Representation by David Todd
- Date submitted
- 5 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly object to the Byers Gill Solar Farm development for the following reasons: The Size and Scale of the Development As a resident of Great Stainton, I am devastated at the size and scale of this development particularly in association with other nearby solar farm projects which already have approval. The total of all sites within 4km radius of the village will be in excess of 2,600acres. Already in the local area 10 solar farms, with at total area of 1,251 acres have been approved for planning or have already been built. These are as follows: (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 ural to industre15/1826/FUL, Thorpe Bank 20/2131/FUL, Low Middlefield 20/2692/FUL, Hunger Hill 15/00484/FUL, Burtree Lane 22/00213/FUL) This is also over and above two wind farms that have already been built in the area. To add another huge solar farm of 1,342 acres on our doorstep, in what is a very small rural area, is just overkill and would substantially change the nature of the area from a rural setting to one that of an industrial landscape. This is not only unfair to the nature of the area but also to those people who live and work there. We moved to our Georgian farmhouse in Great Stainton in 2020 as it was in an area of outstanding beauty and situated in open countryside. The fabulous views from our property are afforded due to the elevated site and look out across rolling hills. This view would be a sea of metal and glass where once was plentiful farmland. We have experienced the glint and glare from such a development and this would be obtrusive to our daily lives in sunny days, particularly on a scheme of this scale. Great Stainton has existed from Roman times, has a number of listed buildings and is a very traditional local village which is just going to be spoilt by being surrounded by an alien landscape. The proposed development is also far too close to the village and is actually within the boundary of the village as can be seen on the RWE site with the grey area being of the development. One part of the solar development is actually within 70 meters of a village property (despite an advised gap of at least 200 meters from housing) As a very minimum, this part of the proposed development solar development should be scaled back substantially. There is no need for a scheme of such a scale in a local area already overloaded by renewable developments. It wouldn’t be a blot on the landscape it would be the landscape. Need Given the current global economic climate, we must retain and enhance our food production in the UK. Due to global warming, crop yields are already declining so we should not lose even more productive farmland to industrialisation and leave ourselves vulnerable to global markets. As the government has confirmed that offshore wind will produce more than enough electricity to power every home in the country by 2030, based on current usage, there is no requirement to use high quality land for inefficient solar farms. Such a huge industrial development would have a devastating negative impact on local wildlife habitats. The cumulative effect of all of the developments would mean that whole swathes of land would be inaccessible to wildlife – how can we morally and ethically allow this to happen? Road Networks The road network around the village is already busy and difficult to access at commuter periods. The additional traffic associated with the development of the solar farm would make an already challenging situation much worse with the roads unsuitable for HGV’s. – how will this increased traffic impact on our daily lives and increase potholes etc on small country lanes. The nearby Winfield solar farm, currently in development, is within 2.5 miles of Great Stainton and the roads are horrendous, with masses of potholes and huge lorries making driving dangerous and sometimes terrifying on the narrow windy roads. The roads have been flooded on a weekly basis and at times impassable. The addition of 2,600 plus acres of glass and metal all set in concrete is only going to add to the flooding issues leaving local communities cut off during periods of heavy rain. The developers have brushed aside this argument at meetings but I don’t feel that this has been looked at realistically. In summary, whilst I would support the use of renewables but not at any cost. This area has already done more than most to contribute to renewable energy and I think that any further development would be at the expense of the very nature of this part of the British countryside. There are other more efficient and effective options are available and indeed other locations that are much more suitable. I would strongly urge the Planning Inspectorate to do the right thing and reject this proposal – we must not condone the ruining of agricultural land and our countryside when other alternatives are available and more efficient.