Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects)
Comment submitted Tue 19 Mar 2013
Sarah Fletcher was not the tenant of the land but posted an objection of behalf of Mrs S Nicholls as she has no access to the internet but the objection is indeed written by the tenant MRS NICHOLLS. I think I would like to add that the animals escaped a handful of times over the years of the tenancy as many other animals from the village have wondered onto her property over the years a NORMAL part of country living- unlike fields of solar panels which are NOT a normal part of country living. I believe the hedges and remedial work has been done as per tenancy and more, but Mrs Nicholls was unable to complete it at the requested time due to the conservation laws only allowing hedge trimming during certain months to protect local wildlife which again I don't believe solar panel protect local wildlife in any way. Both points raised show that no consideration has been taken for local wildlife and the area and indeed this is purely a poorly managed money making scheme with no real thought to the massive impact this will have in the future- irresponsible land ownership in my opinion as a land owner myself.
Mr Phil Blease (Supports)
Comment submitted Mon 18 Mar 2013
Clarification regarding land at Boundis Farm. I am the owner of the land that was formally Boundis Farm on some of which the temporary Solar Farm is proposed. The land has been in my family for over 50 years and in my ownership for 17 years. Sadly 45 acres is not a realistic size to generate a living income by farming in this day and age. I rented the land out to a local farmer (Not called Sarah Fletcher) Unfortunately the tenant did not keep to the terms of the tenancy and in recent years this resulted in their animals escaping on a regular basis which generated numerous complaints from neighbours and the public. I gave them 12 months notice 2 years ago in March 2011. The tenancy finished in March 2012. Unfortunately the ex-tenant left the land and the hedges in poor condition and did not respond to my polite requests to undertake remedial work in keeping with the tenancy agreement. I had no choice but to consult a solicitor to get the tenant to take the necessary remedial action. It would be quite difficult to use the land for significant farming purposes now as there are no buildings for animal shelters or dwellings on the land and there is no mains water supply connected.
Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 18 Mar 2013
I collected over 300 signatures from the Log Cabin caf?, Rame, Rame post office and |Longdowns garage of which I sent in on the 5th November before the deadline for objections. A week later I rang planning to find out why these weren?t logged on the website. They confirmed that they had received them but were having problems with the website. As yet these are not shown and now I am informed that they are lost. Convenient. I now have letters from those venues to confirm that the signatures were collected and unfortunately due to the length of time I have not kept the proof of posting as I trusted the planning department for telling the truth. We have won this battle but need to stand united in numbers to win the war.
Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects) Comment submitted Mon 18 Mar 2013
I live at Potters Farm directly opposite the proposed entrance to the solar farm. Having attended the council meeting I wish to supply further information to clarify certain points. I was the tenant farmer that farmed all of Boundis land. I farmed it for 20 years until I was given notice to later find out that the landlord who inherited it from his farming uncle was applying for a solar farm. I gave up the land surrounding the barns for conversion to residential properties without the required notice and was left with 42 acres to graze cattle and at one time grew potatoes and broccoli. By being given notice I had to sell 75% of my stock and my farming was greatly decreased so much so that I think I will have to close down the farming business. There are 15 resident living at Potters Farm who will also be seriously effected.The red line shown on the map as visual impact has been shown as minimal as it does not show my boundaries. The end of my driveway is a car width to the proposed entrance to the solar panels. This gateway is approximately 2 1/2 metres wide and at the moment will have minimal visual effect. But to get articulated lorries, tractors, diggers and all other equipment in, the Cornish hedges will have to be knocked down and at least a gap of 30 to 40 feet opened up causing the solar panels to be very visible. The cameras will be pointing directly into my bedrooms and the other residents abode as no doubt due to security the entrance will be monitored with lights too. This will serious impose on my right to privacy and will no doubt also monitor all the ins and outs out of my farm. Any cattle lorries that come to the farm to take the cattle to market have to come through Treverva as the road from the A394 is too narrow and has 2 large tight bends which there is no way large lorries or equipment will get through without destroying the lane. The milk tanker that goes to the dairy farm adjoining the other side of Boundis land also has to come through Treverva. If this is allowed to go through, double gates will be put at the end of my drive stopping any traffic ( which at the moment does) using it as a lay-by to pass. Therefore as there are very few lay-bys in the lane traffic will be reversing a considerable way to allow the traffic of heavy lorries to pass.The landlord has bombarded me with solicitors letters with threats of court action that while I was a tenant the hedges were not cut to 2.4metres. This will not be done and the hedges were cut in keeping to agricultural standards respecting the deadline of DEFRA of the 28th February to protect the wildlife and to the respect of the adjoining residents boundary fences.My tenancy also states that the rabbits are to be kept under control, which they were with people regularly shooting on the land. There is no mention of controlling the vermin on the land as shooting would breach security and if the the saying ?breed like rabbits? is true the adjoining properties will soon be overrun by them eating the residents gardens but more important eating the next door dairy farm grass causing a welfare issue to his cows.The fencing shows a very small hole for the wildlife to cross. It does not state how often these holes are and they are certainly not big enough for large badgers that cross into my farm to forage for food and no way near bigger enough for the deer which is frequently seen on Boundis. Only last week an otter was run over in the lane which unfortunately had to be put down which shows that this area has a variety of wildlife species.It was suggested that sheep graze under the solar panels but nothing was said that there is no water on the land as this was pumped from my farm under the road and at the end of my tenancy it was cut off. So water to wash the panels or graze livestock will have to be brought in. I ask the councillors that hadn?t made up their mind to please consider these points and I hope it will bring you to vote to refuse it. As it was said that Cornwall was a ?Green Peninsula?, well let it be just that, green fields of natural beauty and not labelled as ?Metal Structure? cities.
Hazel Vallis (Objects) Comment submitted Tue 12 Mar 2013
I cannot understand how Halvasso solar farm can fulfil its promises to bring us green energy, save us money or increase the prosperity and employment in Cornwall, far less Mabe parish. I believe this is a speculative planning application with no merit which will be detrimental to the environment and wildlife, a blot on the landscape and a waste of Government financial incentives intended to reduce UK green-house gas emissions to comply with international agreements > Undertakings given at public meetings by the proposers of the Halvasso scheme (PA12/09502) stated: 1. There will be local employment especially during the construction phase. 2. Use of local support businesses will create local employment. 3. There would be a maximum of 2-3 deliveries using HGVs daily during the construction phase so minimal impact on local traffic. 4. Construction parking will be on site, operational parking will not be required. 5. The site will have minimal visual impact as hedgerows will be retained at 1.4m. 6. Noise and dust pollution will be within national guidelines. 7. Local energy costs will be reduced. 8. Local roads & hedgerows will not be impacted by delivery vehicles. So far: 1. Various impact surveys attached to application have been commissioned using Non-Cornish companies; many are `desk-top' surveys lacking local knowledge but relevant mitigation advice has been given - Yet the plans do not appear to have reflected this advice. 2. On site drill/rock surveys were undertaken by a Spanish company using their own mobile rigs - Yet several internationally recognised survey/drill companies are located within 5 miles of site but they were NOT involved. Reality as revealed at Little Trevease Solar Farm, Rame (PA12/10549) within 2 miles of Halvasso but in Wendron Parish: 1. Construct staff and lorry drivers all foreign, they travel daily in foreign registered minibuses to and from the main site. 2. Few local workers - Local services* only - Not high-value construction employment (*Site security at Kessell Downs Quarry (off-loading & storage site), local cafe used as canteen, offsite accommodation & on main site porta-loos & porta-cabins). 3. Kessell Downs quarry Herniss is used as unloading/storage site - Yet the main site is served by A394 and improved barn-conversion/farm access (the other side of Rame and Edgecumbe 2 miles away). 4. Solar panels delivered from Kessell Downs to Little Trevease by tractor & trailer - This may be illegal - are these vehicles taxed/insured for non-agricultural use on the public highway? 5. Piling drills transported on foreign registered vehicles & operated by foreign engineers. 6. Solar panels delivered on foreign registered lorries (presumably fabricated overseas). 7. Noise & Vibration from drilling/piling of support frames heard/felt 100m away in the next valley. 8. Mud on the road, tractors & trailers frequently making deliveries many times in a day increasing local traffic. 9. Local negative legacy for at least 25 years include hard landscapes with reflective surfaces are highly visible from main road serving Lizard AONB. 10. International transport using heavy oils and loads fabricated many miles away must be creating a high/positive carbon footprint. 11. Some energy created on site to be used in low-level illuminations for security, also adding to the local light pollution. I am NOT a NIMBI. I am a local resident with a deep respect and interest in the environment and a concern for local health, wellbeing and agricultural food production in our green county.
(Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 11 Mar 2013
Dear Sirs Our Clients : Mr V Moyle and Ms E C Hall Land at Halvasso that was formerly Boundis Farm, Halvasso, Cornwall TR10 9BX Planning Application Ref. PA12/09502 We are instructed on behalf of Mr Moyle and Ms Hall, the owners of Land at Goodagrane Farm, Halvasso, Mabe, Cornwall which adjoins the land described above. Our clients instruct us that your Application for Planning Permission reference as above includes a requirement that the jointly owned hedges separating our client's property and the land the subject of your application, be reduced in height and/or width and that they be sprayed to remove vegetation. Our client objects to any reduction in the height or width of the hedges and to their being sprayed with any treatment designed to remove vegetation. We are instructed that the hedges provide protection, shelter and security to our clients' livestock and the hedging prevents the livestock rubbing against the hedge and damaging it. Further, any removal of hedging/vegetation is likely to cause damage to the structural integrity of the hedge and spraying is likely to require exclusion of our clients' livestock from the area for a period of at least 7 days, to the detriment of our clients' dairy farm business. Please note that in the event that there is any interference with the boundary/hedges referred to we anticipate instruction to issue injunctive proceedings to include a claim for damages without further notice. Yours faithfully HINE DOWNING Cc Mr P Blease Cornwall Council, Planning & Regeneration Dept, FAO Mr E Crompton-Brown : By email : [email protected]
Miss emily hall (Objects)
Comment submitted Sun 10 Mar 2013
MR VICTOR MOYLE ARLA MILK PRODUCER I have a dairy farm at Goodagrane farm which is next door to Boundis farm land where they are hoping to put the solar panels up . Since my farm is lower than Boundis there is a land drain at the end of the field behind Goodagrane farm house, the drain takes excess water after heavy rain from Boundis fields the drain goes through my property it is an open drain and it passes my spring on its way to the river.The water from my spring is used in the dairy to clean the milk storage tank and milking equipment . I have been told by ARLA that a risk assesement should have been done because of the chemicals and sprays they are going to use at the solar farm , if any chemicals got into the spring it would then be able to get into the milk and become harmful to humans , so where is the risk assesement report ? or are they going to take a chance and hope that it will be ok? if they do that and it did contaminate the milk can they afford the risk of putting human life at risk .
Mr Edward Trewhella (Objects)
Comment submitted Sat 02 Mar 2013
It has been brought to my notice that from my house two of the fields will be directly visible and that therefore there will be considerable visual impairment and resultant impact on the environment of this valley and the consequent effect on my property and its value.
Mr Stephen Gluyas (Supports)
Comment submitted Mon 07 Jan 2013
I would like to support this application because I feel that in future years the more renewable energy from different sources that we use, the more reliable and cheaper our energy supplies will be. Oil and gas are getting more expensive as available supplies decrease and this will continue until they eventually run out, whereas with solar, wind, hydro or tidal power etc, the fuel itself will continue to be free. Cutting hedges to 2.4m, cutting grass and using pesticides in the correct manner are all things which can be done with the land in its present agricultural use anyway. I am pleased to see that trees in hedges are to be retained and some repair of hedges will be done. After reading the application I also note that there are no liquids or poisonous chemicals in the panels and that cleaning will be done using only water. Surely this must be a good thing.
