Back to list Byers Gill Solar

Representation by MELANIE TURNER

Date submitted
15 May 2024
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses

I strongly oppose the Byers Gill Solar Farm project for a variety of reasons: My property is over the road where the substation, numerous panels and several battery storage units will be. RWE hasn't even had the decency to include us or my neighbour "Carr House" in the list of properties that will be massively impacted by this. Yet they want to build this over the road from us? I didn't even know about this project until April last year. So everything JBM, as they were, have said about writing to the full community to let them know about the project and ask them to contribute in the design process is utter rubbish and is simply ticking boxes for the inspectorate. They have been diabolical from the outset. JBM tried to keep the full project under wraps, booking halls for stakeholder meetings under secret names (then incidentally not paying their bill - not great when they are supposed to be such a huge, multi million pound company) JBM told landowners not to speak to each other or their neighbours and to keep it all hush, hush - how is that not being underhand? Instead of contacting householders in the vicinity of the project, they contacted people such as rambling and cycling groups. Is it really going to affect a rambling / cycling group more than someone who lives metres away? It won't be the ramblers / cyclists who will have tens of thousands of pounds wiped off their house prices by having a power plant next door is it? It won't impact them when they are surrounded by huge fences and intrusive CCTV for security is it? Are JBM / RWE going to compensate us all for 40 plus years of loss on our properties or the years of misery living near this? We can't even currently market our properties, as the local agents won't advertise them as they don't have a clue how to value them, with this horrible black cloud hanging over us all. I will be able to see panels from every single perimeter of my property, how is that fair? I won't be able to walk my dogs in my own field without seeing panels, battery storage units or the huge antenna of the sub station. Any direction I travel out of my home I will see panels, every car journey, every walk out, everything I do,[REDACTED]. This is without any of the other health factors coming into play. Panel fires that can't be put out with water. Battery storage fires again, which need to burn out. There have been reported deaths from these, which obviously aren't being openly published as the Government at the moment as net zero is currently the "way to go" not realising they are losing voters in rural communities by the thousands. When I queried the sub station at the consultation last year I was told there was nothing "unsafe" in the substation, so I asked Mary from JBM, why then can the contents of the substation not go into a normal barn, something that won't look out of place in the countryside, she then told me "they couldn't do that, as the stuff was too dangerous to go into a barn" so she totally contradicted herself in less than two minutes. I then spoke to her about how windy our area is and how wind is more effective than solar, which she agreed but said she currently works for the solar part of JBM, so she needs to push solar. So even they know it isn't the correct area for this. Someone else I know spoke to Michael Baker at the Brafferton consultation and was told "they didn't know if the project would actually work, as the substation and its position were a major issue" What does that tell you? The project isn't right, it is simply a money making, land destroying exercise by a company in a now different country, happy to feed off the greed and selfishness of some local landowners on the latest fad, that is why it is trying to be rushed through, before everyone realises how bad solar farms are, but people are waking up to it, even the green groups are realising the devastating effect on our countryside and wildlife. More and more people are not just reading all the mainstream media rubbish since Covid and are actually fact finding themselves. JBM if you look at their financials on Companies House have a very up and down history, previously going into administration. They basically are a company that jumped on the NET ZERO bandwagon and don't care less if the project works for the community or not as long as they get it over the line and get paid. Now they have sold out to RWE using this as a "done deal" seemingly if you look at the RWE website. The whole consultation process has been a joke, trying to keep the project secret, with not enough forms, I was not allowed to take one from the consultation as they hadn't brought enough, they couldn't find me information in their own PIER documents, their refusal to meet the community, a stall on a market in Stockton that was in a different place than advertised and then packed up 2 hours earlier than advertised. We had to print forms off to fill in. We had to pay for copies of documents. They said everyone's form and queries would be addressed but not one person has had any reply and they certainly haven't all been put online or into the planning application, as promised by Micheal Baker at both Parish meetings with him in December. Instead they say that they have addressed it by putting out a new brochure stating that they had removed some land from the project "You said, We listened" which is a complete lie, the landowner pulled out of the project. This is a small community and nothing stays secret. At both of these parish meetings flooding and field drains were brought up by experienced farmers and someone who is a flooding expert, with Michael Baker again promising to come back with answers before the application was submitted. He told us that the Action Group would be able to see the proposals before they were submitted, which didn't happen. This year alone, we have had way more flooding than any other years, with new areas that don't normally flood, flooding massively. The rain fall for our area which would normally be 23 inches has been 39 inches, this is fact! Our action group has created a map showing all of the areas, with photographs of the flooding, dates and positions. At the second Parish Council meeting, Michael Baker told our Ward Councillor that the whole