Representation by Mark Prior
- Date submitted
- 14 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am in favour of renewable power where it brings real value. Our company does work for several offshore wind farm operators and I am installing solar water and PV systems to our house. However, I strongly oppose the Gate Burton Solar project, and the other three local schemes, as they will destroy our local habitat and quality of life whilst adding little meaningful value to the Country’s electrical generation capacity. This scheme should be examined in conjunction with the other three schemes as their combined effects must be assessed. The combined effects of 10,000 acres of solar panels, batteries and other infrastructure should be considered, as it will have a devastating impact on our local habitat. Our home will be wedged between the Cottam and Gate Burton schemes. At an open day I attended, the Low Carbon (LC) representatives were dismissive of the local land quality, despite it producing good yields. Overall, the consultation leaflets and posters only told a partial truth, with a lot of the real detail buried in the PEIR. At one open day I asked a number of questions about the scheme which the staff could not, or would not, answer. They claimed they did not have to produce clear plans as the scheme was covered by a Rochdale Envelope. I do not believe LC engaged with the community in an open and honest manner, at all times they tried to skirt over the true impact on our rural way of life. Their leaflets and open days gave a glib picture of the scheme and the local community had to read the PEIR for a truer picture of the real impact the scheme will have on our local habitat. The environmental assessment and other material in the PEIR seems to have been the result of a simplistic desk based study as the range and quantity of wildlife stated is higher in the real world. With the current state of the world, and future loss of UK farming land due to rising sea levels, we cannot afford to lose 10,000 acres of highly productive farming land, with a diverse range of wildlife. The use of brownfield sites is dismissed in the PEIR and yet three of the largest current UK solar farms are built on old airfields, something Lincolnshire is not short of! Distance to the grid connection is not a technical issue, as offshore wind farms demonstrate, so why is a concentration of 4 solar schemes being forced on our immediate area? Their choice of site selection has been driven by cost rather than by following industry best practice and using brown field sites. The LC leaflets and their open days did not give a realistic impression of what the project will actually involve, for example none of the openly available material mentioned the solar panels would be up to 3.5m high. Current solar farms in the region have panels that can be concealed behind a standard Lincolnshire hedge, circa 2m. We walk and cycle in the area, enjoying the rolling open landscape. Having industrial units, with security fencing and lighting, up to 15 feet high covering 10,000 acres will overwhelm our enjoyment and way of life. Similarly, growing high screening hedges (taking about 15 years) will result in us walking and cycling along tunnels without the current wide open view. The developer has only consulted local inhabitants in the immediate area, within a radius of 2km, yet this scheme and others will result in a sea of solar panels stretching across the area with a widespread impact. In addition to the huge solar panels, I am extremely concerned about the large battery storage (BESS) units included in the application which will be amongst the largest in Europe. Twenty recorded fires and thermal runaways have occurred in similar systems worldwide, resulting in deaths, the release of highly toxic gasses and potential poisoning of the ground and local water courses and yet LC is siting this BESS close to residential homes and vulnerable water courses. In addition to the industrial devastation inflicted on our habitat, the combined effect of four years of construction and traffic on minor rural roads will be overwhelming. All of this industrialisation will only result in approximately 11% of the peak power generation misleadingly quoted by LC. Gate Burton will only generate the LC quoted figure in the middle of a cloudless summer day when demand is lowest. When power is actually required on cold winter nights it will be producing nothing. Once again, the LC figures quoted in their leaflets and online are at best misleading. The lack of accurate information also applies to the sourcing of the solar panels from China. No mention is made of the fact that the majority of solar panels produced in China use polysilicon produced in the (Redacted) is used in production of solar panels exported to the west. In summary, the consultation material issued by LC is “greenwashing” and a cover for an industrial project that will bring no benefit to the area, our Country, and only profit LC’s overseas backers.