Representation by Joanne Michelle Bagshaw
- Date submitted
- 30 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The Cottam Project forms just a part of of a number (4) NSIPP applications in my area. The four combined total a staggering 10,000 acres of agricultural land. they are each just a few short miles from one another and will encircle the town of Gainsborough completely transforming the area from agricultural to industrial. Is a photo montage showing screening after 15 years really acceptable to the communities who have to look onto the site for that length of time? It will be the largest such solar complex in Europe. We already have England's largest onshore wind farm at Keadby in the county and this is a mere 18 miles away. I would like to see all four of the applications assessed altogether and giving due consideration to the pre existing windfarm. Coal fired power had a requirement for being located in the Trent Valley due to access to water, solar has no such requirement. The ability to have access to the grid is not justification for flooding the area in glass and removing such a vast amount of productive farmland. Surely, at only 60% food security, you must agree that at over 3000 acres, The Cottam Solar Project should not be located on productive farmland. Is this really the best location for solar? Removing hard working farmland and replacing it with glass and metal in an area of low sun irradiance like The Trent Valley, is this the best use of the land? I am also concerned for the number of job losses in agriculture resulting from this project both directly and also the seasonal contractors. The A1 and M180 in our area has seen an enormous increase in warehousing in recent years and continues to be developed, surely this is a more suitable alternative location and could provide power to where it is needed and would not be removing yet more valuable land which has a finite quantity. Traveling along the Lincoln Cliff road, known for its amazing views(B1398) the site would be utterly visible and cannot be screened. It is an Area of Great Landscape Value. What will be the affect on the tourism and the walks and local enjoyment, no one wants to look out at 10000 acres of glass and metal. This will devastate this area. Battery storage is a serious potential risk for fire and chemical hazard and yet the proposal for what will be the worlds largest BESS is to place it near the village of Willingham by Stow, this cant be right and such infrastructure should be away from populations on a brownfield site. In addition to the land being removed to house the solar, there is also a fragmented cable route on ten separate parcels of land, not an easy grid connection at all and selected entirely based on obtaining permissions. Our communities will be subjected to an anticipated 4 years of construction when viewing the four projects as a whole. The rural roads and infrastructure is not suitable for access and queueing vehicles. This will have take a massive toll on the mental heath and wellbeing of the communities( it already has done). We will be saturated in glass and you may as well rename The Trent Valley, The Solar Valley. The Trent Valley is known for being shrouded in thick fog throughout the Autumn and Winter due to the proximity of the river at a time when we would most need the electricity. Again, simply because a grid connection is viable, it does not make it a suitable location. Brownfield sites and the rooftops of the built environment are the most sensible location for what is the most inefficient forms of energy provision, requiring the largest amount of space. This g agriculture in the area, the wildlife and the populations. Any planted screening of native trees will struggle to grow in these conditions. With regard to screening, The Landscape Institute states that 'if screening is required, it is the wrong location'. Glint and Glare assessments take into account Road, Rail and Air, but what about all of the walks, leisure areas and households? This is an unprecedented scale and should not be allowed. I am also very unhappy about supply chain issues from China and the proven links to human rights violations, which approval of this project, could be taken as an endorsement. The disposal of faulty panels or at decommissioning is unsatisfactory and I question the environmental impact of transporting solar panels from Asia. A solar farm is not carbon neutral. I feel that the information we received in the consultation phase was scant the PR Company ill informed and the scale of drawings misleading. The website questionnaire asked only those questions which suited the developer and was designed to lead the user. It was not user friendly and the layout misleading. I had a number of interactions with Counter Context to try and verify if my comments were even registered as it was not obvious.