Representation by Great Stainton Parish Meeting (Great Stainton Parish Meeting)
- Date submitted
- 12 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Parish councils
Great Stainton Parish Meeting Comments Context Great Stainton is a small community with the hamlet consisting of 27 houses and is situated on the highest piece of land in the area, having panoramic views to the west, south and east of farmland and onto the Cleveland Hills situated in North Yorkshire and then down the Vale of York. The land is undulating with shallow valleys and peaks to the topography. If the county boundaries were different the area may well have been regarded as part of the North York Moors national park. The character of the area is agricultural and supports a wide variety of wild animals and birds. In recent years, gardens have been visited by deer, foxes, hares, hedgehogs and a wide range of invertebrates and birds, some of which are migratory. The area is popular with cyclists and the road that runs by the edge of the village provides a link road between Darlington and both Newton Aycliffe and the A1 travelling North. At the main commuter times the road is very busy and the village speed information monitor indicates that there were 86,614 vehicle movements in the latest 4 week period on the road (13/04/24-11/05/24). At non-peak times and at weekends there are numerous cyclists on the main roads and on the roads surrounding. The village seat is well used by cyclists and walkers. Most of the 27 properties within the village have views onto the land proposed for the solar farms and supporting infrastructure in the proposal by RWE. Several of the houses will be within 100m of panels and some as close as 70m. Objections 1. The proposed development by RWE is already causing divisions within the local community. Landowners who have consented to structures being placed on their land have withdrawn from the local community. Of the 27 households there is only one that has expressed any support of solar power and this has also caused resentment and arguments. 2. If planners consult the map of the proposed development they will note that the scale of the RWE development will be present on 3 sides of the village. The plans themselves have caused considerable anxiety for 26/27 households, many of whom are elderly. There is a fear that the village will be surrounded by a sea of black panels and this will have a negative impact on the mental health of the residents. It has been reported that those seeking to sell their property within the village cannot get a valuer to come out as a planning proposal, as they are unable to determine a value for the properties concerned. Elderly residents wanting to downsize are now trapped in their properties and this is causing considerable anxiety to them. 3. The mitigation proposed by the developers re. screening the panels, battery storage units and relay stations will not be effective for this village due to the elevation that the village sits at and the undulating nature of the landscape. What mitigation is proposed will take many years to be effective and during the winter months be of little use. Many aspects of the proposed development will be visible from the village for miles. The reports within the proposal acknowledge that this village will be adversely affected. In the document ’Planning Inspectorate review of Early Adopter Programme products associated with Byers Gill Solar’, it is noted that the author writes the following: Para 3.51 references local policies in relation to good design, which include creating ‘attractive and desirable places’ as an objective. It isn’t clear where or how ‘placemaking’ is addressed. This is increasingly an important consideration for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Para 4.7.1 of the 2024 EN-1 states: ‘Applying good design to energy projects should produce sustainable infrastructure sensitive to place, including impacts on heritage, efficient in the use of natural resources, including land-use, and energy used in their construction and operation, matched by an appearance that demonstrates good aesthetic as far as possible.’ It is also noted in the application by RWE itself that it acknowledges that the residents of Great Stainton will be adversely affected and mitigation measures will only be minimally effective. The Environmental Statement Section 6.1.1 states: ‘From Great Stainton, there would be frequent, close views of the Proposed Development, and it is likely the solar farm would become a key characteristic of the area…… The effects are considered moderate adverse and greater during operation, considered a significant adverse effect.’ (8.3.1) ‘Following the maturity of new planting in years 10-40 some of these effects would reduce, although would still be considered significant for the majority of receptors.’ (8.3.3) The effect on the community of Great Stainton is admitted by the developers to be adverse, substantial, and long lasting. This appears to be at odds with the principles of good design and the proposed development has the hallmark of an application that has been designed on a desktop using digital maps and without the necessary consideration of the effects of such a proposal on the local community or its environment. 4. There are a number of other smaller sites already being developed and proposed adjacent to the RWE proposal that will add to the blanket coverage of the area with solar farms/factories. Not only will residents be able to see these farms from the village, travelling to other locations, West, South and East will compound the effect of living within an industrial landscape. 