Mr Phil Blease (Supports)
Comment submitted Fri 21 Dec 2012
Dear Sirs Planning Application No PA12/09502 Solar Farm at Halvasso I fully support the application for a Solar Farm at Halvasso. I should declare an interest as the land owner and potential Landlord to the Company applying for Planning Permission Reading some of the Objectors responses I am saddened and disillusioned with people of my generation. Having reaped the benefit of cheap carbon based fuels they do not seem to perceive the need to stop destroying the world with carbon driven climate change. If they were being flooded out several times a year they might think differently. It is essential we derive future energy needs from as many diverse and renewable energy sources as possible but every time someone proposes a renewable energy scheme, whether it is wind or solar, all the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) people come out with a string of reasons not to do it. I think every objector should write a letter to future generations, to be opened when the lights start going out, to explain what they did to make energy production sustainable for generations to come. I support the application because :- 1- I think it is essential we have as many sources of energy generation as possible so that if one fails for whatever reason eg Oil runs out or Nuclear Production has a set-back, then we remain as self sufficient as possible 2- Any renewable scheme will reduce our carbon foot print and make some contribution to slowing Climate Change, however small. 3- It is not possible to install any generation scheme of this type without some people being slightly inconvenienced because they can see it from a distant footpath when out walking or there will be some additional traffic during construction. People should try to be more flexible and accept a little inconvenience in their lives for the greater good of mankind and future generations. Phil Blease
Ms B Levene (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 07 Dec 2012
Falmouth Friends of the Earth has decided after lengthy internal discussion to object to this scheme. We have a basic objection to the principal of using agricultural land (of whatever grade) for non agricultural purposes and would therefore only have been able to support the project had all other aspects of the application been of a very high quality. This includes: - a much shorter lease agreement period than 25yrs (we are entering an era when food shortages are likely to rise significantly up peoples and governments agendas and more land may well be needed for this prime human requirement); -organic management of the land and better regimen for the Cornish Hedgerows -a smaller project - the siting of the panel fields we felt was reasonably good, but was just too extensive for this landscape -security fencing - as noted by the applicants, much of the land is encompassed by boundary Cornish Hedges and we cannot see a need for intrusive and badger unfrienly additions; also, the security cameras are an intrusive and objectionable addition to the countryside. These are very basic and hastily written notes as our regular mtg fell only the vening before final comments deadline
Miss Hayley Goacher (Objects) Comment submitted Mon 03 Dec 2012
? It will be highly visible and dominate the views. This is a large scale industrial scheme in an unspoilt natural/agricultural green field landscape. ? This scheme is one of many proposals in the area. The cumulative impact will completely change the landscape character in a negative and irreparable manner. ? The loss of agricultural land and the effect on the local economy will be substantial. This includes tourism and a decline in rental and property values. ? The ecological balance will be considerably affected: ? Fences will prevent access to foraging areas for badgers, foxes etc. ? Hedge management programmes are not clearly defined but the current proposal of cutting to a height of 2.4m will result in instability, and their gradual destruction, and loss of habitat for protected bat species, birds, mice and floral species. ? Site management methods are not as environmentally friendly as they could be. They undermine the environmental ethos and credentials propagated by this scheme. Eg. Grass strimming, hedge cutting and pesticide spraying. ? The management methods do not mitigate for, or take into consideration: ? construction noise and access limitations ? the associated noise pollution, ? potential harmful effects on local domestic water supplies, ? use of grazing animals and boreholes, ? loss of habitats, ? visual intrusion, ? archaeology and the historic environment ? effect on local inhabitants, their well-being and enjoyment of the landscape. ? The validity and relevance of conclusions and recommendations have been undermined. They suggest that the full plans and detailed information on the construction and management of the scheme were not made available. ? The application still has numerous errors and inconsistencies. This unprofessional approach calls into question the applicants? focus and the value they place on corporate responsibility for the landscape, local inhabitants? well being and environment and green energy production. It does not inspire trust that the scheme will be conducted as stipulated in the documents and will be of any benefit to the local community. ? Elements of the green energy industry appear driven completely by financial investment opportunities and not by genuine environmental concerns. Whilst businesses must be successful this should not be of detriment to the landscape under the guise of green energy. ? The funding incentives from/for central and local government detract and undermine environmental concerns, potentially encouraging unsympathetic financial investment. ? The current planning system is not designed and has not been able to adjust to cope with the increased quantity created by green energy applications. They have demand tight deadlines as a result of the funding incentives and generate a considerable quantity of paperwork (legal/plans/reports). ? There is not time within the system for the relevant individuals to adequately consider the applications leading to mistakes, misinformation and ill-informed decisions. ? Green energy targets actively encourage the approval of such schemes. ? Many of these targets appear increasingly unattainable and therefore promote approval regardless of impact, encouraging ill-advised schemes without appropriate mitigation measures. I recognise the need for more sustainable green energy production and was initially enthused by the idea of such a scheme. I also recognise that changing our energy production habits may need to be through incentivised schemes and targets. However the more I learn, the more I am convinced that the focus and methodology of current schemes and unregulated systems in which they are conducted cannot be justified against the destruction of the very landscape they are meant to be safeguarding.
Mr Greg Sanders (Objects)
Comment submitted Tue 27 Nov 2012 The whole idea of a solar plant at Halvosso is lunacy. The area is less than 1 mile upstream of Argal reservoir, which provides drinking water for the whole Penryn / Falmouth area & on this land they intend to regularly spray glyphosate. These are the effects on humans exposed to it: Symptoms of exposure to glyphosate include eye irritation, blurred vision, skin rashes, burning or itchy skin, nausea, sore throat and difficulty breathing, headache, lethargy, nose bleeds and dizziness. In lab tests, glyphosate and herbicides containing glyphosate caused genetic damage to human and animal cells. Studies of farmers and other people exposed to glyphosate herbicides link this exposure to increased risks of cancer, miscarriages and attention deficit disorder. Additional laboratory tests have confirmed the results of these studies. Laboratory evidence indicates that glyphosate herbicides can reduce production of sex hormones. Application of glyphosate herbicides increases the severity of a variety of plant diseases. Studies of glyphosate contamination of water are limited, but new results indicate that it can EASILY contaminate streams in both agricultural and urban areas. Glyphosate herbicides cause more off- target damage incidents than all but one other herbicide ? 2, 4-D. Glyphosate herbicides cause genetic damage and harm to the immune system in fish. In frogs, glyphosate herbicides cause genetic damage and abnormal development. DO YOU WANT TO DRINK WATER LACED WITH THIS CHEMICAL? Lightsource WON`T be drinking any of it. Quite apart from that, the area has very limited & already overused access which is only barely suitable for cars let alone heavy articulated trucks. These roads are frequented by cyclists, horse riders, pedestrians, dog walkers & children. None of which is compatible with industrial traffic. Dangerous. This is a quiet & tranquil rural area, NOT suitable for industrial transport & 24/7 petrol strimming & electrical humming. At present at night I can hear bats fluttering by, the odd fox calling & nothing else at night & I LIKE IT THAT WAY. Living next door to what looks like a POW camp does not appeal either, this is a green rural area. There are plenty of disused previously industrial areas with far better access on brownfield sites away from reservoirs that will not bother anyone, build there. Beneath all the fields in the area & even poking up through some is SOLID granite. In this they want to drive hundreds of steel fence posts. Stupid. Halvosso has to be one of the foggiest & mistiest sites in Cornwall . I know, I live here. VERY often it is foggy up here where only 5 miles away it is bright & sunny. That`s why algae grows here on every exposed surface. How is that going to provide efficient solar power?. Inefficient. Added to that the way we, the locals, have been informed of this development has been nothing short of underhanded.
Mr/s D J Mattos (Neutral)
Comment submitted Wed 21 Nov 2012 please see associated documents tab for comments
Mr O Bennett (Objects)
Comment submitted Tue 20 Nov 2012
Please see associated documents tab for comments
Mrs/Miss/Ms Sue Nicholls (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 15 Nov 2012 Please see associated documents tab for comments
Mr Adrian Richards (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 12 Nov 2012
Although fully supportive of additional provision of 'green power generation' within Cornwall I feel that the core concerns of the residents of Halvasso are more than justified and that this application is not appropriate in this location. The scale of this installation will detrimentally effect the character of the area ruining the rural aspect that is highly valued by visitors, residents and clients at BF Adventure- a centre specialised in supporting disadvantaged and disabled young people and adults which is situated adjacent to the proposed site. As a minimum current hedgerows should be maintained at full height with further planing of appropriate species to preserve the extensive biodiversity of the area undertaken (inc Bats and Barn Owls). Concerns over noise disturbance are valid as this area is particularly quiet with minimal industrial intrusion, as a minimum further noise proofing should be incorporated within the application. The application does not make fully clear to what extent spraying of pesticides would occur, with several bore holes down stream (Including at BF Adventure) concerns regarding potential for future contamination must be addressed.
Mrs Eve Ruddle (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 12 Nov 2012
Re Halvasso Solar Farm PA12/09502 OBJECT Dear Mr Crompton-Brown, I have known the area for quite a number of years coming to stay with my family typically for a few weeks each year. They have spent years lovingly restoring a beautiful old farmhouse in the heart of this beautiful valley. This has to be one of the most tranquil places we have ever known, accessed predominantly by a maze of wonderful footpaths and bridleways which provided access between the quarries in a bygone era. The quarries are now long abandoned and have become amazing jungles with a wonderful variety of wildlife. My husband marches off every morning around dawn and watches the sunrise over the moss-clad granite boulders in the stream, listening to the birds as they start the morning chorus. As the sun sets the rabbits come out, the cows moo for their milking and the foxes do their rounds of the fields. At night as the evenings draw in you can hear the owls hooting and we watch the badgers scurry across the bridle tracks. This really is a very special place. I have watched as we ruined our own landscape here in Ireland first in the 60s and 70s with our bungalow bliss and more recently with our crazy rash of housing estates. The solar farms intended for this area will completely destroy it. The preposterous scale will dwarf the tiny farms of such an amazing place and is staggeringly short sighted. I?m sure someone will get fat on the profit, but what is in it for the local economy? However much you Cornish like to complain about the second home owners and holiday lets, Cornwall relies heavily on the tourist trade. The local people are so lucky to live in one of the most unspoilt valleys in the County- please please don?t ruin it for one greedy investors quick buck. Rural beauty is a finite resource, even in Cornwall. No one wants to stay in an industrial park. Yours Sincerely Eve Ruddle, Ireland
Mrs Gillian Bonsall (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012 I strongly object to this application for the siting of 35 acres of solar panels in the rural hamlet of Halvasso. The site is viable agricultural land, used as such until recently. Industrial developments such as these should be built on land that is not suitable for agricultural use, of which there is much in Cornwall. Once the nature of useage of this land has been changed, it is unlikely ever to be reversed and we will have lost for the forseeable future another irreplacable pocket of Cornwall natural heritage. I walk these footpaths twice daily with my dog and meet many other local residents who do the same. Although I gather that the footpaths will be kept open, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to walk alongside or amongst 35 acres of hideously looking solar panels. It will completely destroy the character of this beautiful, quiet and naturally abundant area. How does this proposal sit comfortably alongside the ancient architectural history of this site? Whilst the new owners of the quarry site next to Bishops Forum are doing everything they can to restore nature to the previously industrial site and enhance access to local footpaths, this propsal is clearly the complete antithisis. There should be continuity of thought and application to preserve what is beautiful and special about our environment. The access to this site is severely restricted to say the least. I gather that articulated lorries will have to be used to actually get in to the site. Have the council considered just what imact this will have on the single track lane that leads to the site through Halvasso form the A349 at Herniss. This road already takes far more traffic than it can cope with. It is in bad condition in many places. There are very few places where one can pull in to allow the passing of traffic and all of these require one of the two vehicles to reverse around blind bends to give way to the other vehicle. Articulated vehicles will not be able to reverse so we, the local road users will have to and this manoevre is not without considerable risk. I use this road several times a day and never travel above 20mph, reducing to 10 mph around the bends. On several occassions I have only narrowly avoided a collision with other less considerate road users. Yet we still have no speed limit and only a polite notice asking road users to drive carefully through Halvasso when they have already travelled along a considerable length of country lane. It is a dangerous road, used by horse riders, children from the hamlet walking to get the bus to school, pedestrians, ramblers, cyclists and dog walkers. Are the council prepared to just 'cross their fingers' and hope that a serious accident does not happen. This development will be of no benefit whatsoever to the inhabitants of our small rural community, except for the donation of ?5000 to Bishops Forum and the donation of ?5000 to the local parish, which I have no doubt will not be used for the benefit of Halvasso residents or their safety. On behalf of the residents whose properties abut the proposed site, I must strongly object to the potential invasion of their privacy from security, the invasive nature of continuous buzzing/humming from transformers which though low level in terms o f decibels, cannot be considered inobtrusive, the disastrous visual imact that they will experience and the loss in value and saleability of ther properties. Who in their right mind would choose to live on top of a development such as this?
