Representation by Raymond Stansfield
- Date submitted
- 17 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The Cottam project has been presented in an isolated way that tries to disguise the cumulative effect that it will have along with the 3 other adjacent solar farms in the environment. These 4 projects of an unprecedented size will totally change the rural nature of the area. They will despoil the view I appreciate when I take my healthy exercise along Lincoln edge or in the countryside northwest of Lincoln. The mental heath benefits of the countryside are multi sensual. It involves space, sounds, smell and vision. The projects must be considered as one massive power station Cottam seems to be have chosen in a haphazard fashion with solar arrays proposed where absent landowners have decided to exploit the offers of the developers. The siting should be based on best practice and minimum intrusion where any arrays could be best screened, not where it is most convenient for the developers (who’s non local identity is kept rather vague). The brownfield alternatives and industrial roof top installation has been downplayed. Solar panels can go on productive farmland or on industrial rooftops – food can only be grown on productive farmland. The flat but slightly undulating landscape I enjoy from from my dwelling would be despoiled by the 4.5 metre high moving panels which if the project went fully ahead I would be able to hear as they whirred. The dark skies that other residents, tourists and I enjoy would be diminished. It is a fallacy that downlit security lights on tall mountings are discreet. I have visited existing solar farms and observed this for myself. The developers have presented a very optimistic view as to the efficiency of solar power. The output has been stated as a theoretical ideal maximum, which can be very misleading to the lay public. It is only after proper exploration that I realised that the output is mediocre. This mediocre intermittent output requires storage to take advantage of generation when it does flow. The massive, intrusive Lithium batteries required are some of the largest in Europe and the fire and fumes emanating from the common fires are toxic. The local fire chief has acknowledged that the service has only experience with the EV on a drive (that can be easily removed) and not the massive unprecedented ones proposed. I can only hope that the prevailing wind on this flat landscape would bring any toxic cloud over my cottage or that any water used to douse fires would not run into a watercourse. Given that solar power is only moderately efficient at best we must think of the effect the loss of farmland would have. The Russians have not only held Western democracies to ransom with energy. They have held us to ransom with food supply (most notably grain). Food security is as important as energy security. Much of the local economy where I live depends on farming. This is not just farmers, but agricultural engineers, suppliers of farm machinery, maintainers of farm equipment, fertilizer suppliers, seed merchants, grain merchants, agronomists and many other businesses that support a viable farming environment. This is of great concern to the residents of the hamlet where I reside – these concerns have been expressed unanimously in our Parish meeting. One local farm has to supplement income by offering tourist accommodation. Tourists do not want to visit solar power stations. Farmers at our Parish meeting totally disagree with the classification placed blanket fashion on the grades of the land What jobs would be replaced in the local economy if the solar farm is in place? External specialists would install it – then what? Some tenant farmers I have spoken to fear the loss of their livelihood and their homes. I attended the local consultation session run by the developers in the local village hall. There was indulgence in what is described as “greenwashing”. There was virtually no recognition of the total effects of building the largest solar power station in Europe. The thousands of tons of glass, plastic, and steel that will be manufactured in China using coal fired energy was glossed over along with its dubious human rights record. Because carbon would be pumped into the atmosphere on the other side of the globe seemed to make it disappear. Not to mention the pollution caused by mining the rare earth elements required for the panels which then require shipping around the world along with all the other material. The developers did address the issue of decommissioning in a vague fashion. However, the working life span of the project seemed to slip from an initial 25 years to 40. Forty years would mean that the proposed “mitigation” screening would have reached as sufficient height to mask the 4.5 metre panels. I oppose the construction of this power station because a project of this intrusive size is inappropriate for rural farmland, the disbenefits outweigh the benefits and the developers have presented a misleading view of solar energy in their superficial consultation and in their attempt to fragment the massive project as 4 separate projects.