Representation by Michael James Dover
- Date submitted
- 16 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly object to this project for the following reasons. 1. This is currently just one project of four multi acre solar and battery storage parks in the area, all within a few Km of each other. The developers are obviously acting together to create a combined multi site project, the cabling routes proposed by each of the developers are shared routes, and each developers company are represented by the same legal team. Due to the close proximity of each of the developments to each other and the fact that the developers are working in concert, I believe all four of the projects should be considered as one mega site of 10,000 acres and the cumulative effect on the area as a whole be taken into consideration when accessing the impact on the area. 2. I consider that there has been a lack of fair consultation by the developers, who failed to answer fully questions or gave misleading answers. I feel consultation has not been carried out in good faith. 3. I feel that the promises of output achieved by the scheme are grossly exaggerated. Claims of 600MW generation capacity and powering 180,000 homes, when I questioned at consultation, how this would be achieved I was given the answer that this was the capacity over a 1year period. After some reading I discovered that this data seems to be based on the Manufactured output of each panel, which is achieved if the sun shone 24hrs a day 365 days of the year and at the optimal angle for solar generation. As an average in UK each of these panels ( when new ) would potentially have only 10% efficiency. Therefore the claims are framed to deliberately mislead communities, individuals and local councils. 4.The impact on the production of farming and food production would be extremely high with the loss of 10,000 acres of Best Most Versatile (BMV) land, land that has produced high yields, particularly wheat and better yields than grade 1&2 lands last year. Loss of this farmland will have impact on tenant farmers with loss of business and homes, rural jobs and future opportunities, losses to agricultural support sector businesses thus reduced GDP, increase in imported food stuffs increasing Co2 footprint and shift in rural trade balance. 5. I have deep concerns about the origins of the solar panels, batteries and associated equipments, which I believe are mainly, if not all processed and manufactured in China. I am aware of the alleged dubious labour regime in the manufacture process and object to this. I am also aware that China is using increasing quantities of coal fired generation, even expanding coal fired power stations at an almost exponential rate producing over 30% of world emissions. Developers ordering and importing solar panels and equipment manufactured in China are in fact adding to world emissions, the UK emissions, presently are around 0.9%. 6. Increased flood risk. The soil type in the area is a heavy clay type soil, the permeable properties of which are poor, whilst the water retention is good for farming which the ability to hold water, (and so good for crops during dry or drought conditions) it does however present a problem in periods of prolonged or heavy rainfall and the area is prone to surface water flooding. I believe the resultant rain run off from tens of thousand solar panels on compacted heavy clay soils will result in increased property flooding, particularly if the developers are allowed to swale the standing water and runoff into the already near capacity drainage dykes. Who will indemnify householders, businesses, local and county councils in the case of flooding due to excess run off ? 7. The environment that now exists is home to deer, barn owls, woodpeckers, skylarks, Lapwings, bats, rabbits and hares to name just a few. Despite the promise of improved bio diversity, no one could answer the questions posed as to how these displaced species would survive, how ranging animals like fox & deer would deal with the mass enclosure of prior open landscape and how and where these displaced species go. The overall depletion of a rural landscape species would, in spite of planting wild fauna be detrimental to nature in the area. 8. The haulage and transport of plant and equipment to an onto site would be extraordinarily heavy on rural roads, it will inevitably cause damage to not only fragile road surfaces but also verges that are in themselves often sanctuary to rare wildflower species and wildlife. The Co2 footprint of a period up to four years of HGV vehicles passing over and through rural villages and settlements is bound to cause lasting or even irreparable damage to the rural landscape, roads and peoples way of life. The initial construction to last up to four years, but maintenance and multiple panel replacement builds as Solar PV panels have a life expectancy less than half of that of projected sites. 9. Construction. Noise from pile driving of many thousands of steel posts needed to form frames for the erecting of panels, would cause harmful nuisance to not only livestock and wildlife but also residents and workers, this will be ongoing for probably 2-3 years. Add to this the use of plant vehicles on site and moving from field to field leaving detritus mud on rural roads. The daily commute of a workforce to and from the area not only adds to the volume of traffic (and the increased emissions) but to the wear and tear of road surfaces that are already in a poor condition, add to this the surface erosion from many heavy laden goods vehicles on a 6 day a week cycle. Will the developers recompense the County Council Highways division for the cost of repairs and upkeep? 10. Waste and toxic run off. Are HSE involved in the measurement and or control of potential toxic runoff from the panels, especially near to or swale channels to a watercourse? 11. Glint and Glare, for aircraft and also on some locations drivers. 12. Fire safety. PV panels and battery storage systems (BSS) have in many parts of the world been subject to fire and explosion. Fighting these fires. Is difficult to control, extinguish or even contain. There is also a danger of toxic fumes over large areas and a probability of toxic, carcinogenic and poisonous elements and chemicals leaching into the ground or watercourses contaminating what should be fertile arable land and/or healthy waterways. 13. Tourism, much has rightly been said about the impact on farming, crops and the rural communities, but this along with the other huge solar PV sites sits in a picturesque part of the Trent valley, visitors that are drawn to uphill Lincoln it’s Castle and spectacular Cathedral , will instead of viewing a vista of a verde patchwork of rural fields, hedgerows and woods that naturally change with the seasons and harvests, but rather disdainfully gaze upon the grim desolation of grey industrialisation that in toto equates to the metropolitan area of the City of Lincoln. What will be the fiscal impact on tourism, This list of objections is not exhaustive.