Mrs alison Malaiperuman (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
I object strongly to this planning application on the following grounds. I frequently visit (twice weekly) my parents at Little Halvosso Farm with my young daughter (10months) and enjoy walks and horse rides in this rural setting. Building such an obtrusive, noisy and industrial construction on this site is wholly unsuitable, and would completely change the character of this ancient rural land. I would no longer wish to ride a horse alongside this construction for fear of a reaction by the animal to the noise and sight of the panels. I would also no longer wish to walk my daughter along this road. I feel very strongly that this planning application should not go ahead as it has huge knock on effects for the residents of Halvosso, their families and visitors with regard to the enjoyment of the countryside in this area.
Mr Geoffrey Bonsall (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
I object to the siting of large numbers of solar electricity generating panels at Halvasso. This is a virtually inaccessible site! The construction will necessitate large numbers of articulated lorries using the narrow and dangerous road leading from the A394. This road sees daily bottle-necks and near misses with milk tankers, cement lorries and farm tractors. These vehicles are unable to reverse round the tight bends when meeting other traffic, leaving the smaller vehicle with no option but to give way and reverse round tight blind bends. In recognition of this problem, the BF Adventure Centre no longer transports their service users by coach but shuttles them in minibuses from the coach which is often left at the concrete works. This road from Halvasso to the A394 is exremely narrow and bendy. There is no speed restriction and pedestrians, horses and cyclists use the road at considerable risk. The road already takes more traffic than could have been conceived when it was constructed. It is continually in bad repair. Have the Council really considered the potential for dangerous and possibly fatal accidents occuring? If permission is given, I for one shall be petitioning for extra safety measures to protect myself, my family and other users. This land is perfectly useable for agricultural purposes and at a time when the demand for food is increasing, Britain will need to be more self sufficient, Cornish farmers know how to grow food on Cornish soil. Brown field sites should be used for placing of this sort of development. There are many areas of waste land in Cornwall, once used industrially but now abandoned, which could be used far more appropriately. Many people, including tourists, use the footpaths which criss-cross this picturesque and historically interesting rural area. The visual impact of this site will destroy forever its character, beyond recognition. Another nail in the coffin of Cornwall's uniqueness. Having seen photographic examples of solar factories, their appearance is more like a POW camp than a farm. They have high security fencing, blockhouses and security cameras. At 35 acres this is much bigger than a POW camp. I see this as a development which will give nothing whatsoever to the local community; put money into a handful of pockets; at the expense of quality of life to all the local residents and to the detriment of perfectly good farm land.
Mr David Cox (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
While a majority of persons would be in support of green energy being generated, I feel that there should be some control on the part of the planners to ensure that these solar farms are installed in areas where there will be no seriouus visual impact on the area in question. It is not sufficient to assume that becasue the land intended to be used is not of the highest quality, this gives one a right to use this for such an installation. Lower grade farming land is sometimes the most attractive of all farming land because it is naturally maintained by grazing and it is not subjected to intensive farming methods. I would suggest that it it very much the thin end of the wedge to allow this type of land to be used for extensive structures such as solar farms when it cannot be denied that this will have a visual impact which may not be as obvious to the general ipulblic who are using the adjacent roads and foot paths, but it will be a devistating visual change from what has been present for the residents who live adjacent to the site and will be forced to look at it for the next 25 years. Cornwall County Council are evidently opliged to instal these solar farms to meet the target percentage for renewable energgy generated in the region. However there must be many brown field sites where these solar farms could be placed where the visual impact would not matter. To date there has been very little dialogue with the residents at Halvosso and if outline permission is to be granted, then before the application is totally acepted, there should be a period of diologue with the local residents to ensure that fine tuning of the installation and its suassociated security systems can be achieved to everyones satisfaction. This will enivitably mean both sides having to make compromises but should soften the blow for the local residents who ifit goes ahead will have to put up with their environment changing from a rural setting to a semi industrial one. There has been discussion about noise generated from the inverters which I personally do not feel is going to be an issue becasue this is something th at could be reduced by suitable sound proofing. This needs however needs complied with if planning being granted. The potential for noise casued by constant strimming to maintain the site is more of a concern to me, because anyone who has strimmed will know that it is a slow process and there is a lot of area to cover in this case. During the summer months grass will grow at a rate where a strimmer will be used constantly and therefore alternative provision needs to be considered for maintaining the site which also needs to be openly discussed with the residents. There should also be diaglogue between Lightsource and the residents to come up with a mutually satisfactory method of providing the necesssary security for the site which needs to be agreed upon before final consent is given. This would also include the discussing the possble alternatives to the proposed aray of camaeras which if placed, will be very intrusive so far as a handful of residences directly adjacent to the sight are concerned. My very limited understanding of planning law leads me to believe that it is not allowed to install a window in a proposed extension whcih would directly compromise the privacy of a neighbour. This being the case there is surely no difference between this and placing a security camera which will enable an operator to view a neighbouring propery. I would also suggest that while there has already been talk of grants given from Lightsource to fund a crossing at the Asda roundabout in Mabe, this actually has no use to the residents of Halvosso who are too far displaced from this locaton to have a need to use it. While I appreicate that the energy generated from the arays will go into the grid which makes it impossible to channel this energy locally, the is nothing to prevent a payment being made to the households who are directly affected by this development ( Iwould point out that I do not fall into this category). This could come either from Lightsource themselves or from the Council in terms of a reduction in rates for those immediately affected by the development.
Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
ON BEHALF OF MIKE THOMAS I reside in this area and am concerned that there are to be large lorries on such a small road and the removal of hedges that will effect the wildlife. The noise I am going to have to live with is unacceptable for a property in the country side. Will my electricity bill be reduced?
Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012 ON BEHALF OF ANDY DUNCAN I reside in this area and am disgusted that such thing is even being considered. this is an area of farming and this proposal will create noise pollution and spoil an area of agriculture. this will impact local wildlife within the area. the fencing and cameras are not appropriate for an area as this.
Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
ON BEHALF OF KATHERINE AND PAUL BETTS We regularly use a local holiday cottage to get away from the hussle and bussle of town life. We come to enjoy the sea views and the walks. We regularly walk the footpath across this land with our dog. If the proposal goes ahead we for one will no longer be attending the holiday let we have used for years. I do not wish to go away to listen to and see and industrial site.
Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
ON BEHALF OF PAT WILLIAMS I live where this proposed site will be seen from the windows of the property. It will add to the noise levels greatly from the constant hum and spoil the existing sea views. The traffic will increase making the small approach road dangerous for others who reside in the village. I live in the country side to see the country side and be apart of this not see and hear what is proposed at this site.
Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
ON BEHALF OF JO TRETHEWEY I live on a 30 acre property and support the local tourism trade - this will have a large impact on our business and many others in the area. The constant low hum from such a large site will prevent tourists from returning. This proposal would be better suited to an industrial setting not an area of beauty and tourism. The road is of single track small country lane and the increased traffic will pose a danger.
Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
ON BEHALF OF DAVID TRETHEWEY I own a 30 acre residence not far from the proposed site. We support the local tourism trade in this area by having the caravan club on our land. I have major concerns as this is an area that the tourists use for walking, using the footpath on the proposed land. The area is a quiet peaceful place for tourist to come and enjoy the far reaching sea views. This will seriously impact the tourism industry in the area having a large knock on effect to many surrounding businesses. The fence and panels will be disrupt these views immensely meaning tourists will not want to return to an area that will look like an industrial area.
Mrs Sheila Purvis (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012 As a pensioner who has retired into the peaceful countryside I am very concerned about the proposed solar farm development at Halvasso. Removal of Cornish Hedges and the addition of high steel fences with even higher security cameras will cause me significant anxiety. The droning of strimmers is not acceptable either. The prospect of dozens of articulated lorries rolling past my already hazardous exit onto the main access road is inappropriate, unacceptable and a serious risk to all users of the road. This will undoubtedly reduce the value of our properties, will this be reflected in our council tax payments? Mrs S Purvis
Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
On Behalf of Jonathan Fletcher- My children regularly visit the farm opposite It will increase traffic and create an eye saw generating alot of noise in a peaceful setting. The increased traffic has safety implications for my children and I am concerned at such a large site of any health implications for the public these may pose.
Mr Victor Moyle (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
I am objecting to the solar farm. My family have farmed next door to the proposed site since 1956, and in that time we have seen farm after farm close down because of Government rules and no money in farming. Because of the new rule on NVZ the last dairy farm which is ours will have to be sold. Something certainly has to be done with all this land and since people do not want Nuclear power then the only way seems to be is wind and solar power. People and government views must change and the only way forward is nuclear power and get rid of the rules which are strangling farming before it is too late, and we the british people starve when Russia and eastern european countries stop their exports of food to us. So we need all the land we have got ready to produce food. (I am sorry I say NO to solar and yes to nuclear.)
Mrs sarah fletcher (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
I keep my Horse within the village and I am concerned that the increased traffic and noise will cause an accident with a village that already contains many people who own livestock and who walk dogs. It an area with fabulous views that will be totally spoilt by this and will devalue propertires considerably. this application is totally inappropriate for such an area of quite conutryside and the the residents will have no benefit from the energy produced. People choose countryside activities and to live in these areas not to be faced with acres of solar panel that could placed on the roofs of more built up areas.
Gillian Bonsall And Petitioners (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
To view these comments please go to the Documents tab above. Nellie Morgan And Petitioners (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
To view these comments please go to the Documents tab above.
