Representation by Anne Parkin
- Date submitted
- 8 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Relevant Representation West Burton Solar Project: This relevant representation is the joint work by us as a couple, so we will be submitting it twice (separately). We moved to this area just before Island Green Power informed us of their proposals. Our house move was out of choice to live and enjoy what the countryside has to offer. This proposal came as a surprise, because this National Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) were not on the radar of the land search carried out at the time of purchasing our property. Given the magnitude of this development and the planning required, intention to proceed with it should have been highlighted earlier. We are not averse to renewable energy; however, we feel very strongly that brownfield sites and rooftops (homes, commercial buildings including large warehouses) should be considered first before polluting the land with solar panels. Our view is that renewable technology is advancing at pace in innovative ways where these fields may never be the way forward to solving the United Kingdom’s (UK) target to meet net zero by 2035. This will leave redundant tracks of land with industrialised equipment for many years to come, which could become wastelands and potentially rural slums. Therefore, we feel solar farms are not sustainable and should never be considered even in a crisis. Nuclear fusion technology, for example is planned near to the proposed West Burton Solar farm sites which could supersede all this. We believe in the right system, in the right place, for the right reason for the right output/use which has long-term sustainability. We have been told by Island Green Power how many homes this electricity will supply; however, we believe that this a smokescreen to use Lincolnshire’s precious farmland to export electricity generating revenue for the large corporates. This is at the expense of our local communities! In fact, our communities believe that these projects will supply electricity to their homes, which is not the case and is very misleading and goes against what the pro-solar lobby would want here for the UK. With regards to Planning: The impact of the cumulative effect of these four planned projects should be seen as one by the planning inspectorate, and we do have some concerns about this. Lincolnshire should be looked at as a whole and understand just how many proposals are being submitted over the entire County which is worrying. Further reassurance is required now that the planning inspectors are about to examine Gate Burton as a single entity. A fifth application, Stow Park, has been submitted and is pending approval through West Lindsey District Council (WLDC). We object to the Island Green Power proposal for West Burton for the following reasons: 1) Food Security: The 40-year lease leaves those fields affected out of the food cycle production for too long. Over the 40-year period, we do not know what our food requirements are, and in fact we might need to resort to locally produced food for local communities because of carbon footprint. The only thing we have that is sustainable, is our arable land, which we need to look after by delivering new ways of farming to sustain this in the future. How we value land needs to be taken into consideration. 2) Soil Grading: We disagree with the soil grading process. Firstly, there has been no sequential soil testing. Secondly, there has been no mention of the field yields from the land in question. For example, in West Burton 1 wheat crops are currently in all the fields, and if this delivers a high yield, then we believe this goes against the argument for BMV grading as the only way of deciding whether land is suitable or not. One of the pieces of land for West Burton 1 is actually BMV3a! 3) Visual Impact: We do not accept the current West Burton 1 visual impact assessments. It certainly does not reflect what the visual loss would be, as the east fringe of our village looks across to the Lincoln Cliff with views of the Lincoln Cathedral. The proposed 4.5-metre-high tilting solar panels will obstruct those views as is the case when standing on the bank of the River Till which is used by ramblers and the community. The West Lindsey Landscape Character Assessment carried out in 1999 (no change in the landscape since then), made reference to these views. Particularly the views of the Cathedral which it highlighted as being one of the sensitive parts to the landscape assessment. The Cathedral views link us to Lincoln and place, which is important to us. Also relevant, are the views to the village churches (North and South Carlton) and in the case of the other site, West Burton 2, Saxilby Village Church. No visual impact photographs have been taken from the Lincoln Cliff which is worrying. Views from both the Cathedral roof top and the Castle should be considered in the light of the impact it will have on the landscape views for tourists. 4) Cumulative effect: We believe in a single Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for all the 4 proposed solar developments as this needs to be factored in as to the impact all proposals will have for the next 40 years on this area stretching from Saxilby to above Gainsborough (a large chunk of West Lindsey District). The 4 separate EIA’s do not do justice to the damage and consequences that these proposed solar farms will have on the ecosystems going forward and we believe that the current mitigations within the individual EIA’s are weak in the context. 