Representation by Michael John Hare
- Date submitted
- 8 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am strongly opposed to the West Burton proposal. It is just one of many similar projects currently under review at PINS which aim to create solar farms of such size that normal planning considerations at the local level can be bypassed. What they all have in common is that they are located on productive farmland and by their very size dominate rather than form an integral part of the rural landscape. Local communities are inevitably impacted as these solar farms utilise all the land available to them, taking their installation right up to and bordering villages and more isolated housing. Specifically, my comments on the West Burton project follow. 1. The rate of food inflation at the present time demonstrates clearly why the country should not rely to such an extent on imported food. Currently we only produce approximately 60% of our food in this country; we cannot afford to lose 2,000 acres of farmland to this proposal. The production of food is more important than the intermittent generation of electricity. 2. Utilizing large swathes of farmland for electricity production is no doubt cheaper and more profitable for project backers than the alternatives which to my mind would be preferable. These would include the use of available brownfield sites as well as siting solar panels on the rooftops of existing buildings, principally commercial buildings. Put simply, rooftops can be used for electricity generation but not for food production on any meaningful scale. Siting solar panels on productive farmland should be avoided as a matter of policy, 3. Due to the angle of the sun in the sky it would make far more sense and generate more electricity if large arrays of solar panels were located in the south of the country rather than here. Given that sunshine is not guaranteed at any time of the year in the UK logic would suggest that if any are built, they should be at more southerly latitudes. 4. This project is one of four similar solar farm proposals (all Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects) and within a few miles of one another. In total these projects would occupy 10,000 acres of farmland. As somebody who lives in the area and would be directly affected it seems only equitable that these projects be assessed at PINS in combination rather than independently. Any one of these projects would have a significant affect on the area but all four would be devastating. 5. This is a very rural area and much of the employment, directly and indirectly, derives from farming. Inevitably approval of any one of these solar farm projects would lead to a loss of employment and skills within agriculture which will not be replaced. Typically, solar farms are monitored remotely from a central monitoring station which could be anywhere in the country with no permanent on-site personnel. The only time staff will be seen will be when a maintenance team travels up to fix an issue with the equipment. 6. Although modern solar panels can generate electricity without direct sunlight, they are significantly less effective without it. They do not work at night. This solar farm, if approved, will generate significant amounts during the summer months when the days are longer but substantially less when it is really needed, in the cold winter months when daylight hours are short, and the sun is low in the sky. Regrettably, the energy pricing structures in this country will guarantee generators full price for electricity generated any time of the year even if it is not required by the grid. They will even get paid for electricity they could have generated in situations where the grid cannot take their output. Ultimately it will be the taxpayer who picks up the cost of these arrangements. 7. The impact of construction traffic on the area and its residents must be a concern. If all four solar projects are approved there will be a construction period lasting four years affecting the local road system and residents. Many of the roads in the area are narrow country roads and only wide enough for a single vehicle. These roads are not built for heavy construction traffic, and we should anticipate significant wear and tear to the infrastructure requiring ongoing repair and history tells us that it will not be solar farm projects who pick up the cost of this work, rather the local taxpayer. To this must be added the wear and tear on local residents having to put up with the constant construction noise and struggling to travel along roads occupied by heavy construction traffic. The impact on the mental health and well-being of residents can only be guessed at. There must also be concerns over safety. These roads are used frequently by locals to walk dogs, for horse riding and walking. There are also a number of cycling clubs and groups in the area who use these roads regularly. This is a rural area and roads are normally quiet and safe for all forms of exercise. 8. This project incorporates a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) near the village of Marton which is be a potential fire and chemical risk to life and property. Large-scale battery complexes can pose risks. Lithium-ion units, for instance, can overheat and catch fire. Worldwide there have been a number of battery fires in recent years and only two years ago a 20MW Battery Energy Storage System unit erupted in flames in Liverpool, with Merseyside fire brigade needing 11 hours to fully extinguish the blaze. It cannot be acceptable to site such infrastructure so close to residential areas; it would be far safer to locate this equipment closer to the grid connection on a brownfield site. 9. I have concerns that this is a poorly planned project. It incorporates 3 separate parcels of land some miles away from the proposed grid connection which means significant disruption to residents, landowners and ecology outside the project area as deep trenches are dug to lay the required cable connections. A well-planned project would surely have one contiguous block of land located as close as possible to the grid connection. The fact that the 3 parcels of land taken together allow this project to be classified as nationally significant, thereby avoiding local planning considerations, is surely not a coincidence. But to achieve this we have a project that creates an unwelcome and disruptive series of cable connections with all the associated civil engineering works. 