Little Crow Solar Park

Representations received regarding Little Crow Solar Park

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Little Crow Solar Park and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Openreach
"I am responsible for ensuring that BT telecommunications assets maintain their current level of protection under Telecommunications legislation"
Other Statutory Consultees
Environment Agency
"1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Environment Agency is an executive non-departmental public body established under the Environment Act 1995. It is an adviser to Government with principal aims to protect and improve the environment, and to promote sustainable development. It plays a central role in delivering the environmental priorities of central government through its functions and roles. It is also an adviser to local decision makers in its role as a statutory consultee in respect of particular types of development, as listed in Schedule 4 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015. For the purposes of this Development Consent Order (DCO) application, we are a statutory interested party. 1.2 The Environment Agency takes action to conserve and secure proper use of water resources, preserve and improve the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters and groundwaters through pollution control powers and regulating discharge consents. We have a duty to implement the Water Framework Directive. 1.3 We have regulatory powers in respect of waste management and remediation of contaminated land designated as special sites. We also encourage remediation of land contamination through the planning process. 1.4 The Environment Agency is the principal flood risk management operating authority. It has the power (but not the legal obligation) to manage flood risk from designated main rivers and the sea. The Environment Agency is also responsible for increasing public awareness of flood risk, flood forecasting and warning and has a general supervisory duty for flood risk management. We also have a strategic overview role for all flood and coastal erosion risk management. 2.0 Scope of these representations 2.1 These Relevant Representations contain an overview of the project issues, which fall within our remit. They are given without prejudice to any future detailed representations that we may make throughout the examination process. However, unless any supplementary information becomes available in relation to the project we do not anticipate the need to make any further detailed written representations. 2.2 We have reviewed the DCO application, Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents submitted as part of the above mentioned application, which we received on 28 January 2021. Our comments are presented under topic headings. 3.0 Groundwater protection 3.1 We have reviewed the Environmental Statement, Technical Appendix 3.2 Phase 1 Ground conditions desk study (Integrale Report no. 1844, Version 9, November 2020) in respect of ground conditions and controlled waters protection. 3.2 The site overlies numerous geologies, but includes limestones and superficial deposits, which are classified as Principal and Secondary A aquifers respectively. Principal aquifers are geological strata that exhibit high intergranular and /or fracture permeability. They usually provide a high level of water storage. They may support water supply and/or river base flow on a strategic scale. Secondary A aquifers are permeable strata capable of supporting water supplies at a local rather than strategic scale and in some cases forming an important source of base flow to rivers. 3.3 The previous use of the site is largely greenfield, although the area has a history of quarrying and workings and as a result there are possible areas of infill on the site. The site is also adjacent to an historic landfill, Scunthorpe Concast, to the west. 3.4 The Report presents a good conceptual site model and we are in agreement with the conclusions in section 4.3. 3.5 We have also reviewed Appendix 3.3 Geotechnical and Phase II Contamination Report’ (dated November 2020). This reports provides a summary of the site investigation that was completed at the site. The investigation targeted the possible areas of infill at the site and concluded that there were no risks to controlled waters from these areas of infill. We are satisfied with this conclusion. 3.6 We note that Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMPs) for the project are to be provided under Requirement 8 of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Development Consent Order (DCO). In the event that unexpected contaminated land is identified, the Environment Agency would wish to be consulted on the protocol to be followed. As such, we request being added as a specific consultee to the discharge for Requirement 8(2)(h). Accordingly, we can confirm that the Environment Agency has no objection to the proposed development, as submitted. If you have any questions regarding these representations, please contact me."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ancholme Internal Drainage Board
"Ancholme IDB is a public body with powers under the land Drainage Act 1991 to exercise a general supervision over all matters relating to the drainage of land within its district and exercise such other powers as are conferred by that Act. Please note the following standing advice for any proposed developments within the drainage district: • If the surface water is to be discharged to any ordinary watercourse within the Drainage District, Consent from the IDB would be required in addition to Planning Permission and would be restricted to 1.4 litres per second per hectare or greenfield runoff. • No obstructions within 9 metres of the edge of an ordinary watercourse are permitted without Consent from the Ancholme IDB. However, the proposals appear to be sited approximately 1 mile to the west of the Ancholme IDB’s drainage district. Even so, there can be no increase in flow rate or volume into the Ancholme IDB’s drainage districts."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Day
"Here are a list of objections based on the following: On the little Crow website there is supposed to be a link about the Bio Diversity the site would create? This link leads to nothing - IT STATES - THIS IS 'SOMEWHAT EMBARASSING' and the following @It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a [email protected] I requested the Habitat report over a year ago and nothing came back? I walk the public footpaths regularly and I am lead to believe there is no mention of the following animals some very rare or protected in their report from what I was told over the phone: Great Crested Newt Common Buzzard Muntjac Deer Roe Deer So regards to the public footpaths that flow this site - will these be guaranteed to unaffected? And what direct benefit will there be to the nearest and local town of Broughton? (less than 1 mile away) When I mean direct - like funds available for community projects and clubs in my town.. As opposed to the funding going elsewhere. What do these projects really do for my community? The adjacent already existing Solar Farm has brought NO benefit and the wildlife has gone - from what used to grace the area. Can the project be postponed until these issues have been resolved? Or would a person like to visit the local Solar Farm and survey what is not there? A very concerned local resident."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anglian Water Services Ltd
