Representation by Michael Dover
- Date submitted
- 8 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to GateBurton Energy Park proposals for the following reasons. 1) I object because this proposal is just one of 4 huge proposals total size of the development (s) 10,000 acres, would be equal to the metropolitan area of the city of Lincoln. The 4 developments are close to each other, impacting over 30 villages in West Lindsey. The developers are working together and sharing resources and cable routes and I believe the same legal team. Therefore these developments, the impact and unsuitability, should be considered as a whole entity and not a 4 single developments. 2. I object to Gate Burton project because the developers Low Carbon, have failed to consult in good faith with communities or individuals. Questions have remained unanswered, promises of information have been withheld and the project has been kept deliberately vague by over use of the “Rochdale Envelope” 3. I object to the project because of the cumulative loss of best most versatile (BMV) arable land and the loss of up to 60 years + of crops that that land could produce. In particular with regards to the loss of wheat and grain imports, a fall out ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and the time period for agricultural normalisation there post conflict. The agricultural industry locally and nationally will be impacted by these huge sites, tenant farmers stand to lose their homes and livelihoods, there probably will be a reduction in agricultural employment well into the future, in the agricultural service sector too, agricultural engineering, seed and fertiliser suppliers. Loss of crop GDP and consequently higher food imports. Whilst work opportunities on a solar park beyond initial construction will be minimal. 5. I object to the source of PV Solar panels, batteries, and associated equipment. Manufactured in China, under alleged forced labour, and utilising the exponentially increasing use of power generated from Coal Fired plants. I have further reservations as China becomes more belligerent and threatening to the West. 6. I object because of the loss of habitats of so many species of wildlife that live and seasonally visit. The enclosure of sites and sub sites will prevent ranging species such as Fox & Deer from passage, forcing them to enclosure perimeters and roads increasing risk of animal/vehicular collisions, bird population such as Lapwing / skylarks and a myriad of species will be in danger of decline as hedgerows, trees and field habitats are replaced. 7. I object to Gate Burton project due to the impact of increased traffic over a 3-4 year construction period, (a period that would be repeated every 10-15 years as panel life requires replacement) would exponentially multiply over rural roads that are unsuitable for the increased volume of HGV, light goods, plant and workforce traffic. The detritus carried from field to road would cause danger to other road users, horse riders, cyclists etc. in addition to causing damage to an already sub standard road surface. 8. I object to the project because I believe that the developers have deliberately misled by project output claims and therefore offset claims too. Questions about details of percentage output posed at the consultation meetings remained unanswered despite follow up promises. 9. I strongly object to Gate Burton Energy project because of the probable increase in surface water flood risk. Properties adjacent to the project lie in an area accessed by the environmental agency as a high risk of surface water flooding. Some properties in the recent past have suffered internal flooding whilst others encounter external flooding. Plans to cover this area with Solar PV panels would increase the flood risk due to the increased and concentration pooling onto a clay substrate with a slow permeable rate from panel runoff during periods of heavy rain. Particular note of flooding is mentioned in the Gainsborough planning plan of 2017. Promised information following a meeting with the developers and their flood inspection contractors was withheld by the developers. 10. I object to this project due to the potential impact on local tourism. Many small lodge and fishing holiday parks have opened in the last few years and these would lose visitor appeal once surrounded by mega solar sites. The cumulative effect of 4 huge solar industrial sites would cover most of the Trent valley running toward Lincoln, the views from Burton cliff, Lincoln’s spectacular Cathedral along with the Castle and uphill Lincoln all favourite tourism attractions would be impacted by the loss of rural vista. 11.I object to this project on the grounds of safety. I have concerns that the lithium batteries (BSS) have an inherent dangerous tendency to explode and burn. Fighting these fires is difficult and I believe the local fire stations do not have the requisite equipment to contain and extinguish these fires. In addition the toxic fumes from these fires has potential to cause harm to humans and livestock. Chemical and mineral contamination would inevitably be leached into the hitherto fertile land and or watercourses, causing environmental and health problems. 12. I object to the project because of the adverse impact on communities, the impact already being seen with reduced property values and cancelled sales due to the spectre of solar development. There is undoubtably an impact on peoples mental health. Village interaction is in jeopardy of being curtailed as villages are encircled by acres of Solar PV and the thread of rural community is severed. 13. I vehemently object to the Gate Burton Energy project and the siting of the construction site on Kexby Lane, this construction site will take a great deal of traffic 12 hours a day including HGV. However it is sited opposite residential housing and businesses. It is also adjacent to the communities sewage pumping station and a watercourse. developers plan to tear down an ancient hedgerow and part of a wood to facilitate an entry to the site. Diagonally opposite is a business that has vehicles arriving most of the day and parking on the road. This road is a 60 MPH rural road the proposed entry is at the end of a downhill 1km straight and vehicles often exceed the national limit. An entry to the field already exists some 300M west. The necessity to demolish the hedgerow would be diminished a natural apron off the road exists. This would be a better entry it would lessen the threat of pollution to the watercourse and save trees and hedgerows. There was no answer given to the enquiry of this sites longevity. 14. I object to the project on grounds of noise caused by pilling, workforce, construction, plant movement & operation and traffic movement. 12 hours a day 6 days per week for 3-4 years. Then noise of site operation, cooling fans switch gear etc. promised information following sound sampling, we’re withheld by the developers. 15. The proposed area of the Gate Burton site is predominantly rural, the inclusion of security fencing will not only impact wildlife but with intrusive perimeter lighting and CCTV cameras it will alter the area from rural to industrial landscape. Additionally there are concerns about privacy, not only personal for those living along side or near each enclosed site, but also those transiting the area. Who has access and what is footage used for. What are the guaranteed data protection safeguards? No answers have been received despite attending consultation. The other major concern is the origins of these cameras, world wide Chinese made cameras are being removed from sensitive sites due to possible security leaks. Despite asking no information was given.