Representation by John Burridge
- Date submitted
- 1 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I most strongly object to the proposed Byers Gill Solar development on the following grounds, but not in order of priority: 1. The displacement and habitat loss of large numbers of wildd animals of all types 2. The loss of prime , local, prime agricultural land. We are so far from food self sufficiency in this country and we have seen the affect that conflict can have on the availability and price of many food basics.. Brown field sites are prevalent, available and far more suited to the needs of local people 3. The huge volume of solar developments (8 sites) already granted permission or under construction ilocally will have a massive negative impact on the local area 4. The inefficiencies of solar farms when compared to other renewables Food security In terms of the broader context, the UK's agricultural land is already under immense pressure, with declining productivity and alarming rates of land loss. In the Houses of Parliament on 21st March 2024 a debate was held to consider the matter of food security and the effects of it on environmental change and insect decline. According to DfERA the UK produced 58% of its own food in 2022 and imported 42%. Building vast arrays of solar panels on prime agricultural land makes this situation worse by further reducing the UK’s valuable food production capacity and exacerbating food insecurity. The RWE Byers Gill development is proposed on Grade 3 arable land resulting in an immense loss of fertile farmland. Surely, food security alone should be a sufficient reason to ban this solar development on fertile farmland. National Planning Policy Framework The Byers Gill Environmental Statement 6.1. chapter 1.6.4. states the Environmental Statement takes into account the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 [NPPF]. The developer however seems to pay scant regard to the following section of the NPPF: NPPF Chapter 11 Making Effective Use of Land, states in sub paragraph 123. “Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.” Furthermore, “Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land. The 2019 National Planning Policy Framework and most local government plans also state that development of Best and Most Versatile land should be avoided, where possible, if there is land of poorer quality or a brownfield site in the district. RWE have not demonstrated in any measure that the social, economic or environmental benefit of this development clearly outweighs the agricultural value and furthermore, they have failed to explore other more suitable alternative sites for the development on land of poorer quality. The fact that this area was in the past referred to as Industrial Teesside confirms the plethora of brownfield and previously developed sites which could be used for this industrial development. In addition, 128 Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting. How can thousands of acres of solar panels, 2 metre fencing, security CCTV cameras, infra red lights, dozens of 42meter arrays of battery storage units, and a sub station maintain the prevailing character of the landscape? NPPF Chapter 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment states planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan). b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; The land around the Great Stainton area has been classified as grade 3. This is prime agricultural land for this area. The sub grading of a & b is determined by the soil conditions year on year and is affected by inputs/weather conditions. The grade 3 soil in question has produced both cereals and oil seed rape of significant yields in recent years and in the past has produced potatoes and strawberries. The land around Great Stainton is not poor quality, it is productive agricultural land. We cannot afford to squander our best and most versatile farmland on industrial ventures that offer minimal benefit to society. The dubious regrading of land by RWE to force this application through is cynical and shortsighted. Any encroachment on agricultural land by profit-driven developers like RWE jeopardises the future of our English countryside and tears the heart out of our rural communities. The area The Byers Gill Environmental Statement 6.1.1 describes the site location in 1.5.3 to be “located within proximity to the villages of Bishopton, Brafferton, Great Stainton, Newton Ketton, Old Stillington and Redmarshall, amongst others. These areas and their surroundings are agricultural fields, and have trees, hedgerows, access tracks, woodlands, and farm holdings scattered within them.” The Oxford dictionary definition of proximity is nearness or closeness and in the case of Great Stainton, Byers Gill Panels area C & area D, will be within 62 metres of one property boundary and encircle the village to the east and south. The description above of “agricultural fields, trees, hedgerows, access tracks, woodlands, and farm holdings.” Perfectly describes the setting i.e. beautiful English countryside. Great Stainton is a hamlet of 26 houses plus a handful of outlying farms. We don’t have a huge community to fight this development and yet 100% of residents oppose the plans. Great Stainton village has a considerable elevation in relation to the land around it. Views to the south and east and north give panoramic views of the countryside stretching to the South of the Cleveland