"Thank for you the opportunity to comment on the Little Crow Solar Park project. Anglian Water is considered to be a statutory consultee for nationally significant infrastructure projects as identified in the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations. The following representations are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water as water and/or sewerage undertaker for the above site: Anglian Water is in principle supportive of the above project. Impact on existing assets: There is an existing water main located within the boundary of the above project as shown on statutory asset plans. This asset is critical to enable us to carry out Anglian Water's duty as a water undertaker. Protective provisions for Anglian Water: We have previously requested the inclusion of specific wording for the benefit of Anglian Water to ensure that we can continue to serve our customers and limit the potential for distribution to the services we provide. It is noted that specific protective provisions have been included in the current version of the DCO (Schedule 6, Part 2 of the Draft DCO as submitted). However, the wording as proposed differs from that requested by Anglian Water. We have been in discussion with applicant's legal representative about the wording and have agreed the reinstatement of wording which appears in our standard protective provisions to ensure that we can continue to access our existing water main together with several other changes. There is some final technical legal clarification concerning asset protection which is currently under discussion. The revised wording is to expected be included in an updated Statement of Common Ground with Anglian Water which is currently being finalised. Connections to public sewerage networks: We note that it is proposed that surface water will be managed through both infiltration to the ground and the development of several swales (Environmental Statement Technical Appendices Appendix 3 - Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy). As such the surface water drainage strategy for the proposed development does not appear to interact with Anglian Water's operated assets. Therefore, we would expect North Lincolnshire Council as Lead Local Flood Authority to comment on the suitability of proposed method of surface water drainage. We also understand that there is no requirement for a foul connection to the public sewerage network to serve the project. As such we have no comments to make in relation to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Strategy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sills & Betteridge LLP on behalf of Fennswood Motors Ltd
"1. The Interested Party is the business occupier of a site at Heron’s Lodge from where it undertakes the retail by internet of vehicle parts. The property is surrounded by the Heron’s Lodge residential property owned by the company’s shareholders and directors. The Heron’s lodge property is in turn surrounded on three sides by the Order Limits. The main proposed solar farm development site (“the Solar Farm”) lies to the south-west of the Interested Party’s premises. The Interested Party’s property appears to be the closest non-agricultural use to the Solar Farm. 2. The Interested Party OBJECTS to the proposed development. 3. As a preliminary point the presentation of material on the proposed development by the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate is virtually unusable and has severely constrained the preparation of these representations. The index prepared by the applicant bears no relation to the order of material on the Planning Inspectorate website and contains no cross-referencing to any form of referencing adopted by the Planning Inspectorate. The key document, the Environmental Statement appears on the Planning Inspectorate website as 54 separate documents of which the first six are Appendix 9.1, Appendix 8.1, Appendix 7.4, Appendix 6.4, Appendix 3.1, Appendix 7.9. The first substantive chapter, Chapter 8, is the tenth document. In this form it is unusable and it is almost certain that relevant material has been missed in considering the representations to be made. One of the key problems is that it has been impossible to conduct a keyword search on the entirety of the ES which, in the absence of a traditional index, is the only viable way of considering the document as a whole. This represents a serious departure from the publicity requirements for infrastructure projects. 4. The Objection concerns both the construction/removal phases of the development and the period of operation of the Solar Farm. The principal concerns of the Interested Party relate to the impact on the Interested Party and other occupiers of Heron Lodge from the environmental effects; noise, vibration, visual amenity disturbance, and presence of the public caused by the proposed development. 5. However, before addressing them, the overarching issue is why should this development take place here? 6. There is no material specifically relating to solar projects within either policies EN-3 or EN-5 which is disappointing. Accordingly, the relevant planning policies are EN-1 and the February 2019 edition of the NPPF together with the relevant policies of North Lincolnshire Council. 7. Paragraph 117 of the NPPF provides: “Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.“ This policy is applied by paragraph 5.10.3 of EN-1 which provides that “Although the re-use of previously developed land for new development can make a major contribution to sustainable development by reducing the amount of countryside and undeveloped greenfield land that needs to be used, it may not be possible for many forms of energy infrastructure.” North Lincolnshire LDF Core Strategy policy CS3 provides: “Development outside these defined boundaries will be restricted to that which is essential to the functioning of the countryside. This will include uses such as that related to agriculture, forestry or other uses which require a countryside location or that which will contribute to the sustainable development of the tourist industry.” 8. Solar projects are projects that fundamentally can be constructed on previously developed land if that land is available. The only meaningful constraints on a solar project are road access, line of sight availability of sufficient sunlight and the availability of a grid connection. The Interested Party has been unable to identify any statement of the need to develop a solar energy project at this green-field site and it is submitted that there are none. However, it is not for the Interested Party to prove a negative, but for the applicant to demonstrate need at this location. 9. This is particularly significant because this development project involves the loss of 36.6 hectares of grade 3a agricultural land (ES Table 10.10) where paragraph 5.10.8 of EN-1 provides that “Applicants should seek to minimise impacts on the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification) and preferably use land in areas of poorer quality (grades 3b, 4 and 5) except where this would be inconsistent with other sustainability considerations.” The ES misrepresents the effect of this entirely (paragraphs 10.9.18-20) by treating grazing by sheep that could be undertaken on the poorest of soils as the equivalent of the current arable farming. 10. The Noise Impact Assessment (ES Appendix 4.9) appears to be of no value because it was conducted in respect of a site significantly smaller than the development site as defined by the Order Limits (see indicative site plan at the end of the Assessment). In particular, the roadway running to the north of the Interested Party’s property which represents the closest approach of the proposed development to the Interested Party’s property is omitted entirely. Therefore, there has been no consideration of the impact of either construction or operational traffic on the Interested Party. The failure to consider the effects of traffic, also render the conclusions in respect of vibration in section 8 of the Assessment, fundamentally flawed. 11. Even with this omission the Assessment considers (paragraph 6.1) that “Receivers 2 [the relevant receiver]and 3 could be subject to levels that exceed desirable levels during daytime hours.” This conclusion was however “preliminary only, based on the anticipated levels of noise. It is understood that the predicted noise emissions are worst case. Calculations should be undertaken using noise data for the final plant selection before any mitigation is applied.” Yet it does not appear that the data and conclusions have been updated. 12. The value of the Air Quality and Carbon Assessment (Appendix 4.5) is equally questionable. Although the Assessment plan shows the correct Order Limits (see figure 1.1) the narrative of the Assessment indicates that the Assessment, is like the Noise Impact Assessment, based on erroneous Order Limits. At page 10 it states “The closest properties to the proposed site consists of two farm structures with at least one structure being used as a residential dwelling and are located east of the proposed site and North of Broughton at distances of 280m and 415m from the Order Limits. The Interested Party’s land is due south of the roadway which is within the Order Limits and the nearest buildings are less than 50 metres from it. It is obvious that no consideration has been given to air quality and dust along the roadway as a consequence of the proposed development. The roadway is extremely dusty during the arable harvest which is the only time when, for a week or two, it sees any significant use. 13. The increased use of the roadway will have a significant visual impact on the Interested Party’s property. Traffic is within sight and use outside of the harvest period is currently minimal. Chapter 6 of the ES fails to address the issue. 