Representation by John and Anne Parkin
- Date submitted
- 30 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Having moved to the area, to live in the countryside, out of choice, to then discover that the surrounding land was to be industrialised by a large solar development, which subsequently is turning out to be one of the largest solar developments in Europe, was a shock. We recognise that there is a climate crisis and renewable energy may be the way forward, however we object to the Island Green Power Cottam Solar Farm development for the following reasons: Food Security: We believe that brown field sites and rooftops (housing, commercial buildings) offer vast areas before considering viable farmland. Soil quality: We disagree with the soil grading process. This should have been conducted over months, rather than a single test. The ‘field yields’ per annum would be useful to determine whether the fields are still beneficial for food production. An example: West Burton 4 sequential testing showed Grade 3a and the proposed fields were withdrawn from the project. Visual Impact: We don’t believe that the visual impact testing gives a true reflection of what the loss will be in the affected areas. Views from historic Lincoln and surrounding cliff villages will be affected, as well the residents surrounded by solar panels. Grid connection: The grid connection is in Nottinghamshire not Lincolnshire, so we believe that Lincolnshire farmland has been unfairly sacrificed for the more affluent Nottinghamshire farmlands. The cables will have to cross the River Trent and this may cause issues. 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. 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. Batteries: Potential safety issues around batteries and storage (fire/explosions) within close proximity to residents. We are aware that the battery function will not be used to store power for our country, but the energy is to be sold. Health: The impacts on health have not been properly assessed. Noise travels in quiet areas and noise from the fans will travel. We currently have minimal light pollution, and this worries us because there will be security lighting. Our environment is important to us, especially for our mental health, and the 4.5m high solar panels will have a claustrophobic effect for 40 years. Solar Panel Height: We have concerns about screening 2.5m to 4.5m high solar panels. Why are such high panels needed? Consultation Process: We have had inadequate response to the first consultation and no reply after the second consultation. Public Engagement: There was a failure to engage in a meaningful way in 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. Crime: These solar farms attract organised criminals which is a major concern to us. 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 for a prison-like feel within the 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 birdlife and wildlife have been adequately carried out. Tourism: The solar farms will directly affect tourism. 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. 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. Failure to consult with business: We believe there has been very little contact with businesses which could be directly affected. 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 population. Incentives: There is very little understanding of the community infrastructure and what each village/ hamlet requires. Financial diligence: We are concerned, as we are not privy to this information with all the ramifications this potentially could present with. 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. Deprivation: Island Green Power has placed this scheme in an area of higher deprivation. We question this? 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. 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. Future technology might make solar farm energy non-viable. If solar panels become obsolete after 20 years, who will clear up the fields or will the debris be left for the full 40 years? Will the farmers be responsible? Future thinking: The future might require that food is sourced locally, less travel and a move away from supermarkets. 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. 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. We object to overseas investors making profits, purely as business deals, which is at the expense of local communities. Data: There is insufficient qualitative data to assess the impact of the scheme on residents. This concerns us because how would Island Green Power know how these proposals affect us individually (emotionally, mentally and/or physically).