will be changed to an industrial-scape with 530,000 solar panels 3.3m high; security fencing and CCTV; solar stations or shipping containers housing inverters/transformers dotted across the solar area. * New sub-station will be visible & audible for Essendine residents on A6121. * Solar is hugely inefficient as a source of energy, only delivering 11% of its stated capacity on average in the UK. * Loss of productive quality agricultural land at a time we need to protect our food production; solar should be on rooftops or brownfield sites. * Mallard Pass’s reduced estimate* of BMV (Best and Most Versatile) land is 41% (this needs validating, as previously quoted 53%), land that should NOT be developed on according to Government planning policy. * Flood risk concerns, which have been discounted by Mallard Pass. * Impact on mental health of residents/locals not considered. * Visual amenity of public rights of way (PRoWs) will be significantly compromised, despite addition of permissive paths Here are some MORE of my grave concerns. * There is also wildlife to consider - both flora and fauna, incluing rare bird species. * [Redacted] are actually a Chinese owned company. We should not be allowing Chinese companies to take control of our power generation. * [Redacted] have been implicated in using forced labour in their supply chains. Here are the concerns of local MP [Redacted]: 1) Size of Development: If constructed, Mallard Pass would be by far the largest Solar Plant in the UK to date. As such, full and proper consideration is required to assess the greater impact this project would have. 2) Poor Consultation: Throughout the consultation process the developers failed to engage in good faith with the community or me as the Member of Parliament. I can speak to this from personal experience and on behalf of a community that feels let down. There is a total breakdown of trust and good faith. 3) Local Opposition: The 1,042 consultation responses from a small rural community highlight the level of opposition. I have also collected over 2,400 signatures for a Parliamentary Petition against the development so far. 4) 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 discussed with me in meetings. 5) Compulsory Acquisitions: The intent of the developers to request compulsory acquisition rights, not least on Bourne Rd, was not made clear during the consultation period. When I asked if they were planning to use them, I was told they ‘hoped not to.’ This seems a deliberate misrepresentation. 6) 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. The US Government has sanctioned some of their suppliers. 7) [Redacted]: There are substantial concerns over the financial record of [Redacted] leadership team and their suitability to construct a project of this magnitude. 8) 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 9) 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. 10) Loss of Agricultural Land: Agricultural land is a key national asset that requires protection. This application does not satisfactory mitigate a loss of this asset on this scale or convincingly demonstrate that the land will ever return to food production. 11) Traffic: The rural road network is not appropriate to accommodate the level of traffic this development would require. The presence of schools along likely traffic routes is also a serious safety concern. 12) 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. 13) 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. 14) Flood Risk: There are existing flood risks and a flooding history in the area that has not been adequately considered in this application. 15) Recreation, Mental Health, Physical Health: The unprecedented size of this development and the fundamental changes to the landscape and communities affected will negatively impact the Mental and Physical health of residents. This has not been fully considered by the applicant. 16) Time limit on Planning Consent: There is no time limit on the planning consent for this development. There needs to be clear timelines if the assumptions and promises in the application are to be feasible and accountable. 17) Solar Panel Glare: The site is near Rutland Water, home to many rare bird species. Evidence shows that birds can mistake solar panels for water, resulting in major disruption to their habitats. Likewise, glare from solar panels can represent a risk to drivers in an area already suffering a high level of road accidents. 18) Carbon Benefit: There are questions over where the panels will be built and with what energy. In China for example it is not uncommon for panels to be built using power generated by burning coal. When shipping is considered, will this project actually have a net-carbon benefit? 19) 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. 20) Local Economy and Business: Local businesses reliant on the tourism draw of nature will suffer. The benefits the applicant claim the community will enjoy do not take account of the population demographics and types of employment that characterise the area. I URGE YOU TO TURN THIS PROJECT DOWN. Thank you.