Back to list Byers Gill Solar

Representation by Sarah Nobbs

Date submitted
17 April 2024
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses

I object to this NSIP proposal by RWE for the solar power plant named Byers Gill. I am a local resident of Great Stainton Village. I am utterly horrified by the proposals and the disregard proposed by RWE. Below I have outlined the grounds for my objections, and highlighted the misinformation given in the evidence supplied by RWE. I have below provided a summary of my objection, before discussing in detail some sections further using the subheadings below. The Byers Gill NSIP would be the largest close concentration of solar farms in Europe. I would like to draw the NSIP panels attention to the fact that these proposals would result in substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of adverse impact on openness, visual amenity, and impact on amenity of users of the well-connected nearby Public Rights of Ways and Bridleways which cross or lie adjacent to the application site. The proposed very special circumstances of the wider benefits of renewable energy generation associated with the application (and other wider environmental benefits) do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt contrary to paragraph 149 of NPPF which requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the green belt. In these circumstances the proposed development is therefore considered contrary to the Planning policies of paragraphs 147, 148, and 149 amongst others of the NPPF. The inappropriate use of green belt land for large solar farms is further highlighted in The House of Commons debate document number CDP2022/0051 on Large Solar Farms, and in the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1). Just this week (week commencing 8th April 2024) Planning Minister Lee Rowley , on behalf of Michael Gove ruled that “very special circumstances do not exist” on green belt land in Aldenham (application 21/0050FULEI), due to the harm that it would bring to the landscape and the area would outweigh the importance of green energy. The case for Byers Gill is no different. The British Energy Security Strategy on the gov.uk website outlines that ground-mounted solar developments should be encouraged on previously developed or low value land to ensure we avoid using Green Belt sites for these industrial developments, therefore we must not allow this proposal to go ahead and destroy these 100s and 1000s of acres of Green Belt land in this area of the country. This area is experiencing a death by a thousand cuts onslaught of solar farms on our agricultural land. Eighth developments alone are already signed off within a 4km radius of my village of Great Stainton (Planning references: Long Pasture 22/01329/FUL, Whinfield 21/00958, Gateley Moor 22/00727/FUL, California Farm22/1511/FUL, Letch Lane 21/2290/FUL, High Meadow farm 15/1826/FUL, Thorpe Bank 20/2131/FUL, Low Middlefield 20/2692/FUL, Hunger Hill 15/00484/FUL, Burtree Lane 22/00213/FUL) surely it is beyond all reasonability to approve yet another solar farm in these villages. We are seeing a ‘gold rush’ of renewable energy companies remote from this area taking the opportunity to financially conquer this land as it is a cheaper option for this development, not because it is an appropriate option. The rural environment we all desired to live in is being irreversibly destroyed. The accumulative effect to land quality, soil structures, environment, natural habitat, ecology, pollution risks and flood risks is enormous, yet RWE haven’t considered quantifying this impact in evidence, but instead have provided 1000s of pages of greenwashed evidence and discussion avoiding the truth and common sense of this matter. The National Planning Policy framework in paragraph 137 states that the government attaches great importance to Green Belts. With the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of green belt areas are their openness and their permanence. The evidence supplied by RWE contains misinformation, inaccuracies, and a disregard to the magnitude of what the reality of this development will mean for the residents, nature and environment. Many of the inaccuracies are greenwashing of the reality of this proposal. This area is a very rare undisturbed section of green belt amongst industrial Teesside, many people visit the area for walks to immerse themselves within the beautify ecology and nature this area boasts, this gives people invaluable mental health and wellbeing opportunities. The proposed solar power plant across this area will irreversibly destroy this tranquil Green Belt land, and should be viewed as an atrocity, and a misjustice to rural England. This is outlined in Paragraph 151 of the NPPF that state ‘When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development.’ This is why I am objecting to this planning application. I walk on the local footpaths multiple times each day and are often lucky enough to see species including barn owls, deer, lapwings, bats, water voles, curlews, sparrowhawks, toads, newts as well as a plethora of beautiful flora and fauna. Ecological environments won't simply adapt and learn how to go through the correct corridors on this development, they will be destroyed. One alarming example to illustrate this is in document 6.3.2.15 Environment statement figure 2.15 which outlines that the fences which will surround this solar power plant are 2m high, this would keep all wildlife out, however to overcome this RWE are proposing to put in a ‘200mmx200mm mammal gate’ in one side of the fence, how is the wildlife meant to adapt in reality to use this to access their shelters, and food sources? In a time of extreme global instability food