14. Paragraph 11.5.1 of the ES dealing with Socio-Economic Issues states “There are no identified negative effects associated with the Proposed Development.” Regrettably, the authors have not found because the authors have not looked. There is no evaluation of the impact on the property values of neighbouring residential and commercial properties of developments such as this. This is no evaluation of the extent to which developments such as this operate as a “pull factor” for acquisitive crime, particularly bearing in mind the presence on site of batteries that are likely to have high scrap value. There is no evaluation of the social impact of the proposed development on nearby residential occupiers (including child occupiers) who will, by the proposed development, be permanently deprived of an extremely rural environment despite living relatively close to an industrial town and in addition will have to live through the disruption of the construction phase. 15. It is difficult to comment on the proposed diversion of the public footpath as it has not proved possible to identify the current route of the footpath from the application documents. That also means that the Interested Party has been unable to identify whether any alternative diversionary route is feasible or whether the footpath serves sufficient need to justify a diversion rather than a temporary stopping up. It has not been possible to find any assessment of footpath usage. The proposed diverted footpath will bring pedestrian traffic very close to the Interested Party’s property where previously there was none. That is a security concern and the Interested Party considers that every effort should be made to find an alternative solution. 16. An informal offer was made by a representative of the developer to secure the 3 phase electrical supply box and meters serving the Interest Party’s property and adjoining properties where the supply is taken from the overhead HT power lines. This equipment will be located very close to and visible from the proposed diverted footpath. It represents a security risk to the Interested Party and a safety risk to the public. That offer has not been repeated in the current proposals and appears to have been overlooked or disregarded. 17. The planning permission for the Interested Party’s property (North Lincolnshire PA/2018/148) contains a restriction on hours of use to Monday – Friday, 7am – 6pm with no use on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays. This is to secure the residential amenity of the neighbour’s house. There seems no good reason why site construction of the proposed development should not be similarly limited. Likewise, manned operations during the operational phase of the Solar Farm should be similarly limited."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sills & Betteridge LLP on behalf of Infocus ID Ltd
"1. The Interested Party is the owner and business occupier of a site at Heron’s Lodge from where it undertakes the retail by internet of ID card printers. The property is surrounded by the Heron’s Lodge residential property owned by the company’s shareholders and directors. The Heron’s lodge property is in turn surrounded on three sides by the Order Limits. The main proposed solar farm development site (“the Solar Farm”) lies to the south-west of the Interested Party’s premises. The Interested Party’s property appears to be the closest non-agricultural use to the Solar Farm. The Interested Party’s property is registered at HM Land Registry with title number HS392936. 2. The Interested Party OBJECTS to the proposed development. 3. As a preliminary point the presentation of material on the proposed development by the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate is virtually unusable and has severely constrained the preparation of these representations. The index prepared by the applicant bears no relation to the order of material on the Planning Inspectorate website and contains no cross-referencing to any form of referencing adopted by the Planning Inspectorate. The key document, the Environmental Statement appears on the Planning Inspectorate website as 54 separate documents of which the first six are Appendix 9.1, Appendix 8.1, Appendix 7.4, Appendix 6.4, Appendix 3.1, Appendix 7.9. The first substantive chapter, Chapter 8, is the tenth document. In this form it is unusable and it is almost certain that relevant material has been missed in considering the representations to be made. One of the key problems is that it has been impossible to conduct a keyword search on the entirety of the ES which, in the absence of a traditional index, is the only viable way of considering the document as a whole. This represents a serious departure from the publicity requirements for infrastructure projects. 4. The Objection concerns both the construction/removal phases of the development and the period of operation of the Solar Farm. The principal concerns of the Interested Party relate to the impact on the Interested Party and other occupiers of Heron Lodge from the environmental effects; noise, vibration, visual amenity disturbance, and presence of the public caused by the proposed development. 5. However, before addressing them, the overarching issue is why should this development take place here? 6. There is no material specifically relating to solar projects within either policies EN-3 or EN-5 which is disappointing. Accordingly, the relevant planning policies are EN-1 and the February 2019 edition of the NPPF together with the relevant policies of North Lincolnshire Council. 7. Paragraph 117 of the NPPF provides: “Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.“ This policy is applied by paragraph 5.10.3 of EN-1 which provides that “Although the re-use of previously developed land for new development can make a major contribution to sustainable development by reducing the amount of countryside and undeveloped greenfield land that needs to be used, it may not be possible for many forms of energy infrastructure.” North Lincolnshire LDF Core Strategy policy CS3 provides: “Development outside these defined boundaries will be restricted to that which is essential to the functioning of the countryside. This will include uses such as that related to agriculture, forestry or other uses which require a countryside location or that which will contribute to the sustainable development of the tourist industry.” 8. Solar projects are projects that fundamentally can be constructed on previously developed land if that land is available. The only meaningful constraints on a solar project are road access, line of sight availability of sufficient sunlight and the availability of a grid connection. The Interested Party has been unable to identify any statement of the need to develop a solar energy project at this green-field site and it is submitted that there are none. However, it is not for the Interested Party to prove a negative, but for the applicant to demonstrate need at this location. 9. This is particularly significant because this development project involves the loss of 36.6 hectares of grade 3a agricultural land (ES Table 10.10) where paragraph 5.10.8 of EN-1 provides that “Applicants should seek to minimise impacts on the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification) and preferably use land in areas of poorer quality (grades 3b, 4 and 5) except where this would be inconsistent with other sustainability considerations.” The ES misrepresents the effect of this entirely (paragraphs 10.9.18-20) by treating grazing by sheep that could be undertaken on the poorest of soils as the equivalent of the current arable farming. 