5. There is considerable concern for the wildlife that currently enjoys the area should the development go ahead. Poaching and rural crime is already an issue that the local police are having little success in stemming. The fencing surrounding the solar farms/factories will funnel larger wildlife down channels which will make the poachers' life a dream. The fencing and farms themselves will disrupt/destroy tracks and paths used by the wildlife. There is little information on the effect of the scale of the fields of panels (The equivalent of 1200 football fields) on bird life and of migratory patterns of visiting birds in the winter. 6. Claims that the land will improve during the life of the solar farms are spurious at best. It is well known that plants devoid of light do not thrive. The idea that sheep and poultry can graze the land where the solar farms are is fictitious. The grazing under objects that create a shadow is not nutritious and sheep work in flocks which the panels arrangement does not allow. There is then a problem if sheep do go in the farm areas of actually rounding them up. Farmers in the area see this idea as inappropriate and the photograph used in the proposal by RWE we understand to be a stock photograph taken in a small development where the sheep were subsequently removed. As such, it’s use is a deliberate misleading of those it is seeking to persuade. 7. There are also claims that the set aside land will be abundant with wild flowers etc. Again, the claims by the proposal are against the evidence relating to how wild flowers flourish. 8. The land that the RWE development proposes to use is productive agricultural land. The company claims that much of it is of a poor quality (grade 3B or worse). This is at odds with the actual production and productivity of the land. Local farmers who are not part of the RWE proposal have raised concerns in respect of this. There is local concern that the results within the application have been taken to satisfy the results of the application. 9. There is concern at the effect that the proposal will have in relation to local flooding and run-off from the fields. This autumn, winter and spring have seen many fields saturated and the runoff onto local roads has caused considerable disruption. Houses in this village will not be liable to flooding, but access to it has been an issue. Parts of the proposal will be situated on land that contains water courses, ponds, streams and land drains that run onto adjacent land not within the RWE proposal. An example of this is the sub-station close to Great Stainton. Here concerns are that pollution from both the construction and operation of the plant will become apparent on that land which water flows onto. 10. Much of the drainage within the fields in the area is of an age where it has not been mapped. The construction of the panels, using piles driven into the ground to a depth required, is likely to damage or destroy the drainage systems in place. This will exacerbate the run-off effect on local roads. The effect of the scale of the panel area on run-off does not appear to have been modelled. As observed earlier, in the Great Stainton vicinity the ground is undulating and the proposals see panels placed on the south facing hills. This would seem to suggest that the run-off in the valley areas will be accelerated. 11. There are concerns with the construction phase of the farms. The road systems in the area are of a poor quality and the route from the A1 is narrow and busy. Although it will be argued that the construction phase is temporary, the estimated 12-24 months to complete is considerable and the driving of piles into the ground will be a constant noise. As the village has so much construction in the area on the proposal then we can expect a high degree of noise. 12. We understand from other developments that have taken place of a similar nature to the RWE proposal, that increased levels of crime have been an issue. Considerable quantities of fencing and panels have been reported as being stolen during the construction phase. These reports are of a concern as bringing organised criminality to areas of development. 13. There is significant concern in the village that the battery storage units have the potential to develop faults and to ignite producing ‘thermal runaway’ that is impossible to extinguish. Concerns are that there will be extremely toxic fumes produced and water used (and it must be in a huge quantity) to dampen the fire will produce pollution of the local water courses. We have not seen an adequate plan to deal with this by RWE. 14. In recent years the village church has closed to services, the parish meeting room has been sold off for residential development and the village pub and restaurant has been for sale for over two years. There is speculation that prospective purchasers are being deterred by the RWE proposals and this will be ‘The nail in the coffin’ of any village assets other than private housing. Concluding remarks The scale of transformation that RWE proposes will turn useful, productive agricultural land into an industrial landscape that will blight the lives of many, if not all, within the area. If approved, few, if any, of the residents will ever again see the surrounding area in its agricultural state. The negative effects of this proposal on the mental health and mood of residents in the village is palpable. Already there are several wind farms within a couple of miles of the village and these have been accepted as a productive use of the land. Since the application process has begun there has been a relaxation of planning rules relating to wind turbines being situated on-shore. The RWE proposal is not an efficient use of land, producing a maximum output when there is minimal demand and taking such a huge area of land away from the production of food. Residents are very much in favour of solar panels being used in the right context: this proposal is not such a context and the vast majority of the community of Great Stainton is wholly against the proposal going ahead. We would implore the Board to reject the application.