security concerns are heightened. This land is high quality agricultural land that we are proposing to destroy in place for poor yielding renewable energy sources. Solar panels are an inefficient method for capturing renewable energy compared to other options, it takes approximately 200 acres of solar panels to generate the same electricity as one North Sea wind turbine, therefore this should be deemed as a very inappropriate use of prime food growing agricultural land. Solar panels produce ragged electricity due to cloud cover or overcast skies which are especially prevalent in this area of the North of our country. I have lived amongst this community for 29 years and experienced first hand the agricultural productivity here, which contradicts the regrading of this land to lower grade agricultural land. Much of this land use to be distributed to the community as glebe land and was renowned for its quality and fertility, allowing the growing of Strawberries amongst other foods. The farms in this area support multiple families, and work across multiple generations identifying that this is not poor agricultural land as these desktop studies try to portray that RWE have submitted. Many of my friends gained employment locally on these farms and within the wider agricultural industry, which in an area of depleted employment opportunities compared to the national picture would additionally be an incredible loss if these opportunities were taken away if the farming on these fields stops in place for a solar power plant comprised of manmade structured. These documents attempt to claim that the building of this solar power plant will bring jobs to the local community, however the reality is that this will be very unlikely and a short term opportunity if provided to local residents and not external contractors. Community engagement I would like to object to this NSIP planning application on grounds of inappropriate community engagement. This planning application and the theatre surrounding it in the leadup to the DCO being submitted has been extremely stressful to be part of as a local resident. The impact to my wellbeing and mental health is irreversible, and spades aren’t in the ground yet. I live in a property in the village of Great Stainton which is set to be closest in proximity to the development, yet we still have never received any communications or information from RWE about the proposals through our letterbox when others have. I would like to highlight some of the truths about the process that has been going on in reality around the community engagement for this NSIP, as it strongly contradicts the positive picture of community engagement that RWE have misinformed about in their planning application documents submitted. This is a feeling felt by the vast majority of members of the community too. We tried to attend a community engagement meeting advertised by RWE. The meeting was advertised as held in a venue 20 minutes drive away by car in Stockton, even though there are plenty of community venues within the development area proposed that RWE could have used to be more accessible. When I arrived at Stockton RWE were not there in the address that they had published on their community engagement communications. At the request of RWE I filled in the questionnaire sent out for community engagement, I have never received a response to this even though the company told us they would. The company issued a document called ‘You said we did’ following the completion of 100s of questionnaires from the community, this included numerous errors, including misinformation. This included RWE claiming that they have removed a great portion of the land for the development for our benefit as local residents, when the truth is the landowner never agreed to their land being used in the first place. Documents supplied to the community and planning show no clear information about the substation. The documents show in section 6.3.7.9 Environmental Statement Figure 7.8 Zone of Theoretical Visibility – that this substation will be visible from my home. This is a tranquil rural area of precious unobstructed green belt, adding structures such as substations will cause irreversible damage to the characteristic of this landscape. This also shows that Carr House will not be able to see it which is inaccurate as the elevation raise between the substation site and Carr House is less than 4m, and they are located in very close proximity to this substation which feels like a total disregard of the health and wellbeing to Carr Houses residents. RWE have been deceptive with their engagement and release of information, for instance only after the planning application was submitted did RWE release the details of the batteries which are 50m away from my house, and each one is bigger than my home which was quite a shock to digest. Environment and pollution I object to this planning application on grounds of the impacts it will have to the environment and pollution. It was only ~15 years ago that we had the same attacks on this rural community from wind farm proposals, they were rejected at the time due to the impact on the environment here, so it is beyond belief that we are now facing the same attacks from solar power plant developers. The environmental nuisance that this development will create are outlined by RWE as dust, noise, pollution, artificial light and vibration. This is currently a quiet rural environment, the characteristics of this environment will therefore be irreversibly destroyed by this development. Of great concern is that this area is all a feeder catchment to water courses locally such as the River Tees and Tees estuary. There have been recent environmental concerns here regarding shellfish