Dear Claire Coutinho, Newmarket's lithium-ion battery scheme should be rejected — it's not green.

Newmarket and the training centers around it are a historic landscape that should not be desecrated by these plans. Photo: David Rose for The Telegraph < p>Open letter to Claire Coutinho, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

Dear Claire,

You are facing the most important decision since joining parliament in 2019. And I imagine it keeps you up at night because the wider consequences of your decision may well close the narrow path between the Tories and victory at the next election. elections.

However, the consequences of your actions for the historic town of Newmarket and surrounding villages are far greater than any election. I'm referring, of course, to the arbitration bid for a 77-acre lithium-ion battery storage system and its «cover» to install solar panels on 2,500 acres.

I appreciate you being a champion for everything Green and the minister tasked with getting this country to net zero carbon emissions. But the scheme will be neither green nor carbon negative over its 40-year lifespan.

Before the next election, you will be presented with «good» and «bad» solar schemes. There are nine more projects in development that will fall into both categories. But if you support the bad guys, legal appeals will inevitably drag out and increase investors' costs for the good ones. There is a very real danger that any progress will be stalled in the courts.

There are four reasons why the Sunnika Newmarket scheme is “bad.”

First, this is the government's stated aim , confirmed by the Prime Minister last week, to protect productive agricultural land.

Previous research, one of which was carried out for the Department of Agriculture, showed that more than 50 per cent of this land around Newmarket was classified as «best and most versatile» land (BMV).

p>

Calculated that over the 40-year lifespan of this plant — if you really believe it will be returned to agriculture after that — 1,280,000 tons of product will be produced from this land.

So, given that we currently have to import 46 percent of the vegetables we need to feed our population, the carbon footprint of importing this tonnage would be huge and unnecessary. But these won't be the numbers you're looking at. The developers, in apparent agreement with Natural England, claim that only 0.9 per cent of the land is owned by the BMV. So the question must be asked of Natural England: why is it maintaining this figure when its own mapping studies predict that more than half the area will be BMV?

Natural England was asked this question, but throughout the examination he corresponded and met only with Sunnitsa, refusing to engage at any level with opponents or their professional advisers. You can hardly expect such transparent behavior from a government-focused body.

There needs to be a very, very serious investigation into Natural England's handling of this matter.

If the purpose of this scheme is to help mitigate the effects of climate change, then it hits the first hurdle.

< p>Secondly, the design of this vast industrial scheme is designed to benefit large landowners who will benefit financially from it . No attention is paid to the rural villages it surrounds, dividing and destroying the lives of everyone who lives in them.

Third, large lithium-ion battery storage stations may well be required to stabilize the grid, but these should be built in existing industrial areas. Agricultural land is not a suitable location for their placement. Their location should certainly not be used to mitigate the effects of solar installations located in the wrong location.

Fourth, Newmarket and the horse training grounds around it are a historic landscape. The main street may be a bit of a deterrent to pigs, but the surrounding area was developed over 300 years ago.

View of Ely Cathedral from the top of the Limekilns racecourse, where champion racehorses are trained. within three centuries, will be irreparably compromised. There are so many areas in this country where solar panels will have little to no visual impact. But this is not one of them.

By rejecting this scheme you are simply toeing the line of local parish, town, district and county councils who have spent a lot of time coming to their conclusions. regarding what is best for Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.

Yours sincerely,

Charlie Brooks