Mr Robert Murray (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
Gwendra Cottage Halvasso TR10 9DA 9 November 2012 Your Reference: PA12/09502 Dear Sirs Boundis Farm, Halvasso, TR10 9BX Installation and operation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure, including PV solar panels, mounting frames, inverters, transformers, fencing and pole mounted security cameras I am responding to the above-mentioned planning application on behalf of my family who live at the above address. I have perused the application and its supporting documentation via your online applications register and have viewed the large number of objections to the proposed solar farm. I note that there has been one letter of support for the solar farm, whereas all other letters and petitions object to the proposal, and like the overwhelming majority I object to this proposal for the reasons set out below. However, before commenting on the planning aspects of this proposal, I wish to highlight my concerns over the manner in which this application has been submitted and subsequently handled by Cornwall Council. The application site was originally named as Yew Tree Cottage, Penryn, a wholly misleading representation of the application site. Of greater concern, however, is that your Council formally Registered the application under this address. I do not understand how this could happen, and my concern remains bearing in mind that some of the supporting documentation (e.g. The Ecological Appraisal by Avian Ecology) is provided in support of a development at Yew Tree Farm. To my mind that must invalidate the whole appraisal and your Council should have required a fresh appraisal based on the true application address. There are further inconsistencies in the application itself and between the supporting documentation. Many of these have been pointed out by objectors to the application (e.g. the letter from Halvasso Farm) and I will not repeat them here. However, I note that the applicant?s have signed the Agricultural Land Declaration that ?none of the land to which the application relates is, or is part of an agricultural holding?. Similar to the wrong site address, this appears to be wholly misleading. The applicants? in their Planning and Design and Access Statement rely upon ?Farm Diversification? as part of the Justification for the solar farm: to quote: ?diversification can result in a more productive use of part of the farm estate?. The applicants? also point to National Planning Policy Framework advice (PDA Statement, page 13) which states local plans should ?promote the development and diversification of agricultural businesses? (paragraph 28). If the land in question is not an agricultural holding then relying upon farm diversification is wholly erroneous. Alternatively, if the applicants? have incorrectly signed the Agricultural Land Declaration, the application must, therefore, be invalid. I therefore request that your Council satisfies itself as to the status of the application before the application is determined. The applicants? have emphasised their ?good neighbourliness? in section 2.2 of their PDA Statement, perhaps in the spirit of section 122 of the Localism Act 2011. Firstly, they organised two meetings with local residents, the first of which was attended by ?approximately 8 attendees?, a poor level of attendance upon which to base their proposals. At the second meeting which I attended, it became clear that the applicants? are offering ?10,000 as a ?community benefit? through a section 106 agreement ? assumed to be a Unilateral Undertaking. The meeting received the distinct impression that the money was not related to the development in question, in order to mitigate its harm, but would be used for other purposes. Your online register does not appear to have the UU displayed and, therefore, its purpose is not known. There must be complete transparency where such undertakings are given by the applicant, and where the ?benefit? does not relate to the application itself it cannot be taken into account in the determining the application. It is not a material consideration . One final ?administrative? point relates to a matter I have already raised with Mr Ellis Crompton-Brown. I did not receive a consultation letter from your Council as a local resident offering me the chance to comment on the application. Whilst I appreciate that you have to restrict such consultations to a reasonable geographic area, bearing in mind that you are fully aware of my concerns about Kessels Quarry (immediately behind my home), I believe that it would have been courteous to have been consulted . Because of the number of recent development proposals in the vicinity of my home, I consider that the local rural landscape character of this area will be turned into an industrial landscape, my main concern in respect of this application for the solar farm. As noted above my main concern is the cumulative impact of proposals for development close to my home. Currently, your Council is considering: 1 A ROMPS application that would, if approved, allow for the continued quarrying of Kessels Quarry to the year 2042. This application involves, inter-alia, providing a new access into the quarry from the unnamed lane (Halvasso Lane) that runs to the east of the quarry, passes in front of my home and provides access to this proposed solar farm. This lane is particularly unsuited to heavy traffic due to its narrow and winding nature, and where it exits onto the A394 at Longdowns it is dangerous because of the steep slope and the very restricted visibility to the west. Currently the quarry is dormant (please see description of development in PA12/03111/PREAPP), and if this ROMPS application is approved the landscape character of the area will become far more industrial than it is already due to the renewed activity at the quarry (e.g. vehicle movements, quarrying activities etc), 2 A Pre- Application consultation for a 56m high wind turbine in Kessels Quarry close to the concrete batching plant. Should this materialise into an application, and that application is approved, this will add further to the industrial character of the area. And that is apart from any more local impacts the wind turbine could have on my environment at a distance of around 300m from my home 3 This application for a solar farm. The applicants? seek to rely upon policies in the National Planning Policy Framework, the County Structure Plan (2004), The Core Strategy (January 2012) and Options and Preferred Options for Energy, Minerals and Waste (March 2012) in their PDA Statement. They have been selective in their choice of policies thereby providing an unbalanced policy view of the proposed solar farm. They have, quite correctly, identified policies which support the provision of renewable energy resources, but take little account of policies aimed at protecting the natural environment. It is noted that the applicants?, again quite correctly, selected the site using a screening process that eliminates ?sites within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interests, National Parks, Greenbelt and high flood risk areas? (PDA Statement, para.2.2). However, simply because the chosen site does not carry a special designation does not mean that the landscape in question is not worthy of protection. Apart from the dormant Kessels Quarry, the landscape from Longdowns south to Halvasso and beyond, on either side of Halvasso Lane, is rural with a few isolated farmhouse groups and dwellings. The land slopes down to the east and supports long established hedgerows that demarcate field boundaries. This landscape is ?home? for the residents who live within it and who have invested much of their lives into maintaining its rural character. This is a tranquil, rural landscape that would be undoubtedly changed to a more industrial character should the solar farm go ahead (especially together with the other developments mentioned above). In my view this point is more than demonstrated in the applicants? own material where, at pages 17 and 26 of their PDA Statement, photographs show two large scale solar farms in rural landscapes not too dissimilar to the landscape here. The solar farms are hard components within an otherwise soft landscape. Furthermore, the applicants? are proposing to place large metal boxes on the site to accommodate transformers etc, further hard components in the landscape. They certainly do not accord with policy 12 (Design) in the Cornwall Local Plan 2010 ? 2030 (for submission to the Secretary of State) which will supercede the Core Strategy. The NPPF, whilst seeking to promote sustainable development, also expects LPA?s to take due account of the natural environment. ?There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: ● an economic role, ● a social role; and ● an environmental role ? contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy?. This NPPF advice views these objectives as equal partners, with no single objective superceding the others. Thus ?moving to a low carbon economy? goes hand in glove with ?protecting and enhancing the natural environment?, it does not outweigh that objective. It is also noted that in a consultation response to this application Natural England draws attention to the advice contained in the NPPF aimed at protecting and enhancing the natural environment. It is noted that the applicants? have chosen to rely upon policies 1, 7 and 11 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004. All these policies point towards supporting renewable energy, but the policies do not unquestionably support such developments. Policy 1 is concerned to make ?prudent use of resources? and it has to be questioned whether using almost 11ha of land with an agricultural capacity is a prudent use of this resources. I note that this is of concern to a local resident who supports this concern with an article published in South West Farmer in November 2012. Policy 7 encourages renewable energy resources, but not at all costs. The policy states that such development should ?increase(s) local benefits, particularly diversification of the rural economy, and minimise(s) any adverse effects on the natural or built environment?. I have already questioned the matter of farm diversification as a benefit, and I note that employment is NOT a benefit to be taken into account. In section 19 of the application form the applicants unequivocally state that NO full or part-time jobs will be created. I therefore question that any local benefits will accrue from this proposal. Insofar as minimising ?adverse effects on the natural... environment? is a material consideration, by the applicants own admission additional planting is not possible because ?sufficient gaps must be provided between the rows of panels, to avoid one row shading another, and sufficient setbacks need to be provided from boundary vegetation, particularly on the southern boundary to avoid shading? (PDA Statement, para. 1.1). I appreciate why shading is an issue for a solar farm, but that does result in a very hard component in a soft landscape as the applicants? have more than demonstrated with the photographs on pages 17 and 26 in their PDA Statement. Policy 11 is concerned with the rural economy and expects development to ?support the economic and social well-being of the areas by supporting agriculture through farm diversification schemes appropriate in character and scale for their surroundings?, and I can only re-iterate that farm diversification is not a material consideration here because the applicants? have certified that the land in question is not an agricultural holding. In paragraph 5.3.2 of their PDA Statement the applicants refer to the Cornwall Core Strategy in support of their proposal, whereas this document will be superceded by the Cornwall Local Plan 2010 ? 2030. The applicants? seek to rely upon policies A (Sustainable Development), D (Jobs and Skills) and E (High Quality Development), now policies 1, 5 and 12 in the Working Draft for Submission to the Secretary of State. However, given that this draft has yet to be formally ratified by the Council, I will restrict my comments to those policies in the Core Strategy as relied upon by the applicants. Policy A is more akin to an objective to secure sustainable development, and by implication it requires development to take account of all material considerations. Thus, whilst renewable energy is welcomed, it is not an unquestioning welcome. Policy D seeks to ?encourage employment opportunities...particularly in the renewable energy sector (by) encouraging rural business and diversification to maximise added value to agricultural industries?. I have already commented on the lack of local employment opportunities offered in this proposal, and the question of diversification, and make no further comments. Policy E is concerned with High Quality Development which ?requires development to include features that reduce its environmental impact?. The single most significant feature that will reduce the environmental impact of this solar farm would be both extensive and intensive planting, and by the applicants? own admission this is not possible. This application, therefore, wholly fails to meet this policy objective. Finally the applicants? seek to rely upon Cornwall Council ? Options and Preferred Options for Energy, Minerals and Waste (Consultation Document January ? March 2012). The preferred option is identified in the applicants? PDA Statement and is set out in REN1 which ?set(s) a target of 825 MW of installed renewable electricity capacity and 190 MW of installed renewable and low carbon heat capacity to be achieved over the Core Strategy plan period?. The options paper explores the implications of achieving this target, but again not at any cost. It states that ?this target would be achievable...while taking into account the need to protect our landscape and amenity? (page 15, para. 1). Again, any renewable energy development must take account of both landscape and amenity, and if there are any acknowledged impacts then the development should seek to mitigate those impacts. In passing it is noted that the options paper deals with the question of Where?, primarily in relation to large scale wind farms, but clearly a solar farm of this scale would fall within the scope of this policy. It is noted that your Council prefers a policy based upon criteria as opposed to ?identifying broad areas where medium to large scale wind energy development can be most readily accommodated?. In preferring a criteria based policy, I formally request that one criterion to be adopted should be the cumulative impact of developments, including existing development as well as proposed renewable energy developments in accordance with the circumstances of this solar farm proposal. In conclusion I would like to underline that fact that the locale for this solar farm is a quiet rural environment enjoyed by the residents who live within it, most of whom have been in residence for many years. They have invested their lives in the area. This character is threatened by the renewed activity at Kessels quarry and by the development of this large scale solar farm at Boundis Farm. And whilst the landscape does not contain a national or regional designation, it is still a landscape of value to the residents and it should, therefore, be protected. By its very nature the visual impact of the solar farm cannot be mitigated, it will become a hard element in an otherwise soft landscape. The solar farm will not result in benefits to the local economy in terms of jobs, and the question of farm diversification does not arise. Whilst it is recognised that it would make a contribution towards the UK?s reduced CO2 emissions, the question arises as to whether this outweighs the harm I have identified in this letter. In my view it does not and, therefore, I request that the application is refused. Yours sincerely Luis Rivero .
Mr Woods Kim (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
We have serious concerns about the planning application for a solar farm in Halvasso. At present this area consists of farm land, this application would turn the area into and industrial site. It appears that management of the site will include spraying hedgerows and strimming areas between the solar panels. Eventually any spraying of the area will get into the food chain and poison private water supplies. The spraying will also affect the abundant wildlife in an area that is currently devoid of chemical sprays and home to several types of bats, owls and migrating birds. There are many households in this area who have boreholes as their only source of water. The strimming will be apparently done 3 or 4 times a year. This will cause noise pollution and will need the use of fossil fuels. This area is on the edge of the North Helford an area of outstanding natural beauty. The proposed perimeter fence will be an eyesore and not fitting with the visual amenity of the area. The fence will have the appearance of a prison compound, complete with CCTV. Perhaps the fear of theft or vandalism could be covered by the insurance of the generating company involved, rather than having an unsightly security fence. The associated buildings would be very unappealing and would cause additional noise pollution. Perhaps they could be built underground to avoid visual impact and noise pollution. Goody Grain Youth Activity Centre will be one of the closest neighbours. Their work with disadvantaged and challenged youngsters is very important and when arriving at the site they will be confronted by a very unpleasant / threatening security fence. This is just the type of environment that many of the children have to endure in their day to day lives. The activity centre is a sanctuary from urban and industrial life.
Mr Nigel Murray (Neutral)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
I am a supporter of providing renewable energy to our community, however this application does not benefit us sufficiently to compensate for the disruption of our enjoyment of life in a rural setting. The presentation of this application to the community has failed to address the concerns of neighbours, and has failed to inform the majority of the affected parties within a considerate time period. Additionally the proposal damages the environment by the use of chemical control of the vegetation, by industrial activity (lawnmowing) for unacceptable lengths of time, by reduction of the heritage and wildlife values of traditional hedgerows, and by denying the agricultural use of this land. There is no consideration given to the overlooking of properties by CCTV, the inverters are too close to dwelling units and are not screened for sound reduction, the fences are industrial and too extensive and unscreened by vegetation. Planting with trees will barely have reached establishment by the time the panels will have reached the end of their life. The footpath through this site would now become a wired passageway instead of an natural environment experience. The layout of these panels maximises the boundary fence lengths, and a more compact arrangement would mean a more considerate imposition on this site.