Hills and East to the Teesside & Wilton urban areas. Much of the proposed panels would be visible in these directions to village residents. Moreover, on an elevated site mitigation using hedgerows, will be limited in its effectiveness and will take a generation to have any practical effect. When the four other panel areas A Brafferton, B Hauxley, E West of Bishopton F North of Bishopton which make up the Byers Gill development are taken into account, the total area of the combined [6] sites, is approaching 2000 acres, turning the landscape described above into a dystopian industrial landscape. The communities around the Byers Gill Solar development would bear the costs of this project, in the changes to their lifestyles and surroundings, but the financial benefits would go to very few namely a handful of farmers and RWE the applicant. The overwhelming number of solar developments (8 sites) The Byers Gill development will be in addition to 8 solar developments already granted planning permission in this immediate area by Darlington and Stockton Councils, namely (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) The impact will be agricultural land loss plus the loss of food production capacity and complete desecration of a rural landscape. Impact on Residential Amenity According to The Landscape Institute Technical Guidance Note 2/19 Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) section 5 - Summary and Conclusions section 5.1 States ‘The purpose of carrying out a Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) is to form a judgement, to assist decision makers, on whether a proposed development is likely to change the visual amenity of a residential property to such an extent that it becomes a matter of ‘Residential Amenity’. Potential effects on Residential Amenity are a planning matter and should not be judged by landscape architects’. Furthermore section 5.2 states - The threshold at which a residential property’s visual amenity becomes an issue of Residential Amenity has sometimes been described as the point when ‘the effect(s) of the development on the ‘private interest’ is so great that it becomes a matter of ‘public interest’’. The planning system is only concerned with public interest. In certain circumstances, however, the effect of the development is so great that it is not in the public interest to create or allow ‘such conditions’ where they did not exist before. This is sometimes referred to as the ‘public interest test’. Based on these guidelines, the scale of the Byers Gill Development along with the 8 additional solar power stations means the cumulative impact of so many solar panels will, without question, be a matter of ‘public interest’ creating conditions where they did not exist before. I believe therefore the visual impact of the solar developments constitute a planning matter. On these grounds alone the planning application should be refused. Climate Change There are repeated claims by RWE in the NSIP application stating the ‘green’ credentials of the proposals, and their efforts through the development to combat climate change. RWE justification for this development in Document 6.2.3 Environmental Statement Chapter 3 section 3.3.3 states “On 17 January 2024, the revised energy NPS were designated. NPS EN-1 identifies at paragraph 4.2.4 that there is a critical national priority (CNP) for the provision of nationally significant low carbon infrastructure. As such, it is considered that there is clear expression in relevant national policy of a needs case which supports the delivery of the Proposed Development.” This supposed needs based case for the Byers Gill development and RWE’s stated efforts to fight climate change must not come at any cost and must not betray our collective environmental responsibilities to future generations. RWE through this solar project, clearly places the need to combat climate change higher than the need to arrest declines in biodiversity. However, tackling climate change and the current biodiversity crisis are not separate issues. The health of ecosystems and the state of the climate are intimately linked, with both impacting one another. This effort by RWE to green wash this application as an attempt to fight climate change while disregarding ecosystems’ integrity is, therefore, inherently contradictory, and poorly thought out. Based on both of these factors, this project could not be considered an aspect of a ‘just transition’ to renewables. The whole point of farmland is that it is already a solar farm that turns sunlight into food energy. Planning policy sets out to conserve and enhance natural environments, respect ecological integrity and uphold agricultural sustainability. Planning guidance on solar development needs to be made much clearer to stop companies like RWE putting forward totally inappropriate lucrative proposals to develop subsidised eyesores which wreak havoc in rural communities and destroy our green and pleasant land. It's time to prioritise the preservation of farmland and explore alternative sites that minimise ecological impacts, aligning with the principles enshrined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Consultation by RWE Document 6.2.3 Environmental statement Chapter 3 section 3.4 Stakeholder Engagement gives a wholly inaccurate summary of the consultation process local residents experienced. 