Representation by David John Burton
- Date submitted
- 8 February 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I write in relation to the Boom proposal's for the East Yorkshire Solar Farm. I fully understand and support the need for infrastructure to support a diverse alternative energy plan and understand the part that solar must play in this. I have for some time been considering a Solar system for the roof of our home, when finances permit, and we can justify the payback we may well invest, I therefore support the appropriate use of solar energy in this diversified plan. However, I’m afraid that I cannot support the Boom proposal for the following reasons: • The installation is far too large and of an industrial scale • The concentration of panels in such a small area is completely out of keeping with the rural landscape and amenity • Most of the proposed land is well managed and very successfully farmed with a wide variety of crops. The annual cycle of this farming activity is at the heart of the amenities and quality of life currently enjoyed by many residents. • There are many bridal ways and footpaths which currently benefit from field side views of uninterrupted countryside. These views are significantly enhanced by the crop cycle through the seasons. No amount of spacing away from footpaths and bridleways will avoid the destruction of this amenity and the consequent effect on resident and visitor quality of life • Many of the proposed sites will be directly overlooked by residential property, the residents of these properties currently enjoy rural views from windows and gardens. To impose a sea of solar panels on these residents is far from equitable and will significantly change their relationship with their property, the surrounding landscapes and the current landowner. The stress and impact of this changed relationship should not be underestimated I have made the following observations in relation to Boom's consultation plan and have not seen any evidence that suggests these observations have been read digested or actioned. • Land quality has been quoted in the “Why Here” section of the consultation proposal, the report also references that the majority of the 1,200 hectares under consideration is “mainly poor-quality grade 4 land”. The “Soil Sampling” to validate this claim must be: o To an extensive approved sampling plan o The plan should be detailed, transparent and shared with the residents’ nominated representatives o The timing of this sampling should be communicated and the reasons for the dates selected shared with the residents’ nominated representatives o All landowners should be mandated to agree to an additional independent “Soil Sampling” programme to be carried out by an approved contractor and commissioning by the residents’ nominated representatives. Landowners should agree to free and unobstructed access at a prearranged time of the contractors choosing. o The independent “Soil Sampling” scheme and all associated costs should be funded by Boom. Boom should approve the scheme and agree to be bound by the results. Any attempt to bring additional land into the Boom (EYSF) scheme to offset non qualifying land should be subject to the same independent “Soil Sampling” programme. • In the “Why Here” section of the consultation it is also stated that flood risk has been considered when selecting land for the installation of solar panels. I understand from conversations with Boom representatives at Boothferry Golf Club that no provision has been made for additional drainage as part of the scheme. I would make the following comments: o The physical properties of a solar panel dictate that a significant proportion of the land surface will be sheltered from rain and that rainfall will be concentrated to a runoff point at one end (non-tilting design) or perhaps two ends (tilting design). This will lead to a concentration of water in channels. o If not already commissioned a “Percolation Test” scheme should be commissioned such that the flood risk suitability claims, still to be communicated, can be validated. o The “Percolation Test” Scheme should follow the protocols set out above for “Soil Sampling” and should consider the 40 year design life of the (EYSF) scheme. Yours Sincerely David John Burton