Representation by Morris Family (Morris Family)
- Date submitted
- 19 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Thank you for providing the opportunity for us to provide feedback on the current Gate Burton Solar Farm proposals. Likewise, thank you for the detailed maps and drawings. Please note we refer to both the PEI non-technical summary report and the Main PEI report throughout this feedback. We will reference throughout when using the Main Report Cultural Heritage Gate Burton is a medieval settlement with 7 listed buildings including Gate Burton Hall (II*), Burton Chateau (II*), St Helen’s church (II), The Old Rectory (II), Gate Burton Cottages (II), the Walled Garden (II) and the Gateway to Gate Burton Hall (II) all of which you identified as ‘assets of high value’ as per section 7.11.13 of the main report. The village, and land up until the rail line is considered an ‘Area of Great Landscape’ (figure 10-8 summary report) with the entire village classified under heritage asset listings (MLI54010, MLI50290, MLI98360, MLI50651, MLI51371, MLI50512 on figure 7-2 summary report). This includes MLI98360 ‘non-designated Gate Burton parkland, which connects the old estate together with the ancient woodland of Burton Wood, the report advises this land would face “moderate or major adverse, significant effects … these effects would be experienced for the lifetime of the scheme” (6. 3. 9 summary report). The report advises that the proximity of the PV panels to the parkland and the hall will ‘impact upon the understanding of the park’s intended design and, as an extension, then designated setting of Gate Burton Hall’ (7. 11. 17 main report) this is the case despite the mitigation efforts proposed. This will also impact the Church of St Helen which will face views of the scheme along with the listed drive (7. 11. 17 main report). We believe this ‘moderate adverse’ effect, which we would argue is major, should be taken into account (table 7-5 main report). Gate Burton includes Burton Wood, designated as ancient woodland and identified in the summary report as a ‘Local Wildlife Site for its biodiversity value at a local level, supporting value to a wide variety of protected and ecologically important species and habitats’ (4. 1. 6 summary report). We believe that as a high value heritage asset (table 7-1 main report), more consideration should be taken into the high level of impact that will be imparted on the woodland, as the PV panels will no doubt dramatically change the ‘elements of setting that would result in harm to the asset and our ability to understand and appreciate its significance’ (table 7-2 main report). We are at an amiss as to why these ancient woodland only receives 5m more of a border from the intrusive PV panels than other non-designated woodland (fig. 2-4 sheet 1). As a whole the report advises that ‘significant effects’ will be imparted on the archaeological assets of the medieval settlement of Gate Burton (6. 3. 10). The archaeological significance of the Gate Burton village is evidenced in the main PEI report by the possible Roman fort located in Gate Burton MLI50544 with Roman coins found at MLI50595 (7. 7. 7 main report). The report also details the site of a medieval settlement at Gate Burton MLI50512, and the site of a former medieval parish MLI51371. Most significantly, the village contains the two Grade II* post medieval assets of the Burton Chateau (1064085) and Gate Burton Hall (1359458) along with the associated grade II listed Walled Garden (1472727) both located only 220 metres from the DCO site (7. 7. 39 main report). The Grade II listed assets of St Helen’s Church (1064087) and The Old Rectory (1359457) both of which will have direct visibility of the PV panels under the current proposals. The heritage listed 18th century Gate Burton Park (MLI98360) which inspired works of art by J.C. Nates are currently included in the scheme with plans to fit PV panels to a significant part of the parkland. Not only does the current proposed plan damage its value as an archaeological site, it corrupts an area of great heritage value and has a significant effect on the village’s way of life, with loud construction activity (fig. 2-3) and visibility of the PV panels (fig. 10-11 VP15, VP03, VP16, VP13). This is evidenced in section 7. 9. 2 of the main report which details permanent effects such that ‘physical impacts on landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance as a consequence of construction, such as the loss of important elements of the landscape as a result of site clearance’. The impact from the scheme will have long term impacts on the cultural heritage of the village during the operational phase including on ‘archaeological remains, historic buildings and the historic landscape associated with the introduction of the physical form of the scheme in their setting’ (7. 9. 