Back to list West Burton Solar Project

Representation by Elizabeth Clare Garbutt

Date submitted
8 June 2023
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. The West Burton Solar Project (WBSP) is only one of four Solar NSIP proposals in the District of West Lindsey, Lincolnshire. 2. The number, scale and impact of all four proposed projects in the local area are overwhelming and unimaginable for the people and local communities. 3. All four proposals, (Cottam Solar Project, Gate Burton Energy Park, West Burton Solar Project and Tillbridge Solar Project) fall within a 6 mile (10km) radius and would cover 10,000 acres (4,000 ha) of farmland. 4. All the proposed solar schemes have a wider impact zone than the boundary limits of the sites and as such have a combined reach of over 100 square miles of countryside. This combined size and reach equates to being the largest solar complex in Europe. 5. The Draft Development Consent Order links all the proposed schemes together. The developers are pooling resources and physical infrastructure. An example of this is the joining of cable corridors for the schemes. Therefore, the four projects are interdependent on one another but are being submitted to The Planning Inspectorate on an individual basis. 6. By submitting separate applications, the companies involved are separating the collective mass of these projects into four schemes and as such are in effect "salami slicing" one Mega solar farm into four sections. 7. At present, there are 11,000 acres of current and proposed solar farms within a catchment of 30+ villages. This translates to losing 15% of farmland to solar usage in the region. The UK solar industry quotes a maximum 0.5% land use for solar. This statistic highlights the excessive and disproportionate impact these schemes will have on the 30+ neighbouring parishes. 8. It is my belief, that due to the scale and magnitude of the potential impact of all four proposals, they must be considered and examined as one. The real impact on communities, wildlife, livelihoods, landscape, tourism, business, heritage, flooding, farming and culture cannot be fully appreciated otherwise. 9. All these proposals in this area are being developed at the same time and backed by multimillion pound businesses. It is an unsurmountable task for individuals such as myself and other local residents to feel they have a real chance of defeating this number and type of proposals in our locality. 10. The concentration of four schemes in a local area is a unique and unprecedented situation. I am not aware of this occurring elsewhere in the Country. 11. It appears that the NSIP system was not designed to cater for development on this scale in a concentrated area. 12. IGP has shown a lack of due care and consideration for the views and opinions of residents. 13. The statutory consultation has been inadequate and misleading. 14. Mental health implications have not been addressed sufficiently. Access and enjoyment of green spaces for general, mental and physical health are a major concern. 15. Some residents are already suffering mental health consequences directly related to these proposals. Due to restricted and dwindling access to mental health services in rural areas these problems will be exasperated. I certainly feel that the negative impact on people’s lives and the region will drive people to leave their homes, communities and heritage. 16. The landscape and visual impact of the WBSP will be devastating for all concerned. 17. The construction of the WBSP covers a large area of the countryside and is spread over separate parcels of land. These are often serviced by only single track lanes and as such were not designed to cater for the number, size and weight of the abnormal loads needed to build the proposed schemes. The impact on residents in this regard will be untenable. The subsequent damage to the local road network and interruption to daily life for many years to come is not acceptable. 18. Soil compaction and damage is a long term negative impact and will harm the viability of the land and ecology of the landscape in the future. 19. Land contamination and pollution are major issues. Solar panels contain toxic materials. 20. The land selected for development has been chosen on the basis of availability. 21. All of the 10,000 acres of land proposed for solar panels are entirely on farmland. Not one brownfield site or rooftop is used. 22. With 250,000 hectares of commercial roof space available in the UK, along with many thousands of acres of decommissioned power station sites, ex airfields and airports in the area and the wider country, it is clear that current and daft Planning Policy has not been followed. 23. The WBSP will remove approximately 2500 acres of farming land from production. Due to heightened global uncertainties seen in recent times, loss of such land does not allow for future uncertainties and exposes national vulnerabilities. 24. IGP state that the WBSP would replace 25% of the former generation capacity of the coal fired Cottam power station, this is not correct and has misled the public. 25. When the average output of only 11% of the peak design capacity is taken into consideration, the WBSP would replace only 2.65% of Cottam Power Station’s generation capacity and therefore only around one tenth of the figure claimed by IGP. 26. With the implementation of thousands of 4.5m high mechanised solar arrays, the potential visual impact on the open Lincolnshire landscape in this area will be catastrophic. The proposal contradicts the solar industry’s own guidelines for using easily screened low level panels in rural areas. 