Representation by Robyn Ashleigh
- Date submitted
- 14 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
“not at any cost… not in any place… not if it rides roughshod over the views of local communities. As we take solar to the next level, we must be thoughtful, sensitive to public opinion, and mindful of the wider environmental and visual impacts.” - Greg Barker, Minister for Energy and Climate Change 2013. The above says it all in my mind. Even in 2013 at the beginning of this environmental journey the then Minister for Energy and Climate change declared that solar should be placed in areas that are appropriate and should not become over-bearing to any community and also be sensitive to wider environmental impacts. Within yards of the proposed sub-station near Great Stainton there are sites of SSI and other noted areas of natural interest as well as well-documented habitats of endangered species and rare animals and birds. It is not possible just to collect these up and move them along! Any sensitivity of public opinion has been totally disregarded by RWE and the company heading up the proposal initially. The required public consultation was abysmal and constructive consultation was positively obstructive, I imagine this was the case as they had no intention of taking local opinion into consideration. The production of their documentation and booklet – ‘You said, we listened’ is far from factual and borders on libel as they declared that they reduced the size of the field as a result of the consultation, however, the truth is that the landowner concerned decided against going ahead and pulled out of the project. The fact that the company would lie about this indicates that their other claims regarding the consultation cannot be relied upon either. A great many questionnaires were filled in showing concerns as well as objections at the initial stages of the project and the proposer promised that each person filling in a questionnaire would be contacted and questions answered. This was not the case at all which reflects yet again the scruples of the company. How can you and the country rely on the data and claims that RWE make when time and time again they have been found to be incorrect, inconsistent and also unreliable?