4. Main report). We appreciate the mitigation work you have done thus far detailed in table 7-4 of the main report to mitigate the effects of the scheme. However, the current close proximity of the PV panels, which currently sit 220 metres from most of the listed buildings and heritage assets, will impart long term effects on the historic nature of the properties and landscapes. We would ask you reconsider certain elements of the proposals to further mitigate the damage that this PV panel placement will cause. Proximity Section 4. 1 4. of the summary report advises ‘Gate Burton is 50m to the west, Knaith 200m to the west, Marton 500m to the south west, Willingham by Stow 700m to the east and Kexby 1.8km to the east’, this is also demonstrated in figure 2-4. We would ask why Gate Burton as a historic medieval settlement with all the heritage and listed buildings we have mentioned above is situated only 50m from the development, while other residential areas without the same heritage are protected by large buffer stretches. The reports section on Landscape and Visual Amenity identifies 4 different receptors across Gate Burton Estate where residual effect after 15 years of mitigation remains ‘Moderate Significant’ creating long term significant damage to the visual aptitude and tranquillity of the Estate which as mentioned earlier, has extensive heritage listing protection (table 10-9 main report) We are concerned to see the border of the development directly neighbouring our Rose Cottage property with an internal road 2m over the hedge from the ’18 acre’ Rose Cottage pastureland and gardens (Figure 2-3). PV panels also cover the entire stretch of the ’18 acre’ pastureland and garden, with no buffer. This will cause significant noise, dust and vibration pollution and ruin the tranquillity of the Rose cottage property. Having a significant effect on property valuation and quality of life. Transportation & Access Fig. 2-3 details the proposed plans for the Construction Access. The A156 North option runs parallel with our heritage listed Parkland and the Beanland’s wood with a ‘Construction Compound’ detailed at the top of the hill bordering our ‘18 acre’ pastureland and garden used for horse grazing. Section 6. 9. 26 explains the following “Converting the internal construction routes to maintenance routes, to allow operational vehicles to access all areas of the Solar and Energy Storage Park via the proposed access points during the operational phase”. This would mean traffic causing significant disruption during the construction phase followed by disruption for the entire lifetime of the 60 year scheme to the Beanlands wood, parkland, ’18 acre’ pastureland and the grade II listed Rose cottage property of which it runs parallel with. We would ask you please clarify the plans for the A156 North access road and the ‘Construction Compound’ after the construction phase. Construction Compound & Access Road Effect on Rose Cottage Pastureland & Gardens The construction compound itself appears to be a vast setup. The 10-36m3 above ground fuel tank (2. 5. 24 main report) has an unspecified height, but this will no doubt be tall, and located at the construction compound bordering the Rose Cottage property and gardens obscuring views for the duration of the construction phase. With 70% of staff and 62% of HGV/LGV totalling 169 vehicles utilising the site as access what mitigation is being taken to ensure the Rose Cottage property is insulated from the noise, dust and vibration pollution that will be caused as a result? (table 13-1 & 2main report) We are extremely concerned by these access road and construction compound plans. This would significantly damage the tranquillity and value of the property and surrounding landscape with constant noise, dust and vibration pollution and extensive visibility for the listed Rose Cottage property. Due to the construction compound being proposed at the top of the A156 North option being the ‘Main Contraction Compound’ Rose Cottage and Gate Burton village would bear the disruption of the construction phase more than any other residential area in the DCO. The extremely close proximity of the ‘Main Construction Compound’ to the Rose Cottage property and gardens would make living next to the compound extremely undesirable. The property and gardens would also be faced with direct visibility of the 3.5m high PV panels situated 2m from the gardens, 2.5m to 3m high fencing and the 11 metre high BESS storage site substation (fig. 10-11 VP15). Any mitigation proposed to obscure this view would take many years to accomplish as evidenced by your 2035 projection. We believe this is quite unreasonable considering the grade II listing placed on the Rose Cottage property. The internal access road and ‘Construction Compound’ bordering the ’18 acre’ pastureland also poses a significant threat to the safety and wellbeing of the horse stock kept there. The constant