Mr p sinclair (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
I am writing to object to the planning application PA12/09502 I object for the following reasons: 1. The scale and layout of this proposal are not appropriate for this site. This causes considerable visual impact on the character of the site and the surrounding landscape. The proposed solar farm development will be visible from approximately 50% of the surrounding public footpaths and bridleways due to its scale and layout (see figure 1 attached or within ?associated documents?). Please also see figure 2 (attached or within ?associated documents?), pages 2- 8 show that the proposed development is clearly visible from many of the surrounding public footpaths and bridleways, the proposed additional hedgerow planting will have little effect on the majority of these views. Please also see figure 3 (attached or within ?associated documents?) which shows 3 photomontages of the proposed development. In my opinion this development will have a major visual impact on the character of the landscape in Halvasso. 2. The solar farm layout is not efficient due to the small field sizes, meaning the ratio of energy produced to land used is not maximised. In a more appropriate site this area/quantity of land (10.79 hectares) could produce an additional 30% of energy. Therefore this land seems inappropriate for a solar farm development and would be more suitable for agricultural use. This proposal uses 10.79 hectares of agricultural land, and produces a maximum of 3.16MW of power. This equates to 0.29MW per hectare. A similar proposal nearby (Little Trevease PA12/04124) uses 13 hectares of agricultural land, and produces and maximum of 5MW of power. This equates to 0.39MW per hectare. The Little Trevease scheme produces a maximum of 100,000W more per hectare of land than this proposal. Over10 hectares this equals 1MW, which is a significant waste of energy. Therefore a site of this scale (10.79 hectares) could be producing a maximum of 4.16MW if the site was more appropriate - more than a 30% increase. This inefficiency is caused because the fields are relatively small and there is a lot of wasted space between the panels and the perimeter hedges. This demonstrates that this site is not ideally suited for a solar farm, and a more suitable site should be used to maximise power production. 3. There will be a negative effect on biodiversity in the area due to the proposed hedge management scheme of cutting hedgerows and trees to 2.4m. The proposed maintenance scheme for hedgerows states that all hedgerows will be treated with a glyphosate based herbicide and then managed to 2.4 m. Some of the existing hedgerow trees are mature trees over 7m and are very important to the biodiversity in this area. The combination of the glyphosate based herbicide and drastically reducing the height of the hedgerow will result in a reduction in biodiversity. This goes against current guidelines to increase biodiversity. I am also concerned about the effect of the glyphosate based herbicide on the stream to the East of the site which lead to Argyle lake which is the main water supply for Falmouth, this land is also within a ?safeguard? zone as shown on the Environment Agency website under the subject ?drinking water protected areas?. The reduced hedgerow height will also increase the visual impact of the solar farm. 4. The application documents submitted by Lightsource contain a number of errors. My main concern is their visual assessment document, which shows a photomontage of the proposal with the incorrect field containing solar panels (Viewpoint 6). I believe this makes the application quite misleading as a realistic visual impact is not demonstrated. See figure 3 (attached or within ?associated documents?) for an accurate representation of viewpoint 6, and 2 other views showing the proposal. This error gives the impression that the proposed solar development will not have a significant visual impact which is untrue and has possibly influenced the results of some of the comments. 5. The layout of the fencing in fields 1,2,3 and 4 are connected in a way that restricts access by larger animals to approximately 300m of mature Cornish species-rich hedgerows. This will have a negative effect on biodiversity. 6. The local economy and residents will not benefit from this scheme. 7. The majority of local residents/community were not consulted about this scheme. 8. There is the potential for sound pollution from the invertors. This will be increased due to the fact that the site is in a valley and the sound will reverberate within the valley walls. 9. The cumulative effect of inappropriately sited solar power stations and wind turbines locally and throughout the county will affect the tourism and agricultural industry equating to a negative economic outcome. The visual and mental cumulative effect of solar farms and wind farms will mean that certain areas which were previously seen as rural will begin to be considered industrial. This will eventually affect tourism, as tourists will begin to visit more rural counties. Locating solar and wind farms in suitable industrial areas will help prevent this from happening. 10. The field grading survey undertaken by ?Kivells? to confirm whether the soil type is 3a or 3b is very subjective, and contains expressions such as ?it is my view that the land most likely falls within Subgrade 3b?. This is an important distinction and may determine how suitable the whole proposal is for the site. Therefore a more thorough survey should be undertaken. 11. After 25 years a new planning application can be made to keep solar farm and prevent it from reverting back to agricultural land, the application is unlikely to be refused as our need for power will most probably have increased in 25 years. Therefore this land could become industrial indefinitely. 12. As far as I am aware an Environmental Impact Assessment has not been undertaken. This is recommended by the Council and will assess the ?visual impact of the development on landscape character?. According to Renewable Energy Planning Guidance ? The Development of Large Scale Solar PV Arrays, ?Development on previously uncultivated land is unlikely to require EIA unless it covers more than five hectares.? The site for this proposal is over 10 hectares and should therefore warrant an EIA. 13. According to local farmers there are large pieces of granite relatively close to the surface of the land of the site, which will make it impossible for the solar panel frames to be driven into the soil. Therefore concrete slabs will be used to support the solar panels which will add to the negative visual impact of the proposal. 14. There are no details about the security cameras in the application. There are public footpaths and bridleways very close to the site as well as the entrance to BF Adventure, and I am concerned that they will be overlooked by the cameras. ------I believe that this proposal would benefit from the following changes: a. Reduce the size of the development to a more appropriate scale for the setting ? at a minimum removing fields 10 and 12 (shown in design access statement page 4) from the scheme, which would reduce the visual impact from all eastern and northern public footpaths and bridleways including views from Longdowns. b. Keep all hedgerows at their current height to maintain visual screening and biodiversity. c. Plant additional hedgerow trees to fill in any hedgerow gaps and also plant extra trees within the site to increase biodiversity and visual screening. d. Lower invertors into the ground and add acoustic insulation to reduce any sound pollution and visual impact. e. Lower camera posts to 2m to reduce visual impact. f. Involve and consult the local community. Mr P Sinclair
Ms M Libert (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 09 Nov 2012
Solar Farm PA12/09502 ? Objection Dear Mr Crompton-Brown, I am writing to object to the Solar Farm planning application n? PA12/09502. Even though I acknowledge our need for energy and usually support sustainable energy schemes, I believe that the proposed solar farm is not suited to the site and would have considerable and long-term negative impacts on the character of the valley as well as the local community. In this instance, the adverse local impacts far outweigh the benefits of energy generation. My main arguments are as follows: 1) Landscape impact, loss of local features and character The scale of the proposed development, as well as its industrial outlook, are entirely at odds with the character of the valley. This unspoilt valley is a precious asset enjoyed both by the local community and the visitors to the area, who use its footpaths and bridleways. In its ?Landscape Character Study? of the area, Cornwall Council describes the distinctive features of the landscape as follows ?The most distinctive features are the Cornish hedges and hedgerows enclosing the small, irregular field pattern of permanent pasture [?]? Under the heading ?visions and objectives?, it says: ?An upland area with a remote landscape character that is being eroded by clutter of overhead wires and isolated dwellings. Patches of the original upland rough ground still exist amongst the irregular yet distinctive field pattern. The objective must be to conserve the remote landscape character and the cultural features of the landscape.? Under ?Planning and Land Management Guidelines ?, it concludes: ? Develop design guidance to avoid incremental change to dwellings and development out of scale, pattern and landscape character. ? This document highlights the ?small, irregular field pattern? characteristic to the area, and I believe that the angular, regular pattern of the solar panels as well as the scale of the development completely clash with this environment. It also highlights the need to protect the remote character of the area, and advises against out of scale developments. Sites like Wheal Jane are much more appropriate to such developments as they present a larger scale and already possess an industrial character. This green and quiet rural valley, on the other hand, does not need industrialisation. 2) Damage to tourism industry Tourism is Cornwall?s main source of income, and as such its most valued industry. It offers a long-term, sustainable income to the region. Damaging the countryside and turning farmland into industrial land will considerably impact on the tourism industry. Tourists come to the countryside to escape their urban/industrial environments and see cows grazing on fields, not rows of solar panels. The cumulative impact of all these various ?green? energy projects will create a feeling of industrialisation which will keep tourists away, looking for unspoilt beauty elsewhere. 3) Wasteful use of land/loss of quality agricultural land Because of the topography of the fields, their small size and many hedgerows, a lot of space is wasted in this scheme. There are big gaps between each group of panels, and using this land for cattle is a much more efficient use of the surface area. On appropriate sites, (bigger, flatter, more square plots of land), less space is wasted, and as a result the developments don?t need to take up as much space. Fields of a bigger scale would be much more suitable to such a development. Also, the application mentions the quality of the fields in very vague terms: ?it is my view that the land most likely falls within Subgrade 3b?. These vague and subjective comments are not sufficient to justify the grading of the land. Grade 3a land falls under different planning regulations than grade 3b land, so this should be clarified. Furthermore, most (almost all) land in Cornwall is grade 3 or 4, so I do not believe that the grade of these fields is a valid argument in favour of development - otherwise it would mean that the entirety of Cornwall is suitable for development. As far as Cornwall is concerned, south facing grade 3 land is quality agricultural land, and it should be protected - especially with a food crisis on its way. (Also, crops have previously been grown on this land according to local farmers, which further proves its quality.) A recent article from the South West Farmer (published this November) highlighted this problem: ?Taking farmland out of food production for ?greening? is counter-intuitive when world supplies are becoming tighter.? In this article, the National Beef Association said ?debate in Brussels is still concentrating on greening plans that in some countries could reduce food production by up to seven per cent even though there is a clear evidence that global demand for grains already exceeds supply and more grazing land will be needed to encourage a tactical lift in livestock output.? Of course energy is needed, but suitable sites should be chosen for it so that we can get both the food and the energy. What is the point in creating our own green energy if we are going to have to import our food from far away? It?s only displacing the problem. The land would also be damaged by the development, and would have lost some of its agricultural value after 25 years (the grass under the panels will be in the shade and will die, the soil won?t be fed, and the pesticides sprayed on the fields will add to the damage.) 4) Negative impact on the local community This is a private scheme and there are no actual benefits for the local community - expect from a negligible amount of money given to the Parish Council, a short-term benefit which doesn?t weigh up to the adverse effects the development will have on the area. The scheme will have a negative economical impact on the community due to: loss of income from tourism, drop in property values, drop in rental income. It will also greatly impact on the quality of life of both the locals and the visitors to this area, who enjoy walking and riding in this valley. The applicant mentioned a potential future offset in electricity bills, but this will never make up for the loss in property value and rent income, the loss of income from tourism, or the loss of enjoyment of our beautiful environment. The beautiful rural environment and quality pasture fields are real assets for the community. Destroying these will definitely harm Halvasso, Mabe and the surrounding area on the long term. 5) Adverse ecological/environmental impact The chosen site includes approximately 7km of hedgerows. The building of the solar farm will involve the reduction of existing Cornish hedgerows to 2.4m height, and the felling of mature hedge species. This will be significantly detrimental to the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority hedge habitat. The study area supports a rich variety of wildlife, many of which shelter, hunt and forage in the hedges and semi- improved pasture. These include badgers, foxes, bats, owls (at least three species), buzzards, woodpeckers, swallows, newts and lizards some of these are themselves BAP priority species. The proposed felling of mature hedge species, repeated sprayed application of glyphosphate, fertiliser and the erection of 2 metre wire security fencing is likely to be significantly detrimental to their shelter/hunting/foraging and deserve serious reconsideration. I am also worried about the consequences of the spraying of pesticides on local water supplies (bore holes) as well as on the water reservoirs situated nearby. 6) Noise. The fact that the chosen site is in a very quiet valley also makes it unsuitable. There are virtually no existing industrial noises or traffic noises in this area, and this is rare enough to need preserving. The topography of the valley means that it carries sound extremely well - sound waves bounce and echo all along the valley, which means that the sounds generated by the strimmers, the transformer as well as any other sounds related to the upkeep of the site will strongly affect the peaceful character of the area. 7) Need for a change in direction regarding green energy planning At the moment, landowners are urged to apply for planning permission to install large scale solar PV schemes before December 1st, as a Government proposal may reduce the financial benefits available for large solar schemes under the Renewable Obligation programme from April 1st 2013. There have been various similar ?deadlines? over the past few years, each of them bringing up a string of rushed applications. The solar ?gold rush? that Cornwall has been experiencing seems to be taking worrying proportions, and more and more people are starting to notice that ?green isn?t always good?. Actually, green isn?t always green. Damaging the existing environment and valued ecological habitats to produce green energy is counter-productive, and certainly not green. I believe that now is the time to adopt a truly sustainable approach to green energy, through selecting well-thought developments that do not compromise valued landscapes, local communities, food production and tourism, and thus ensure that Cornwall?s assets are protected and that the region will thrive on the long-term. 8) If the plans were to go ahead regardless of the opposition of the local community, then these changes should be considered: - Ensure there is a clause/covenant stating clearly that no further fields from the ?area of study? can be developed as extra sites for solar panels later - Ensure that there is a clause/covenant stating clearly that the land use will revert to ?agricultural? after 25 years - Soundproof the inverter so that no sound is heard in the valley - Reduce the scale of the development to at least half of the proposed size, in keeping with the small scale of the fields, roads, hamlets and everything that defines the character of the valley. - Do not alter any of the existing edges - Carefully plan the planting of the hedges so that fast growing indigenous species providing cover summer and winter are planted - Allow enough wildlife corridors so as not to disturb the local ecology - Landscape the area surrounding the fields, plant wildflowers, to make it pleasant to walk by/ride by on public footpaths/bridleways. - Do not use chemical spraying to keep the weeds at bay, but a sustainable alternative such as grazing animals.
