Representation by James Gooch
- Date submitted
- 4 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object in the strongest possible terms and am appalled at the proposals to destroy thousands of acres of prime farmland and a rural landscape in the spurious claim that it will somehow combat climate change. 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. Natural England, the government's adviser for the natural environment states: Protecting and enhancing England’s S41 species is essential to achieving Outcome 3 of the Government’s Biodiversity 2020 strategy, which aims for an overall improvement in wildlife status and the prevention of further human-induced extinctions of known threatened species by 2020.This strategy received further reinforcement in 2022 at the UN Biodiversity Conference, where the UK committed to conserving a minimum of 30% of land and sea for biodiversity by 2030, known as 30x30. Recognizing the benefits of wildlife-rich areas for people, including clean air and water, healthy soils, and opportunities for recreation, the strategy emphasizes the importance of 30x30 in reversing species decline, creating new habitats, and enhancing climate resilience. The admission by the developer that this scheme will impact species loss and biodiversity and yet somehow will be developed sensitively to fit in with the rural and agricultural landscape is farcical and not supported by any evidence in the DCO. This alone should be sufficient reason to reject this proposal. RWE, in their Environmental Impact Assessment, acknowledge the importance of making decisions with full knowledge of potential significant environmental effects. However, these claims cannot be seen in isolation as the proposed Byers Gill development, is in addition to eight other solar developments already approved in the area by Darlington and Stockton Councils. The cumulative impact of so many industrial developments in such a small geographical area will, without question, lead to massive agricultural land loss, reduced food production capacity, and the degradation of rural landscapes. It's crucial to consider the requirements of Biodiversity Net Gain, which mandate developers to provide 10% more or better-quality natural habitat than before development. Ignoring these ambitious goals and the cumulative impact of multiple developments on the environment risks undermining biodiversity conservation efforts, the long-term sustainability of ecosystems and quite frankly the long term future of the countryside we all value. I urge you to reject these proposals and seek alternative, brown field or industrial sites for the siting of solar development.