Representation by Michael James Dover
- Date submitted
- 27 May 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to this solar PV project. This project is 1 of 4 huge solar projects in the area, they geographically in close proximity to each other & in total make up an area of circa 10,000 acres. Because of the cumulative area of these solar sites I believe the projects should be considered as one mega scheme, due to the impact on an area that affects a city, town & at least 32 villages. The developers are planning and working together and I believe are also represented by the same legal team. They must then be considered as a single huge corporate enterprise. I believe the developers have not consulted on this proposal in good faith. Questions asked have remained unanswered, claims of Solar generated capacity seem to have been wildly exaggerated, questions reference longevity of panel life have been ignored or fudged, information on the project has been deliberately withheld with over use of “The Rochdale Envelope” almost every question answered with “yet to be decided” Claims that the soil locally is poor quality is incorrect, there is a mix of 1,2, 3a & 3b. With 3b often producing greater yields, this was particularly evident during last year’s months of drought, as the heavy clay soil retains moisture. All this good quality land and it’s harvested bounty would be lost for up to 3 generations, in fact may never be utilised for farming again. I believe the loss of so much fertile arable land, particularly from a county that has historically been called the breadbasket of England, will result in the loss of food security of the nation. UK presently grows only circa 40% of its food. If more fertile land is lost to Solar it will force UK to import more food at a time when supply chains are challenging and grain market prices are rising due to ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine, (With traditionally, Ukraine & Russia being 2 major wheat & grain exporters) we have recently seen shortages of fresh produce in supermarkets due to various market pressures and supply chain difficulty. I therefore believe the UK must to invest more into farming and self reliance for security, however this requires that the sacrifice of arable land to intermittent & low efficiency solar generation should cease in favour of rooftop solar working in concert with a reliable power generation medium, probably nuclear. I object because of the impact on wildlife in the area, so much will be despoiled by these projects, habitats lost and species (some already endangered) displaced or lost. Promises of greater bio diversity are unconvincing, supplanting alien flora whilst removing existing flora changes rather than increases the diversity. Ranging animals like Fox, Deer, Muntjacs, badger etc will be unable to move freely when fencing is erected enclosing the sites, seasonal nesting sites for Lapwing & Skylark will no longer exist and small alternative areas included in plans for “mitigation” purposes may in all probability be insufficient for the birds needs. The wanton destruction of ancient hedgerows and trees will further impact on a huge range of species, flora and fauna, the seemingly hollow mitigating promise of better bio diversity seemingly unbelievable if not unachievable. All of these hedgerows and trees consume huge amounts of CO2 as well as give sanctuary to a myriad of wildlife. The impact on the environment and rural surroundings will be lost and replaced by solar sites of great instead of greenery and natural seasonally changing beauty. I object due to the spectre of increased heavy traffic transiting to these sites on country roads That are not designed or engineered for the weight or wear from so much prolonged heavy goods traffic and abnormal load vehicles, will provision be made where developers are required to pay or make good the upkeep and repair of the roads thus negating the financial toll on the council and locally impacted rate payers? I object to the increase in traffic noise, increased exhaust fumes, vibration to dwellings 12 hours + per day over often narrow unsuitable roads, I object to the solar sites based upon the probability that forced labour is used in the manufacture process of Chinese PV panels. I object to these panels as the origin is China which has become an increasingly belligerent State, I feel that the UK should not become dependant for energy generation components if we wish to have energy security. I further object to the utilisation of child labour in the mining of rare earth minerals & lithium used to manufacture PV panels and storage batteries, especially in Congo. I object because China is using huge quantities of coal to generate enough power to manufacture Solar PV panels & Batteries in the UK’s race to reduce Our <1% worldwide carbon emissions, Chinese emissions grow exponentially to circa 36% of worldwide emissions and increasing. Add to that shipping, mining, processing, construction, low panel life expectancy replacement, intermittent performance,11-15% efficiency, decommissioning & waste etc. that is a huge carbon footprint. I object to this scheme because it impacts on the area that I live in, each of these huge sites replaces active working farms some are tenant farmers and are having their homes and businesses taken from them by developers that are backed by overseas investors seeking profitability and large returns. the impact on the rural farming industry is vast, unemployment in the sector is bound to increase directly and secondary jobs in farming supplies, farming engineering, etc will be lost as will land & crop management skills. Whist there may be some short term construction opportunities there will be little in the way of ongoing jobs once the site is complete, the area will thus probably become as barren as a Solar PV dessert. I object on the grounds of mental heath impact, many people feel helpless, lill informed and worried about the value of third property or even if they will find a buyer. Many houses in the area of these huge schemes remain unsold, some sales have fallen through when the buyer learned of the impending threat of solar plants here. Others worry about the dangers of solar plants, fire, radiation, operation noise. They feel trapped in a county that has had to date 11 pending Solar site applications 9 of which are NISPs. I object to these projects as I have concerns about increased surface water flooding from panel runoff onto compacted heavy clay soil, the increased surface area of panels and decreased soak-away areas below will create channels which in some locations adds to an already significantly high risk of property flooding. I object to the site because the rural area it’s in has a reasonably dark sky, any ambient light would be increased by reflection, but also the concentration camp like perimeter lights surround each wire fence will be incongruous with the rural surroundings, add to this the possible intrusive CCTV cameras too. I object because the claimed output and promise of homes powered from the site is wildly inaccurate and designed to enhance its appeal. The claims are based on the stamp output of the panels, but that is based on the panel being in the optimum position and angle & 24 hour a day sunshine. But in reality the panels will only be 11%-12% efficient thus the number of homes powered is thus reduced accordingly. They have been mis sold and consultation should address this huge shortcoming between actual and promised power and benefits. I object to this scheme because of the levelled cost of energy ( LCOE) the cost of the construction, running, replacement and scrapping of the project is charged to the consumer. As the life span of each panel is circa 8-12 years. There will be almost continuous replacement of panels, LCOE is then going to be very high, advertising this scheme as cheap power is thus misleading. I object to this scheme because. I believe, West Burton coal fired power has now closed although West Burton 2 gas turbine is supplying electricity to the grid, a West Burt 3 cyclic gas turbine is under construction. These will supply base power and standby power for renewables as they are intermittent this means we cannot rely on them. It also means WB2 on a fair day must still idle just below optimum when solar are working, in case a few dark clouds happen along, and whilst WB3 is cyclic and when complete can ramp up quickly it uses about twice the gas fuel to achieve the same power as WB2 ( approx) all this is added to the LCOE. We would be better whilst waiting for WB Nuclear Fusion plant to maintain the efficiency of gas turbine generation, solar on rooftops to drip feed the grid and off set homeowners bills. Saving precious farmland to help feed the nation. I further object to Battery Storage sites BSS being sited, not only due to the child labour mining and brine lake distilling of Lithium, but also due to the potentially unstable character of these huge batteries, which are subject to explosion and fire, which are very difficult to contain or extinguish, these instances are accompanied by toxic fume emissions over large areas. They are not required in the solar generation cycle, and once charged have only minutes with of power. Thier value to the developer is financial they demand power from the grid ot low off peak times, to charge up, releasing the charge back to the grid at peak times thus increasing profits exponentially. And charging the consumer via LCOE.