10. The Noise Impact Assessment (ES Appendix 4.9) appears to be of no value because it was conducted in respect of a site significantly smaller than the development site as defined by the Order Limits (see indicative site plan at the end of the Assessment). In particular, the roadway running to the north of the Interested Party’s property which represents the closest approach of the proposed development to the Interested Party’s property is omitted entirely. Therefore, there has been no consideration of the impact of either construction or operational traffic on the Interested Party. The failure to consider the effects of traffic, also render the conclusions in respect of vibration in section 8 of the Assessment, fundamentally flawed. 11. Even with this omission the Assessment considers (paragraph 6.1) that “Receivers 2 [the relevant receiver]and 3 could be subject to levels that exceed desirable levels during daytime hours.” This conclusion was however “preliminary only, based on the anticipated levels of noise. It is understood that the predicted noise emissions are worst case. Calculations should be undertaken using noise data for the final plant selection before any mitigation is applied.” Yet it does not appear that the data and conclusions have been updated. 12. The value of the Air Quality and Carbon Assessment (Appendix 4.5) is equally questionable. Although the Assessment plan shows the correct Order Limits (see figure 1.1) the narrative of the Assessment indicates that the Assessment, is like the Noise Impact Assessment, based on erroneous Order Limits. At page 10 it states “The closest properties to the proposed site consists of two farm structures with at least one structure being used as a residential dwelling and are located east of the proposed site and North of Broughton at distances of 280m and 415m from the Order Limits. The Interested Party’s land is due south of the roadway which is within the Order Limits and the nearest buildings are less than 50 metres from it. It is obvious that no consideration has been given to air quality and dust along the roadway as a consequence of the proposed development. The roadway is extremely dusty during the arable harvest which is the only time when, for a week or two, it sees any significant use. 13. The increased use of the roadway will have a significant visual impact on the Interested Party’s property. Traffic is within sight and use outside of the harvest period is currently minimal. Chapter 6 of the ES fails to address the issue. 14. Paragraph 11.5.1 of the ES dealing with Socio-Economic Issues states “There are no identified negative effects associated with the Proposed Development.” Regrettably, the authors have not found because the authors have not looked. There is no evaluation of the impact on the property values of neighbouring residential and commercial properties of developments such as this. This is no evaluation of the extent to which developments such as this operate as a “pull factor” for acquisitive crime, particularly bearing in mind the presence on site of batteries that are likely to have high scrap value. There is no evaluation of the social impact of the proposed development on nearby residential occupiers (including child occupiers) who will, by the proposed development, be permanently deprived of an extremely rural environment despite living relatively close to an industrial town and in addition will have to live through the disruption of the construction phase. 15. It is difficult to comment on the proposed diversion of the public footpath as it has not proved possible to identify the current route of the footpath from the application documents. That also means that the Interested Party has been unable to identify whether any alternative diversionary route is feasible or whether the footpath serves sufficient need to justify a diversion rather than a temporary stopping up. It has not been possible to find any assessment of footpath usage. The proposed diverted footpath will bring pedestrian traffic very close to the Interested Party’s property where previously there was none. That is a security concern and the Interested Party considers that every effort should be made to find an alternative solution. 16. An informal offer was made by a representative of the developer to secure the 3 phase electrical supply box and meters serving the Interest Party’s property and adjoining properties where the supply is taken from the overhead HT power lines. This equipment will be located very close to and visible from the proposed diverted footpath. It represents a security risk to the Interested Party and a safety risk to the public. That offer has not been repeated in the current proposals and appears to have been overlooked or disregarded. 17. The planning permission for the Interested Party’s property (North Lincolnshire PA/2018/148) contains a restriction on hours of use to Monday – Friday, 7am – 6pm with no use on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays. This is to secure the residential amenity of the neighbour’s house. There seems no good reason why site construction of the proposed development should not be similarly limited. Likewise, manned operations during the operational phase of the Solar Farm should be similarly limited."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sills & Betteridge LLP on behalf of Katie Teresa Holmes
"1. The Interested Party is one of the owners and a residential occupier of Heron’s Lodge, a house and surrounding land bounded on three sides by the Order Limits. The main proposed solar farm development site (“the Solar Farm”) lies to the south-west of the Interested Party’s home. The Interested Party’s home appears to be the closest residential property to the Solar Farm. The Interested Party’s property is registered at HM Land Registry with title number HS296734. 2. The Interested Party OBJECTS to the proposed development. 3. As a preliminary point the presentation of material on the proposed development by the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate is virtually unusable and has severely constrained the preparation of these representations. The index prepared by the applicant bears no relation to the order of material on the Planning Inspectorate website and contains no cross-referencing to any form of referencing adopted by the Planning Inspectorate. The key document, the Environmental Statement appears on the Planning Inspectorate website as 54 separate documents of which the first six are Appendix 9.1, Appendix 8.1, Appendix 7.4, Appendix 6.4, Appendix 3.1, Appendix 7.9. The first substantive chapter, Chapter 8, is the tenth document. In this form it is unusable and it is almost certain that relevant material has been missed in considering the representations to be made. One of the key problems is that it has been impossible to conduct a keyword search on the entirety of the ES which, in the absence of a traditional index, is the only viable way of considering the document as a whole. This represents a serious departure from the publicity requirements for infrastructure projects. 4. The Objection concerns both the construction/removal phases of the development and the period of operation of the Solar Farm. The principal concerns of the Interested Party relate to the impact on the Interested Party and other occupiers of Heron Lodge from the environmental effects; noise, vibration, visual amenity disturbance, and presence of the public caused by the proposed development. 5. However, before addressing them, the overarching issue is why should this development take place here? 6. There is no material specifically relating to solar projects within either policies EN-3 or EN-5 which is disappointing. Accordingly, the relevant planning policies are EN-1 and the February 2019 edition of the NPPF together with the relevant policies of North Lincolnshire Council. 7. Paragraph 117 of the NPPF provides: “Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.“ This policy is applied by paragraph 5.10.3 of EN-1 which provides that “Although the re-use of previously developed land for new development can make a major contribution to sustainable development by reducing the amount of countryside and undeveloped greenfield land that needs to be used, it may not be possible for many forms of energy infrastructure.” North Lincolnshire LDF Core Strategy policy CS3 provides: “Development outside these defined boundaries will be restricted to that which is essential to the functioning of the countryside. This will include uses such as that related to agriculture, forestry or other uses which require a countryside location or that which will contribute to the sustainable development of the tourist industry.” 