Representation by Derek Bell
- Date submitted
- 14 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I have lived in the local area all of my 70 years and welcomed change for good (not only the local community but also for the environment) heartedly, however in this instance although I welcome green measures I strongly disapprove of this project. When you look at the proposed development you will note that the development engulfs the village from three sides, which as Great Stainton is placed on the top of a hill (at least 25 metres higher than the immediately surrounding area of development) it means that it will be surrounded by an industrial area of black panels, high rise stands, enormous batteries and un-yieldly fencing. [REDACTED] Due to the above situation the mitigation proposed by the developers re. screening the panels, battery storage units and relay stations will have no effect whatsoever for this village and also local people passing through the area and also those who currently use it for its natural walks when trying to escape their towns and cities. The little amount of screening proposed will take many years to be effective and useless during the winter months. Many visual aspects of the proposed development will be far-reaching and have not been considered by the developers. 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. If the above wasn’t enough 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 solar factories from the village, travelling to other locations, West, South and East will compound the effect of living within an industrial landscape. I feel strongly that this proposal has been constructed to be of the most economical (tying into other amenities) rather than taking into consideration the short and long-term effects borne from it. As an eco-warrior I like to think that we are shaping our environment so that we are nurturing the world we live in, leaving a legacy that our children and their children can grow up surrounded by nature and natural things as well as ensuring we meet our own needs (e.g. feeding ourselves with local produce – to reduce our carbon footprint). This development does nothing with this regard and is using established arable land used for generations to grow crops to over-run a habited area just because it is the easiest and cheapest option. Have we as a country signed up to do this to meet Net-Zero or should we be trying to look at areas already designed as industrial (there are plenty available locally) in order to both look at the energy we need as well as feeding ourselves and keeping our planet green and healthy.