Representation by John Bernard Jack Adeney
- Date submitted
- 14 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to the proposed plans for Byers Gill Solar Development. I am a local resident and my home directly overlooks panel area D of the proposed development. The property shares a boundary with panel area D and the nearest panels will be located 120m from the property. In the visibility study conducted by RWE, for viewpoint 17 (50m N of my property) it states, "Solar PV modules in nearby Panel Area D would be seen in open view but would be set down below the viewpoint, retaining open views out above." This is currently an undisturbed view that reaches as far as the Cleveland Hills and the 1m high fence marking the edge of where the closest panels will be, is visible from our property at ground level. Therefore, the suggestion that this will not impact the views from the edge of the village, when the height of panels is ~3.5m, is unrealistic. Furthermore, the development will cause a number of the local footpaths to both be moved, as well as hemmed in on either side by panel areas. I walk my dog daily in the local area and this will therefore significantly impact my ability to do this. I am also concerned at the significant impact the development will have on my property. We have recently invested a lot of money to convert our property with the view of living in the property for a long time and raising our family here. Having a development of this kind in such close proximity to the property would significantly impact these aspirations and could also greatly impact the value of our property and ability to resell. The entirety of the Byers Gill development is on productive farmland. By changing this into an industrial area this will not only remove it from producing food, something the Government has stated that it will not do, for the 40 year period of the development, but, additionally, it will also irreparably damage the land following the end of the development. As part of the construction all topsoil has to be removed from the site to enable footings to be established for both the panels and battery areas. This will not only destroy the local flora but will also compromise the quality of the land and risk contamination of the soil whilst it is removed and when it is replaced. There has been no clear plan put in place for where and how this topsoil will be stored for the duration of the works and, as has been seen in other local solar developments this is not only a very destructive process but has also created a huge amount of mess and disruption in the surrounding area as it takes place. This has been exemplified by the Whinfield development, currently being built just down the road from the village. Furthermore, I have concerns that there are no studies which show the impact that the presence of the panel, batteries and other elements of the project will have on the land. RWE have tried to reassure us that after the 40 year lifecycle it will be simply returned to productive farmland, as if nothing has happened, however, there is no evidence to support this, and, much like during the construction of the development, it’s deconstruction is also likely to be hugely disruptive to both the land and residents of the local area. I also have major concerns over the siting of the development. On a macro level, Byers Gill is due to be one of the largest solar instillations in the UK. This alone means it will likely have a disproportionate impact on those who’s homes are surrounded by it. This is before it is considered that there are seven further developments taking place all within the surrounding. A number of these, for example Whinfield development, are in extremely close proximity to Byers Gill, and therefore compound its effects. This is demonstrated on RWEs Environmental Statement Figure 7.7 Visual Receptors, however, the cumulative impact on local residents doesn’t seem to have been broadly considered in their consideration on impact on local residents. I’d like to make it clear that I support the transition to green energy supply for the United Kingdom but what I object to in this case is the approach to it. The proposed maximum output for the development produces the equivalent to that of three wind turbines, whereas it’s impacts on the surrounding are significantly greater. On top of that the area we live in is not well suited to solar with low points of generation for the development potentially being as low as 11% in winter months. This clearly doesn’t provide either a reliable source of power or a good return on the resources being used for it. We have been told that the reason for the location of the development is purely to do with where there is availability in the grid. Firstly, in line with the point above this does not seem like a particularly logical way to sight a resource dependent power source. You wouldn’t dig a coal mine on a no-viable seem just because you had access to the mine. But as the developers will receive no gain or impact from how effective the farm is it does not matter to them. Secondly, there is ample brown field sites available in the surrounding areas where this grid space is available, yet productive farmland has been chosen. This is purely for commercial reasons and again demonstrates that the construction of this development in neither driven by good sustainable out of renewable energies, or use of appropriate land but rather by the commercial desires of RWE to make as large a profit as possible, with little regard for the product or impact on those who live in the area.