8. Solar projects are projects that fundamentally can be constructed on previously developed land if that land is available. The only meaningful constraints on a solar project are road access, line of sight availability of sufficient sunlight and the availability of a grid connection. The Interested Party has been unable to identify any statement of the need to develop a solar energy project at this green-field site and it is submitted that there are none. However, it is not for the Interested Party to prove a negative, but for the applicant to demonstrate need at this location. 9. This is particularly significant because this development project involves the loss of 36.6 hectares of grade 3a agricultural land (ES Table 10.10) where paragraph 5.10.8 of EN-1 provides that “Applicants should seek to minimise impacts on the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification) and preferably use land in areas of poorer quality (grades 3b, 4 and 5) except where this would be inconsistent with other sustainability considerations.” The ES misrepresents the effect of this entirely (paragraphs 10.9.18-20) by treating grazing by sheep that could be undertaken on the poorest of soils as the equivalent of the current arable farming. 10. The Noise Impact Assessment (ES Appendix 4.9) appears to be of no value because it was conducted in respect of a site significantly smaller than the development site as defined by the Order Limits (see indicative site plan at the end of the Assessment). In particular, the roadway running to the north of the Interested Party’s property which represents the closest approach of the proposed development to the Interested Party’s property is omitted entirely. Therefore, there has been no consideration of the impact of either construction or operational traffic on the Interested Party. The failure to consider the effects of traffic, also render the conclusions in respect of vibration in section 8 of the Assessment, fundamentally flawed. 11. Even with this omission the Assessment considers (paragraph 6.1) that “Receivers 2 [the relevant receiver]and 3 could be subject to levels that exceed desirable levels during daytime hours.” This conclusion was however “preliminary only, based on the anticipated levels of noise. It is understood that the predicted noise emissions are worst case. Calculations should be undertaken using noise data for the final plant selection before any mitigation is applied.” Yet it does not appear that the data and conclusions have been updated. 12. The value of the Air Quality and Carbon Assessment (Appendix 4.5) is equally questionable. Although the Assessment plan shows the correct Order Limits (see figure 1.1) the narrative of the Assessment indicates that the Assessment, is like the Noise Impact Assessment, based on erroneous Order Limits. At page 10 it states “The closest properties to the proposed site consists of two farm structures with at least one structure being used as a residential dwelling and are located east of the proposed site and North of Broughton at distances of 280m and 415m from the Order Limits. The Interested Party’s land is due south of the roadway which is within the Order Limits and the nearest buildings are less than 50 metres from it. It is obvious that no consideration has been given to air quality and dust along the roadway as a consequence of the proposed development. The roadway is extremely dusty during the arable harvest which is the only time when, for a week or two, it sees any significant use. 13. The increased use of the roadway will have a significant visual impact on the Interested Party’s property. Traffic is within sight and use outside of the harvest period is currently minimal. Chapter 6 of the ES fails to address the issue. 14. Paragraph 11.5.1 of the ES dealing with Socio-Economic Issues states “There are no identified negative effects associated with the Proposed Development.” Regrettably, the authors have not found because the authors have not looked. There is no evaluation of the impact on the property values of neighbouring residential and commercial properties of developments such as this. This is no evaluation of the extent to which developments such as this operate as a “pull factor” for acquisitive crime, particularly bearing in mind the presence on site of batteries that are likely to have high scrap value. There is no evaluation of the social impact of the proposed development on nearby residential occupiers (including child occupiers) who will, by the proposed development, be permanently deprived of an extremely rural environment despite living relatively close to an industrial town and in addition will have to live through the disruption of the construction phase. 15. It is difficult to comment on the proposed diversion of the public footpath as it has not proved possible to identify the current route of the footpath from the application documents. That also means that the Interested Party has been unable to identify whether any alternative diversionary route is feasible or whether the footpath serves sufficient need to justify a diversion rather than a temporary stopping up. It has not been possible to find any assessment of footpath usage. The proposed diverted footpath will bring pedestrian traffic very close to the Interested Party’s property where previously there was none. That is a security concern and the Interested Party considers that every effort should be made to find an alternative solution. 16. An informal offer was made by a representative of the developer to secure the 3 phase electrical supply box and meters serving the Interest Party’s property and adjoining properties where the supply is taken from the overhead HT power lines. This equipment will be located very close to and visible from the proposed diverted footpath. It represents a security risk to the Interested Party and a safety risk to the public. That offer has not been repeated in the current proposals and appears to have been overlooked or disregarded. 17. The planning permission for the immediately adjoining commercial property (North Lincolnshire PA/2018/148) contains a restriction on hours of use to Monday – Friday, 7am – 6pm with no use on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays. This is to secure the residential amenity of the Interested Party’s property. There seems no good reason why site construction of the proposed development should not be similarly limited. Likewise, manned operations during the operational phase of the Solar Farm should be similarly limited."
Local Authorities
Kingston upon Hull City Council
"While the Council is supportive of the principle of this type of development, and of expanding the capacity for producing renewable energy - itself having declared a Climate Emergency - the location of the proposed facility is such that it is considered it will not have impact on the city, so the Council do not wish to make further detailed comment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sills & Betteridge LLP on behalf of ManDown Support Ltd
"1. The Interested Party is the business occupier of a site at Heron’s Lodge from where it undertakes the servicing of printers. The property is surrounded by the Heron’s Lodge residential property owned by the company’s shareholders and directors. The Heron’s lodge property is in turn surrounded on three sides by the Order Limits. The main proposed solar farm development site (“the Solar Farm”) lies to the south-west of the Interested Party’s premises. The Interested Party’s property appears to be the closest non-agricultural use to the Solar Farm. 2. The Interested Party OBJECTS to the proposed development. 3. As a preliminary point the presentation of material on the proposed development by the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate is virtually unusable and has severely constrained the preparation of these representations. The index prepared by the applicant bears no relation to the order of material on the Planning Inspectorate website and contains no cross-referencing to any form of referencing adopted by the Planning Inspectorate. The key document, the Environmental Statement appears on the Planning Inspectorate website as 54 separate documents of which the first six are Appendix 9.1, Appendix 8.1, Appendix 7.4, Appendix 6.4, Appendix 3.1, Appendix 7.9. The first substantive chapter, Chapter 8, is the tenth document. In this form it is unusable and it is almost certain that relevant material has been missed in considering the representations to be made. One of the key problems is that it has been impossible to conduct a keyword search on the entirety of the ES which, in the absence of a traditional index, is the only viable way of considering the document as a whole. This represents a serious departure from the publicity requirements for infrastructure projects. 