One of Cornwall’s leading businesses has filed a formal complaint about the conduct of “certain councillors” at parish meetings concerning plans for a 2,000-panel solar farm at Healey’s Cyder Farm, writes Local Democracy Reporter Lee Trewhela. 

The company has applied to build a 900kW photovoltaic solar farm, 15 rows of 2,226 panels in total, on 2.48 hectares of agricultural land at its base at Callestick, between Truro and Newquay.

The business, which makes the nationally popular Rattler cider, said the solar farm would allow it to reduce its carbon footprint by 65 per cent; a reduction of 175 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Healey’s already offsets 39 tonnes of carbon with an existing wind turbine and 25kw solar farm. The proposed solar array would run for 40 years, after which the site would be decommissioned and restored to agricultural use.

The matter was brought before a meeting of Cornwall Council’s central area planning committee today (Monday. March 11) by local councillor Steve Arthur due to an objection by Perranzabuloe Parish Council regarding loss of agricultural land and visual impact.

Falmouth Packet: A site plan showing the field where the solar farm would be built in relation to the ancient burial groundA site plan showing the field where the solar farm would be built in relation to the ancient burial ground (Image: Cornwall Council)

Historic England was also concerned about the impact on a “scheduled monument”, a funeral round suspected to date back to the Bronze Age, which is below ground in an adjacent field.

Joe Healey told councillors the cider company employs 200 permanent members of staff all year round, increasing to 250 in peak season. He said there was an ever-increasing demand from Healey’s national and local stakeholders to migrate to green energy, which “adheres to local, national and international policy that faces up to the climate emergency that we find ourselves in”.

He added: “In 2013, ahead of the curve, we installed a 50kw wind turbine combined together with 30kw roof-mounted system. At the time this provided energy for 50 per cent of our requirements. Today, due to business growth that has been reduced to around ten per cent.”

The company looked at the potential of another 150 to 200 roof panels which would take on-site energy generation to around 20 per cent, “which is clearly not enough”.

Mr Healey said the area identified for the solar project is Grade 4 land, which has severe limitations. “It is currently used twice a year to house tents for our onsite festivals. There will be no loss of productive agricultural land.”

He said: “Officially, the parish council has objected to this based on cumulative impact, but those present at the parish meetings will understand there are other factors at play here and we have submitted a formal complaint to Cornwall Council referencing the conduct of certain councillors.”

Mr Healey argued that the visual impact would be negligible (it would be on sloping ground and hidden by hedgerows) and the round is below ground, “so if you visit the site you will be unable to find it with your eyes”. He said that a wind turbine has previously been allowed in the same field as the round, but the solar farm would be in an adjacent field.

If the planning was refused, vital Shared Prosperity Fund money – worth £588,000 – which would allow the project to go ahead would be lost and it would be unable to progress, the meeting heard.

“This is exactly the sort of project that should be supported – we’re not a developer looking to export energy to the grid, we’re a local business looking to generate energy on site to use on site,” he added.

Cllr Steve Arthur told the committee: “The parish council and myself have serious concerns about the visual impact of 2,000 panels by the roadside, especially in a tourist area, and the cumulative impact of another solar farm which is a couple of fields away.

“We have concerns about the close proximity to the 2,000-year-old burial ground and the loss of agricultural land. I know there is hay cut there every year.”

Cllr John Fitter believed the application jarred slightly with policy about landscape impact and conserving the historic monument, and felt the possible replacement of the existing wind turbine with a larger model should be explored instead.

Cllr Peter Perry replied: “This council presses hard for businesses to use the Shared Prosperity Fund money and this is exactly what the applicant is trying to do. I see no problem with it. I cannot sufficiently find any reason to refuse this application.”

“Heritage is something I’m always concerned about, but we have differing analyses on the impact of heritage,” added Cllr Michael Bunney. “I don’t see an overwhelming persuasive case and if there was one I’d probably be refusing. In terms of climate emergency, the world moves on and we need to recognise the positive elements to this application.”

Cllrs Fitter and Peter Guest said the committee should not disregard the concerns raised by Historic England.

A vote to approve was tied with four in favour, four against and one abstention. The chair, Cllr Alan Jewell, cast his vote to reject the proposal. There followed a vote to refuse on the grounds that the solar farm would be visible from public vantage points alongside an existing solar farm resulting in harmful visual impact, and it would also have an adverse impact on the round, a heritage asset of national importance.

This was also tied with four in favour, four against and one abstention. The application was refused following a casting vote by the chairman.