PA11/00774 Site address: Land at Hayle Lane, Callington Proposal: The development of a 5MW solar photovoltaic farm on 17.39 hectares of land close to Callington, along with attendant equipment and infrastructure Parish: Callington Town Council Applicant: Mr Mike Rutgers
Mrs Joanna Taylor (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 06 Apr 2011
Callington Town Council recommend the application for refusal.
Mrs Janet Gorman (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 31 Mar 2011
Will take up 44 acres of (food prodicing) farm land
Mrs J Hextall (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 28 Mar 2011
Objection received 23.03.2011
Messers J C Packer (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 23 Mar 2011
I wish to object to the above application on the grounds that it is an unwarranted, unnecessary and unwanted intrusion into the countryside. The proposal may be beneficial in providing green energy, but is an industrial development which should be sited accordingly. Your planning policies would not permit a factory to be sited in this location; why should this be considered?
Mr Andrew Selleck (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 23 Mar 2011
I write to formally object to the application as submitted on the following grounds representing my family in ownership of land to the east and north east of Bearland Bridge Cottage immediately adjacent to the application site. I would ask why the Council has not written us as owners of land immediately adjacent to this vast planning proposal, I was only informed by word of mouth, as the application site adjoins our familly's land for most of the north and east boundary. I would have thought that the Council would have considered us an interested party and sent us notification of the application but am informed you only write to householders. I am not objecting to the principal of the application as it is not my business to interfere with our neighbouring land owner's activities if the proposal can be satisfactorily implemented, however the detail of the application I object to as I cannot see that the application as submitted will not adversly affect our enjoyment of our land and the neighboring occupants of houses on Haye Lane and potentially the whole of the area of Callington if sufficient attention is not given to the following areas:- The layout of the apparatus- Currently it will not be satisfactorily screened from the immediately adjacent Cornwall Nature Conservation site The maintenance of the apparatus The long term removal of the apparatus and reinstatement of the land or replacement of it. I fear that if this site falls derelict at the end of it's economic life span it will be an eyesore. The 8ft (2.440M) security fence appears to be proposed on the boundary between our land to the north and east, this is also a scenic public footpath which is accessed directly off Haye Lane through to Bearland Bridge. This type of hard landscaping in such a recognised beautiful location is inappropriate and is also likely to cast a shadow for much of the day over these ancient hedgerows which have significant flora and forna within them. I would propose that the security fencing is moved a minimum distance of 10m away from each boundary and is satisfactorily screened with indigenous hedging plants which would add to, not detract from the landscape. I would be concerned that the attendant equipment and infrastructure will become a noise nuisance to adjoining residents, the humming of transformers and substations in this locality should be satisfactorily suppressed following an acoustic survey to no more than the current background noise level. I am concerned that Callington will be blighted by solar glare off the panels, steps should be taken to demonstrate that this will not be an intrusion into the natural landscape. I trust that this representation will be seen as constructive criticism and will lead to a scheme that can be well integrated within the landscape.
Mr Angus Dawe (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 23 Mar 2011
I am writing to express my opposition to the planned solar energy development in Callington, Cornwall (planning application PA11/00774). I was appalled to learn of this during my current stay in the area. Although I do not normally reside in the UK, I come to the Callington area regularly on vacation and I am very familiar with the exact location of the planned development. The vast area that is proposed to be covered with photovoltaic cells would be an immense blot on the landscape, visible from popular hiking areas in the immediate area such as Kit Hill. The reflective nature of these devices means that there is no way to disguise or camouflage their location. Thus, the view from Kit Hill and other locations in the vicinity would inevitably be greatly compromised. Furthermore, the houses along the road to Launceston in the area of Kelly Bray will be able to look down on the cells, thus ruining the pastoral setting and negatively affecting local house prices. It may seem odd for someone who lives 5000 miles away to present in interest in this development, but I do so as a concerned regular visitor who routinely comes to the area with his family. We come here precisely because it is not a typical holiday resort, we enjoy the pleasant local surroundings and find the location immensely convenient for accessing other parts of the region. However, if this development were to proceed, the disruption to the precise reasons why the Callington area is attractive to us would be such that our plans for future visits would be jeopardized. The development is proposed to run alongside public rights of way that will be irrevocably damaged in terms of the potential enjoyment of the countryside by residents and visitors alike. On my many visits to the area over the last 15 years, one thing that is not obvious is why north Cornwall would make a suitable location for a solar farm. As beautiful and peaceful as the local scenery is, excessive sunshine is not normally part of the equation. These photovoltaic cells are vastly more efficient in areas that receive nearly continuous bright sunshine. Not surprisingly, these are much more common in the area I usually live, southern New Mexico, which receives 350 sunny days a year. The result is that the area has to be vast to make the investment worthwhile in terms of energy production. This just does not make sense. The region would be better off concerning itself with the development of alternative energy sources that actually suit the local climate and terrain. While there may be some small benefit to the individual farmer who leases the field space, this cannot begin to compensate for the broader losses to the wider community in terms of house values and lost tourist revenue. Beyond the monetary concerns, I do not believe that the proposed development could bring anything but a large negative effect on the immediate environment. Covering such a huge area will inevitably affect plant and animal distribution with potentially critical effects on the local ecology. I appreciate that Cornwall Council has afforded interested parties the opportunity to present opinions on this matter and I hope that after reviewing the comments of myself and others this planning permission will be rejected.