4. The Objection concerns both the construction/removal phases of the development and the period of operation of the Solar Farm. The principal concerns of the Interested Party relate to the impact on the Interested Party and other occupiers of Heron Lodge from the environmental effects; noise, vibration, visual amenity disturbance, and presence of the public caused by the proposed development. 5. However, before addressing them, the overarching issue is why should this development take place here? 6. There is no material specifically relating to solar projects within either policies EN-3 or EN-5 which is disappointing. Accordingly, the relevant planning policies are EN-1 and the February 2019 edition of the NPPF together with the relevant policies of North Lincolnshire Council. 7. Paragraph 117 of the NPPF provides: “Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.“ This policy is applied by paragraph 5.10.3 of EN-1 which provides that “Although the re-use of previously developed land for new development can make a major contribution to sustainable development by reducing the amount of countryside and undeveloped greenfield land that needs to be used, it may not be possible for many forms of energy infrastructure.” North Lincolnshire LDF Core Strategy policy CS3 provides: “Development outside these defined boundaries will be restricted to that which is essential to the functioning of the countryside. This will include uses such as that related to agriculture, forestry or other uses which require a countryside location or that which will contribute to the sustainable development of the tourist industry.” 8. Solar projects are projects that fundamentally can be constructed on previously developed land if that land is available. The only meaningful constraints on a solar project are road access, line of sight availability of sufficient sunlight and the availability of a grid connection. The Interested Party has been unable to identify any statement of the need to develop a solar energy project at this green-field site and it is submitted that there are none. However, it is not for the Interested Party to prove a negative, but for the applicant to demonstrate need at this location. 9. This is particularly significant because this development project involves the loss of 36.6 hectares of grade 3a agricultural land (ES Table 10.10) where paragraph 5.10.8 of EN-1 provides that “Applicants should seek to minimise impacts on the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification) and preferably use land in areas of poorer quality (grades 3b, 4 and 5) except where this would be inconsistent with other sustainability considerations.” The ES misrepresents the effect of this entirely (paragraphs 10.9.18-20) by treating grazing by sheep that could be undertaken on the poorest of soils as the equivalent of the current arable farming. 10. The Noise Impact Assessment (ES Appendix 4.9) appears to be of no value because it was conducted in respect of a site significantly smaller than the development site as defined by the Order Limits (see indicative site plan at the end of the Assessment). In particular, the roadway running to the north of the Interested Party’s property which represents the closest approach of the proposed development to the Interested Party’s property is omitted entirely. Therefore, there has been no consideration of the impact of either construction or operational traffic on the Interested Party. The failure to consider the effects of traffic, also render the conclusions in respect of vibration in section 8 of the Assessment, fundamentally flawed. 11. Even with this omission the Assessment considers (paragraph 6.1) that “Receivers 2 [the relevant receiver]and 3 could be subject to levels that exceed desirable levels during daytime hours.” This conclusion was however “preliminary only, based on the anticipated levels of noise. It is understood that the predicted noise emissions are worst case. Calculations should be undertaken using noise data for the final plant selection before any mitigation is applied.” Yet it does not appear that the data and conclusions have been updated. 12. The value of the Air Quality and Carbon Assessment (Appendix 4.5) is equally questionable. Although the Assessment plan shows the correct Order Limits (see figure 1.1) the narrative of the Assessment indicates that the Assessment, is like the Noise Impact Assessment, based on erroneous Order Limits. At page 10 it states “The closest properties to the proposed site consists of two farm structures with at least one structure being used as a residential dwelling and are located east of the proposed site and North of Broughton at distances of 280m and 415m from the Order Limits. The Interested Party’s land is due south of the roadway which is within the Order Limits and the nearest buildings are less than 50 metres from it. It is obvious that no consideration has been given to air quality and dust along the roadway as a consequence of the proposed development. The roadway is extremely dusty during the arable harvest which is the only time when, for a week or two, it sees any significant use. 13. The increased use of the roadway will have a significant visual impact on the Interested Party’s property. Traffic is within sight and use outside of the harvest period is currently minimal. Chapter 6 of the ES fails to address the issue. 14. Paragraph 11.5.1 of the ES dealing with Socio-Economic Issues states “There are no identified negative effects associated with the Proposed Development.” Regrettably, the authors have not found because the authors have not looked. There is no evaluation of the impact on the property values of neighbouring residential and commercial properties of developments such as this. This is no evaluation of the extent to which developments such as this operate as a “pull factor” for acquisitive crime, particularly bearing in mind the presence on site of batteries that are likely to have high scrap value. There is no evaluation of the social impact of the proposed development on nearby residential occupiers (including child occupiers) who will, by the proposed development, be permanently deprived of an extremely rural environment despite living relatively close to an industrial town and in addition will have to live through the disruption of the construction phase. 15. It is difficult to comment on the proposed diversion of the public footpath as it has not proved possible to identify the current route of the footpath from the application documents. That also means that the Interested Party has been unable to identify whether any alternative diversionary route is feasible or whether the footpath serves sufficient need to justify a diversion rather than a temporary stopping up. It has not been possible to find any assessment of footpath usage. The proposed diverted footpath will bring pedestrian traffic very close to the Interested Party’s property where previously there was none. That is a security concern and the Interested Party considers that every effort should be made to find an alternative solution. 16. An informal offer was made by a representative of the developer to secure the 3 phase electrical supply box and meters serving the Interest Party’s property and adjoining properties where the supply is taken from the overhead HT power lines. This equipment will be located very close to and visible from the proposed diverted footpath. It represents a security risk to the Interested Party and a safety risk to the public. That offer has not been repeated in the current proposals and appears to have been overlooked or disregarded. 17. The planning permission for the Interested Party’s property (North Lincolnshire PA/2018/148) contains a restriction on hours of use to Monday – Friday, 7am – 6pm with no use on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays. This is to secure the residential amenity of the neighbour’s house. There seems no good reason why site construction of the proposed development should not be similarly limited. Likewise, manned operations during the operational phase of the Solar Farm should be similarly limited."
