Representation by John Perkins
- Date submitted
- 7 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
My general objections regarding solar are as follows: 1. Solar is a land hungry energy source. It needs three times as much land as coal, nuclear or natural gas. 2. The ground around solar installations becomes barren to ease maintenance. 3. Solar panels contain rare earth minerals, some of which are classified by the Environment Agency as “hazardous waste”. 4. Panels are difficult, if not impossible, to recycle. 5. The batteries proposed for storage are prone to spontaneous fires and are hard to extinguish. 6. The role solar can play is limited because it provides power intermittently and the least power when we need it most – i.e. winter evenings. The proposed developments are an inefficient use of land given their minor contribution to the energy mix. It would be more effective to install solar panels on commercial and domestic roofs, where it will directly reduce bills instead of using farmland. 7. The solar farm apparatus is likely to be manufactured abroad i.e. China where the human rights of workers are not respected. 8. The construction work for the project is likely to use labour sourced from outside the area. 9. This is not an ethically sound proposal. My particular objections regarding this proposal are as follows: 1. The West Burton proposal is just one of four solar proposals within a few miles of each other. Together this would be the largest solar farm complex in Europe and would amount to 10,000 acres in total. It is not acceptable to examine these proposals independently. They should be assessed altogether to fully understand their impact on this area. 2. The West Burton Solar project of 2,000 acres, combined with the other three proposals, have a cumulative effect of 10,000 acres of farmland lost and the industrialisation of the area as a whole. We cannot continue to lose food producing land at this rate. Putting solar panels on farmland is not the best place for them. 3. There will be 2,000 acres of unprecedented 4.5m high mechanised solar panels which would dominate the landscape and be highly visible from areas such as the B1398 "Lincoln Cliff Road." This is designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and this solar proposal would detrimentally affect the views, walks and enjoyment of this part of the countryside. 4. The Battery Energy Storage Systems to be sited near the village of Marton is a potential fire and chemical risk to life and property. It is not acceptable to locate this kind of infrastructure close to residential areas and other property. 5. The proposal would mean development on three separate parcels of land and, being miles from the proposed National Grid connection, would mean additional ecological disruption by the unnecessary civil works involved in the cable connections. I do not believe that the land has been selected on suitability or merit but purely on availability, which begs the question whether or not the scheme has been well planned. 6. When combined with the other three projects, this proposal would result in a four year construction period on a building site of 10,000 acres. This is likely to affect the mental health and well-being of everyone living in the vicinity and I am not convinced that this has been taken into consideration by these vast proposals in the countryside, nor does it take into account the natural habitats of wildlife which will be seriously be affected. 7. We will no longer live in the “countryside” but, for the next forty years or so, an “industrial wasteland”.