project was hanging by a thread with the land removed, which puts a question mark over the overall output of the project and the figures they are publishing. On other solar farm projects it has been proven that developers have over egged or downplayed figures to get applications over the line. How can RWE guarantee their figures are correct when they haven't been upfront about much else? Micheal Baker Project Manager (JBM now RWE) met with Mark Smith from BVAG (Bishopton Villages Action Group) and Matt Vickers MP at Parliament. Michael Baker stated that they would only be paying for flooding assessments when the project is passed as they are so expensive, so even they aren't convinced about the project, if they don't want to make this investment from their multi million pound profits. This also backs up the substation being an issue, as the land it has been suggested on is on lots of water courses, with ponds and streams leading to spring fed ponds. There are land drains that run into land not owned by any of the landowners on the project, so this again either hasn't been advised to the developer or they simply don't care with their bullish attitude. Having bought my property from the landowner who owns the land the substation has been proposed on, plus knowing he has created some of his own land drains, I would have some huge concerns about the standard of the work, having been on the receiving end of some of his very dubious, cost saving DIY. It is no secret in the local area that he has concerns over failing / failed drainage, that he should have mentioned to JBM / RWE before the project got this far. The run off from these drains could affect lots of wildlife and is in very close proximity to an SSI. Also we are in the catchment area for the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA, which means this should also be subject to the same strict nitrate neutrality testing that other developers have to undertake, our LPA should have flagged this in their response. RWE are also still using images of how the substation will be partially hidden in 15 years time by planting trees, but this is again not correct and should be removed immediately from the proposals as the land they are shown on is no longer in the project. Quite simply though I didn't work my whole life to buy a house in the countryside to have an industrial estate built next to me. The line in law about "not being entitled to a view" doesn't say anything about "putting a power station next to your house is acceptable though" does it? This isn't me being a "NIMBY" or whatever other bull spin all the "pro solar groups'' wish to call it, this is me not wanting my life or my family's lives impacted daily by the greed of local landowners and the goldrush for the grid connections by all of these companies. As well as all of the other factors, I don't want my house devalued, I don't want to not be able to sell if I so wish. I don't want my business to be affected by this project, which it certainly will. Are RWE going to pay to screen all around my property, with trees or hedges tall enough to block all of this out, so I don't have to see this and have my mental health and well being destroyed? Of course they aren't, they haven't even considered our property important in their plans. The sound from the construction will be horrific, the piling sound from another site can be heard constantly, [REDACTED], this will be horrific for them. JBM was taken over mid project by RWE, which now isn't even a British company, so other than the landowners, who is actually going to benefit? Certainly not us, people are being told we will get "cut price energy" so think us campaigning against this is stupid. They do not understand all of the downsides to solar farms on agricultural land rather than on industrial buildings etc or see that our area is better equipped for wind, it even has a W marked on maps for being a very windy area. Why would our Government and local council want a multi million pound, German company destroying our countryside, wildlife, agriculture and food security? Why would we want our countryside cluttered with glass panels produced in China? Have we not learnt from Brexit and Covid that our country needs to be more self-sufficient? This enormous project, on top of all of the other solar farms that have already been approved by our Local council are just too much for the area, our whole countryside is being desecrated and for what, a proven unreliable energy source. RWE have even decommissioned some of their solar farms in Germany and returned them to coal, what does that tell you? At best solar is 24% effective, would you employ and pay someone full time that could only work one day out of 5? I am not against renewable energy, but I am against this, it is the wrong place for these, we have so much wind here the panels will not be stable, they will fall over, smash and look disgraceful. Panels can be damaged beyond repair by wind and hail. I have lived in my property for 6 Winters and each year the wind has been getting worse and worse, if the wind has moved and destroyed some of the items it has, the panels stand no chance, they will end up on the road causing accidents for sure. Is a German company going to care and keep repairing them over and over? A site around 10 miles from us had panels damaged in a storm and they remained in their dilapidated state for around 18 months. These panels should be going on large industrial buildings, new builds etc and more effort should be put into offshore wind, which is way more effective and less destructive. Solar power isn't eco or cost effective, when you read into all of the facts. It is costing £1 million per megawatt to install. Then you have thousands of panels shipped all the way from China, what is the full environmental cost and the carbon footprint for that? Thousands of glass panels from China with an "at best'' 12 year warranty per panel - meaning these would need to be replaced at least 4 times within the 40 year project. The panels are also non recyclable, so to dispose of them they would need to go to landfill, that is not environmentally friendly in any way, shape or form? You just need to think back to Covid and all of the perspex screens that companies have now disposed of that can't be recycled either.The figures just don't add up and nobody seems to be looking to the future, the