Representation by Alasdair Smith
- Date submitted
- 28 September 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
This Helios proposal and the two adjacent solar projects are set to destroy a rural community by encircling it as a new industrial landscape and depriving its residents of the rural environment that drew them to the area. The land on which it is proposed is 96% BMV land, rated as best quality for growing cereals and vegetables, and should not be destroyed by the blanket of panels and associated equipment. As a nation, we face a major food security crisis, which has been particularly highlighted in food price inflation, particularly in the light of world events such as the Ukrainian war. It is incumbent to us to ensure that the food productive land we have continues to be available for current and future eventualities. The sheer scale of this project and its neighbours amounts to 1200 football pitches, which will be grim to behold in every direction that you turn. This village and surrounds seem to be being sacrificed. In addition to this, there are Drax power station, energy pipelines from Scotland, a carbon capture plant and the Barlow ash plant; all existing or proposed to compound the impact on the local environment and consequent quality of life. The developers were extolling the added biodiversity that they claim will be implemented by adding sheep and some meadow to the site. This in no way can offset the impact on the existing natural biodiversity, which include red list birds, deer, badgers, bats and many other creatures that will be impacted by both the development and, indeed, their so-called biodiversity measures. The massive battery storage requirements are also a major concern, as it will be accompanied by cooling fans, inverters and transformers. Each of these devices will result in noise. When you multiply this by one hundred shipping containers worth of equipment, the plant will produce continuous buzzing day and night. It is my understanding that the developers have not been very specific about how individual properties in the closest proximity will be impacted. Each of panels stands at the size of the front of a bus. Each of these panels are reflection surfaces. By the company's own figures they have identified on 130+ of their residential measuring devices and a similar number of road locations that will be subject to glint and glare. Not only will this reflection be a danger to vehicles passing but also an intolerable intrusion into houses and gardens. Residents should not have to live with doors, windows and blinds closed to avoid the light and noise from this plant. This development is a fire risk. It has been reported in the press that fires at similar projects worldwide have taken four or five days to extinguish. Fire brigades are limited in how they can intervene due to the safety and environmental hazards involved and will often let them burn. I am advised that distances between the containers are not large, and spread is therefore quite likely in the event of a fire. Inevitably in such an incident, extremely toxic gases will be blown to the surrounding properties and the village by the prevailing wind and could have catastrophic health consequences for the residents. Moreover, in the process of dousing such a fire, dangerous materials, including heavy metals, would be released into the local ground water, contaminating the area for posterity. The siting of the project in an area designated as a medium to high-risk flood area will also further those risks. There will be significant compaction to the ground caused by vehicle movements on this land during construction of the ‘farm’. The panels themselves will add to the risk of concentrated run-off, adding to flood risk. Most worryingly if flooding does occur from neighbouring rivers, then the placement of a massive battery plant within this flood risk zone is ridiculous. I shudder to think, when these containers are inundated with flood water, what both the immediate and long-term consequences will be for health, safety and environmental protection perspectives. The land in question sits on a source protection zone and contains a principal aquifer. There is significant risk that the current water courses will be detrimentally affected. The introduction of piling across this vast area has potential to disrupt or contaminate the water course. During the construction phase of these developments there will be a huge increase in traffic of vehicles that are unsuitable for many of the roads around this site, which are clearly not intended for heavy goods vehicles. I previously touched on the issue of public amenity. The residents have chosen to live in this village as it is a peaceful, country location, and they use these roads and footpaths for tranquil walks and cycles, running and horse riding. This will be destroyed, when every turn they take around the village they will be faced with field after field of this open-air industrial plant to the accompanying drone of transformers and cooling fans. The residents who live adjacent to this will have no escape from the high security fencing, flood lighting, security patrols or the mind-numbing background noise with the consequent effect on their mental health and quality of life. Who wants to live surrounded in what will seem like a prison camp? There are many ways to introduce sustainable, ecologically friendly power generation such as off shore wind power and roof top panels without the detrimental impact that this project at its nationally unmatched scale will inflict. I urge you to reject this proposal.