noise pollution caused by the Construction Compound and traffic (even during the operational phase) will have a effect on the wellbeing of the young horses and foals are kept in these fields. We would suggest reading the ‘The Impact of Noise Anxiety on Behaviour and Welfare of Horses from UK and US Owner’s Perspective’ (MPDI, 2022, Riva et al.) Which summarises that ‘several anxiety behaviours during noisy events, including sweating, trembling and escape attempts, which may cause severe accidents for the horse and the rider/handler’ this would be even more damaging with the sustained nature of traffic running up to 169 vehicles a day, this level of construction activity will no doubt cause significant noise, vibration and dust pollution. This will cause significant agitation to the horses which could lead to the aforementioned symptoms, risking the safety of both the horses, construction workers and horse handlers. Summary Therefore our opposition to the current proposals falls under two arguments, firstly the significant irreparable damage that the unreasonably close proximity of the PV panels will make to the whole village over the entire scheme operational period. Secondly, the plans articulated in fig. 2-3 which advocate for an internal road directly bordering our Rose Cottage property and ‘18 acre’ pastureland with a ‘Construction Compound’ at the top of the hill bordering our land. This access plan would mean an internal road used both for the construction period and operational phase that runs 2m along the entire stretch of our boundary with the development. The ancient woodland status of Burton Wood, coupled with the MLI98360 heritage protected Gate Burton parkland next to it and the close proximity to the listed assets of Gate Burton Hall (II*), Burton Chateau (II*), The Old Rectory (II), St Helen’s Church (II), Gateway to Gate Burton Hall (II), the Walled Garden (II) and the Gate Burton Hall Cottages (II). Along with the visibility points highlighted in fig. 10-11 of the report which identifies Gate Burton as an ‘Area of Great Landscape’ (fig. 10-8) makes us conclude that the PV panels are unreasonably close to the village. We believe the neighboring fields bordering Burton Wood and around the village instead should be included in your heritage setting buffer. We would suggest making this buffer an extension of the current one, going from Clay Lane to the proposed construction compound next to Fox Covert wood. This would keep the PV panels sufficiently out of visibility for Gate Burton village and Rose Cottage (with its ’18 acre’ pastureland and gardens that currently border the PV panels and internal road), as well as protecting the heritage of the village and landscape. On our second point of disagreement regarding the access roads, we believe the current proposed internal access road plan that goes parallel next to the ’18 acre’ pastureland and gardens will cause long term damage to the tranquillity and value of the listed II* Gate Burton Hall property, parkland and woods, along with the grade II Rose Cottage property. The significant, continuous, noise, dust and vibration pollution caused by the construction phase, along with the operational phase, risks damaging the wellbeing and safety of the horses kept in the ’18 acre’ pastureland. Not only risking the safety of the horses themselves, but also our family looking after them. We fail to see another example across the whole project of a house and its garden directly bordering the PV panels, as well as a busy internal road as it is with Rose Cottage and its 18 acre pastureland. Especially considering its Grade II listed status as part of the Gate Burton Estate. We would refer back to our suggestion of extending the buffer zone from Clay Lane through to the construction compound at Fox Covert Wood. We would also suggest extending the internal access road from the A156 north entrance to the top of the hill, through the hedge to connect with the proposed road next to Fox Covert wood, thus bypassing the need to use the track next to the ’18 acre’ pastureland and Rose Cottage property. This would ensure some distance between the entirety of the construction activity from the Rose Cottage property and ’18 acre’ pastureland. Limiting the noise, dust and vibration pollution and better ensuring the wellbeing of the horse stock. We therefore strongly oppose the current proposals and would ask for them to be reconsidered. While we originally believed a retraction of the PV panels to the railway line was appropriate considering the heritage listed nature of the buildings and landscape that surround the area, we understand the constraints of the scheme. We are very open to discussing this further and coming to a workable solution that both protects the historic village and surrounding heritage sites, and also enables you to meet the admirable clean energy goals in which the scheme proliferates.