3.4.2 states “Feedback on the design of the Proposed Development was sought through statutory consultation carried out between 5 May 2023 and 16 June 2023.” In reality feedback was gathered via questionnaires which were lengthy, paper based and biased. As an example of the immediate bias in the questionnaire, question 1 asked “Do you support the use of solar farms as part of the mix of renewable electricity generation required to meet the UK Government’s commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050” Individuals who completed the questionnaire were promised a response by RWE. It later transpired responses would only be forthcoming if individuals contacted RWE and asked specifically for a response to their questionnaire. I pursued this offer with RWE, then chased a second time as I had not received a response. The statements below are an excerpt from the eventual response I received from RWE: 1. My claim - Impact to wildlife/biodiversity; statement regarding the impossibility of no impact – “We acknowledge that Byers Gill Solar is located in an ecologically rich area, surrounded by important sites and many protected species. There are expected to be no direct impacts from Byers Gill Solar on these sites, woodlands and hedgerows during the operation of Byers Gill Solar.” How can such a claim be credible, let alone true? Furthermore the statement fails to address the impact of the construction phase which will last between 18 months and 2 years. “The Consultation Report (Document Reference 5.1) provides a detailed account of the feedback received in response to statutory consultation and how the Applicant had due regard to the matters raised. It also reports on the design changes that were implemented as a result of the feedback” This claim also made in the published RWE document ‘You Said, We Listened’ is false. Design changes were NOT made as a result of feedback, they were actually made because a local landowner withdrew from the scheme. 2. My Claim - Cumulative impacts: “We acknowledge the range of views expressed in response to the statutory consultation, particularly relating to the cumulative and in-combination effect of this Project with other developments also proposed in the local area. Within our Environmental Statement, which will be submitted as part of our DCO Application, we have taken into account and assessed the combined and cumulative impact on other proposed, in planning or in-construction developments, and seek to conclude the overall effect of these, should they all be built. The list of developments included in the assessment has been agreed upon in consultation with Durham County Council, Darlington Borough Council and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council. It is important to note that projects which are already in operation are not included specifically in this assessment, as they have been considered part of the 'baseline' information.” This statement does not address the impact of multiple developments and how can cumulative impact be assessed when RWE decide not to include projects already in operation? 3. My claim - Impact on roads/damage and safety concerns. “We acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the anticipated disruption during the construction stage. We will seek to minimise disruption as much as possible during the construction, operational and decommissioning stages, as will be outlined in our Environmental Statement. There is an expected movement of 8 HGVs per day during the construction of the project, which is not expected to increase traffic flows significantly.” I have witnessed the construction of the Whinfield solar farm, a tenth of the size of Byers Gill and can categorically state that the above claims are factually incorrect and completely misleading. 8 HGV’s per day? What about other plant and earth moving machinery. The responses provided by RWE show complete contempt for my concerns. 4. My claim Destroying landscape, loss of view, planting of hedgerows not enough as mitigation and inadequate “Our Environmental Statement provides an assessment of the landscape impacts and associated mitigation required as a result of the project, so that the effects on visual amenity are avoided or reduced wherever practicable.” How can RWE claim with any credibility that effects on visual amenity will be avoided when panels reach over 3 metres in height, stretch over multiple fields, are sited on undulating land and are placed in open countryside? Furthermore, how can they claim to mitigate the impact of visual amenity with hedge planting which will take many years to establish, be poorly maintained and is unlikely to reach the height of the panels, fencing battery units and associated infrastructure? “ We will also be preparing and submitting a Design Approach Document (DAD) which outlines the approach taken to the design development of the project, including how the design has been shaped and influenced by the local landscape, and with local communities and their enjoyment of the local area in mind.” This final claim is completely ludicrous. Community engagement has clearly demonstrated a complete rejection of this scheme, and to claim the design has been influenced with local communities and their enjoyment of the local area in mind is completely laughable and totally untrue. Further, if the Byers Gill scheme has been shaped and influenced by the local landscape, it would not be proposed in this area. I believe the above goes some way to factually illustrate the falsehoods behind the claim by RWE in section 3.4.3 “The Applicant has continued to engage with relevant stakeholders in finalising the design and assessment of the Proposed Development ahead of the submission of the DCO application.” This may well be due to the fact that RWE know there is overwhelming opposition to this development as illustrated in Document 5.2 Consultation Report Table 6-2 Key themes raised in response to the statutory consultation feedback questionnaire effectively sums up the feelings of all local residents. In their summary of questionnaire responses, RWE have the summarised the response ‘concern regarding…’ on 46 occasions. Mental health impact 1.7 Footpath east of Great Stainton I am a keen advocate of open access and notice in the developers plans, footpaths currently enjoyed by local people, would be re-routed and worse still have 2 m fences erected on both sides of the footpath. How can this be acceptable when a walk is an opportunity to view the open landscapes, rolling farmland and the Cleveland Hills beyond. These local footpaths were my family’s salvation during Covid and they remain an important part of each day walking our dog. No one wants to walk in an area surrounded by glass and metal panels which are over 3 metres high. I have witnessed the construction of one of the above-mentioned solar developments which is 2.4 miles from Great Stainton, Whinfield 21/00958 Brafferton Lane, Darlington this winter. The site is one tenth the size of the proposed Byers Gill development. Construction continued despite the severely wet winter and waterlogged ground conditions; The soil within the site, as a result has been compacted and this will limit water entry and cause waterlogging. Furthermore, plants are not able to grow on severely compacted soils, hence the suggestion by RWE that wildflowers will be sown and will thrive under solar panels is a myth. As a local resident, the lengthy construction phase has caused disruption to my daily life. Roads are covered in a perpetual sea of mud which has gone on for months. The road surface has been and continues to be damaged by heavy vehicles with potholes appearing daily. Noise and vibration as the panel mounting frames are driven into the ground can be heard/ felt miles away. When I contemplate the fact that Byers Gill will be developed 130m from my property, be ten times the size of Whinfield and take 18 months minimum to construct, the resulting impact on my mental health due to lack of sleep and constant worry is considerable. Natural England: On their website, the above public body and the government's adviser for the natural environment in England state In England many of our rarest and most threatened species are listed under Section 41 (S41) of the 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act. In response, Outcome 3 of the Government’s Biodiversity 2020 strategy contains an ambition to ensure that ’By 2020, we will see an overall improvement in the status of our wildlife and will have prevented further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species.’ Protecting and enhancing England’s S41 species is key to delivering this outcome. This strategy was furthermore superseded In 2022 at the UN Biodiversity Conference, when the UK formally made a commitment to protect and conserve a minimum of 30% of land and sea for biodiversity by 2030, known as 30x30. The strategy confirms wildlife-rich areas have benefits for people, by providing clean air and water, healthy soils, beautiful places to visit both within the town and wider countryside; and bolstering our resilience to climate change. We cannot underestimate how important 30x30 is particularly in reversing species decline by 2030, creating and restoring large areas of new habitat and ensuring people have access to greenspace. 30x30 will also be essential in helping to build, a national network of wildlife-rich places to restore, enhance, increase and connect nature, and enable people to connect with nature, it will give all of us more opportunities to enjoy nature for our health and wellbeing, as well as contributing to climate resilience and mitigation. The above ambitions cannot be ignored nor can the fact that Biodiversity Net Gain, places a requirement on developers to provide 10% more or better-quality natural habitat than there was before development. RWE confirm in their Environmental Impact assessment that decisions are made in full knowledge of any likely significant effects on the environment. Viewpoint analysis Summary 6.4.7.3 Environmental Statement Appendix 7.3 Landscape and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment prepared by Stephenson Halliday planning, landscape and environment consultant describes Landscape Value around Great Stainton in the following manner: Natural Heritage “The woodlands in the centre-east of this landscape character area provide shelter and habitats for various species, while broad verges and small becks may act as pathways for species travelling between habitats. Newton Ketton Meadow is a small SSSI in the centre of the area, and there is a local wildlife site at Carr House Pond.” Cultural Heritage “The course of a Roman road runs through the area.” Perceptual (Scenic) “An attractive rural landscape contrasting with the urban areas nearby”. Perceptual (Wildness and Tranquility) “The area is generally quiet with few roads passing through, and there are many opportunities to access this rural landscape.” Amenity and recreation “There is a good network of