land won't ever go back to agriculture, it will have been destroyed by a German company who won't care less about our food security, wildlife or any of the landowners when they have made their money out of them. Any screening that RWE is suggesting will be damaged beyond repair each and every time the panels need replacing or we have a storm. As with all of the other schemes, it will be just small sapling's being planted that will take at least 15 years to grow. Tiny screening plants and the ridiculous community fund that they are trying to put forward is simply not acceptable, it will not be adequate to reimburse each and every household for the upheaval during construction or how much this monstrosity will devalue our homes and destroy our daily lives and mental health. No figure will be enough to "pacify" a full community that is dead set against these. Already there is a strain between the landowners and the rest of the community. Lifelong friendships have already been destroyed and for what? One of the solar farms passed by our local Council is currently under construction; there are entrances that have been allowed by Darlingtons Highway department with zero visibility, on blind bends where the road goes into one lane without warning. On less than a mile of road there are 46 freestanding road signs, jutting out into the road as it is simply too narrow for them to sit on the road verges. These have been driven into constantly, damaging people's cars, they are always all over the road which is not supposed to be allowed by the Council who clearly aren't checking up on it. This project is one 10th of the size of the Byers Gill one on a much quieter stretch of road, so how much worse will it be if this is passed too with way more entrances to the different panel areas. Also the mud, damage and potholes on the road since the start of the construction is dreadful. From day one our local Council, have simply rolled over and said "it will go ahead" and expect us to accept it, they have said the consultation phase was acceptable, which it really wasn't and we provided them with a full statement why it wasn't. They should be working on our behalf seeing as we pay their salaries. The letter Darlington Council sent to JBM (as they were at that time) saying that they are happy with the traffic numbers added to the roads, entrances and all the other highway stuff is not inline with the way that they have dealt with other applications in the local area, which shows a clear bias for this project by our Council. One suggested entrance I know has way less visibility than required for any guidance used. I do not know if their reluctance to object is to do with business rates that they will receive or to do with certain landowners on the scheme. They are certainly not speaking up for the community involved. Again, even with the smaller solar farm that is currently under construction, it is already having a negative impact on local wildlife. Twice in the last week alone I have seen small deer in the middle of the day, this never happens - one was in the middle of the road dodging cars and another baby one was in a built up area of houses close to the site. I have also seen 3 dead badgers within a few weeks on one stretch of road. This shows they are already being displaced by a site a 10th of the size of this one. Byers Gill will pretty much join onto this one and the impact on wildlife will be catastrophic. It will also make them more prone to poaching as well as encroaching onto the roads and causing fatalities. The area Byers Gill is on is also subject to two other enormous projects, the controversial Skerningham housing estate and the new bypass road, oddly there is one landowner who has land on all three projects, which is a rather large coincidence. Although I do understand that farming is a difficult and challenging occupation, most landowners have been lucky enough to inherit the land that they own, not everyone has that luxury and if they no longer wish to farm the land they should sell or rent the land so it can be used for its intended purpose for future generations' food security. I do understand the landowner who instigated this full project is not someone from a farming background, but rather an investor who with local land agents got the landowners involved. Obviously the land agents are set to make a huge profit too if this goes through, but at what cost, we can not afford to lose all of this proven productive agricultural land. There is also some doubt as to the grading of the soil, if you read all of the RWE comments / surveys they state that all of the soil is of low quality, but these have not been tested independently. They have been tested by a company on behalf of RWE / JBM so the soil samples could be taken from the edge of a field where the soil quality is known not to be good. The same thing applies to the Glint and glare surveys, if you look at all proposals currently in they are all done by the same company and the findings are always in the favour of the applicant who has commissioned and paid for the survey. This is ridiculous and the findings are incorrect, low sun at the new solar farm currently under construction is blinding due to the various heights of the panels on uneven land, land that is more level though than on this proposal. How are they getting away with this? These huge companies are being allowed to tick this box with a load of drivel that is factually incorrect. It is completely under-reported and downplayed about the amount of bat and bird deaths caused by these panels. Moving through all of the documentation online there are more reports from companies paid for by RWE with derogatory comments about the views and landscapes of each village, with remarks about "not particularly scenic due to the industrialisation of wind farms" that to me is a full admission that renewable energy is destroying the landscape and the application should be refused on that alone. This is where we live, we love our views, we love our homes, our communities and our area, that is why we live here, how dare they class it as not particularly scenic to try and devalue our landscape with throwaway comments like that. The same company on behalf of RWE have taken photographs from certain viewpoints to try and show that the impact won't be that severe, these have all been taken from positions in a way to