deaths, therefore why should we further contribute to fragile and vulnerable receptors such as this with further environmental destruction and risks of pollution within the catchment? We require energy during our winter months to heat our homes, but this will be when the panels are lease effective. Therefore large portions of the year this destruction isn’t even justified for the benefit of energy generation. The electricity generated by a solar farm is only 11% of the installed capacity during winter months. This is grossly inefficient and doesn’t justify the destruction of our rural environment and loss of productive food producing land in a time of food security crises amongst the Ukraine war. The proposed batteries are only 50 m away from my home. There is a significant risk of explosion and fires in these batteries due to thermal runaway within the lithium-ion batteries. The cumulative storage of the Byers Gill development batteries in this development would make it one of the largest nationwide which poses a huge risk to the local area, wildlife, land and communities as a fire hazard. Only a few years ago in the summer of 2022 we saw multiple instances of agricultural land wildfires in England during a drought period, this will become a real risk for this area with the addition of these enormous batteries. The reporting additionally notes that the battery fire safety is also a significant risk to emergency responders. This safety element should therefore be very carefully considered by planning as this is putting many lives and livelihoods at risk for unavoidable reasons. RWE are proposing to mask the sites with trees and hedges, but they will have little effect for at least 15 years until they are established. They would also have to be maintained around areas of footpaths which is unlikely. In addition, from an environmental viewpoint RWE are heavily leaning on the argument that there will be wildflower meadows growing beneath the panels and sheep will graze the land. This is grossly inaccurate. There is no legal requirement for the landowners to graze sheep on this development, and if they are getting a generous rent from RWE then why would they with challenges such as not being able to round up their livestock due to the rows of solar panels. Additionally, wildflowers will not grow on ground where there is no sunlight as the panels above are being installed directly for the purpose to capture this sunlight. Whilst the CGI images on the front of these RWE reports look impressive the reality if non-existent that this would happen, and that’s before considering the alternatives too of increased pollution and flood risk to this land. Misinformation in documents submitted to NSIP planning: I would further like to object to this NSIP planning application based on grounds of misinformation and greenwashing in their evidence supplied to the planning inspectorate. For instance, I have read all 1000s of pages of technical documents supplied by RWE for this NSIP proposal. I cannot find a consistent answer amongst the documents for the total size of the development. I am also concerned over some of the statements and claims that RWE are claiming for my local area and the impact that they will have, including statements made in RWE’s flood risk documents which highlight that flood risk will be increased in the surrounding area and downstream areas, and that soil compaction will increase across the panel area. The document 6.4.7.2 Environmental Statement Appendix 7.2 Illustrative views aims to outline some of the landscape views in the area. This is a very poor example of a sequence of images which undersells the rural beauty of this area. The images taken on the footpath behind my house are taken from behind an old pig barn, hence you cannot see the sweeping vista views across to the Cleveland Hills, this is grossly unrepresentative of the view out of our village, and is misinformation to the NSIP panel. I would be happy to provide some photographs which better demonstrate the characteristic of this landscape which this power plant sets to destroy. Topography representation in the document 6.3.7.4 Environmental Statement Figure 7.4 Topography and land cover is a poor misrepresentation of the land the solar power plant is proposed on. This land is significantly undulating, but due to the grouping of legends on this figure it looks far from this. The reality is that the land to the east of Great Stainton undulates by nearly 200 feet across panel area D, so any view of this area will be destroyed by panels as they will all be visible, not just the first few metres of them as these visualisation impact documents are illustrating. These documents make out that the visual impact from my house isn’t ‘major’. I live on top of a hill 90 m above sea level, our vista looks down onto this rural land surrounding the village. I would therefore say that my visual impact would amount to something more in the order of 100% impact which I would quantify as a major impact. The cumulative effect of impacts from this solar farm, and the addition 8 solar farms already passed that are listed above would be destructive to this area in many ways. The NPPF states in paragraph 185 that planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: (a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life 65 ; (b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and (c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation. This is therefore a NSIP proposal which must not go ahead. Ecology I would like to object to this planning proposal on ecological impact grounds. The planning policy provided by the government on gov.uk on Renewable and low carbon energy aims to protect such developments having negative