rights of way through the area, which has few roads.” In terms of factors affecting, the susceptibility of the landscape around Great Stainton to the change likely to result from the Proposed Development it is stated: Scale “… LARGE in scale on elevated ridges, but much smaller in scale in visually contained areas. Many human-scale features including trees and farmsteads, and small villages.” High/ medium Landform “A more rolling terrain than elsewhere in the Borough, and relatively elevated, with rounded hills and enclosed valleys, though with few strongly distinctive landforms.” Judgement of susceptibility HIGH/MEDIUM Landscapes that form settings, skylines, backdrops, focal points “Skylines in this area are formed by the rounded hills and ridges of higher ground, often with trees” Judgement of susceptibility MEDIUM Overall judgement of susceptibility HIGH/MEDIUM Overall judgement of sensitivity MEDIUM To understand these judgements and get a clear picture of the setting for the village and the landscape please see 6.4.7.2 Environmental Statement Appendix 7.2 Illustrative View E - View towards Great Stainton from north and Illustrative View F - View towards Great Stainton from east. This theoretical visualisation study clearly shows that up to 40% of the proposed development may be visible to the majority of the houses that are in the village. No other community is as detrimentally affected on this scale. 6.4.7.4 Environmental Statement Appendix 7.4 Viewpoint Analysis View Point 17 Has been taken from the Public Footpath{PRW} east of Great Stainton. RWE state “This viewpoint offers open, elevated views across the landscape to the east and south of Great Stainton, views north and west are constrained by rising ground and buildings in the village. It takes in a broadly rural landscape, punctuated by farms and villages with pylons and glimpses of urban development on the outskirts of Stockton on Tees seen in the distance to the east.” They also state “Solar PV modules in nearby Panel Area D would be seen in open view but would be set down below the viewpoint, retaining open views out above” How can this claim to be ‘set below the viewpoint’ be substantiated when the panels outlined in the document are 3.5 metres high and the fall of the ground between the viewpoint at 90 metres above sea level and the start of the panel area at 85 metres is a mere 5 metres? A five metre fall in ground hight does not constitute ‘being set below the viewpoint’ when one factors in the panel heights at 3.5 metres. Furthermore, RWE claim “Panel Area C would be screened by the shed adjacent to the viewpoint” This is a complete and utter falsehood. The shed in question lies to the Northeast of the houses on Glebe Road which face east . The panels in area C are to the Southeast. The shed will not screen any views from any homes whatsoever. RWE have very cynically in my opinion, included photographs in Appendix 7.4 Viewpoint Analysis which completely misrepresent the true views from all properties in the village facing due East. Furthermore in this same description of viewpoint 17 RWE state “moving just to the east, the modules in the south eastern corner of this area are likely to be visible, seen relatively distantly and just to the side of Byer’s Gill Wood. Panel Areas E and F are theoretically visible to the east but would not be discernible amongst layers of vegetation”. Firstly, moving to the East of Viewpoint 17 takes you down the PRW into a field, secondly, all modules in Panel Area D will be visible from this point, as will all panels in Area C and finally, layers of vegetation, claimed to screen Panel areas E & F are only going to provide a screen for 6 months of the year when hedges and trees are in leaf. To further destroy and utterly change the character of the landscape caused by the Byers Gill development RWE acknowledge “From this one viewpoint there will be three other solar developments, already passed, operational or under construction visible from this point “Lambs Hill Wind Farm is a relatively prominent feature seen in the middle distance to the northeast. Gately Moor solar farm may also be visible to the southeast once constructed although will not be a particularly notable feature within the expansive view. Similarly, Long Pasture Solar Farm may also be visible to the south” RWE’s claims confuse and mislead the reader. This section totally misrepresents the actual views from properties as RWE have chosen to take photographs from behind a shed which obscures any true views. In reality there will be views of multiple panels on multiple developments. Whilst as a complete contradiction it is then confirmed by RWE under the heading Predicted Changes to views “Permanent: Solar PV modules in the fields to the east would be screened by the mature hedgerows which would be maintained to allow views out above. To the southeast, the nearest edges of the Panel Area would also be screened by hedgerows, but panels would be seen beyond, extending over lower ground in front of Woogra Farm” Hedgerows cannot screen 3.5 metre panels, neither are the proposed hedgerows mature – RWE have stated saplings will be planted, these take 10 years or more to mature. As a final untruth, misrepresentation and total contradiction to claims outlined in their same document RWE state “Cumulative: No proposals currently in planning would be visible from here”. The reference to Great Stainton Elstob Lane at point 18 describes a similar litany of