10. The visual impact of this project on the area cannot be understated. There are already a number of small solar farms in the area which by their size and location do not unduly impact on this quiet farming area. But this project is so large that it cannot but dominate the whole area effectively turning it into a semi-industrial landscape. Is that fair or reasonable to local people who have chosen to live and work in a rural location? Incorporating as it does 2,000 acres of 4.5m high mechanised solar panel arrays this project can never fit into the landscape, only dominate it. Adherents for such large scale solar would no doubt argue that they are simply replacing existing crops with a crop of solar panels, but I would not agree. In how many fields do we see with wheat 4.5m tall? There would be far more acceptance to projects such as this if it were designed with some consideration for local residents. I have suggested to a number of these projects during the public engagement phase that there needs to be a buffer area so that solar panels are not sited too close either to population areas or roads crossing the area. I have suggested 100m would be reasonable with the buffer area given over to wildlife and appropriate planting. Naturally this would mean less land available for solar panels, less electricity generated and consequently less profit. Sadly, but not surprisingly the project teams were not interested in my suggestion. There is some talk in the plans of mitigation whereby planting will help obscure the fences surrounding the site, but this is at best a sticking plaster. How long will it take for planting to reach 4.5m in height and how much of this would be deciduous planting which would do nothing to obscure their structures during the period from autumn to spring? 11. I have been disappointed with the public engagement phase for this and all other solar farm projects. The planning documentation available to the public was little more than ‘boilerplate’ copied no doubt from many other large project plans. There was very little detail because the work had only just started on the necessary surveys. How can the public be expected to comment in a considered manner if the available plans are incomplete or not even started? 12. One of my major concerns and I raised this at every public meeting I attended was drainage. The land here is heavy clay and naturally does not drain freely. The whole area is riddled with drainage ditches and dykes (most not maintained by the drainage boards) forming a network to transfer water over time into the river Trent. Despite this, during periods of heavy or persistent rainfall it is quite common for farm fields to flood. This flooding can last for weeks before the water eventually soaks into the ground or out into the dykes. The land effectively holds the water. The solar project plans will incorporate modification to land drainage to ensure that water is taken away from sensitive equipment through a series of drainage channels. My concern is that if they transfer more water into the dykes than previously and/or at a faster rate the land is no longer holding the water which could possibly induce flooding further downstream. It is conceivable that by optimising their own drainage they could inadvertently cause problems for others outside their project area. As my concerns were not allayed at the public meeting, I left my contact details for somebody knowledgeable from the team to get back to me to discuss the issue. Regrettably I heard nothing from them. 13. When these large solar projects were first muted, I took the time and trouble to visit a working solar farm in Suffolk. It was large but nothing on the scale of this project. The weather was good, and I was able to walk around and between the panel arrays. Solar panels are not especially attractive to look but I was struck by how quiet it was. Then it dawned on me, I could hear no birdsong. The whole site was devoid of birds and wildlife except for the odd rabbit. The site was surrounded, as this proposal will be, by 10 ft high deer fences designed to keep wildlife out bur rabbits, being rabbits will always find a way under those fences. The birds however find this an alien environment which is why I could neither see nor hear birds anywhere in the complex. Conservationists have warned that Britain has 73 million fewer birds than it did in 1970. New figures from the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) published in May 2023 show total numbers have declined by one third in the last 50 years. It includes the disappearance of nearly 30 million house sparrows, 20 million. starlings, four million skylarks, two million blackbirds and one million chaffinches. Most of the declining species in Britain are farmland birds, which have suffered from changes in agriculture that have seen the removal of hedgerows, an increase in chemicals and a shift from spring to autumn-sowed cereals. Unlike old barns, modern farming buildings often offer no shelter for birds, and cattle-feeding stations are now built to keep birds out and increase efficiency. What will the industrialisation of 10,000 acres of farmland in rural Lincolnshire do for the bird population in the area? For Marton, Lincolnshire the study identifies that in the last 10 years, 155 species have been recorded in this area according to BirdTrack data. Of these, 61 have been recorded in six or more months of the year. Historically, 69 species have been recorded in June and 47 in July. The most recent Bird Atlas, a stocktake of all UK birds conducted during 2007–11 found 81 bird species breeding in this area, and a further 22 non-breeding species present in spring/summer. In winter there may be up to 105 species present, although the number present in any single winter can be lower according to weather conditions. Since 1970, 8 breeding bird species have been lost from the Marton area. A further 17 species have declined in abundance since at least 1990, when they first started measuring abundance in atlases. The survey provides details of the species lost, declining, increasing and colonising in the area. For brevity I will not list the details here. 14. The area affected by this proposal is very rural containing a number of settlements and villages connected by mostly small country roads. It is a farming area with views across open countryside much appreciated by those fortunate to live in the area. The key to tackling concerns towards solar farm projects is genuine consultation with the local communities that are ultimately going to experience the changes to the landscapes they are proud to call home. It cannot be seen to be an imposition from Whitehall. There was no prior consultation with this project; if approved it would be nothing less than big business (and big money) trampling over the lives of hard-working locals.