Representation by Alan Pilkington
- Date submitted
- 7 April 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to the proposed development for the following reasons: • It is an inappropriate use of productive farmland. The fields to be covered in panels have been growing crops for decades; their loss, combined with similar schemes across the whole country, will compromise future food security in the UK. There is no need to compromise food security for energy security. Solar power stations can be equally effectively located on former brownfield industrial sites of which there are many in Teesside and Durham. • It will change the character of the local environment. Bishopton, for good reason, is a conservation area presenting a traditional rural village community. The huge scale of this power station, on top of the ten others in the locality already approved (and equal in size to those ten all put together) will transform the surrounding countryside into an industrial landscape. The loss of visual amenity will not only affect those who live in the village but also the many town dwellers of Stockton and Darlington who visit the area to walk, cycle, and ride horses in a pleasant and life-affirming environment. • There are health and safety concerns. The oppressive environment created by surrounding the village by black fields, container-sized battery storage units and inverters, high security fencing, and CCTV cameras will affect the mental health and well-being of the residents both long term and during the highly disruptive development stages. In addition, there are concerns about the battery storage units which have been known to catch fire spreading noxious fumes, of particular concern as some are to be located close to homes and the primary school. • There will be detrimental effects to businesses. If the village and surrounding countryside becomes an industrial site and less attractive for walkers, cyclists and horse riding, there will be a knock-on effect on the pubs and riding stables located in the area. Similarly, the school, located on the edge of the village looking out over green fields, currently serves pupils from families outside the village who value the rural setting. If this changes the future of the school will be put at risk. In all cases the short-term disruption caused by excavating a power cable trench the length of the main route to, through, and from the village will present additional problems, placing businesses in a position from which they may not be able to recover. • There is potential for damage to property. Excavation of a power cable trench along the High Street in Bishopton is likely to damage the roots, and therefore the future viability, of mature trees that line the road and give the village much of its character. Similarly, many properties lining the route are hundreds of years old and there is concern that the excavations will cause structural damage where foundations are old, weak, or non-existent. • It infringes my rights as a subsoil owner. My property is adjacent to the proposed cable route through Bishopton, which apparently means I own the subsoil beneath the High Street up to the centre of the road. I do not consent to this excavation as I believe it will potentially cause structural damage to my house. • Decommissioning plans are inadequate. The proposal refers to reinstatement of the land back to its original (agricultural) use “as far as possible” after the forty-year lifespan of the solar panels. However, there are concerns over contamination from damaged panels and from leaking battery storage units. There are no safeguards to ensure the significant cost of decommissioning can be met by whatever private sector company by then owns the facility (it has already changed hands once during the planning stage). The cost of decommissioning should be paid up front in the form of a bond or trust to ensure it is available to finance the work when it is needed.