Representation by Elaine Jessie Hawkins
- Date submitted
- 23 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The proposal for The Cottam Solar project, whilst a separate proposal, really should be viewed not only on its own merit but should be considered as a part of the 4 projects in total that are being proposed by companies very closely associated with each other, in a close geographical area and in a very similar time scale, as the total impact on both quality food producing land, loss of related jobs and the aesthetic effect on over 10,000 acres would be so destructive that it should be rejected as a whole or should be scaled back to a reasonable and acceptable size. This project cannot be allowed to destroy good quality food producing land on this scale, that has been highlighted with current fresh vegetable rationing in several outlets across the UK and we should bear in mind that whilst energy resilience is important, food security is even more so and really does impact on national security and well being. There are tenant farmers who have farmed land affected for 10’s of years who will lose their livelihoods as well as agricultural suppliers both in terms of fertilizers, equipment suppliers and associated agricultural engineers that will be badly affected. What are the alternatives? Well consideration should be given to the use of brown field sites and compulsory installation of panels on new build property both domestic and commercial. Local authorities should be given both a mandate and powers to install panels in partnership as part of a long term strategy in areas of suitable use. The panels proposed for the Cottam project at 4.5 metres high will have a massive negative effect on both the visual and aesthetic beauty of the area. Not only are farmers affected, but residents in the villages around, some of which lie within an Area of Great Landscape Value, and who have chosen to live in these rural areas will have their quality of life changed forever, not just long term but also the disruption caused during the construction phase will have severe effects on freedom and mental health. The physical size of the project(s) is really only now being realised and the lack of accurate information by Island Green Power and others, together with their minimalist consultation process has not allowed for proper understanding of the scale of the project and the associated disruption for little national gain. Solar is at best only 27% efficient. For example the battery energy storage facility is of such a size as to be described as a power factory in an area of natural beauty close to the small village of Willingham by Stow. The risk of failure and subsequent fire and pollution hazards have never been consulted upon. It would seem to make more sense to locate all battery storage facilities close to the actual national grid connection at Cottam power station on Brownfield land not in fields close to residential homes, doctors, schools etc. The connectivity for the project encompasses 20km of cable and multiple associated connections on various (up to 10) parcels of land and involves massive civil works across the region and under the tidal river Trent. The planning process for this has never been full consulted upon and greater understanding of this major element should be sought. The combined effect of this project both in terms of the panels and associated ground works and the civil engineering works for connectivity will offer little protection for wildlife and for the environment as a whole. The impact on the road network locally with many thousands of HGV journeys over the period of construction, is immeasurable in terms of disruption to local businesses and residents, the other issue is the bridge access across the river Trent, both at Dunham Toll bridge and Gainsborough bridge which are vital transport links and consideration must be given as to the long term damage that may be caused by this massive increase in HGV traffic. The manufacturing process in its self is a toxic one and that the panels are produced in China where concerns already exist in terms of our countries security and wellbeing and on this fact alone should be rejected. Not only in terms of long term relations with China but simply the costs involved in transporting such volumes of panels over long distances negates any gains from the further ill considered installation of solar factories, for that is what these huge scale projects are, not solar farms. In summary, due to the scale and close time scales, the Cottam project along with the other 3 projects on the table for the local area should be considered as one. The consultation undertaken by Island Green Power and others was inadequate and not undertaken in good faith. The actual long term benefits of solar power on this scale are negated by the costs in terms of damage to the environment and the overall high carbon costs involved in the manufacture and transportation of the panels, assorted equipment and disruption both short and longer term to the local area and population. This form of “renewable” energy is at best highly inefficient and when that power is truly needed to supplement the national grid they are performing at their worst i.e. winter evenings when there is no sunlight. And what about the ethical costs involved in the manufacture of panels and their subsequent disposal at the end of their useful life? How is the land to be returned to agriculture? What flood risks are likely? How does glare from panels affect both air, road and river traffic? These are areas not fully considered or consulted upon by Island Green Power Please reject this and the other associated projects before it is too late, for the various companies to apply for permission as separate projects is plainly wrong, they are trying to disguise the size of the overall project and as such should be rejected .