Mrs Sharon Ann Jackson (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 23 Mar 2011
I object to planning application number PA11/00774 based on the following 1. The environmental impact: the proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding environment. 2. The loss of green field agricultural land to industrial scale development. 3. The less than efficient use of available brown field sites for the production of solar energy. 4. This is not a sustainable development. 5. The danger posed by increase traffic along access roads no wider than seven foot in places 6. Lack of appropriate consultation.
Mr And Mrs Margaret And Paul Taylor (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 23 Mar 2011
It has been brought to our attention that there is a planning application for a 17.39Ha development for a solar photovoltaic farm in Haye Lane, Callington. We would like to strongly object to this proposal due to the following :- 1. The roads are not adequate to cope with the increased traffic during the development of this site and afterwards. 2. It will be visible to most of Callington but residents will not benefit in any way. 3. We live on the lower slopes of Kit Hill (an area of outstanding natural beauty) and do not think that a vast area of solar panels would enhance the view. 4. Has the health of nearby Haye residents been taken into consideration should there be an accident on site. The lights from the All Weather Pitch at Callington College can be seen for miles around and the sun reflecting on the solar panels will be equally visible. You only have to look at the plastic sheeting used by farmers to help their crop to know how it shines in the sun! Is there not a disused quarry which could house the solar farm in order that it is not an eyesore?
Ms Margaret Allchin (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 21 Mar 2011
I've just been made aware of a proposed scheme to build an enormous solar farm on agricultural land at Haye Lane, about a mile from my home. I'm extremely concerned about the impact this will have. Apart from the issue of it being an eyesore, I have no idea of the health and safety implications, or traffic problems that might arise (Haye Lane is a one-track country lane, unsuitable for large vehicles or increased volume of traffic). It appears that this plant will not benefit the local community or the local environment, but is merely an opportunity for a large company to make money from a government funded subsidy scheme. I would support a scheme to encourage local residents/farmers to install solar panels on their houses, outbuildings and barns, as I believe was the original intention of the government subsidy program. I do not believe that the money earmarked for this scheme should be swallowed up by commercial companies, and I feel that this particular application should be put on hold until after the planned government review of the financial incentives for solar panels
Ms Janet Gorman (Objects)
Comment submitted Tue 15 Mar 2011
I would like to register my concerns on the above application. What is being asked for is a forest of reflective solar panels which will move around to follow the sun, six buildings to house the required converters, a large mast to carry CCTV and lighting, surrounded by a high wire security fence. This will not be unobtrusive in Haye Lane and will take up 44 acres of (food producing) farm land. The electricity produced will not go to benefit the local community but will be fed in to the National Grid and profits will go to those involved. There is going to be a rush of these misguided applications and I feel the Government would be much more sensible to encourage individuals to have these panels on their roofs as there would be much less sullying of our agricultural land.
Miss B Holden (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 14 Mar 2011
Object
Messers B And P Dawe (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 14 Mar 2011
Against application.
Mr T Walker (Neutral)
Comment submitted Wed 09 Mar 2011
Concerned
Mrs Kathryn Carnegie (Neutral)
Comment submitted Tue 08 Mar 2011
Whilst I agree in principle with renewable energy, I am very surprised by the lack of consultation on this application. It is an area with a very strong community and it is shocking when the first the community hears of proposals is a few days before the deadline of the application. Where is the artist's impression of the landscape? Where is the study on the impact on road congestion or possible impact upon tourism in the area? It would be truly shocking if such an extensive development were slipped through without proper public consultation.