environmental impacts. This development should therefore not be allowed to go ahead. This land contains Local Wildlife Sites, and many rare species of mammals, flora, fauna, and area of SSSI sites. The reporting provided by RWE aims to greenwash this ecological impact claiming it will not damage the ecology of this land however changing a greenfield area of ~2000 acres to an industrial power plant will destroy all ecology and environments within this zone. A great example of our local ecology here is the Local Wildlife Site at Carr House, this is just ~100m from the proposed substation. The NPPF Paragraph 185 planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should: (a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life 65 ; (b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason; and (c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation. This Wildlife pond at Carr House (located at 54°34'32.9"N 1°28'50.3"W) contains many threatened and distinctive species such as water vole, snipe, moor hen, perch, rud, tench, frogs, toads, dragonflies, damselflies, moths, butterflies, common spotted orchids. There is an otter habituating in this area which has been regularly spotted in the pond and across the surrounding land. The planning application is stating that the wildlife will 'rehome' itself but with the solar power plant proposed across the rural land surrounding the village I think this is beyond the realms of possibility and common sense. This Local Wildlife Site stands to have the ~4m high solar panels start just 11m away from it, with the substation located in the field behind it. This is a spring fed pond with a very established margin of well developed flora and wildflower. The planning documents confirm that the construction phase will last over a year, will be noisy, polluting and compact to the soil and increase runoff all of which will irreversibly damage this ecosystem. Local residents enjoy this pond and the footpaths around it to benefit from the wellbeing boosts this countryside provides. We as residents would like to be stewards of such areas to protect and maintain them for future generations and visitors to enjoy. As it stands my family and future generations will not be allowed to experience these areas and their natural beauty due to the destruction that this industrial power plant will inflict on these beautiful areas. Document 6.4.6.3 Environmental Statement appendix 6.3 Breeding Birds survey outlines some of the species which we are lucky enough to have in our local area that this development is proposed to destroy. In the field outside my house I walk the footpaths daily and have regularly seen deer, barn owls, sparrow hawks, kestrels, lap wings, toads, newts, and bats. The ecology reports provided by RWE do not identify these species in these fields around Great Stainton. There is currently a significant population of lapwings in the field 50m away from my property where the batteries are proposed, I enjoy watching their flying displays on a morning when I walk my dog along the footpaths however these birds will have their habitats displaced when the topsoil is removed and the ground nesting birds have nowhere to live due to all of these fields and huge solar panels, fences and batteries are added in their place. This is a total destruction of the characteristics of my local environment which I enjoy living amongst so much. 6.6ft high fencing is proposed around the developments, which for one will be a visual disgrace compared to the current meadow fields. But of greater concern is that this will trap wildlife. There is a comical allowance for this given by RWE in document 6.3.2.15 Environment Statement figure 2.15 Typical fence and gate where it shows within the 6.6ft high fence there will be a hole 200x200mm wide. It is unfathomable how RWE are expecting all the wildlife to wait until the construction has finished destroying their habitats, and then use this small hole to move around the landscape. Mental health impact and my quality of life I object to this planning application on grounds of extreme detriment it poses [REDACTED] wellbeing. I greatly enjoy these green spaces and use the footpaths each day for running and walking my dog. I have just used all of my savings to renovate a derelict house for myself to allow me to live in this community and enjoy these beautiful areas and this is now all set to be taken away from me. The property value of my house, which is a personal financial investment will decrease when the views of rural Cleveland are replaced with an industrial solar power plant out of my kitchen windows, bedroom windows, and garden. My commute to work and local areas will be through an industrial solar power plant, instead of along rural lanes lined with green field land. There is no other option for my mental wellbeing other than for it to deteriorate as a direct impact of this planning proposal here. I really hope that the planning inspectorate exercises a duty of care to myself and the other 100s of local rural residents which will suffer from the same impact. RWE outline the plans for lights and infrared cameras on these developments. I live in Great Stainton village, we currently don’t even have street lights, so the addition of lights and cameras on an industrial solar power plant in the fields surrounding the village is unthinkable in comparison to the dark natural skies we have here. The CCTV and infrared lighting systems are proposed just 350m from property outlined in the document 7.4 statement of statutory nuisance, how can this be allowed to put something so close to residential houses? Furthermore during the construction phase which is set to be over a year long this document (7.4 statement of statutory