Bid to build the largest solar farm in Cornwall protest

Following a protest outside County Hall / Lys Kernow by those opposing the Fairpark solar farm in the Hendra valley near Mitchell, a Cornwall Council planning committee went against officer warnings of an expensive appeal and refused the application.

An extraordinary meeting of the council’s strategic planning committee (Thursday, November 21) heard emotive appeals from residents and local councillors of the effects the 210-acre solar park would have on locals and businesses. There was particular concern about the loss of valuable agricultural land.

The application was recommended for approval with officers citing a significant contribution towards meeting renewable energy targets, that use of ‘best and most versatile land’ would result in a less productive use but grazing would continue, significant biodiversity gains, limited visual impact on landscape and heritage assets, with residential and visual impacts reduced by hedgerow planting.

Farmer Nick Dymond, who lives five miles from the site, told councillors: “I’m here to try desperately to convey to you the serious consequences of this council’s current course of action in pursuing the development of large scale solar across Cornwall’s precious farmland.

“For whatever reason, to date this planning committee has failed to grasp the complex fuel versus food security debate. Sadly, already too much prime farmland has been destroyed in the council’s scramble to achieve its net zero ambition.

“Cornwall is busy building houses and delivering large scale PV [solar panels] faster than any other county in the country. We should look over our shoulder at those European countries with much higher food security values than our own who have decided to put an end to any solar development on farmland.”

Cllr Andrew Long said a large proportion of the land is 3b. He asked Mr Dymond what food could be produced on such land.

“Grade 3b is the most common agricultural land in Cornwall. It’s the standard if you like. It’s capable routinely of producing over 20 tonnes of potatoes per acre per year, 15 tonnes of greens, four to five tonnes of cereal crops. It’s a myth that Grade 3b is less productive. If farmed correctly, it’s hugely productive.”

The meeting heard that the land is currently used to produce cereals, brassicas and potatoes.

Local resident Jamie Crossman said the valley afforded far-reaching views to Carn Brea in the south and the cliffs of Mevagissey in the east – “beautiful unspoilt Cornwall.

“Looking towards the north however is a different story with a total of ten solar farms covering 744 acres; 27 turbines and a telecomms tower are sited within five kilometres. We must not allow this industrial accumulation and sprawl.”

He said approving the development would not only deter visitors but would impact wildlife in the “haven” that is the Hendra valley.

He also mentioned the concerns about combustible solar battery equipment, which has caused fires elsewhere in the world including in Liverpool.

“Increasing the risk of fire could have a devastating impact being sat just metres away from the SSSI (site of special scientific interest) and also within 900m of a fuel station, gas exchange and the major A30 and A39 roads. We do not want to see a repeat of the Taunton M5 motorway crash. This feels like Cornwall’s Grenfell Tower waiting to happen.”

Ladock Parish Council unanimously objected to the plan. Helen Campbell, from the council, said: “This development will have an overbearing impact on homes. It has already adversely affected a successful local business [Hendra Barns wedding venue]. We are already experiencing large volumes of rainwater causing flash flooding.”

She added that planning guidance suggests that solar farms should be set on flat ground, which this site isn’t. She said run-off could negatively impact the Kestle and Tresillian rivers, especially when there are high tides, which potentially undermine the flood defences in the village of Ladock.

Tony Gannon, head of Downing Renewable Developments, then addressed the meeting. He said the project would generate enough energy to power the equivalent of over 12,000 homes per year, making a significant contribution to meeting the renewable energy targets of both the UK government and Cornwall Council.

Mr Gannon highlighted that a large area of the proposed site was previously approved for solar development. “Whilst the project is on agricultural land, the majority of the site is not used for food production and the landowner has confirmed he has no intention to use the site for this purpose in the future other than sheep grazing. On that basis no land has been lost from food production, nor will this application have any impact on food security in Cornwall or the UK.

“We note that Defra have stated the biggest threat to food security in the UK is climate change and lack of biodiversity, both of which this project expressly combats.”

He said additional buffer zones and hedgerow planting have been added to protect views, particularly around Hendra Barns.

Mr Gannon stressed there would be a significant community package designed to directly reduce the energy bills of those with the greatest need in the area, meaning over 250 homes would receive free domestic solar panels in addition to over £250,000 being provided to local parish councils.

Local member Cllr Karen Glasson was next to speak. She told the committee: “There is absolutely no doubt this is a contentious application as we know from the strength of feeling in the public objections which amount to around 300.

"There was a public meeting earlier this year that had around 150 attendees all with grave concerns about this application and the cumulative effect of so many solar farms in the area.

“All of the surrounding parish councils have objected. There is no doubt that this will be vast and change this valley and landscape for decades.”

She added: “I refute the point made earlier by the developer – I understand that this farmland is currently farmed and has brassicas.”

She raised the council’s recent decision to review the relationship between best and most versatile agricultural land and solar farms, “but if this is approved today it will be too late for this area and this agricultural land will be lost”.

Cllr Long proposed refusal on the grounds that the proposal failed to meet policy that the development “would not result in significant adverse impacts on the local environment including cumulative landscape and visual impacts”.

He said it should be refused due to its impact in conjunction with other solar farms in the area.

Cllr Alan Jewell, himself a farmer, said that nearly 30 per cent of the site is Grade 3a land, so suggested the impact on farming and food should be a reason for refusal.

“This farm is good land and national policy states that solar farms should be discouraged on agricultural land. Farmers are getting a good kicking at the moment.”

The committee was warned by planning and legal officers that there was no evidence of any cumulative visual impact and a refusal would likely result in a successful appeal and substantial costs to the council.

Cllr John Fitter disagreed and said there would be cumulative impact. He said: “We must provide solar energy but it must be in the right location and I believe this is the wrong location.”

Cllr Dulcie Tudor added: “Look at us, we’re scrabbling around trying to find a planning reason to refuse this against a backdrop of a government push for net zero. It feels almost pathetic that we’re sort of having to make the case about views when many of us know that what we’re talking about really is agriculture and farmers in Cornwall suffering.

“I’m sure I speak for many of those on the committee, that we would like to be able to refuse this on those grounds, but it’s impossible.

"Back in April the council voted that officers would organise a study of the economic role of Grade 3 agricutural land in Cornwall so it would inform decisions like this, but in the last few weeks we’ve been told by senior officers that that study hasn’t even started yet because they haven’t found a suitable person to carry it out. That will give you some idea of where the priorities are in this council.”

After almost three hours of discussion, the motion to refuse was carried on a vote of eight in favour with one against and one abstention.