Other Statutory Consultees
Natural England
"Relevant Representation PART I: Summary of Natural England’s advice. No outstanding concerns other than Best and Most Versatile Soils PART II: Natural England’s detailed advice 1.1. Natural England’s advice in these relevant representations is based on information submitted by INRG SOLAR (Little Crow) Ltd in support of its application for a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) in relation to Little Crow Solar Park. 1.2. Natural England has been working closely with INRG SOLAR (Little Crow) Ltd to provide advice and guidance since 31 January 2018 through our Discretionary Advice Service. A Statement of Common Ground was drafted between the Applicant and Natural England in April 2020, however this needs to be updated. Natural England would be pleased to work with Applicant to produce this. 1.3. These relevant representations contain a summary of what Natural England considers the main nature conservation, landscape and related issues to be in relation to the DCO application and indicate the principal submissions that it wishes to make at this point. Natural England will develop these points further as appropriate during the examination process. It may have further or additional points to make, particularly if further information about the project becomes available. 1.4. Natural England has worked successfully with INRG SOLAR (Little Crow) Ltd and there are no substantive outstanding matters. 2. The natural features potentially affected by this application 2.1. The designated sites relevant to this application are: 2.1.1. The Humber Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site. 2.1.2. The Humber Estuary Site of Special Scientifc Interest (SSSI), Broughton Far Wood SSSI 2.2. The following areas of non-designated but valuable countryside that could be affected: Best and Most Versatile Soils 2.3. The main issues raised by this application are: 2.3.1: Soils and Agricultural Land Classification Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (DMPO) Natural England is a statutory consultee on development that would lead to the loss of over 20ha of ‘best and most versatile’ (BMV) agricultural land (land graded as 1, 2 and 3a in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system, where this is not in accordance with an approved plan. 2.3.2 Natural England welcomes para 10.3.10 of the Preliminary Environmental Information (Vol1) which makes it clear that a full soil survey will form part of the final application submission. The final Environmental Statement should provide details of how any adverse impacts on soils can be minimised. 2.3.3 From the description of the development this application may impact on ‘best and most versatile agricultural land’. We consider that the proposed development will note necessarily lead to lead to significant long term loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, as a resource for future generations. This is because the proposal can be designated in such a way to avoid significant losses, for example the solar panels can be secured to the ground by steel piles with limited soil disturbance and could therefore be removed in the future with no permanent loss of agricultural land quality likely to occur, provided the development is undertaken to high standards. 2.3.4 Although some components of the development, such as construction of a sub-station, may permanently affect agricultural land this would be limited to small areas. 2.3.5 However, during the life of the proposed development it is likely that there will be a reduction in agricultural productivity over the whole development area. Your authority should therefore consider whether this is an effective use of land in line with planning practice guidance which encourages the siting of large scale solar farms on previously developed and non-agricultural land. Paragraph 170 and 171 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that: ‘Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland.’ And Plans should: distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites; allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework2; take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries. 2.3.6 Local planning authorities are responsible for ensuring that they have sufficient information to apply the requirements of the NPPF. The weighting attached to a particular consideration is a matter of judgement for the local authority as decision maker. This is the case regardless of whether the proposed development is sufficiently large to consult Natural England. 2.3.7 Should you have any questions about Agricultural Land Classification or the reliability of information submitted with regard to BMV land please consult Natural England's Technical Information Note 049 on Agricultural Land Classification. This document describes the ALC system including the definition of BMV land, existing ALC data sources and their relevance for site level assessment of land quality and the appropriate methodology for when detailed surveys are required. We would also draw to your attention to Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy (March 2014) (in particular paragraph 013), and advise you to fully consider best and most versatile land issues in accordance with that guidance. General guidance for protecting soils during development is also available in Defra’s Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, and should the development proceed , we recommend that relevant parts of this guidance are followed, e.g. in relation to handling or trafficking on soils in wet weather. ? Part II: NATURAL ENGLAND’S RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPECT OF LITTLE CROW 3. Planning Inspectorate Reference: RM/P17-0718 3.1. Natural England has no objection to the project for the following reasons: 3.1.1. The applicant has submitted a thorough Environmental Statement which we are satisfied demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there would be no significant effect on the integrity of the European site. 3.1.2. Natural England is satisfied that the project is unlikely to have a significant impact on the nearby Humber Estuary SSSI or Broughton Far Wood SSSI. 3.1.3. The project site currently supports habitats of negligible ecological interest and all protected species issues (including any licensing requirements under the Habitats Regulations or the 1981 Act) can be addressed by the proposed draft DCO requirements. 3.2. Natural England’s advice is that in relation to identified nature conservation issues within its remit there is no fundamental reason of principle why the project should not be permitted. 3.3. Natural England’s headline points are that on the basis of the information submitted: 3.3.1. Natural England is satisfied with the conclusions reached in paras 7.4.4 to 7.4.6 of the Preliminary Environmental Information (Vol1) that the proposal is unlikely to have any direct impacts on the Humber Estuary designated sites and that the proposal site is not likely to be functionally linked to the designated site for mobile species which are qualifying features of the designations. 3.3.2. Natural England is satisfied with the assessment of Broughton Far Wood SSSI and welcomes the mitigation measures set out in section 7.6 of the Preliminary Environmental Information (Vol1). Provided that appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures are addressed in the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) we are content the proposed operations are not likely to damage the interest features of Broughton Far Wood SSSI. 3.3.3. Natural England notes that the proposal site and access route via B1208 both lie adjacent to land identified as Far Wood Ancient Replanted Woodland on the Ancient Woodland Inventory (for more information see the gov.uk website at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veterantrees- protection-surveys-licences). Natural England is satisfied that, on the basis of the information provided, that adequate measures will be put in place to protect the neighbouring ancient woodland, i.e. buffer zones and woodland planting. We are satisfied with the mitigation measures set out in section 7.6 Preliminary Environmental Information (Vol1). Natural England 26 Feb. 21"
Local Authorities
North Lincolnshire Council
"Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for the opportunity to register as an interested party with regards to this application for Development Consent Order for the Little Crow Solar Park. I can confirm that I wish to be registered as an interested party on behalf of North Lincolnshire Council - the host local authority. As you will be aware NLC has engaged with the applicant during the pre-application stage and has issued a formal pre-application response which is contained within the application documents. I have no specific representations to raise on behalf of NLC further to these pre-application comments at this time but would like to confirm attendance at the preliminary meeting and that the North Lincolnshire Council will be producing a Local Impact Report in due course."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project and can confirm that:- With respect to Registration of Interest documentation, we are reassured that earlier comments raised by us on 03/04/2019 have been addressed. In addition, we acknowledge that the Environmental Statement (ES) has not identified any issues which could significantly affect public health. PHE is satisfied with the methodology used to undertake the environmental assessment. We have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sills & Betteridge LLP on behalf of Richard Fenwick Johnson