misleading information. Firstly, it yet again does not appear to be from a point that is representative of the houses within the village. The view from the road is not in accordance with the reality of the geography and topography of the area. For the majority of houses in the village the impact will be severe both during construction and throughout the life of the project due to the elevation of the village. Throughout this section, the report has diminished the visual effects on the village and the extent of the panoramic views from all homes facing East and South. Section 6.4.7.3 Environmental Statement Appendix 7.3 Landscape and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment Landform clearly describes “The village itself is largely on level ground, set above the vale to the southeast and below a gentle rise to the west”. Biodiversity, wildlife and habitat loss RWE Environmental Impact assessment states that decisions are made in full knowledge of any likely significant effects on the environment. With reference to this statement made by RWE who clearly acknowledge above that the environmental impacts will be significant, The Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 states: (3)Without prejudice to section 40(1), the Secretary of State must: (a)take such steps as appear to the Secretary of State to be reasonably practicable to further the conservation of the living organisms and types of habitat included in any list published under this section, or (b)promote the taking by others of such steps. RWE as an attempt to ‘green wash’ have commented “Eight land parcels currently used for intensive agriculture across the Order Limits to be used for biodiversity enhancement and sown with species rich wildflora meadow grassland, with the aim of increasing insect diversity to improve foraging habitat for species such as birds and bats” and “Area underneath panels to be sown with a low maintenance grassland while between panels and to margins they will be sown with legume rich herbal ley/wildflora mixes, this aims to improve soil health and insect diversity such as pollinators to improved foraging habitat for species such as birds and bats.” The whole proposition that a) disparate parcels of land will be accessible to wildlife which currently have thousands of acres to move around and b) to suggest that flowers will grow in shade is complete and utter nonsense c) that foraging habitats for bats and birds will be IMPROVED! There is absolutely no evidence to support these claims, a further misrepresentation of the future reality and lasting damage this development will have. The very fact that RWE feel it is necessary to make such claims points to the fact that they are aware of the wide scale and lasting habitat destruction this development will cause. To give an insight into the rich and diverse wildlife and varied habitats, 6.7.7. The Biodiversity Data Search, obtained in March 2022 from Environmental Records Information Centre (ERIC) Northeast, returned 82 records of legally protected species and an additional 1,181 records of noteworthy species recorded from places within 1 km of the Order Limits. Noteworthy species include species of principal importance that are listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. 49 records are of amphibians, 930 are birds, one is a fish, 92 are invertebrates, 185 are mammals (of these, 40 are bats) and six are plants. More specifically, the Wintering Bird Survey 6.7.24. states wintering bird populations were recorded within pasture and arable fields which provided a range of foraging opportunities, this was reflected in the diversity of bird species recorded. Whilst hedgerows separating fields were not of significant value for wintering birds, they were used by low numbers of a diverse range of species, including various species that have undergone significant national decline. Species recorded in hedgerows included little owl, tree sparrow, willow tit and yellowhammer. Furthermore, section 6.7.31. acknowledges, based on the numbers of these species recorded within the study area, populations of skylark, tree sparrow and yellowhammer were assessed as being of up to county level importance, whilst populations of grey partridge, lapwing, curlew, and reed bunting were assessed as being of up to District level importance. Amphibians including Great Crested Newts, are likely to be disturbed see section 6.7.37. A total of five ponds were recorded within the Order Limits with four of these ponds considered to have potential suitability for GCN. Adjacent to the Order Limits four ponds were recorded with three of these ponds considered to have potential suitability for GCN. Furthermore there is inevitably going to be a massive and lasting impact on bats, see section 6.7.47 a total of 222,698 bat registrations were recorded for the study area with a mean registration rate of 38.58 bat registrations per hour (B/h). The majority of bat activity was from common pipistrelle (71.8%) and soprano pipistrelle (13.7%) bats which accounted for 86% of all bat activity. 