Representation by Catrin Fieldson
- Date submitted
- 1 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
We all understand the need to acquire green energy but the carbon footprint for acquiring it must be scrutinised in forensic detail and the impact on lives and livelihoods must be taken into account. Agricultural land has potential energy, the energy to sustain growth. During these times of conflict and the climate uncertainty of global warming, we need to hold onto this potential energy and either use it to grow our own crops or at least retain the flexibility (potential) to do so. Placing solar panels on miles and miles of agricultural land for 40 years strips us of this vital natural energy. Please know, that proposals like this do not restrict themselves to what is considered poor quality land. The monetary incentives are such that prime land is being offered up and lost to the developers, and what is left, gobbled up by builders extending towns and villages into what was once, productive farmland and waiting in the wings so that in 40 years time, when the panels are taken away, they can claim it as brown field and get permission to build housing estates on what was once our green and splendid land. The Government needs to seriously consider the fact that these proposals could not go ahead without the acquiescence of absentee (not affected in any way) landowners who have been incentivised to part company with their fields for vast sums of money with little regard for those who are affected, those who live and work in agriculture and the visitor economy. Jobs will be lost, visitors will stop coming and the farms that are left have yet to fully know the impact that fencing off miles of land will have on the ecology and wildlife in the area. Smaller adjoining farms will effectively be “fenced off” for 40 years and anyone who has invested personal money in providing rural accommodation (which many farms have done with the encouragement of Government to man up and diversify) will most certainly lose out because in time, the visitors will choose to book their accommodation elsewhere. The visual impact will be real, it will be of an industrialised landscape, the very landscape visitors are paying to escape and therefore, will eventually undermine this significant part of the Lincolnshire economy. Proposals on this scale should be fair to everyone affected and everyone affected should have been consulted right from the start, but they were not. The public were "brought in" after consultations with absentee landowners were completed. The path and scale of the huge swathes of panels were pre -agreed before the public could have their say, before we could voice our concerns or quantify our losses, which contravenes the very legislation designed to protect us. The impact on metal health will be very real and the provision of green energy sources must take into account the impact on ordinary hard working people.