Representation by The McKeown Family (The McKeown Family)
- Date submitted
- 17 April 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Objection to Part of Panel 'A' Byer's Gill Solar by McKeown Family: Trustees of High House Farm, Brafferton, near Darlington DL1 3LE. Background: Byers Gill Solar Plan includes Panel 'A' Brafferton. We are concerned about one part of Panel 'A'. On a map it sits to the North-East of the village. An 'outlier' consisting of three small fields facing North to High House Farm, Brafferton. It is accessed up High House Lane which starts at the end of Brafferton Village. For ease of identification we shall name these three fields the Spur. Objection to the use of High House Lane as construction access and we presume maintenance, emergencies and possible cabling. We object on the following grounds:- 1. The lack of recognition of PRoW on this lane. Number 9 DBC. 2. Incorrect information on which to base your decision, for example the GEART guidelines/traffic and transport assessment. 3. We consider that an in-depth survey of this lane has yet to take place, for example accommodation for the PRoW status 4. High House Lane is a 'green lane' for most of its length, we question whether it can be reinstated to its full historic character. Darlington Borough Council states that the numerous green lanes to the North of the Borough are the gem in their amenity access. We also object to the three fields of the site being developed: 1. The Spur land is post glacial and as such is comprised of hillocks and small valleys. Particularly to the West of this site there will be drainage problems. There will be compaction resulting from the size and shape of the site. 2. The field used to access will also be affected by 'reasonably foreseeable development'. It has already gone to public consultation and is referred to as the Darlington North Link Road. The latter and the Spur are occupying the same land at a pinch point on High House Lane. This could effect our farm strategy in terms of delayed construction. This is clearly a case of 'overdevelopment'. 'Cumulative effect of glint and glare' on our tenants. 1. In construction Whinfield Solar Farm to the North produces 'moderate to adverse' glint and glare directly at the farmstead known as High House. A similar level is predicted on the centre ground of the Spur, a steep valley side. Consideration needs to be given to the 'cumulative effect of glint and glare' on our tenants. We raise this as a 'cumulative effect' with at least two decades of consequence upon our tenants. Existing features of the Spur:- 1. On this small site there already runs a major gas pipe line and broadband cables, that traverse the site. National grid in their documents question the electrical problems that can result from solar instillations in this situation. 2. Historical/Cultural features of the Spur. There is evidence of Romano-British presence and near by the line of a Roman road now known as Catkill Lane. Catkill Lane is situated within the Spur. It is an acknowledged Roman route from the Tees to the Wear. Arial archaeology has established this road runs passes by the SSI known as the 'Carrs'. In the period 100-400 A.D. this was still 'a lake'. The water left behind as the ice melted provided for the invaders a mode of transport by waterway. Catkill Lane is of an era dependent on Romano-British trading. The Spur has a part to play in the meeting of two cultures. So far there is little acknowledgement of this in the application. Specific Concerns for Our Business We could have chosen several areas of concern. We choose to concentrate on the four that will effect our business going forward: A. Access - High House Lane is THE link between the two main land blocks of our farm 'High House'. Running from the village it is part of a typical medieval schema. Along this route our tenant walks his animals and visits his land South of the village to manage his flocks. We regret the the relevant PRoW Management and CMPT are not finalised in this document. The following should also be noted: Under Darlington Borough Council's Local Plan 2016, ratified 2022. Page 76: Section 7 'Employment for Economic Growth' Policy E4. 'Economic development in the Open Countryside'. Point 'b' "Proposals for the expansion of all types of business....should not prejudice any viable agricultural operations on active farm unit". B. Security/Confidential The farmstead stands in the centre of a number of PRoWs. The Northumberland police have recently publicised the fact that solar farms are a target for thieves. We have also a clear exit/entrance to the main road. The developers should be considering their responsibilities beyond the perimeter of the numerous isolated solar sites in this plan. At the moment there is no such consideration. C. Safety BESS storage is in our case too close to a hedge leading up to our farm buildings. We urge greater attention to given to this feature beyond that which is easiest for site maintenance. There are also safety implications for those who reside in the farmhouse when three large developments seek to build in the immediate area. Eg. Will it be possible for the contractors to maintain the Spur site when access is denied by the size-suitable PRoW bridge over the DNLR? (Permission to raise this route given by Ove Arup and the Tees Valley Authority). The provision of emergency services could be similarly queried. How can the developers state "it will be alright if we get there first". Are they forgetting that their cabling would need to go either below or above the proposed DNLR road? What is the affect on the safety of our tenants if this 'elephant in the application' remains unresolved? D. Drainage/ Water Management Our tenant is responsible for drainage on High House Farm. In this he has improved the land he rents. There is a fear that the introduction of some types of mitigation, includes trees, will tamper with the 'status quo'. Immediate neighbours on the boundaries of any solar development are at particular risk. Where is consideration in these proposals to the effect on adjacent land which could arise in the lifetime of a solar plan? Also over the plus 40 years ahead to whom do any of the affected go for recourse? Developers and large companies can 'move on'. Further both solar installations near to our drainage boundaries are owned by global entities namely German and South Korean. The momentum in this application is given to completion of the development, there is a nod to decommissioning, but very little space is given to the operational phase. The long term responsibilities that flow from the latter, so important for all the community, and less entertained in this application. Conclusion The shape of a solar panel is rectangular. We deduce from that a solar plan is at its most efficient when on a large, single and near rectangular site. Byers Gill is not. It would be more concise to refer to it as a 'Solar City'. The fact is this scheme oversees a huge and diverse area running all the way from Newton Aycliffe to Stockton-on-Tees. Were there enough people employed to deal with such complexity? Did they underestimate the research involved? Did a fondness for 'Google Earth' cloud their appreciation of fact? Finally we note here a number of areas which are 'beyond ES'. In other words yet to be decided. "Consultation to take place" etc. Should this application go forward we call for more open and public 'interim updates' in order for those affected to be fully informed.