Representation by Gillian Smith
- Date submitted
- 5 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to register interest in the Byers Gill Solar power development to object and oppose this development in the strongest possible way for the following reasons. Before giving reason I must stress that I am not against renewable energy it does however need careful consideration and should primarily be installed on rooftops. There is sufficient available rooftop space in the UK to satisfy all of the solar power generation required to achieve net zero. The Byers gill development is vast and is part of a significant concentration of multiple developments 8 in total within in a 5km radius around multiple small rural villages. The combination of multiple solar power generation schemes will make this the predominant feature changing the area from a rural agricultural area into an industrial power generation zone. If this was a different form of power generation scheme would the planning system apply the same constraints. It would appear renewable energy is being given preferential treatment without consideration of the impact it will have. Significant areas of quality agricultural land are being sacrificed in order to pursue this development. At a time of trying to achieve food production independence it seems ridiculous to waste good quality land which has for years produced multiple crops not only cereal but other vegetable crops. The developers seem to have ignored this, providing snapshot land grading evidence showing grade 3 B land. The lengthy installation of this power station development will require significant HGV traffic on already marginal roads. Who will repair the inevitable damage to vulnerable roads. It is likely this will be left to the local authority and current experience suggests this will not be carried out. There will be constant noise 6 days a week 12 hours a day from the pilling of panels and other construction activities. The area is subject to significant flooding issues and this seems to have been given adequate consideration using out of date flood surveys. From personal experience the roads around this area are frequently impassable die to flooding and there have been numerous occasion's when access and egress from the area is simply unavailable . Once again who would be responsible for this if the project goes ahead and makes this situation even worse. There are no written guarantees in the developers documentation that this will be the case. The developers have been unco-operative and have actively avoided consultation with the community from the outset. Their main consultation has been with so called stake holders who will receive significant financial benefits from the scheme whilst the rest of the community will be left to deal the huge negative financial impacts in terms of reduced property values potential negative equity and the mental anguish caused by the scheme. None of this is considered in the developers documentation. They refuse to acknowledge the facts of this impact. The scheme is built close to residential communities and includes multiple battery storage areas which are increasingly known to be potentially hazardous. These are in some case within 100 metres of homes and a small school. Would this be allowed if the development was another renewable power generation source. The inspectorate will be able to clearly see that this is not the case with existing wind turbines in the area built well away from residential properties. The developers go to great lengths to quote how the biodiversity will be increased. Showing examples of sheep grazing amongst the panels. This is simply impractical the panels will result in poorer quality grass unable to provide sufficient nourishment for growing lambs. Management of sheep amongst panels will be virtually impossible. Also there is no legal requirement for landowners to graze sheep on the land occupied by solar panels and power generation infrastructure. So why would they? The developers own documentation highlights the multiple species occupying many of the sites in this development including Lapwing, Curlew, Badgers, Otters, deer and many other some of which are red list endangered species. They say some areas have been set aside for the various species. Why on earth would the wildlife decide to move from their established habitats to areas which the developers consider suitable. These areas are completely different from the already established habitats. The multiple sites conflict with existing conservation villages and sites of significant historical interest such as a Norman Church and Motte & Bailey castle. The extensive network of cable trenching is planned to run very close to these heritage assets. The main cable route may run straight through the middle of a conservation village. Why are these impacts being ignored in the rush for Solar. Whilst I accept that there is a requirement for renewable energy Solar is inherently inefficient we live in a country with short days during winter months making solar power generation unavailable for significant periods during the time of year when power demand is at its highest. Surely power generation which is available 24/7 makes much more sense. A recent article on radio 4’s life scientific revealed an interesting fact. The amount of waste from Nuclear power from its inception in the 1950’s right through to 100 years in the future, taking account current expansion, will only produce enough waste to fill an area the size of Wembley stadium . The technology and capacity to handle this waste is already available and currently in use. Nuclear power has the capacity to provide constant generation 24/7 365 days per year. Solar developments will produce massively more waste into the environment with little or no capacity to deal with the waste. This is further exaggerated by the fact that after 10-15 years many of the panels will need to be replaced. It is hard to see why other than the financial incentives on offer why solar power is being considered. The developers claims are inaccurate suggesting a much higher level of power generation than is actually achievable from the proposed acreage of the development. The above comments are a small sample of my reasons for objecting to the development and further detail will be supplied during the examination phase.