Miss Anna Kingsley (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 08 Nov 2012 Opposition to planning application by Lightsource: Halvasso Solar Farm PA12/09502 I oppose this planning application because I am concerned that the benefits of the solar energy proposed to be produced, do not outweigh or justify the detrimental impact on the environment and the local community should the development go ahead. Using agriculturally fertile land of natural beauty and abundant wildlife for industrial solar development would disregard National Planning Policy Framework guidance that poorer quality land should be used. I believe Cornwall Council has a responsibility to favour applications which place renewable energy power stations on industrial, brownfield sites and waste land before considering sites of beauty and farming productivity such as the valley at Halvasso. I am concerned about the medium and long term impact on the local community and environment of the loss of agricultural land to energy production which does not require land of that quality. Food security and food miles are growing concerns locally and nationally ? we need the capacity to produce our own food in Cornwall at least as much as we need the capacity to produce our own energy. Local food production significantly helps reduce the energy consumption associated with transporting or importing food. Lightsource?s proposed development cannot be considered environmentally sustainable if it hinders our capacity for local food production by reducing further the availability of agricultural land. Other objectors have demonstrated the risks the proposed development poses to the area?s abundant wildlife and important hedgerows. I am concerned by the cavalier way that it is assumed by the landowner and the developers that the land will return to its former quality and productivity after 25 years. I am not convinced that land that has endured the 25 years of glyphosphate herbicide spraying proposed can return to productive agricultural use and thriving wildlife habitat so easily. The potentially harmful effects of this industrial land use will surely be felt on the land and in its community long after the solar farm has completed its 25 year cycle. I am particularly concerned about the cumulative effect of granting permission for this development. I understand that whilst the number of solar panels currently indicated represents the initial scale of the development, the study area is larger, and that planning permission granted now would allow additional panels to added within the study area in future. Approval at this stage thus opens the way for further and future development by Lightsource in this study area alone. Further, it logically paves the way for similar developments in this area and on similarly fruitful agricultural and naturally significant land throughout our county. As of September, 16 other proposed solar developments had been put forward for screening within three miles of the Halvasso site. Within just one mile of the proposed site, planning permission is being sought to convert a combined 175 acres of farmland to industrial use, with the resulting displacement of tenant farmers and removal of land for Cornwall?s food production. This is mammoth scale industrial development, not disguised by calling it a solar ?farm?. I urge caution in consideration of this, an application that appears to pave the way for large scale concentration of solar industrial developments in a small rural community, on inappropriate land, with potentially irreversible damage to the environment and natural habitats, and to the livelihoods and quality of life of local residents. Whilst the need for farm diversification schemes is understood, it is also understood that such schemes should be appropriate in character and scale for their surroundings. That doesn?t appear to be the case with this scheme, particularly given the potential cumulative effect of successive approvals for such developments. It doesn?t seem appropriate for a small rural community to shoulder a disproportionate burden for energy production that far surpasses their own consumption, by way of a scheme that benefits a single land owner through rent, but effectively hinders the opportunities other residents may have for diversification of their own farming land though, for example, tourism and rental. Finally, this planning application and the approach taken by Lightsource should itself concern Cornwall Council. Lightsource betray a disregard for the local and affected community through: their lack of consultation with or engagement of the local community; their repeated submission of documents containing inconsistent and incorrect addresses for the land and a misleading under-estimate of the number of residences affected by their proposal. Perhaps most worrying is the absence of images of some of the key views of the proposed development, and the failure to include any such images in the first iteration of the application; this could be construed as the developer providing incomplete or mis-information to avoid the objections that might be provoked by full transparency and honesty in relation to the proposed development. I believe that if Cornwall Council has a sincere desire for renewable energy production in and for the benefit of Cornwall - as do I and many of the opponents of this particular application - that they might consider seeking out brownfield sites and approach renewables companies for their development; or impose conditions of rooftop energy production when approving new supermarkets, industrial and commercial buildings and housing developments. I believe that a halt to this development, in such an unsuitable location, by Cornwall Council would send a strong and timely signal that the Council is aware of and listening to current debates surrounding the indiscriminate development of land for renewable energy production. A refusal to grant permission for this development would demonstrate that Cornwall Council has the capacity to take a robust analytical approach to such applications it receives, rather than unquestioningly applying a ?green is good? policy. Thank you for considering my objections, Sincerely, Anna Kingsley (Falmouth resident)
Mr Stephan Harrison (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 08 Nov 2012
I am a climate scientist and entirely understand the need for renewable energy to decarbonise our economy. However, this proposal (and similar large-scale proposals like this) is counter-productive. This seems to me to constitute the imposition of a large industrial facility onto a rural community. There has been little thought for the damage that such an enormous solar farm will have on the amenity value of the local area and on local wildlife. It will destroy a large area of greenfield land and affect valuable hedgerows. It is clear that the company involved (and maybe also the absentee-landlord) recognise how unpopular this proposal is. They used what appeared to be highly underhand methods to try and push this proposal through, and have mislead the community on several occasions. They appeared to have deliberately failed to keep the community informed of the consultation meetings. They claimed to have sent letters out to every household in the vicinity of the proposed site, but this quite obviously did not happen. They made misleading comments in the last consultation meeting (held in October) and and they made mistakes on the original application. This seems to be part of a pattern repeated elsewhere in the county by similar firms trying to develop solar farms. In conclusion, my objections rest on the fact that the local community will not benefit from this development at all, and yet will bear all the environmental cost. There are clearly better ways to reduce our carbon footprint, and this would include fitting all suitable homes with solar panels. This, at least, would have the backing of the local community.
Ms Tessa Kingsley (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 08 Nov 2012
I object to this application for the following reasons: 1. the sheer scale of the proposal is unsuitable for this rural location 2. I strongly object to the cutting back of the surrounding hedgerows 3. I object to the underhand tactics used by the company, which claimed to have notified local residents of the public consultation when only one household received such a letter 4. this is another example of large renewable energy company trying to cover areas of Cornwall with solar panels for its own finanical gain 5. contrary to a claim made at the Parish Council meeting, local households will not benefit directly from reduced carbon emissions or reduced fuel bills 6. this application has been made by an absentee landlord, who will benefit financially without actually having to experience the impact on the surrounding agricultural landscape. I wholeheartedly agree that we have to take responsibility for our energy supplies and understand how much energy we use, and where it comes from. However, I believe in small-scale local schemes which local residents can invest in and benefit from.
Mr Edward McTeed (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 08 Nov 2012
As someone who has been visiting the area almost every year since 1997, I was horrified to learn about the planned blighting of this beautiful valley. Needless to say my family will need to find some other place to holiday, (perhaps Wales) if this goes ahead. At least we will have our pictures... Solar farms make sense, but not in idyllic surrounds such as these for God's sake!
Mr Graeme Newton (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 08 Nov 2012
1) Impact on Local Community: Halvasso is a traditional rural community that has been engaged in agricultural activity for centuries. The area is served by small winding roads in poor repair and crisscrossed by footpaths. There are no pavements on these busy roads, making them especially dangerous in the summer months for pedestrians. Nor are there adequate sight lines for on-coming vehicles with frequent blind bends. Care has been taken to ensure all development has been consistent with the buildings and historical environment enabling significant local income to be raised from tourism. There are around 25 separate households in the immediate vicinity of this project. The plan to replace the cattle constrained in Cornish hedges with a 2 metre iron security fences topped with security cameras is wholesale destruction of the local resident?s environment and will be strenuously be resisted at every turn. This ugly and un-neighbourly fencing will blight the area and be offensive to residents and holiday makers alike. 2) Impact on surrounding buildings and environment: The local infrastructure only just copes with the current level of traffic. The roads around the site are all single lane with limited passing spaces. To safely support this project the road would need to be made wide enough for two vehicles before commencement of works, which would lead to further destruction of the local environment. 3) Design, appearance and layout of proposed development: The project being so close to significant numbers of residential properties needs high surrounding hedges to cover up the security fences and cameras and suppress noise. 4) Problems with site access and parking: Section 3 of the construction method statement is said to specify the site access. The site appears to have two areas of panels; no mention is made of how the eastern area is connected to the western area and how maintenance vehicles will be routed around the site. 5) Highway safety and traffic: Our household has had four near misses in the last 2 years on the ?unnamed blue road?, referred to in the Lightsource construction method statement, which runs past our cottage. Safety would be improved by a sensible speed limit (currently unrestricted) and road widening, however increasing the traffic and running very large vehicles down this unimproved country lane will certainly result in injury and possibly death to a motorist, cyclist, horse rider or walker in the near future. Any widening of the roads would however, be extremely damaging to the character of this rural area. 6) Impact on local services: The poorly maintained road will need improving before the project starts and repair once the build is complete. 7) Specific features onsite that should be retained: The Cornish hedges (all of them)! 8) Noise disturbance etc: During construction: We were interested to hear Lightsource were going to pile drive each support stanchion in place. We suspect the underlying granite may make this excessively noisy. After construction: We understand the grass will be strimmed at least four times per year. We suspect it will take one man around four weeks to strim 26 acres, in which case there will be strimming nearly all the time apart from winter time. This will not be acceptable to the local residents. A natural organic scheme should be conditioned for this. 9) Suggestions for improvement: Use the exiting fields and hedges, don?t erect prison type fences and security; and use sheep to crop the grass. Much cheaper, much less disruptive! 10) Other concerns: This plan, if accepted would turn a significant proportion of Halvasso?s green fields to industrial status and would open the door for the original 42 acre plan to be executed with yet more to follow by the precedents set, in an area with 25 households very close by. Lightsource has called into question its own competence/credibility by failing to invite those households to the initial meeting and by using a misleading address on the original planning application. Based on the response at the Bishops Forum meeting (06/11/2012) they are not trusted by the residents and the council needs to exercise caution in dealing with them. Conclusion: This proposed development will fundamentally destroy the idyllic rural environment at Halvasso turning it into a high security, permanently noisy industrial wasteland. This is clearly a human rights issue for the residents. The construction method statement needs to address the routes to be used to build and maintain the site and obtain the necessary permissions for any new road ways. The local authority needs to plan and cost the infrastructure changes required to ensure to project is undertaken in a safe way and apply noise limits to all aspects of the construction and maintenance of the installation. Steps must be taken to prevent the whole of our community being fenced off, put on camera and covered in glass and steel. Finally: There are acres and acres of barren land, with very few households, good infrastructure and south facing slopes, so why build this here and blight an area so close to the Helford River, a special area of conservation, site of special scientific interest and area of outstanding natural beauty. Graeme & Gail Newton
Mr/s JA Young (Supports)
Comment submitted Thu 08 Nov 2012
Please see associated documents tab for comments
PETITON (organised By S E Nicholls) (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 08 Nov 2012
Scanned
Miss Jill Dunn (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 08 Nov 2012 I'm writing to request that, if this development goes ahead, the environmental assessment recommendations are to be carried out. My concerns are that there will be a considerable loss of biodiversity due to the cutting back of the hedgerows to 2.4 metres . A lot of the hedgerows under threat have mature trees at 6m height. Given that the Cornish hedge stone part is usually at about 1.2-1.5m, this effectively means cutting down mature trees to 1m height, which is likely to kill the majority of the mature trees as well as remove the habitat for bats, barn owls etc that frequent the area. There are 6 species of bat all of which are protected and so are their habitats ( Please please follow the appropriate bat legislation that I'm sure the planning officers are aware of). I also would like to see some nature corridors provided to offset the negative habitat loss. For example a 10m wide strip running along the northern boundaries. The forestry commission advise clearly on this. These biodiversity considerations I feel should be priorities of any council granting permission for any developments of this scale. Furthermore I beleive that the grass will need to be cut back on the site if the solar farm is to go ahead. Having looked into the amount of time it takes to strim an area of this (proposed) size, it seems that there may be need for an industrial strimmer to be at work much of the year. The noise from such work would be hugely detrimental to those living nearby (far more annoying that the hum of a transformer). On another note, though I'm sure it is not a material consideration and thus sadly invalid, I want to know if the Australian developer knows that Longdowns is possibly the cloudiest place in Cornwall after Bodmin moor? If one were to ask me where I could find a lot of "space" with "sunshine", I would probably suggest Australia over Halvosso.