suit RWE and do not fully reflect the enormous negative impact on the area. This needs to be looked at and compared with photographs taken from said viewpoints by locals. Part of NPPF guidance says that development should protect and enhance environments, this does not. The zonal map produced by RWE showing where you might possibly be able to see panels from is also incorrect and massively played down, they will be seen for miles around and on top of the ones from other sites is not acceptable for one single area. Only the other week at PMQ's Rishi Sunak stated that solar farms should not be put on agricultural land, so why are all of these applications still going through? Even the National Grid have stated that they already have more than enough to meet all their targets. RWE and the landowners are all being very sure of themselves that this is definitely going ahead, RWE are already advertising that it will be fully operational in 2025 in all of their advertising which is very odd when it is still at the planning stage. Our action group does know that Michael Baker, the project manager was at a two day conference at a hotel with the person from the planning inspectorate that signed off the application, this does seem a little strange and a conflict of interest considering the scale of the project and the huge money involved. Our local MP wrote to the inspectorate to query this on our behalf and was responded to by levelling up that it was the norm for this to happen, I don't think many others would agree on this. It says the project was signed off prior to the conference, yet was dated the morning after. If this was such a great thing for our local community, why don't the landowners have a "say YES to Byers Gill" group to showcase to us any positives there are that we may have missed other than just lining their pockets? Which also makes me question "Are they all still happy with the project?" or are they now in that far that they are unable to pull out, even if they wanted to. The sheer size of the company now involved and all the terms they will now be bound by, is anyone from the planning inspectorate legal team doing a due diligence to check they are happy to still proceed, they could potentially being tied up in legal loopholes with a multi, million pound German company who won't let them pull out. They could be trapped and been told to keep quiet like when the project first came to fruition? These types of businesses are known to target older farmers, with nobody to pass the land down to. Are the landowners now looking at the one currently being constructed and thinking "What have I done?" they may still be happy, but they may also have changed their minds knowing that nobody wants these awful glass screens for miles around, yet have "no get out clause" and simply hope it gets refused. Right from day one with this project Councillors, JBM (as they were) Darlington Borough Council planners and the like have all said "It will go ahead" why would that be? RWE is advertising it as guaranteed. Why is everyone so sure it is a dead cert from the off? There are lots of rumours locally about payouts to ensure the project goes ahead, which isn't good. The full character of our area is set to be destroyed by this project, the impact during construction is so far reaching with a 18-24 month construction phase suggested. Even this is a little vague seeing as no actual cable routes are on the documents, presumably because they don't know where they will be and they have no permission or access or rights over the land they are hoping to force landowners into giving up. The Inspectorate has a duty of care to contact people very close to the project that haven't commented for or against, they must have an opinion, but possibly don't want their comments published online so as not to cause any issues for themselves further down the line. I believe the inspectorate should be speaking to them confidentially to check this. It has also been proven with other projects of this type that crime around the construction phase goes up massively, due to large quantities of cabling, fencing, panels etc sat around for days or weeks. We already have an issue locally with poachers, this will encourage more crime, but also make poaching easier. This project suggests "wildlife corridors" ; these are all suspiciously suggested on areas with less sunlight, where panels would be less effective. How exactly are our endangered wildlife species supposed to know to pass through their terrain via a newly fenced off corridor? The same corridor that is supposed to be used by walkers, horse riders etc, is a recipe for disaster, wild animals trapped in a fenced off area with people walking or on horseback, or poachers with shotguns, people and/or animals will get injured or killed. Our area has so many species of endangered wildlife that although mentioned in RWE documentation, simply gets brushed over as unimportant. We have loads of well established badger sets around the area for example, there are otters, wild birds, hares to name a few. It is widely advertised by the solar farm companies that you can graze sheep or chickens under these panels, great for people reading glossy brochures but this is utter rubbish, the site currently under construction has taken away all of the top soil and refilled it all with dolomite. I am no farmer but I know sheep can't graze on dolomite. The chicken suggestion is comical too, dreamed up by some clown on a PC presumably, foxes will still be able to pass through the fencing easily, so any chickens left out won't have a very bright future. On this project unlike others, there are no backup plans for water storage in case of fires, so I assume if there are fires we will be paying for the fire service through our council tax to deal with this? The Fire Services are already starting to question these types of projects across the globe. Developers are known to use the cheapest possible solutions to maximise profits, so this again I feel is a danger. What is also not being publicised is that if we were to go to war, which seems more and more likely by the day, that a large power station such as the one suggested opposite us would make the full area a target, I don't wish to be a part of that. I do have lots of other comments and am more than happy to speak to anyone from the planning inspectorate if they so wish