nuisance) confirms that there will be significant dust, noise, vibration and artificial lighting. This will dramatically destroy the mental health of 100s of rural residents who are set to live among these panel areas. I chose to move back to the village I grew up in and develop a derelict property at 25yrs old investing all my savings to allow me to live in such a beautiful place. I hope to bring my children up here. All of this will be taken away from me with this development. I will be forced to sell my property as I will not be able to bear to live amongst such an invasion of our rural beauty. The RWE documents outline that the noise impact to my property is shown in 6.3.11.6 Environmental Statement Figure 11.6 noise contours across area D. This shows that we will be exposed to levels of 30db aeq 16hours at our home, how is it allowed that I can go from living in a rural village amongst nature and bird song to this? Heritage Assets I would further like to object to this planning application on grounds of destruction to heritage assets and the characteristics of this rural landscape. The property I live in is classified as a culturally significant heritage asset, as such I was required to supply a heritage impact statement for my planning permission for conversion and abide by strict heritage building practices and rules. I was extremely willing to aide by this as I recognised the importance of the building amongst the local community, and only aimed to improve its condition whilst converting it which I achieved. The requirement was applied by the LPA to ensure that it remained within the correct characteristic for the environment and heritage from which it was built as a school pre-dating the national schools act in 1847. My opinion would therefore be that to allow a solar farm just metres from its back door to be erected to destroy the characteristics of the environment in which this building is within should not be allowed. There are further incredibly important heritage assets within the village which are also exposed to this destruction including the Church which has masonry dating back to the Saxon period. Document 6.2.8 Environmental Statement Chapter 8 Cultural Heritage and archaeology states that no non-designated heritage assets were identified – this is not true as demonstrated above. View and proximity I object to this planning proposal on grounds of its proximity to my house (less than 100m away) and its destruction of my view. From my kitchen window, bedroom windows, and garden I currently have an uninterrupted view to Cleveland hills. It is spectacular and the reason I live here. It is one of the best views in the county. RWE assesses the view from my house as up to 120m, and therefore say its not very impacted. How is 120m a fair assessment of the view from my vista on top of a hill where I have an uninterrupted view of 40km to the Cleveland Hills? Document 6.4.7.3 Environmental Sensitivity appendix 7.3 landscape sensitivity analysis notes that the views from Great Stainton are green, pleasant, striking, and expansive with scenic views particularly to the Cleveland Hills and Roseberry topping to the south east. A solar industrial area cannot be allowed to be put in its place. Document 6.3.7.7 Environmental Statement Figure 7.7 visual receptors shows the impact to our visual receptor from Great Station which has a large view point. It shows that we can see the majority of the development proposed from this location. This map also maps out where the other solar developments in the area that are already passed are – there is not much untouched green land left. The battery storage units which are set to be bigger than my own home are proposed to be built just 350m from my property in panel area D. They are located on the footpath which I walk daily for my health and wellbeing with my dog. This land is beautiful and is currently home to a large community of lapwings, deer, a sparrow hawk, and a barn owl. Additionally this land has been flooded numerous times this winter alone, with wrack marks visible across the footpath where exceptionally high beck levels have flooded across this area. Surely this is not an appropriate place to put batteries. Document 6.3.2.12 Environmental statement figure 2.12 typical switchgear shows the size of these developments, these are not going to blend into the environment at 12.5m wide x 2.8m high. Flood risk I object to this planning proposal as it will increase my flood risk. We are lucky enough as a community to live in relative harmony with flood risk currently however there are some alarming statements made by RWE regarding that this flood risk will increase. Lives, livelihoods and properties will be at risk if this development goes ahead. In the documents provided on flood risk by RWE they state that the construction of this development will increase surface runoff and overland flow. We already have a highway surface flooding issue in this area with many roads impassable during heavy rain in both the summer and winter. Just this morning (9th April 2024) I couldn’t get through the road through Bishopton due to flooding. This is therefore of great concern that this water will be increasing with this development. RWEs reporting also states that it will increase soil compaction to the land, this will have further drainage and flooding issues within the catchment and increase flood risk for residents and people who live downstream on our rivers. Changing the characteristics of an area of land as big as 2000 acres from green field, covered in vegetation and agricultural land to industrial land, covered in solar panels will have an adverse effect on the rainfall runoff, drainage and flooding in this area by cumulative effect. Of