Miss emily hall (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 08 Nov 2012
We strongly oppose the application for a solar farm , at boundis halvasso ,the area is a valley of green fields which are productive farmland . There are several footpaths and bridle ways,where regular riders and cyclists are encountered .I dread to imagine what this solar farm will really look like and think that this will affect so many people. We understand that one of the proposed requirements is for the boundary hedges to be reduced in height and width and that it is further proposed for the hedges to be sprayed ,please note that the hedges separating our property/land from the proposed solar panels farm land are JOINTLY owned hedges and jointly maintained by the owners of the land on each side of the hedges .consequently, please note that we do not and will not agree to the width and height of the hedges being reduced .The hedges not only provide protection and shelter for our cattle from wind and weather ,but the hedging also prevents the cattle rubbing at stones in the hedges and damaging it and therefore keeps cattle more secure in the field and less likely to escape onto neighbouring land. We are concerned about the fact that it has also been proposed to use chemicals to control weeds and to clean the panels ,our water source is from a spring and also from three of the fields , of the proposed solar farm , water runs off into a ditch on our property and flows past the spring into the river then to argal reservoir ,the water from the spring is used to clean the dairy and could be a health hazard if any chemicals got into the water and left a residue in the milk storage tank and into the food chain .At the present moment we are 19th for milk hygiene in the country, for milklink suppliers. We are also concerned for the badgers on and around this site and ask if a FULL WILDLIFE STUDY was carried out for this site and if it was could you email us a copy and let us know who did the study ,if one was not done we request that one is as soon as possible .
Mr paul welch (Objects) Comment submitted Thu 08 Nov 2012
Dear Cornwall Council Reference PA12/09502 We are writing to object to the above Solar Farm planning application we state our reasons below. We have also put suggestions to improve the proposed development. On the most northerly field on the plan there is a north-facing slope covered with photo voltaics with a gradient of 1 in 6. Do these people know what they are doing or do they intend to raise them up much higher than their structure detail plan. The government and therefore local councils need to fulfill targets to reduce carbon emissions and to improve their sustainable energy supplies. As a family that lives off grid we wholeheartedly agree with this. It is vital that we the democratically elected government, the local council and the local community get it right at Halvasso. That we fulfill the targets, sustainably, sensitively, and financially rewarding locally that we listen to the local concerns and we act upon them so everyone benefits . We set an exemplary example to other communities and councils . Impact on local community. Local farmers are loosing good grazing, denying the local economy and our ability to buy locally sourced food with low carbon footprint. There are people farming in this valley that produce our food. It is better to use brown field sites and rooftops of local superstores and industrial buildings for solar power before land. The more versatile food production is in Cornwall the safer our future is. We need to support our small dairy farmers they are a dying breed and make up the diversification of Cornwall rich farming tapestry. Tourism and rental opportunities will be undermined by the proposal. It will have a major impact on the fragile local economy, where farmers diversify to support their businesses. Impact on the environment. It is vital that our country heritage is not destroyed. Please learn from the mistakes of the past and look at other counties where hedgerows have been removed. The proposal involves reducing existing hedgerows to 2.4m halving the existing cover. These hedgerows are classified as ?Important Hedgerows? under the Hedgerow act 1997. And warrant protection and appropriate management. As my land borders some of the proposed site I state here categorically that I do not want any hedgerow bordering my land cut. Could the planning include some space between the hedges and the solar panels to allow maximum efficiency for the panels and allow the hedges to remain? The removal of the hedgerows would change the character of the landscape and have a detrimental effect on wildlife, this would have impact on the tourism industry. We seriously object to the proposal of spraying the hedges regularly with glyphosphate herbicide and fertilizer. This will have a seriously detrimental effect on the bio diverse wildlife that currently inhabits the site. Foxes, Badgers, weasel. Bats, toads, newts, frogs, owls, buzzards, swallows etc. many of these are protected. It would be better to have grazing regime. There is no water on site for sheep but a borehole could be provided. The grazing would also cut down on noise and carbon footprint of strimmers. Design appearance and Layout of development. The industrial nature and scale of the proposal are not sensitive to the local environment. I am concerned about the sound levels of the transformers as it is an exceptionally peaceful valley. I propose that the transformers be partially submerged underground. Developments such as these should bring a sustainable improvement to Cornwall?s economy. It would be beneficial to invest locally in these solar farms rather than shipping out to an Australian company. There should be an option for local residents and businesses to invest in the scheme. I hope you take my objections into consideration. Yours sincerely Harriet Thody Paul Welch Landowners adjacent to the proposed Solar Farm
Ms Georgina Barber (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 07 Nov 2012 To allow the obliteration of farmland by covering it in vast tracts of solar panelling constitutes a flagrant dereliction of duty by any organisation which claims to be a guardian of our natural environment, in this case that of Cornwall. The need for renewable energy sources is not in question but it becomes more and more evident that solar panelling will not be the means of satisfying this need in the amounts required. Rapid progress is currently being made in methods of provisioning energy: geothermal, nuclear and wave power will be our future. If solar panelling is believed to be a viable source then such large scale installations as are needed should be limited to urban and brownfield sites such as the tract of land between St. Austell and Bodmin formerly used for clay mining. The area under consideration in Halvasso is wholely unsuited to such a development, it being an area of hedgerows , farmland, supporting many varieties of wildlife, accessed through very narrow lanes and bordered by unique homesteads. If this Light Source application is consented to then an area of unique tranquillity will be lost. If the Planning Authorities in Cornwall give twenty-five year licences to private companies speculating in solar panelling for quick profit and as a token offering to allow the 15% target in renewable energy to be met then they will be failing in their duty of care to protect and preserve the unique landscape of the county which draws so many visitors to its beauty.
Ms hazel vallis (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 07 Nov 2012
Whilst I understand the need for renewable energy and energy security; I feel strongly that food-miles contribute to carbon emissions so food security is as important and the environment including local character and biodiversity are important. I understand central and local government have made commitments to reduce carbon- based energy, though there seems to be no benefits to Cornish Council tax payers who are suffering negative impacts on their lifestyle, environment and communities. My objections to this development at HALVASSO relate to the impact on the local environment and local homes; due to additional traffic particularly large and heavy vehicles using narrow country lanes; and restricted site access from the road with no parking provision especially during the construction stage; there is potential loss of important historic hedgerow systems and the habitats they provide; potential increased noise, disturbance and damage to local infrastructures such as road surfaces and drainage. It is disappointing that my objections to the previous application appear to have disappeared however I have reviewed this application and refute the following answers given in the application questionnaire: Q 13 ? Protected species on land or adjacent to it; Answer No (incorrect). IN FACT: BADGERS ? (Meles meles) There are numerous badger sets in the area including just across the road on Potters farm land. The badgers have a run across the road into the fields subject to this application. Security fencing has made no provision for badgers or other animal access or egress which will restrict their foraging activities. BATS ? (Pipistrellus pipistrellus and others) Bats patrol the valley at dawn & dusk, it is known that bats use hedge lines as routes, and trees as summer roost sites. Removal if hedges and trees from within the site could affect the bat population in the valley and installation of high fencing may also adversely impact bat behaviour. REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS - Common lizards(Zootoca vivipara), slow-worms (Anguis fragilis), common toads (Bufo bufo) and adders (Vipera berus) use the stone faced ?cornish hedges? as winter retreats and basking sites, all these species live in this valley. BIRDS - barn and tawny owls (Tyto alba, Strix aluco) and buzzards (Buteo buteo) ? these birds predate small animals which inhabit the pastures and hedgerows in this valley. This fauna can only be preserved through grassland mosaics created by gazing and diverse food-rich hedgerows. The grass and hedgerows around the panels should therefore be grazed, not frequently cut or worse, sprayed. Q15 ? trees and hedges on land or adjacent to it, which are important to the local character; Answer No (incorrect). Landscape and historic value of CORNISH HEDGES - The site is divided into twelve fields by stone faced banks known as Cornish Hedges, many if which date to medieval times having escaped the Enclosure Acts of the 15th to 18th century . The hedgerows are constructed using local stone, in this case granite, to a specific local design as described on the Council web-site (http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=13767) and has a craft guild (http://www.cornishhedges.co.uk/abouttheguild.htm) dedicated to their authentic construction. These banks are topped with vegetation including flowers and scrub trees. These hedges are particularly important as landscape features, following contours to protect the soil from erosion and protect livestock and crops from the excesses of the wind. They have an abundance of locally indigenous plants and scrub trees which not only reflect their age but enhance the biodiversity of the area. The LVIA1 makes recommends including protection and enhancement of hedgerows which bound the site ? THIS SHOULD INCLUDE THE HEDGEROWS WITHIN THE SITE. Proposed enhancement includes planting additional trees and shrubs - I believe these plants should be sourced from GUARANTEED LOCAL STOCK to ensure correct flowering seasons and to PROTECT BIO-SECURITY (ref to ash die-back linked to continental Europe!). The security fencing description makes no provision for small animal access or egress, this could create ISLAND POPULATIONS of mammals trapped within the security fence. I would recommend this proposal be REJECTED, however should it go ahead environmental impacts may be MITIGATED by retaining existing hedges as mixed vegetation including bushes and trees to provide a habitat for farmland birds and reptiles, these are currently IN DECLINE. Grassland ?patchily? maintained with no cutting before mid-summer could provide habitats for ground-nesting birds (also DECLINING), and small mammals also to allow pasture flowers to seed. The protection from fox predation due to security fencing may benefit those animals trapped within the enclosures and birds which can use the area as a haven (provided disturbance and cutting is kept to a minimum with NO USE of herbicides, pesticides and fungicides on site). It should not be forgotten that this is a CATCHMENT SENSITIVE AREA providing drinking water to Falmouth and The Lizard. Finally, the main direct impact of this development to my property and lifestyle is increased noise and vibration from construction and maintenance traffic especially during the installation of the panels, fencing and import of ?temporary? buildings made from panels constructed off-site. It will reduce the amenity value of the area which is currently a quiet area with rural farmland criss-crossed by footpaths and bridleways. Should this project go ahead I will seek a council tax banding review due to a significant change in the locality which will cause a loss of property value (https://www.gov.uk/council-tax-appeals).
Ms kim gardner (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 07 Nov 2012
I strongly object to this proposed planning....I live only a few hundred yards from this site. I love the uninterupted view of Falmouth bay and the sea. We all live here for the beauty and peace of this ancient unspoilt area. To build a solar farm here would be devestating for the wild-life and a definate eye-sore. The trimming of the wonderful hedgerows a giant fence not to mention cameras...We live in the country-side and all this would be very invasive...We don't want to destroy this natural landscape. Why not put it at Goonhilly ...it would be fine there..they already have the fences..This is a popular spot for horse-riders,many of them are children, surely they deserve to see this remain the same. I want to continue looking at the sea...not an industral eatate. I hope you will put a stop to this devestating proposal.