5) Health: The health impact has not been properly assessed. We know that the environment plays a huge role in well-being, especially mental health. We do not see any qualitative data on this except for a self- assessed health in the population in the EIA, which does not tell us anything about how people feel about this (emotionally, mentally and physically). Also, the question surveys in both phase 1 and 2 consultations did not gauge the above and was more focused on what we felt of the proposal and the implications. Much of the EIA on health is around the impact during construction and decommissioning but is devoid of the 40-year impact. We moved to be away from light and noise pollution that we experienced on the outskirts of Lincoln, so issues around perimeter lighting and fans for cooling batteries is of real concern to us. The “claustrophobic effect” of the solar panel height is worrying. Understanding the health impact on communities is complex and requires specialist input from a wider stakeholder perspective which includes not only Public Health, but also the Lincolnshire Integrated Care System (ICS), Community and Primary Care, Mental Health, Social Care, Voluntary Organisations and most importantly the newly formed Primary Care Networks. Obtaining new data, understanding population health, evaluating the concerns around health inequalities, will need rigorous scrutiny and understanding. Only then will you get a true perspective on how our local population will be affected, and therefore more important the 4 projects should be seen as 1. Underpinning this is the causal effect of a clear understanding of the socio-economic impacts should these projects progress. It could negate excellent work already progressing within this community. The social impact of the cumulative effect could be devasting for this area and needs exploring further! 6) Deprivation: These 4 sites, which includes West Burton Solar project have in our view been strategically placed in an area of deprivation where little opposition to the development will occur because of lack of wealth. This is evident by strategically placing the solar farms at scale in Lincolnshire and not Nottinghamshire where the power stations are located. The projects surround Gainsborough, which has pockets of high deprivation. We note references to Bassetlaw, but there is no mention of Gainsborough with only references to West Lindsey District. This is worrying, and we are concerned about its omission from the EIA under these 2 headings as there will be significant impact on this town. Gainsborough town is inextricably linked with its surrounding area. Other concerns: 7) Grid connection: The cables will have to cross the River Trent and this may cause issues. 8) Ethics: “Fair Trade” is used to import food products but is there an equivalent “Fair Trade” for solar panel manufacture in countries that manufacture them. If not, the moral issues around manufacturing sites would concern us. 9) Hazardous Waste: With improvements in solar panel production, we envisage multiple solar panel upgrades over the years, which could be detrimental to land-fill sites. The toxic waste from panels is a real concern. This has the potential for further community disruption over many years. 10) Batteries: Potential safety issues around batteries and storage (fire/explosions) within close proximity to residents. 11) Consultation Process: We have had inadequate response to the first consultation and no reply after the second consultation. 12) Public Engagement: There was a failure to engage in a meaningful way with the wider community. Many people still do not know about this proposed project. We believe the consultation process should have been conducted over a wider area and over a longer period to ensure a well-balanced informed community response. 13) Crime: These solar farms attract organised criminals which is a major concern to us. We have a low crime rate in our area. 14) Fencing and Habitats: Palisade fencing over a large area is totally unacceptable to us. This will affect wildlife, formation of new perimeter paths which could result in water runoff and soil erosion. These fences would make us feel like we are imprisoned in our own environment. We believe that the cumulative effect of these solar farms must be detrimental to birdlife and wildlife. We do not believe that whole life cycle studies of wildlife and birds have been adequately carried out. 15) Tourism: The solar farms will directly affect tourism. 16) Development and Maintenance: Hours of business/works (weekends/nights?) how is this going to affect local communities? The panels need regular cleaning, and this will be a constant disruption. 17) Failure to consult with business: We believe there has been very little contact with businesses which could be directly affected. 18) Socio-economic: We do not believe that these schemes will provide local employment but will fragment communities and will perhaps drive out younger people. This has the potential to leave a much older and vulnerable population. 19) Incentives: There is very little understanding of the community infrastructure and what each village/ hamlet requires. 20) Financial diligence: We are concerned, as we are not privy to this information with all the ramifications this potentially could present with. 21) Disclosure: In the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) there is no reference to disclosure by the companies used to produce the document, nor reference to conflict of interest to assess whether there is impartial transparency. 22) Cable Routes: We are concerned that cable routes cross an area designated ‘opportunity for ecological improvement’ as noted on the biodiversity mapping for this area, which was drawn up by the County Council. We are concerned that these projects go against the vision that West Lindsey District Council set out for this area in their Green Strategy document. 23) Technical: We question the output claimed from solar power. When the need is greater for energy the days are shorter and mostly overcast. We question the acreage required to produce the same amount of energy as one wind turbine. 24) Health Provision: We are also concerned that our local health system is overstretched and cannot cope with the influx of people constructing the sites. There seems to be an assumption that medical services will be provided. It is unfair to expect our already stretched medical system to take on extra work without adequate resources and increased work force. 25) Process: We requested that directors of Island Green Power and the local farmers involved, meet with us and the local community to discuss our issues, but to date this has not been arranged. We also requested a site visit to one of Island Green Power solar farms, but nothing materialised. 26) We object to overseas investors making profits, who see this purely as a business deal, at the expense of our community. 27) With reference to Glint and Glare, an existing structure in the distance towards West Burton power station, caused a flash across our vison whilst driving on the Lincoln Cliff. The cumulative effect of all the solar panel projects (some tilting and most elevated to 4.5m) will cause issues for drivers on the Lincoln Cliff Roads. This needs Highways to assess the impact.