Mr Richard Roberts (Objects)
Comment submitted Tue 08 Mar 2011 Whilst the search for alternative sources of energy is applauded the scale and impact of the proposal on a small market town will stretch beyond the comprehension of many of the local inhabitants. It is therefore essential that further consutation is provided for the community before planning consent is granted. The massive impact of the proposal so close to residentail areas will be 1)detrimental in terms of traffic impact on the unclassified Haye road frequented by the community for amenity use. 2) the visual impact on the landscape seen from local cultrual heritage and areas of outstanding natural beauty. 3) Environmental impact on good agricrcultrual land. 4) what recovery measures have been put in place going forward when alternative energy sources are developed and the site becomes redundant? The proposal is excessive in scale and too close to the town. There has be insufficient consultation with local inhabitants to highlight the effect of the proposal
Mr Alastair Carnegie (Neutral)
Comment submitted Tue 08 Mar 2011
Whilst I am all for green energy, I am amazed at the total lack of public consultation on this project. As has been stated earlier there are so many outstanding issues with this application that surely these must be addressed before any permission can be given. I urge the council to take a step back and have a public consultation period where all the issues can be discussed and assurances given where necessary
Mrs Shelley Forgan (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 07 Mar 2011
I hereby strongly object to planning application, PA 11/00774 The Development of a 5MW photovoltaic farm on 17.39 HA of land close to Callington at Haye Lane for the following reasons; 1) There has been no direct involvement from Sunpower corporation with the residents and communities who?s land adjoins the site. This lack of effort at engaging with the local residents of Haye and Callington was raised by councillors at a Callington Town Council Meeting on 1st March 2006. The local residents were unaware of this application until 2 weeks ago. There has been no involvement of the local community in the process. The applicants did say that a meeting had been called but it was so poorly advertised only 8 people attended and non of the local residents or community knew of it. 2) I believe the planning application is wrong in its detail of design. The applicants say that the Cornish hedges will screen the site. However this is not the case as where there is adjoining land there is often low hedging and gateways. This has negative implications for the effects on privacy for residents adjoining the site. 3) How do the applicants propose to keep the site secure . There is no information on this apart from the building of security fences. How will these fences be laid out and what impact will they have on the appearance of the site and its impact on the appearance on the wider community. 4) The site will be covered by video CCTV, This has negative implications for the privacy of residents who?s land joins the site and detail should be given over the direction in which these cameras will be pointing to ensure that these cameras will not be affecting their Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Court of Justice. 5) There is no detail on the design, lay out or appearance of the site. Where will access roads run on the site. 6) There is no mention in the planning documents of the town of Callington and settlements of Haye , Kelly Bray or Trevigro, all of which are within couple of kilometres or adjoining the land where the planning application is proposed. There has been no mention of the fact that gardens and properties of the settlement of Haye directly join the areas put forward in the proposal. There has been no information provided as to the impact of the change in appearance the solar farm will make on this area. 7) The actual hedging surrounding the site is sometimes as little as 1.5m high from ground level how will this shield panels that are 2.5 -3m tall? Also the land is not flat but sloping The planning application is not clear in its design, layout and appearance in that it doesn?t take into consideration the facts about the actual site at Haye Lane put forward in the proposal. 8) Haye Lane is a small single track lane with very few passing spaces which is used by dog walkers, families , bike riders and horse riders. There will be danger to these road users from the increased traffic levels and the 70 HGV?s that are planned to use the road, which is barely big enough to fit a tractor down and not built to with stand heavy traffic. How will vehicles exit the lane as there is a 7.5 tonne weight restriction on Haye Road. How will the safety of road users and residents who live on the road be safe guarded during this period 9) There is no information on how much increased traffic will be generated from the need to keep the site secure and maintained? 10) There is no information on how much noise and disturbance for neighbours and the community there will be from the need to maintain and keep the site secure 11) The proposed site will have a negative impact and alter in a negative way the appearance of the area. It will create an eyesore out of keeping with the character and appearance of the landscape. The site will be clearly visible from a public viewpoint at the top of Kit Hill which is both an ANOB (area of outstanding natural beauty) and World Heritage Site. Kit Hill is used by 20,000 people every year who go there to appreciate the appearance of this beautiful area and surrounding countryside. The site is also bordered by the Tamar Valley ANOB. Have these bodies been consulted as to the impact the appearance of the solar farm will create on the environment they are safeguarding? 12) There has been no visual impact study which takes into account primary, secondary and tertiary view points. The study that has been done does not take into account the negative impact of the appearance of the solar farm from the public viewpoint on Kit Hill ANOB or from the site towards Callington, Kelly Bray and Haye. 13) The site is also sandwiched between two nature conservancy areas as well as being bordered by a footpath. The quality and appearance of the landscape will be changed irrevocably by the installation of a mass of solar panels. 14) The site is bordered also by Blogsters mine and woods an area of historic interest, the appearance of this landscape would be changed negatively and out of keeping with such a historic and culturally important area. 15) The application is in direct conflict with Cornwall Local Policy REN1 : Non fossil fuel sources. Which states that the proposal must not have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the immediate and wider landscape and areas of natural, cultural, historical and architectural interest? 