further concern is climate change and how flooding is set to increase with warmer wetter winters so these issues of flood risk are only going to increase too. The report also outlines that 6800m2 of land is going to be changed to impermeable land in Appendix 10.1 of RWEs Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, this will impact flood risk. 6.6ft high fences are proposed around the sites, and batteries are proposed on land which is currently in standing water and had been for most of the winter. This is not an appropriate place to build a development like this. The fences will also act to trap debris and increase the flood risk locally when we get overland flow on this area proposed and they pose a blockage risk. The department for energy security and net zero’s EN-1 report states that “Energy projects should not normally be consented within Flood Zone 3b , or Zone C2 in Wales, or on land expected to fall within these zones within its predicted lifetime. This may also apply where land is subject to other sources of flooding (for example surface water). However, where essential energy infrastructure has to be located in such areas, for operational reasons, they should only be consented if the development will not result in a net loss of floodplain storage, and will not impede water flows.” But my local planning authorities website (Darlington) shows that parts of this development around Bishopton are in flood zone 3b. This development therefore should not be allowed to go ahead. Community I object to this solar power plant NSIP proposal based on grounds of destruction of a rural community. Rural communities in England are fragile groups, contain vulnerable members and are slowly disappearing. We pride ourselves amongst these villages as a strong rural community and regularly gather for socialising and community celebrations. Some members of this community do not have computer access and are computer illiterate, some members also cannot drive. The community engagement carried out by RWE therefore further isolated these vulnerable members of our community. Additionally this NSIP is almost impossible for these residents to be able to respond to as paper copies for objections were not provided, when requested by another member of the community there was a bounce back email saying that the NSIP department would take up to 40 days to respond, how are these residents meant to put in their responses? The opportunity for the community to come together and enjoy the setting we live in for celebrations will no longer be possible if we live amongst a solar power plant, with batteries and substations littering the rural area we live in. A huge amount of pride is present in residents over their properties and gardens, this will unlikely also be maintained on the solar power plant. As shown in document EN010139, 6.4.7.6 Environmental Statement Appendix 7.4 Residential visual amenity assessment the land owners who have put in the land for this development, highlighted in this document as ‘financially involved’ mostly live nowhere near the developments and thus are not impacted, instead it is the rural communities who set to be destroyed by this development. Soils I object to this planning application on grounds of soil reclassification. The soils in these villages are classified as grade 3. This area is prime agricultural land for this region. The sub grading of soils happens on a year to year basis affected by inputs and weather conditions etc therefore this grading is painting a potentially subjective opinion of the soil quality in this area. In recent years as a local resident I have seen significant yields provides in both cereals and oil seed rape on this land contrary to RWEs grading this area as poor land. In addition the proposed construction outlined for this solar farm outlines the removal of 25cm depth of topsoil across these fields during the construction period. This soil will be irreversibly damaged, and render this land of ~2000 acres useless for anything other than industrial uses. It will take many years to return to the soil functioning for use as farmland once the industrial components are removed in 40 years time. There are no details around where this soil is to be stored during the construction period. The nearby Whinfield solar development has been constructed throughout this winter period which has been one of the wettest of our time, soils here are being destroyed through compaction and smearing in these conditions which would also happen across the Byers Gill area. Highways I object to this planning proposal as I am currently as a local resident having to navigate past the Whinfield solar farm development just 1 mile up the road. This is really sobering to see as the highway is being totally destroyed by the HGVs accessing this solar farm construction site, there are 100s of potholes on the road within a 1 mile reach around the site entrance due to the construction traffic, and there is often mud and debris littering the road surface. Highways around solar farm developments are therefore extremely dangerous places. The roads in this area are minor rural lanes with barely enough space for two lanes, HGVs are not going to easily navigate these windy roads and the local councils struggle to maintain them in the current lighter use. It will add significant stress to commutes and local journeys having to navigate these site entrances and also cause an increase in damage to local residents' vehicles. This year I have had to replace my front offside suspension twice due to driving on this poor highway already. There is a huge amount of school traffic and commuting traffic into Darlington and onto the M1 using these roads, therefore the impact will be severe.