Representation by Jacqueline Stephens
- Date submitted
- 7 April 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object in the strongest possible terms to the Byers Gill Solar development. I have many concerns about the destruction of the environment, wild life loss and long term disappearance of prime agricultural land, which this development will bring. However, the focus on my objection is the inaccurate and misleading references, descriptions and conclusions throughout the JBM documentation sections which focus on our property. My husband has been a resident in Great Stainton for 50 years and myself for 30 years. We bought our property in 2007, as a derelict barn and we spent 4 years of work and care on renovations. We feel privileged to have been able to do this and enjoy our lives here. We love the village and its residents. Document 6.4.7.6 Environmental Statement Appendix 7.6 Residential Visual Amenity Assessment RVAA – Panel area D Illustrates the size and scope of the proposed panel areas surrounding Great Stainton. Hawthorne House – Property Reference P6 is in fact our property [REDACTED]. Any checks with the land registry would confirm this. JBM have clearly shown the boundary of our property NOT Hawthorne house which is next door. Within the village our property is closest to panel areas and in JBM’s Document 6.4.7.6 Environmental Statement Appendix 7.6 Residential Visual Amenity Assessment RVAA Property Reference P6 they stated ‘changes to the views would be large scale’ they go on to state ‘the effects would be Major/moderate and Adverse’. This description does not make any sense how can something be both Major and Moderate. The result in reality will be catastrophic, long term and extreme large in scale. Our property is described as having a small front garden with parking. However the driveway is 60m long, both sides planted. Large iron gates lead to a significant cobbled area with parking for at least 20 cars. In addition there are lawned areas with planting of many shrubs plus many mature trees for example eucalyptus, silver birch and a 60 foot Ceder Tree. Incorporated in this supposedly small garden is a roundabout with dimensions suitable for a full-sized fire engine as per our building regulations specified by the local planning authority. Beyond this area is a big courtyard and colonnade leading to the house entrance. To the West there is an orchard planted 15 years ago with mature apple pear & plum trees. I believe this again is an example of at best sloppy research and a total lack of care in writing this planning proposal. Document 7.6 Property reference P6 also states ‘limited visibility from the house’. In reality the house, converted from a brick-built granary c 1780 enjoys the uninterrupted panoramic views of the Tees Valley with the Cleveland Hills beyond. There are 8 windows facing South on the ground floor each approximately 2.5m x 2.5m. Four of the windows open onto a large South facing terrace 500sq m with seating and dining area. Upstairs there is 1 window 1.5m x 1.5m. In all there are 3 windows facing East 1m x 2.5m. JBM by contrast state, inaccurately, ‘the property has one large window to the South Facing Gable End’. With the number quantity of windows described above, it is totally inaccurate to claim ‘limited visibility from the house’ as stated by JBM. The main living room, inaccurately described by JBM as a conservatory, is in fact an existing, brick building – a ging gang - a feature of old granaries which was the engine room powered by horses to grind the corn. This is the main living area which houses a library and desk with large sofa’s to enjoy the views to the South and East. JBM in this same property description state ‘there are views from the garden looking East though these are more incidental to the amenity and look out to grassland and a gappy hedge and through to the field beyond’ JBM fail to acknowledge this view to the East is also one of the main views from inside the house from this ging-gang, our main living area. A more accurate description of the view would be of rolling farmland, ancient hedgerows, the Cleveland Hills and Roseberry Topping a famous local landmark. JBM further describe the property as ‘having been designed to take advantage of the elevated outlook to the South and South East’ Appendix 7.6 RVAA Viewpoint 1 Great Stainton which was taken from the terrace by a JBM consultant. The photograph gives only a very narrow outlook onto the valley. Clearly misrepresenting the view and only illustrating a small portion of the vista JBM themselves describe as to the South AND Sout East. This photograph is totally misleading when, in reality, the whole of the Tees Valley can be seen from the spot where the picture was taken. To further mislead, direct views to the South Southeast where panels will be closest to the property, the visual impact has not been shown. This is clearly an attempt by JBM to deceive by lessening the visual impact of the panels. In the paragraph on Construction and Decommissioning Document 6.4.7.6 Environmental Statement Appendix 7.6 Residential Visual Amenity Assessment RVAA – Panel area D Property Reference P6, JBM acknowledge ‘construction activity within Panel Area D would be visible from the house and garden’ Panel area D is to the East and South East. JBM fail to acknowledge and have conveniently overlooked the fact that the additional construction of Byers Gill Panel area C which is to the South is also going to be visible from the house and garden. In addition, they state ‘the construction activity would be short term and the scale of change would not be greater than the operational development’ This is completely untrue and misleading as document 6.2.11 Environmental Statement Chapter 11 Noise and Vibration describes construction work going on for 12 hours each day from (0700 to 1900 hours) and Saturdays (0700 to 1300 hours). Furthermore the construction phase is estimates to be between 18 months and 2 years. When all of the above inaccuracies are taken into account, it is preposterous for JBM to conclude in the RVAA Judgement ‘During all stages of the proposed development the magnitude of effects would be below the highest level of magnitude and effects would not reach the RVA threshold’ Since the plans were proposed the effect on myself and my husband has been dramatic. JBM at all of the meeting we have attended have dismissed and belittled our concerns. [REDACTED]. I am also unable to stop thinking about the impact this development will have on my life and the lives of others in the village. The noise and vibration during the period of construction [REDACTED]. Large scale machinery as the panels legs are driven into the ground will destroy the peace and tranquillity. During operation high 2m fences, CCTV cameras and infrared lighting will turn this rural idyll into an industrial dystopia. When I contemplate the fact that Byers Gill will be approximately 100m from my property, I hope you are able to understand the resulting impact on my mental health due to lack of sleep and constant worry will be considerable.