Representation by Mark Prior
- Date submitted
- 23 May 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Firstly, I am in favour of renewable power where it brings real value. Our company does work for several Round 3 and 4 offshore wind farm operators and I am installing solar water and PV systems to our house. However, I strongly oppose the West 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. At an open day I attended, the IGP 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 which the IGP staff could not, or would not, answer; I left my contact details for answers to be sent to me but they never came. I do not believe IGP engaged with the community in an open and honest manner, at all times they tried to skirt over the true impact on our rural homes. The environmental assessment and other material in the PEIR seems to have been the result of a glib 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. Their choice of site selection has been driven by cost rather than by following industry best practice and using brown field sites. The IGP 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 4.5m high, with their diagrams giving a misleading impression they would be much lower. We walk and cycle in the area, enjoying the rolling open landscape. We moved to Lincolnshire 7 years ago because of the open landscape. Having industrial units, with security fencing and lighting, up to 15 feet high covering 10,000 acres will smother our enjoyment and way of life. Similarly, growing 15 ft high screening hedges (taking 15 years according to IGP) 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, typically within 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 IGP is siting BESS close to residential homes and vulnerable water courses. I doubt if the Fire and Rescue Services in our area have sufficient resources and expertise to deal with a large thermal runaway, typically taking days to cool. In addition to the industrial devastation inflicted on our habitat, the combined effect of four years of construction from the various schemes, 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 IGP. West Burton will only generate the IGP 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 IGP 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 Uyghur Region, with Sheffield Hallam University reporting that widespread labour camps and forced labour is used in production of solar panels exported to the west. In summary, the consultation material issued by IGP is “greenwashing” and a cover for an industrial project that will bring no benefit to the area, our Country, and only profit IGP.