6.7.48 records habitats of high value for commuting and foraging bats were shown to be the network of hedgerows across the study area and small pockets of woodland. These areas support invertebrate activity and provide a roosting network for bats and finally, 6.7.50 states the value of habitats across the Order Limits for commuting and foraging Nathusius’ pipistrelle is assessed as being of County value based on the low number of registrations recorded across the study area and the regional populations of this species with a restricted distribution in the north of England and due to a near threatened conservation status. I observe each day on my walks across these fields, the activity of hares 6.7.63. Several brown hares were seen within the study area and there is suitable habitat for them throughout. Hares favour a mosaic of arable fields, grassland and woodland edges, which are all present within the Order Limits. In addition, there are over 45 records of brown hares within 1 km of the Order Limits; demonstrating that the Order Limits and the wider area is highly suitable habitat for hares and supports a good number of the species, also in 6.7.65. Red deer and muntjac have been observed anecdotally within the Order Limits but no formal surveys have been undertaken, however, I can confirm there are healthy populations of both deer species as well as badgers in the area to be where habitats will inevitably be destroyed. Ponds The Environmental Statement Chapter 6-Biodiversity 6.7.11. States “most of the hedgerows, ponds, areas of woodland and watercourses (particularly Byers’ Gill and Bishopton Beck) qualify as local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats and/or habitats of principal importance, being listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006.” Furthermore, Table 6-4 Non-statutory Designated Sites within 1 km of the Order Limits states that Carr House Pond Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is important with regards to its neutral grassland habitat. RWE claim to have a desire to enhance biodiversity and yet they propose to destroy this LWS immediately adjacent to the Order Limits, in fact the panels will be sited less than 10 metres from the pond in question. This solar development appears to place the need to combat climate change higher than the need to arrest declines in biodiversity. They state their intention is to tackle climate change yet they completely disregard the current biodiversity crisis. RWE have demonstrated scant regard for the health of ecosystems and their so called effort to fight climate change while disregarding ecosystems’ integrity is, contradictory and poorly thought out. This whole section of the planning proposal clearly demonstrates RWE have no regard what so ever for local wildlife, ecosystems or habitat. The solar development will, unquestionably lead to habitat loss such as hedgerows, trees and watercourses due to the changes in land use. Byers Gill will cause significant habitat degradation. To produce solar power on an industrial scale, you need a vast amount of land as well as long rows of three-metre high panels, the RWE proposals include installing inverter and transformer units, substations, miles of cabling, infra-red CCTV cameras and storage facilities. Building a solar farm means displacing large numbers of mammals, birds, insects, and other wildlife. Bird, mammal, and bat populations and habitats will be fragmented due to fencing, battery storage units and panels . Changes to habitat will lead to a reduction in foraging bat insect prey and a loss of roosting habitat when the trees, listed for removal, yet suitable to support roosting bats are destroyed. Birds will lose breeding and foraging habitat provided by hedgerows and trees, ground nesting birds such as curlew and lapwing, hares and red deer will leave the area due to the placement of solar panels. National Policy Statement EN-1: Policy compliance 4.1.5 states in considering any proposed development, in particular when weighing its adverse impacts against its benefits, the Secretary of State should take into account: Its potential adverse impacts, including on the environment, and including any long-term and cumulative adverse impacts, as well as any measures to avoid, reduce, mitigate or compensate for any adverse impacts, following the mitigation hierarchy. RWE have not demonstrated any meaningful measures to mitigate the horrendous impact of this development. Their drive for profit at any cost whilst claiming to be tacking climate change rings hollow in the face of reality. Summary There are other solutions which work in harmony with the environment. Solar needn’t go on agricultural land. The place for solar is on rooftops. We have thousands of acres across the country of entirely empty roofs on distribution centres, warehouses, factories, and commercial buildings which RWE aren’t considering. In the Daily Telegraph 3rd April 2024 A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman said: “We are reducing pressure on rural communities by making it easier for solar panels to be installed on industrial rooftops, warehouses, car parks and factories, cutting through the red tape that limits the amount of solar businesses can currently install”. “We continue to support deployment of solar panels on brownfield and low and medium grade agricultural land, to help us achieve our ambition of 70GW solar capacity by 2035.” The Byers Gill site proposals in light of this statement should not be granted a DCO. The Byers Gill development furthermore does not accord with the government strategy as set out in the recent energy security strategy namely that large schemes should be sited on lower value land. In this drive towards the 70GW target, we are in danger of destroying landscapes we hold dear in England and small communities like ours are being forgotten.