Representation by Katrina Morton
- Date submitted
- 19 May 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The West Burton solar project is now one of three applications that have been submitted and are at the pre-examination stage; a fourth application is in the pipeline, yet all of these are being considered individually. I believe this is unreasonable and would significantly alter the impact these developments would have in their totality on the landscape. Should one of these get approval then a precedent has been set for development in this specific area. The cumulative impact of these four proposals would be the loss of approximately 10,000 acres of agricultural land, with a significant impact on communities, landscape and wildlife. The city of Lincoln and its boroughs are just over 8,800 acres – if these projects are approved it would see the installation of millions of panels covering an area greater than our largest city in Lincolnshire. It would also be the largest solar farm in Europe! There are further solar farm proposals in the Boston and Horncastle area, along with one on the Rutland and Stamford border, as well as Spilsby and land near Blankney and Scopwick. This proposal is not simply a case of the West-Lindsey area of Lincolnshire ‘taking one for the team’, but, on the face of it, becoming the solar farm ‘face’ of the UK. The UK solar (Non-LPA) site capacity under development shows of the planned 17 GWp-dc capacity by region (i), the East Midland has 5.3 GW. This is the biggest region. Much of this would seems to be in Lincolnshire. Is this fair or proportionate? In terms of future energy security, is it wise or reasonable to have such a significant proportion of solar production in one region and in one county? I recognize that there is a need to decarbonize our economy and that this is urgent. Renewable energy will play a part in the country’s future strategy. However, there has been no specific targets set for the contribution by solar. It has a part to play but it is limited because it provides power intermittently and least power when it is needed most, e.g., winter evenings. The suggested maximum wattage production per day of the West Burton project cannot be achieved on a daily basis. Nor will the community it impacts get the benefit of cheaper, greener energy directly as it will go into the national grid for distribution. I am concerned that this and other proposals in this local area will have an impact on local food production, with the loss of agricultural land and crops as well as a wider impact on the food security of the UK. It cannot be reasonable to remove 10,000 acres of farmland out of production within a very short time frame. I can only imagine that those who are currently employed to farm and care for this landscape will lose their jobs. This is a different skill set required to those who would construct and install this solar farm and is in no way a guarantee that jobs will be generated for the local population. Surely there are brown belt areas that are more suitable for development? The decommissioning of the power stations should have enabled this land to be earmarked for renewable energy solutions, yet in some area’s permission has been given for housing. I don’t believe that newly built property, be it housing or commercial properties, have a requirement to have solar panels fitted. Why is this? It would directly reduce bills. As a household that has installed solar panels and purchased batteries to store the energy, I am acutely aware of the reduction in use of energy from the grid. The availability of this land is most likely the reason for the suggested siting, not whether it is the most suitable. The three separate West Burton sites proposed would also involve a significant civil engineering project to connect them to the grid system; another ecological disruption. The Battery Energy Storage System near the small village of Marton is a potential fire and chemical risk to life and property. Screening proposals have been made, but these would not be sufficient. This project (and the others) run down the valley toward the river Trent. The B1398 runs along the top of the escarpment. This road, designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value, affords a clear aerial view of the land as it falls away. Screening, will be unable to block the view of two thousand acres of mechanized solar panels, 4.5 meters high. For example, Cleve Hill Solar Park (Kent), the largest solar and battery storage project approved, will ‘only’ cover 890 acres and that will have 880,000 panels. No amount of trees will screen this development, especially the view from the B1398 which currently has lovely vista across the valley. I am a regular user of Lincoln Cliff Road (B1398) and A1500 (Tillbridge Lane), travelling for both domestic purposes and pleasure. My family has both cycled and used public footpaths around the villages and roads in the area of this proposal. I have enjoyed the landscape, nature and wildlife that we have seen, including muntjac and roe deer as well as badgers and foxes. The significant use of heavy plant and equipment for construction along with the 2 years plus time frame, would I fear, have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of residents and visitors to this area, but more importantly the mental well-being of those who are in closer proximity to this massive infrastructure project. All wildlife would be negatively affected, with larger mammals being unable to move freely across this landscape as fences are erected around installations. Britain as a whole is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, such a large scale (combined) projects would not be an investment in our wildlife. I query how accurately and sincerely this proposal was communicated to residents? As time goes on more and more information and the detrimental impact of this and the other four projects could have, has become available. ()i UK Large-Scale Solar Farms: The Post-Subsidy Prospect List, July 2022