Representation by Alison Wood
- Date submitted
- 4 May 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to register the following comments and objections to this scheme: The West Burton proposal is just 1 0f 4 Solar Nationally significant Infrastructure Projects within a very small rural area. Together, they would form the largest solar farm in Europe, covering 10,000 acres of prime agricultural land. I think that we should be prioritising food production over such schemes for a number of reasons: the cost of living, inflation, air miles incurred to import food from abroad that we should be producing ourselves. This scheme will take out a large proportion of fertile land from the food supply for years to come. It is very likely to have an adverse effect on local jobs, livelihoods, quality of life, wildlife, the eco-system and significantly impact the lives of residents in the areas affected by the proposal. It will industrialise a rural area and change it for many years to come. I believe that valuable farmland is not the best place when alternative, brownfield sites could be explored. The proposal would be highly visible from areas such as the Lincoln Cliff road (B1398), designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value. Additionally, placing the Battery Energy Systems near Marton is a potential fire and chemical risk and it is unacceptable to locate such infrastructure in residential areas and near peoples' property. Place it close to the grid connection and on a brownfield site. Additionally, the location of these proposed sites will require the need for the construction of cable connections which will require unnecessary works. i believe that the land has been chosen because of availability, not suitability and without due consideration for the likely impact upon residents in the local area. The construction period of four years will take an inevitable toll on the mental health of people and local wildlife Has the developer taken these factors into consideration and engaged fully and in good faith? Brownfield site alternatives? Panel height and glare? Battery storage? Generation capabilities and flood risk? Has the possibility of placing solar panels on commercial and domestic roofs been explored rather removing valuable agricultural land from food production? Overall, I believe that there are too many strong, local objections to this proposal for it to be acceptable. Added to this, the utility of solar power is limited and intermittent - least power when needed at night and in the winter. The fact that the apparatus is likely to manufactured abroad- most likely, China and the workforce on the site will probably be sourced from outside the area raises concerns over the proposals and its value to both the local community and the pursuit of sustainable sources of power