27. The scheme is disaggregated and incohesive. It divides the rural agricultural landscape and countryside and as such causes significant harm to the rural communities. 28. The visual impact in this area of Lincolnshire would be overwhelming, allowing the solar arrays to become the dominating feature in the landscape, occupying 15% of the local farmland. 29. Mitigation on this proposal is extremely poor. 30. The limited proposals of new hedge planting will have little effect on the screening of 4.5 metre high solar arrays. During winter months, such screening will be inadequate. 31. The landscape character of the area will be lost due to the dominant visual impact of many fields of solar panels and associated equipment. 32. Historic views to iconic landmarks will be impaired and harmed. 33. Rural heritage and ways of life will be detrimentally affected. 34. The topography of the landscape in this area has not been considered in mitigation. 35. I am concerned regarding the regulation, control and enforcement of the planting and maintenance proposals and mitigation measures in the short and long term of the project. 36. The change of land use from agricultural to industrial on this scale is unparalleled and would transform the area into a bleak and depressing place for local residents, many of whom have lived and worked here in the countryside all their lives. 37. Views from public rights of ways and highways would be radically changed by these proposals. Much loved views and viewpoints will be lost. People’s enjoyment of the landscape will be severally impaired. 38. There will be acres of solar panels with reflective glass surfaces visible for miles around. Glint and glare is a major concern. Drivers using the surrounding roads may be dazzled by the reflection from the panels at certain times of the day. Other road users and footpath users may also suffer consequences of glint and glare occurrences. 39. Due to radical changes in soil analysis results, the ALC findings by IGP are questionable. 40. The land for development produces high crop yields. 41. An independent soil analysis needs to be carried out to obtain impartial findings. 42. The farmland on and around the proposed WBSP is fertile and productive arable land. The area is known as the "Breadbasket of the Nation". 43. Solar farm biodiversity claims are unproven in the UK especially on this monumental scale. 44. The area is rich with wildlife including birds of prey and scarce farmland species. 45. Deer and brown hare are in abundance and their movements would be curtailed and channelled around the vast perimeter fences leading to damaging localised browsing. Wildlife habitats will be adversely affected. 46. The fields of solar panels will change air flow and movement. This will have a negative impact on insects and wildlife. 47. The open, wide landscape will be covered in glass, steel, concrete and miles of obtrusive wildlife unfriendly security fencing. This type of fencing is now required (instead of deer fencing) by the insurance companies for such schemes. The area will become one of the world’s largest building sites. 48. Security lighting will also affect wildlife behaviour. Light pollution will also be an issue. 49. Increased crime and theft may occur in this rural area with the attraction of valuable infrastructure materials. 50. Areas of the WBSP are almost many miles from the Grid connection. This distance between these areas, suggests that land has been allocated on availability criteria. 51. Ground works for cabling over this extended distance would cause unnecessary and extensive environmental damage. 52. In reality, the colossal Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) would do very little for UK energy security. 53. This battery infrastructure could be a significant risk to human life from fire or toxic fume. 54. Emergency services may have difficulty accessing these sites in these isolated areas and may also not have access to necessary equipment or services to attempt fire-fighting activities. 55. If thousands of acres of solar arrays are installed, the rate of surface water run-off would exceed any attempts at amelioration by IGP and the resulting inundation of farmland and roadways would be significant. 56. The carbon footprint of the proposal is massively under calculated due to the fact that the panels and batteries would have to be replaced 2 and 4 times respectively over the scheme’s life time. 57. This area of the UK already contributes significantly to energy generation. There is a long history of coal fired power stations plus current CCGTs and the Nuclear Fusion development sites. Also, there are many solar farms including one current NSIP. To construct four further NSIP solar sites is not acceptable. 58. The need for renewable or low carbon energy does not automatically override environmental protections. The harm caused to landscape character and visual amenity and the environment as a whole is immense. The adverse impacts cannot be addressed satisfactorily on a site of this size and character, and the suggested planting mitigation measures are woefully limited. 59. I consider that the projects lifespan is a very significant period in my lifetime during which the development would seriously detract from the landscape character and visual amenity of over 30 neighbouring communities. Furthermore, on-going works and decommissioning periods mean that the time frame will be extended by many years. 60. I believe the harm caused by this proposed development to the land and all its occupants and users clearly outweighs any perceived benefits. The premise of renewable energy is to save the environment and not to destroy it.