"1. The Interested Party is one of the owners and a residential occupier of Heron’s Lodge, a house and surrounding land bounded on three sides by the Order Limits. The main proposed solar farm development site (“the Solar Farm”) lies to the south-west of the Interested Party’s home. The Interested Party’s home appears to be the closest residential property to the Solar Farm. The Interested Party’s property is registered at HM Land Registry with title number HS296734. 2. The Interested Party OBJECTS to the proposed development. 3. As a preliminary point the presentation of material on the proposed development by the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate is virtually unusable and has severely constrained the preparation of these representations. The index prepared by the applicant bears no relation to the order of material on the Planning Inspectorate website and contains no cross-referencing to any form of referencing adopted by the Planning Inspectorate. The key document, the Environmental Statement appears on the Planning Inspectorate website as 54 separate documents of which the first six are Appendix 9.1, Appendix 8.1, Appendix 7.4, Appendix 6.4, Appendix 3.1, Appendix 7.9. The first substantive chapter, Chapter 8, is the tenth document. In this form it is unusable and it is almost certain that relevant material has been missed in considering the representations to be made. One of the key problems is that it has been impossible to conduct a keyword search on the entirety of the ES which, in the absence of a traditional index, is the only viable way of considering the document as a whole. This represents a serious departure from the publicity requirements for infrastructure projects. 4. The Objection concerns both the construction/removal phases of the development and the period of operation of the Solar Farm. The principal concerns of the Interested Party relate to the impact on the Interested Party and other occupiers of Heron Lodge from the environmental effects; noise, vibration, visual amenity disturbance, and presence of the public caused by the proposed development. 5. However, before addressing them, the overarching issue is why should this development take place here? 6. There is no material specifically relating to solar projects within either policies EN-3 or EN-5 which is disappointing. Accordingly, the relevant planning policies are EN-1 and the February 2019 edition of the NPPF together with the relevant policies of North Lincolnshire Council. 7. Paragraph 117 of the NPPF provides: “Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.“ This policy is applied by paragraph 5.10.3 of EN-1 which provides that “Although the re-use of previously developed land for new development can make a major contribution to sustainable development by reducing the amount of countryside and undeveloped greenfield land that needs to be used, it may not be possible for many forms of energy infrastructure.” North Lincolnshire LDF Core Strategy policy CS3 provides: “Development outside these defined boundaries will be restricted to that which is essential to the functioning of the countryside. This will include uses such as that related to agriculture, forestry or other uses which require a countryside location or that which will contribute to the sustainable development of the tourist industry.” 8. Solar projects are projects that fundamentally can be constructed on previously developed land if that land is available. The only meaningful constraints on a solar project are road access, line of sight availability of sufficient sunlight and the availability of a grid connection. The Interested Party has been unable to identify any statement of the need to develop a solar energy project at this green-field site and it is submitted that there are none. However, it is not for the Interested Party to prove a negative, but for the applicant to demonstrate need at this location. 9. This is particularly significant because this development project involves the loss of 36.6 hectares of grade 3a agricultural land (ES Table 10.10) where paragraph 5.10.8 of EN-1 provides that “Applicants should seek to minimise impacts on the best and most versatile agricultural land (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification) and preferably use land in areas of poorer quality (grades 3b, 4 and 5) except where this would be inconsistent with other sustainability considerations.” The ES misrepresents the effect of this entirely (paragraphs 10.9.18-20) by treating grazing by sheep that could be undertaken on the poorest of soils as the equivalent of the current arable farming. 10. The Noise Impact Assessment (ES Appendix 4.9) appears to be of no value because it was conducted in respect of a site significantly smaller than the development site as defined by the Order Limits (see indicative site plan at the end of the Assessment). In particular, the roadway running to the north of the Interested Party’s property which represents the closest approach of the proposed development to the Interested Party’s property is omitted entirely. Therefore, there has been no consideration of the impact of either construction or operational traffic on the Interested Party. The failure to consider the effects of traffic, also render the conclusions in respect of vibration in section 8 of the Assessment, fundamentally flawed. 11. Even with this omission the Assessment considers (paragraph 6.1) that “Receivers 2 [the relevant receiver]and 3 could be subject to levels that exceed desirable levels during daytime hours.” This conclusion was however “preliminary only, based on the anticipated levels of noise. It is understood that the predicted noise emissions are worst case. Calculations should be undertaken using noise data for the final plant selection before any mitigation is applied.” Yet it does not appear that the data and conclusions have been updated. 12. The value of the Air Quality and Carbon Assessment (Appendix 4.5) is equally questionable. Although the Assessment plan shows the correct Order Limits (see figure 1.1) the narrative of the Assessment indicates that the Assessment, is like the Noise Impact Assessment, based on erroneous Order Limits. At page 10 it states “The closest properties to the proposed site consists of two farm structures with at least one structure being used as a residential dwelling and are located east of the proposed site and North of Broughton at distances of 280m and 415m from the Order Limits. The Interested Party’s land is due south of the roadway which is within the Order Limits and the nearest buildings are less than 50 metres from it. It is obvious that no consideration has been given to air quality and dust along the roadway as a consequence of the proposed development. The roadway is extremely dusty during the arable harvest which is the only time when, for a week or two, it sees any significant use. 13. The increased use of the roadway will have a significant visual impact on the Interested Party’s property. Traffic is within sight and use outside of the harvest period is currently minimal. Chapter 6 of the ES fails to address the issue. 14. Paragraph 11.5.1 of the ES dealing with Socio-Economic Issues states “There are no identified negative effects associated with the Proposed Development.” Regrettably, the authors have not found because the authors have not looked. There is no evaluation of the impact on the property values of neighbouring residential and commercial properties of developments such as this. This is no evaluation of the extent to which developments such as this operate as a “pull factor” for acquisitive crime, particularly bearing in mind the presence on site of batteries that are likely to have high scrap value. There is no evaluation of the social impact of the proposed development on nearby residential occupiers (including child occupiers) who will, by the proposed development, be permanently deprived of an extremely rural environment despite living relatively close to an industrial town and in addition will have to live through the disruption of the construction phase. 15. It is difficult to comment on the proposed diversion of the public footpath as it has not proved possible to identify the current route of the footpath from the application documents. That also means that the Interested Party has been unable to identify whether any alternative diversionary route is feasible or whether the footpath serves sufficient need to justify a diversion rather than a temporary stopping up. It has not been possible to find any assessment of footpath usage. The proposed diverted footpath will bring pedestrian traffic very close to the Interested Party’s property where previously there was none. That is a security concern and the Interested Party considers that every effort should be made to find an alternative solution. 16. An informal offer was made by a representative of the developer to secure the 3 phase electrical supply box and meters serving the Interest Party’s property and adjoining properties where the supply is taken from the overhead HT power lines. This equipment will be located very close to and visible from the proposed diverted footpath. It represents a security risk to the Interested Party and a safety risk to the public. That offer has not been repeated in the current proposals and appears to have been overlooked or disregarded. 17. The planning permission for the immediately adjoining commercial property (North Lincolnshire PA/2018/148) contains a restriction on hours of use to Monday – Friday, 7am – 6pm with no use on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays. This is to secure the residential amenity of the Interested Party’s property. There seems no good reason why site construction of the proposed development should not be similarly limited. Likewise, manned operations during the operational phase of the Solar Farm should be similarly limited."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Homes England
"Please see the attached."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
The Coal Authority
"Please see the attached."