Representation by Andrew Alan Johnson
- Date submitted
- 12 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Relevant Representation Gate Burton Proposal Firstly, thank you for your time in reading and considering my representation. At this point I would like to say that I am in favour of greener energy and support striving towards net zero compliance however the manner in which we are going about this with this proposal is against ESNZ guidelines, and is not the most effective way of balancing / reducing our carbon footprint. My concerns for consideration are as follows: - 1 or 4 applications? The Gate Burton application I believe should not be taken in isolation I understand there are 3 more applications to be submitted, the 4 applications are all joined up via cabling and are therefore one development they should be viewed as one and the total effects taken into consideration. UK Food Provision Our country currently is far from self-sufficient particularly in the production of food and the loss of potentially up to 10,000 acres (with 4 submissions) will put additional strain on the crop supply. The land I understand is classed as 3b however this figure was measured during the 1980’s and has very little value today as farming methods have significantly changed. A truer reflection would be based upon yield of which this land is classed as very high. Local Community The effect on the community cannot be truly accurately measured until after the event however what can be foreseen is the loss of employment, housing of tenant farmers, impact on farm suppliers (machinery, crop support, service industry etc). The personal effect on the hundreds of villages and visitors is again unmeasurable at this stage I assume this will include many of the following: - mental health, loss of the local countryside enjoyment, employment, hospitality sector, property values, minimum of 4 years of construction traffic, permanent security driving round 24/7 etc. The Planned Area The area along the development is of historic interest and value known as the Lincoln Cliff / Jurassic Ridge with currently outstanding views across the Trent Valley. Supporting 3 open water reservoirs with a mass of migratory birds and associated wildlife for consideration. Within the development area there are also historic buildings / village that will be heavily affected by the development. This area also has a high level off wildlife and biodiversity that will be negatively affected. Wildlife movements will be heavily restricted by the fencing in of the panels for security. Currently the government have committed to a world plan on reducing the effect on biodiversity – how does this development possible fit with these commitments? Project Economics When comparing the economics / performance of solar with others it is very clear that this type of renewable energy is well behind other more favourable methods wind, wave etc and produces more damage to the environment in panel construction / shipping therefore taking a longer period to achieve a negative impact. Having spoken to the developers they are unable to answer / no comment on several points that I see as additional concerns about these projects. The land, use of after the period of industrialisation – I understand that restoration to farming land cannot take place, wasteland or industrial buildings? Decommissioning – who will be picking up the considerable future bill ££? I note that several councils are already footing the costs of failed projects. What considerations / money reserves will be ring fenced or is the tax payer expected to foot the bill? Batteries & converters they are unable to provide satisfactory answers to noise levels, fire security and health exposure risks. I have seen currently no risk assessment from the Fire Brigade on tackling a fire. Representation Summary I have spoken to the Department of Energy Security & Net Zero about the current strategy, the information provided clearly details that this planning application has failed to meet the strategy guidelines and therefore I must question the true reasons for this development / application. (ESNZ copy attached). Solar has a part to offer in our drive to net zero and power security however a balanced common-sense approach must take place. I note that Portsmouth council have introduced a solar on roof policy – a sensible approach and well accepted. To lose 3500 to 10,000 acres of performing farm land is mind blowing when other solutions are clearly available. The Department of Energy Security & Net Zero document on planning needs to be satisfied in all areas. My simple common-sense approach would be ensuring we have exhausted all other areas, brown land, disused airfields etc as well as introducing solar as part of all future commercial building applications and retro fitting with government financial support to all large roof areas. Should we still be unable to achieve our targets then careful consideration of other land can take place but remember we need to be able to produce food to feed our population. Reply from ESNZ Dear Mr Johnson Thank you for your email of 20 December to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, regarding biodiversity and energy. Your email has been forwarded to this Department as the matter falls within our portfolio. Protecting our environment, backing British farmers and delivering long-term energy security with more renewables is at the heart of the Government's manifesto. Solar is a key part of the UK’s energy mix and of the Government’s strategy for decarbonising the energy system at low-cost and increasing energy performance of buildings. We will need sustained growth in both rooftop and ground mounted capacity in the next decade as we move to net zero and to support our wider energy security and growth goals. The Government recognises that, in some instances, solar projects can affect the local environment, wildlife, and biodiversity. It is important that the Government can strike the right balance between these considerations and securing a clean, green energy system for the future, which is why the planning system is designed to take account of these issues. Planning policy in England sets out that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, including by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. We encourage large scale projects to locate on previously developed, or lower value land. Where greenfield sites are used, developers are required to justify using such land and design their projects to avoid, mitigate and, where necessary, compensate for any impacts. The weight given to these issues will depend on the project application. Factors, such as whether the project proposal allows for continued agricultural use where applicable and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around the proposed solar arrays, may be taken into account by decision makers. The planning system also sets out how decision-makers should consider the impact of cumulative impacts, for example where a number of solar projects are deployed in close proximity. If designed carefully, the visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar project can be properly addressed within the landscape. The planning system works to balance the need for solar deployment with visual impacts and other environmental factors. There are established routes in the planning system to consider the impacts of solar projects and to enable communities to raise concerns about developments in their area. The level and quality of community engagement, amongst other factors, will be taken into account by decision-makers. Thank you for your time in taking my comments into consideration. Regards Andy Johnson (Redacted)