Ms Emma Ruddle (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 07 Nov 2012
FAO Mr Ellis Crompton-Brown Re Halvasso Solar Farm PA12/09502 OBJECTS 7-11-2012 Dear Mr Crompton- Brown, I am strongly objecting to the application for a solar farm PA 12/09502. They are a number of points why I am objecting to this application. 1. I consider the land around this area as primarily agricultural land NOT industrial, though the application is clearly industrial in character. The land is not suitable for this. Its vast size means they will dominate the fields for miles around and look completely out of context. The open and rural character of the landscape here for the last 200 years will be radically altered. 2. The company have been ?sneaky? in their approach to this application. Namely their original application called the location ?land at YEW tree Cottage Penryn? as well as no less than 5 different addresses- none close to the true site. The current application is now registered in the correct parish, but all supporting documentation still refers to Stithians. This is inaccurate and misleading no doubt further confuses the local community. If the supporting archaeological, ecological etc reports are not even to be given the correct location/parish etc- it makes any professional use of them near impossible. 3. This is beautiful countryside which is going to be blighted by acres of solar panels with obtrusive fencing mounted with security cameras, which we consider an invasion of privacy. 4. The company intend to spray herbicides and regularly strim the hedges and 24 acre development to accommodate maximum sunlight for the panels. The strimming will be over 100 decibels in our quiet neighbourhood. Another development by the same Company- at Wheal Jane (much more sensibly sited), takes 2weeks for each strim for a site about a third the size of the Halvasso project. At Halvasso, the vast majority of the site is probably as far away from a road as it is possible to get in Cornwall with background noise dominated by birdsong. The 4 proposed strims each year- if done by a single worker will probably take around 6 weeks each time (based on timings from the Wheal Jane Solar Farm). 5. The residents agree that this is a quiet community, with varying wildlife and rolling pasture land, we do not want this balance upset by traffic/servicing vehicles and an eyesore. 6. Local residents and businesses insurance will increase followed by a decrease on the value of properties. If our child happened to kick a football over and smash a solar panel not only would we be responsible but the poisonous chemical spilled from the panels would be extremely dangerous. With such an extensive area of panels some are bound to break at some point. 7. The increased volume of traffic to build and maintain these sites too. Our roads are narrow and winding, with walkers , horse riders and cyclists and are very unsuitable to the resultant volume and noise of trucks and lorries to the site and back. This is making our roads more dangerous and our enjoyment of our immediate countryside access rights less available. 8. We have concerns that no recommendations have been made for further archaeological work for the anomaly identified in the top field (opposite BF) by the landowner Phil Blease. Additionally we could not see this feature obviously highlighted in the CgMs cultural assessment (2012). We were asked by Mr Blease to investigate this in 2009 when a sizable void opened up in the field. We undertook desk-based analysis and undertook limited Geophysics on site (as a training opportunity for local students) to attempt to locate, characterise and map the anomaly. This was not funded and the stone lined void had been filled in prior to our investigation, making such a limited investigation inconclusive. The reported anomaly comprised a substantial void, described by Mr Blease as possibly stone-lined. Given its relatively isolated position and the lack of buildings/structures shown on the historic mapping- as backed by the recent archaeological assessment (CgMs 2012), we concluded that the anomaly was likely to be pre-1840 (Tithe). Further, given the demonstrable early usage of the area (Early medieval place-name evidence, Cairns, Barrows etc) and likely prehistoric ridge-top routeway it is possible that the structure may even be a fougou- typically associated with Late iron age/RB settlement, rather than a hull etc. There were (2009) just 17 Fougous recognised in Cornwall and whilst similar structure?s are plentiful in Ireland (Souterrains), the Irish structures are demonstrably more recent- generally been constructed from the 8-12th century AD (ie Medieval), it has been argued (Mossop et al 2001) in response to Viking raiding etc. Even a possible fougou is potentially of regional significance- recent excavations at Boden Vean have highlighted the continued difficulties in interpretation of these enigmatic structures (ritual, storage, shelter). We recommended at the time that deep ploughing over the site be avoided but given the imprecise nature of the sites location feel that the deep cable runs for the PV arrays in the field may impact the feature and potentially damage its cap stones. This land is a residential farming community, an inappropriate setting for an industrial development of this scale. They are many other areas that would be suited to this type of zoning like Treliever- which has already been put forward, Wheal Jane etc and possibly some of the other 5 solar farms proposed in our valley. Please leave our beautiful unspoilt countryside as it is, not an industrial park. The company has not been forthcoming in giving proper information about this, either over the phone or direct to the community which further builds our deep distrust of them. They appear to use underhand methods to prevent dissemination of information and resultant objections. This scheme has nothing of benefit to the local community at Halvasso. I would like to be kept informed of the progress of this application Yours sincerely Emma Ruddle BA (Hons) MIAI AIfA Senior Archaeologist
Mrs Jane Trerise (Supports)
Comment submitted Wed 07 Nov 2012
Please see associated documents tab for comments
Mrs Carolyn Trickey (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 07 Nov 2012
I understand there is a need for renewable energy and the Government and Council targets have to be met. However I feel that the proposed scheme at Halvosso fails to meet the planning criteria for such a development. 1. It will have a huge impact on the local community turning productive agricultural land into an industrial site. 2. There will be an impact on the environment affecting wildlife. 3. The panels and high security fence with CCTV cameras will have a disturbing visual impact. 4. The site access will have to widened which will involve removing a large section of ancient Cornish hedge. 5. Access to the site is along a very narrow lane with no speed limit which passes a number of residential properties in Halvosso. 6. The fields enclosed by the Cornish hedgerows on this site are typical of the type farmed for many centuries, there is great plant and animal diversity within them and any disturbance must be detrimental. 7. The noise levels emitted from the inverter buildings will not only cause a distressing disturbance to residents but also can have an effect on wildlife altering predator or prey detection. If however this development is approved in principle I hope the following suggestions can be implemented to help mitigate the detrimental effect on this beautiful residential, agricultural and amenity area. 1. The field adjacent to the bridleway is not used for solar panels because of its high visual impact. 2. The inverter buildings to have acoustic screening and bunding around them. 3. The Cornish hedges to remain untouched. 4. The vegetation to be controlled by grazing rather than chemical pesticides and noisy machinery.
Mr Phil Blease (Supports)
Comment submitted Wed 07 Nov 2012
PA12/09502 - Installation and operation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure Land at Halvasso formally known as Boundis Farm Dear Sirs I support the above application. I declare an interest as I am the owner of the land and if the application is successful I will receive a rent for the land that is utilised for the solar farm for the duration of the contract. I support the application for the following reasons :- 1. The proposed scheme will produce renewable energy for 25 years, helping the county of Cornwall and the country meet their respective renewable and sustainable energy targets 2. The proposed site is very suitable as it cannot be seen from the adjacent road which runs through the hamlet of Halvasso, with the exception of 2 gateways and a strip of 20 metres of the road immediately beyond the entrance to BF Adventure and then only by traffic heading towards Halvasso. Even then only half of one field is visible from the road. 3. For recreational users of the land the visual impact has been minimised by taking out of the scheme both of the fields across which public footpaths cross. 4. There is a visual impact for people using the bridle way which leads into BF Adventure and Goodagrane. Users of this track will see panels in 2 of the 9 fields although this view will be masked by hedges and hedgerows after about 40 metres from leaving the public highway. 5. At the end of the useful life of the solar scheme the equipment will be removed and the land returned in its current condition. The status of the land will remain ?Green Field Site? rather than ?Brown Field Site? as has been suggested by some objectors 6. Not all the land I own will be used for the solar panels and consequently 3 complete fields and 2 half fields will still be available for agriculture use. 7. I believe that apart from the initial construction period that the solar farm will reduce the amount of traffic in the area when compared to normal agricultural traffic. I understand that during the 3 month construction period 40 delivery vehicle journeys will be involved which averages less than one every two days. 8. There is a badger set on my land but this is located in the residual land that will not be rented to the Solar Panel Company and is well away from the solar panels. Overall I believe this site is as good as it could be in terms of suitability and with minimum impact on neighbours and the wider community.
Mr Matt Mossop (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 07 Nov 2012
Re-issue of previous letter, which has not so far been logged on the website. Original Message----- From: matt mossop [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 November 2012 16:33 To: Crompton- Brown Ellis Cc: [email protected] Subject: Halvasso Solar Farm PA12/09502 Objects Dear Ellis, Thanks for your letter advising of the new Solar Farm application and all your help to date. It is much appreciated. Charlotte McManus (Lightsource) has also been unfailingly helpful answering a host of questions about the proposed development. We additionally note that efforts have been made to ameliorate the associated construction traffic congestion re BF, however the more pressing issue of road safety on such a small twisty track with frequent young children, cyclists, horse riders, dog-walkers etc still needs to be addressed. Restriction to winter construction timeframe, temporary speed restrictions and an approach from the south is likely to help this situation considerably. Unfortunately many local residents and business owners (including ourselves) have many additional concerns about the significant negative impacts of the new application which don't appear so easy to mitigate. Feeling is particularly bitter due to the apparent lack of care with the applications (notably the address is still wrong on all the supporting documentation), failure in consultation and apparent deception in the application. We are holding a meeting kindly hosted by BF Adventure on Tuesday at 6pm and would be extremely grateful if you could attend. Additionally given the confusion with the withdrawn applications, the limited consultation and the complex issues of this application we would be very grateful if you could provide an extended consultation period to start after Lightsource actually write to all those people within 100m of the edge of the development. Additional time will hopefully allow us time to put together a more constructive response. To date concerns centre on: Setting and Scale Accumulative permanent negative landscape impact Ecological impact on 7.5km 'important' hedgerows (use of pesticides and managing (chopping?) to 2.4m etc) Pesticide contamination of water supplies Undermining existing local economy (farming, rentals and tourism) Displacement of tenant farmers Property devaluation Legitimacy of application and consultation process I look forward to hearing from you and apologise for the lack of notice for the meeting- time as you will appreciate is not on our side. Needless to say I'd be very grateful if you could post this letter of objection on the relevant planning application on line, I note the previous letters of objection/ or the most recent (150 signature petition) do not appear on-line to date, Kind Regards Matt Mossop MA (Hons) MGSDip MIAI MIfA Director Archaeological Consultancy Ltd Goodagrane Halvasso Penryn Cornwall TR10 9BX 0044 (0)1326 341061 Email: [email protected] Website: www.archaeologicalconsultancy.com
Mr And Mrs Stokes (Objects)
Comment submitted Tue 06 Nov 2012
Please see associated documents tab for comments
Mr And Mrs K Trickey (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 05 Nov 2012
Please see associated documents tab for comments
Mr Edward Trewhella (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 02 Nov 2012
Although I support renewables in principle I am concerned by this application for the following reasons: 1. Consultation with residents of the valley has been minimal, fragmented, misleading and with a total lack of conviction 2. Increased traffic, particularly during the contstructiuon phase down the valley road is a concern for dog-walkers, people with choldren and horse-riders. Me and my family fir all of these categories 3. This is a pastoral valley, much-visited by walkers and people intersted in seeing historic Cornwall at its best. The proposed development brings an industrial feel with it in terms of its square configurations rather than the soft curvature of the rural landscape. 4. My ramblings up and down the valley with my dogs and on horseback will be considerably impaired by this blot on the landscape 5. We moved to the valley from Mylor in order to be surrounded by fields and woods and these are being steadily eroded through the introduction of many significant renewable energy projects, many in themselves being relatively small but when major ones (such as this) are introduced alongside all the others it becomes apparent that the valley is being changed beyond all recognition for the generation of power to support people who do not live in the vicinity. 6. I also have concerns over the environmental impact of the proposed development and wonder whether in addition to destroying the rural tranquility of the valley in human terms whether it will have a significant effect on biodiversity and environmental sustainability of species resident in the valley.
Mr Antony Hart (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 01 Nov 2012
Please see associated documents tab for comments
Mr/s S Yates (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 01 Nov 2012
Please see associated documents tab for comments
Mr Paul Simmons (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 25 Oct 2012
There are a lot of us fully aware and engaged on a personal level with renewable energy. A number of local residents within 120m of the proposal have had solar panels, wind turbines or ground source heat pumps installed privately with or without government subsidy which amounts to 10% of overall outlay. To be precise many of us are approaching the proposal from a knowledgeable understanding rather than a NIMBY response. On a personal level I am objecting on a number of points. 1. Energy production and consumption would not be of any benefit to the local population. It is for the benefit of one person only. 2. With no benefit to the local population as stated in 1, it would also be detrimental to the locality environmentally, specifically in the Biodiversity Action Plan relating to a broad number of species that have given rise to the specific classifications of land that have been granted to the area. 3. The thin end of the wedge effect that would arise from other proposals such as industrial site proposals are not beneficial to the local community. 4, The way that the application has been handled by the proposer is laughable and shows complete contempt for the local population. It is clear that this is a purely personal venture with no regard, for fair debate, interaction or understanding of local sentiment. There has been no proposal for any benefit to the local population and a disregard to the valuation and depreciation of values of properties in the local area. Yours sincerely Paul Simmons Lower Halvasso
Mr/s H Yates (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 01 Nov 2012 Please see associated documents tab for comments
Mr/s S E Nicholls (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 26 Oct 2012
Please see associated documents tab for comments
Mr C Elliott (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 07 Nov 2012
To view these comments please go to the Documents tab above.
N Barnes (Supports)
Comment submitted Fri 26 Oct 2012
To view these comments please go to the Documents tab above.