Representation by Patricia Mitchell
- Date submitted
- 30 March 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
This is my formal representation to become an interested party and I call for the Planning Inspectorate to take particular note of the information in the first paragraph. Together with Map 1, which it has been necessary to post to you under separate cover as it could not be copied into my registration comments, is to be included as part of my representation. My reference number has been noted on Map 1 to link it to this written submission:- Although my observations and objections relate to Island Green Power’s Cottam 1, 2, 3a and 3b (3,000 + acres) solar development, it is crucial that I draw to the Planning Inspectorate’s notice three further solar projects; Low Carbon Gate Burton (which has already been submitted to the Inspectorate), IGP’s West Burton Solar soon to follow and Tillbridge Solar. Because of the proximity of each one to the other, being a few miles apart, it would be just and morally ethical for them to be evaluated /examined together not independently of each other. Combined they would be the largest solar farm complex in Europe, if not beyond, encompassing a colossal 10,000 acres + of Best and Most Versatile (BMVL) agricultural and productive farmland. The communities of 30 villages will be affected, (including mine which will be completely surrounded and overwhelmed North, South, East & West for miles) imprisoned by 4.5m (15ft high) tracking solar panels, highly dangerous BESS batteries, sub-stations, shipping containers in the hundreds, security fencing, CCTV and all associated paraphernalia on both sides of the A1500 and the B1241 that I and others travel daily and also along the narrow, inter-twining country lanes between these 30 villages. I can think of no more a soul destroying, demoralising and depressing existence for all who will be affected by the solar development(s). Individually each Project is of such magnitude that combined they are almost 20 km (over 12 miles) from one end to the other with a perimeter stretching over 80 km (50 miles). The impact on the lives of the residents including my own family, my grandchildren, and the well-being and mental health of others by the cumulative nature of these solar developments will be appalling. We are facing industrialisation and annihilation of beautiful, wildlife diverse uninterrupted countryside and productive farmland around our homes for 40 years. It would woefully dominate and devastate the landscape, including a designated Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and would be highly visible along the entire length of B1398 Lincoln Cliff Road. This would be nothing short of environmental and psychological vandalism. An apocalypse. This is not a delicate balance in any shape or form between protecting rural communities and recognising the climate emergency. A consistent policy toward encouraging the installation of solar panels on industrial, commercial and domestic buildings and brownfield sites is needed and would negate the need for large-scale mounted solar farms which are destroying, not protecting the Natural Environment, landscape and eco-systems. New and more efficient domestic panels are becoming available being more cost effective and reducing bills. There are thousands of acres of commercial and industrial roof space in the UK able to accommodate solar panels. There are questions over the accuracy of the forecasts by Island Green Power for the amount of energy this project is likely to produce for the amount of farmland that is being plundered, particularly in the depths of winter when energy is most needed. On average solar can only deliver 11% of its stated output in the UK and on average the government says 5 acres of land are used for every 1MW of output. This makes Solar plants a highly inefficient use of land compared to wind. I do not believe IGP consulted with the public in a fair way and I am happy to expand on this with the Planning Inspectorate. Furthermore, the visual images of solar panels on farmland at Thorpe le Fallows (Viewpoint 6 - Winter AVR3 (year 1) figure 8.14.6d I deem to be an incomplete and therefore inaccurate presentation for any member of the public viewing this on the website. IGP’s Environmental Statement, Chapter 4 Scheme Description January 2023 for Cottam 1, 2, 3a and 3b is a disturbing read and confirms all the unease I have over the magnitude and repercussions of this aggressive and ruinous project to all aspects of life within the affected communities. The applicant has provided no evidence for the actual carbon savings that this scheme will produce. Until we see this evidence then the scheme has to be seen as not being carbon neutral. The risks of these proposals very much outweigh the hypothesised/speculated benefits put forward by Island Green Power. The significant Loss of Amenity Use and Visual Impact affecting a far greater area than the boundaries of the scheme. 1. Loss of agricultural land is insupportable and loss of food production. We are a net importer of food. Lincolnshire is a food producing county. 2. Loss of tenant farmers, their livelihoods and homes / the effects on the economy of local agricultural and other associated business. 3. Cultural heritage impact: Lincoln is steeped in great architecture, history and heritage in abundance with a rich culture of food, festivals and family businesses – hotels, local b&bs, shops, transport and more which depend on tourism and visitors. Further heritage is hidden beneath the extensive areas of farmland where the proposed solar project(s) is /are to be sited. 4. Life changing disruption for 2 years (or 4 years) to the affected villages/villagers and visitors/travellers passing through with high risk for accidents to the public. Traffic, access and construction - narrow lanes around villages not suited to large construction vehicles, hundreds of LGVs, HGVs & Abnormal load vehicles (ALVs) and plant and machinery, up to 400 workers travelling to a site operational from 7.00am – 7.00pm daily. Intrusion of CCTV on such a scale not seen in countryside settings. 5. Harmful: Noise and light pollution, poor air quality. 4.5metre (15 ft) high Tracking solar panels, 13.5metre high sub-station (s), converters the audible noise 365 days a year for 40 years from all the associated hardware. Glint and glare issues from millions of solar panels (estimated 7,000,000 on all four proposed solar sites). 6. Harmful: Health and safety issues particularly the dangers of Lithium-ion batteries (BESS) with history of explosion and fire, releasing toxic gas hazardous to health, to water and land, unable to be extinguished by water and dangerously sited close to village and residential housing. The local Fire Brigade does not have the experience to deal with such fires and if they did it would still be a highly perilous event for anyone in the area. Batteries not governed by the Health and Safety Executive. Failed to be addressed during consultation by IPG. 7. Harmful: The scheme is harmful during construction and beyond to the ecology and bio-diversity of all wildlife, removal of hedges, trees, loss of flora and fauna which may never fully recover. I understand deer fencing will now be replaced by security fencing ? The wildlife will not return…why would it with such disturbance taking place. They will migrate to other areas to nest, feed and feel secure. Wildflower meadows naturally grow best in soil that has low fertility and low nutrients not BMVL. 8. Why 8 miles of cabling trenches through farmland ? 9. The area has a long history of flooding - there is photographic evidence. 10. IGP illustrate 15 years for a hedge to grow tall enough to obscure the 4.5 metre panels ! 11. A Green Solution: Given all of the above - No ! Together with sourcing concerns for 4.5m (15ft high) panels (from China) and with its recorded human rights abuses and the carbon footprint to ship panels to the UK. 12. Decommissioning - who will oversee this to ensure the land returns to how it was before? Who will provide the funding ? How do we know funding will still be available in 40 years ? 13. Finally, the scheme is not temporary. Definition of temporary: brief, fleeting, passing, momentary not 40 years! My grandchildren would be almost half a century old before they see these green fields and the patchwork quilt of crops changing through the seasons again. People choose to live in the countryside because it is just that, countryside. A wonderful place to be but who will come to live here if all there is to see is solar. What happens to people when a fall in property prices ensue. The harm will be lasting. I maintain the right to add or amend my representations should new information become available. Patricia Mitchell 21 March 2023