Representation by Geoffrey Middleton
- Date submitted
- 8 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to this proposal on several grounds. It will be set on fully viable farmland. In a time of food shortages and obvious lack of food security in this country to destroy food producing land is quite stupid and shortsighted. Government policy is to make our food supply more secure, this cannot be achieved if usable farmland is taken out of production. The proposal is also in a beautiful area, enjoyed by locals and tourists alike. It will hardly encourage tourists visiting local attractions to drive past acres of metal and glass panels. Our government is encouraging GPs to prescribe walking and enjoyment of nature to improve the nation’s mental and physical well being, replacing the beauty of Gate Burton and its surrounding natural environment flies in the face of this policy. Walking through industrial metal and glass acrea after acre will achieve the exact opposite of the government’s stated intent. There is now an understanding that humanity cannot exist without widespread and rich biodiversity. There will be a devasting destruction of nature in this area, trees, hedgerows, grasses, wildflowers will go. The insects which rely on them, the small mammals which rely on them, the birds and other predatory mammals reliant on this ecosystem will go. It is impossible to replace acres of farmland and surrounding nature with vast quantities of glass, metal, plastic and concrete and expect nature to survive. Again, there are government policies on replacing hedgerows, planting trees, replacing meadows, rewilding, encouraging sustainable farming - this proposal flies utterly in the face of all these policies. There is also a government policy on encouraging the use of green energy, obviously necessary to fight climate change – as are all the policies already mentioned above. The difference is that you cannot grow food without farmland, you cannot have sustainable farming without farmland, you cannot have thriving natural ecosystems without land, you cannot use nature to help wellbeing without a natural environment. However, you most certainly can have far, far more creation of green energy without destroying those things. There are massive numbers of rooves suitable for solar panels. There are many brownfield and unused industrial sites suitable for solar farms. Doing these things would allow all the mentioned government policies to be met. The company applying for this proposal has in no way convinced me that they have any interest in any of these other usages as those would make less money for them. I do not believe that they have investigatd any other sites but merely want to do what is convenient of for them to make the most money at the least cost purely for their own interests and to hell with the long term damage or the needs of the wider population. Until every non-greenfield site and every suitable roof as been clad in solar panels, this proposal should fall. (I understand that there is a ploy to declare the farmland less viable. Even less viable farmland is going to be vital to handle the food shortages which are coming. Farm owners can be helped to produce suitable crops/grazing and can receive payments for re-wilding parts of the land. Even if the land were totally unsuitable, not the case, farmer owers can receive income from DEFRA plans for rewilding our already nationally depleted wildlife.) All of the above is magnified hugely when I realise that this proposal is but one of four similar, proposals which would, together, amount to around 10,000 acres locally and then, incredibly, the extra 10,000 acres proposed for further afield in Lincolnshire amounting to 20,000 acres of the above destruction. It is a cynical ploy to have separate, similar proposals – four in our local area. An attempt to fool the planning system into possibly passing individual proposals where the the larger proposal would be refused. The scale of the land taken out of food supply, the destruction of nature, the ending of any future for farming and farm connected jobs, the turning off of tourism interests and the despair felt by locals whose loved living space is to be destroyed forever must be considered over the desire for profit by companies who are shell companies and likely not even to be of this country. By the time these panels are in place, connected to the grid (a lengthy process even given plans to speed up) and producing power they will be obsolete. Newer, cleaner, less dependent on rare earth metals, produced with less violation of human rights will be in place (hydrogen, more wind farms, geothermal drilling – already being explored in East Lindsey). This lost land will then be available to be sold off for industrialised purposes and the countryside with all its potential for food production and environment support will have gone, sold to the highest bidder. My belief is that this eventual use is already part of the plan for the companies making these proposals. The profits will go out of our local economy, likely out of the country. The hell of years and years of construction, dirt, dust, chemicals, noise, further damage to nature and to local infrastructure and costs of attempting to fix the extra damage will be born locally. The profit will go elsewhere. Even the panels are made in China with all the doubts about the human rights safety of many of their people My heart quails at the thought of the unusually large size of these individual panels not just at their quantity. I am aware of reports of the massive batteries needed and the instances of them catching fire. When our summers are now increasingly cursed with wildfires, what widespread destruction this could cause. Another fear is knowledge of the dangerous chemicals contained in these structures. Because they are sited so close to residential properties, how deadly would the fire-caused spread of those substances be to both people and wildlife. The damage to local views is bad enough without this added danger. The site is too close to residential areas in any case and needs to be on existing brownfield sites nearer the grid connections. I feel underinformed by the proposers of all of the above issues. Their brochures and contacts are light on detailed information. What other sites were considered. why were they rejected, how much wildlife damage will there be, have they properly assessed existing natural environment, what was the accreditation of the compnaies dong the assessment, were they approved by recognised environmental organisations. How can they guarantee safety. Why do the panels need to come from China, how have they guaranteed that they have been produced with minimum damage to earth resources and the human rights of their workers. How much actual capacity would be generated – where would this show up in reduced bills for locals, how does that compare with the reductions that would come from putting panels on our rooftops? Who owns the site long term and why can ownership not ulitimately belong to local communities. Why cannot we have a guarantee that long terms plans would be to return usage to food production or re-wilding. What will happen to them when, inevitably the panels wear out and alternative sources take over making the panels less attractive financially. Will the site then be sold off to the highest bidder. These are the questions I want answered in great detail. Our irreplaceable, natural, local resources and environment are being sold off to be lost to us forever at no local gain. Please turn down this proposal.