16) The panels will shield the grass from sunlight and reduce the land they are on to dead earth. This has negative implications for the appearance of the area, conservation of open land and does not safeguard country side which provides the town of Callington with a green belt. How will the company guarantee the country side will be returned to its original state as it states in its planning application. How will this be financed. What will happen if the company ceases to trade or closes down. What happens if the farmer moves or deceases, within the allotted time schedule. The planning application is unclear on these points. How long will the panels and footings last before they become rusty and need to be replaced. The planning application is unclear on these points. 17) There is no clarity on whether the land is grade 3a or 3b agricultural land. This needs to be clarified. 18) There is no clear detail in the planning as to how the company plans to connect the site to the national Grid. At a meeting of Callington Town Council Planning Commitee on 1st March 2011, representatives of Sunpower Corporation stated that the power lines would run down underneath the road to join with the sub station on Haye Road opposite the health Centre at Callington. However there is no mention of this in the planning application and no mention of how the power lines would cross an 18th century clapper bridge or any planning consent needed for this. There is also no mention of how power lines would cross the stream and has there been any consultation with South West water as to how they would do this. If the power feed is to go over land will there be addition of power cables and pylons and where will these be placed bearing in mind this area is rich in historic sites and the implications of altering the appearance negatively of an area that is visible from an ANOB. The pylons would have to cross private land and local allotments to join the sub station. 19) There is no data on the health and safety impact of such a proposed site. It is known that EMF (electromagnetic fields) have been known to cause cancer. On this site there will be 15000 panels emitting a huge EMF. How can residents who are living in close proximity to the site be sure there is no potential for theses panels to cause harm or illness from cancer or related diseases. Please can we see evidence from test houses and Government testing under British Law that these panels and their EMF are safe so that I can be sure my children and family who will be playing next door to this site will be safe from disease. 20) No evidence or information has been given to the amount of glare the solar panels will emit and its effect and disturbance on the residents who live next to the proposed site or its effect on the appearance of the area. Can the refractive index of the panels singularly and on mass be confirmed. 21) The applicants soil analysis report was inconclusive .It did not take enough random samples across the site, which has a number of old spoil dumps on it. It has been reported that two areas of land which are in close proximity to the site have failed a soil survey due to unacceptably high levels of such toxins as Chromium, Lead and Arsenic. How can the applicants be sure that such toxins are not present on the site and will not be disturbed during construction. 22) The panels will be turned by motors during the day. There is no information about how loud these motors are individually and on a collective basis. I should like to know how many decibels they are both individually and collectively. There is no information on how much noise and disturbance this will cause for neighbours and the local community. 23) There is no information on how much noise the transformers will make both individually and collectively and what disturbance this will cause neighbours and the community. I would like to know the figures for this in decibels. 24) I would like to know if the applicants have satisfied the councils corporate policies, in light of the fact that the panels will be manufactured in the Phillipines and that the technology was developed in America. There is no evidence that Cornish based companies have been given the opportunity to be involved with this scheme or that the scheme will actually provide jobs for Cornish contractors , companies and individuals. 25) I object to the applications design, layout and appearance The Feed In Tariff Scheme which is being used by Sunpower Corporation was meant for small scale development, such as roofs of houses, not huge scale solar farms. There seems to be little fore thought or care about the positioning and long term impact of this farm. It seems to be a scheme that is out of control and in danger of wrecking and altering our particular environment which is rich in history, culture and areas of outstanding natural beauty for good.
Mr And Mrs Peter And Caroline Hammond (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 28 Mar 2011
Proposed Solar Panel installation at Haye Lane, Callington. I wish to object to the above Planning Application and make the following comments and observations: 1. We should utilise `brown' areas of land or other areas where food cannot be produced for this type of development.. In view of the predicted imminent world food shortage, all of the UK's arable land which can produce food, should be retained for agricultural production.The proposed site is on arable land which is within a green belt area and it is within a Nature Conservation Site. Why would this change of use be permitted? 2.There will be the loss of the amenity for the grazing of animals, particularly sheep, cattle and horses. 3.Would the chemicals in the materials used for cleaning the solar panels cause any damage to the ground beneath and wash into existing watercourses? 4.Is this application within the planning criteria of the Local County Plan? 5. Haye Lane is used daily by cars, horse riders and other road users, the Application is incorrect to state that "These roads are currently used by agricultural vehicles" 6. What are the detailed proposals of the benefits the Applicant will contribute to the local area and residents. 7. How can 17.39 hectares / 43 acres of Solar panels not have an impact on the appearance of the area. It cannot be hidden from view as the whole idea of panels is that they need to be open to sky etc to work. Any development of this nature will be visible from so many vantage points around the area.
Comment submitted Mon 07 Mar 2011
This massive industrial application has just been drawn to my attention. I would like to raise my objections based on several factors. 1st Why has this been kept quiet from the public locally. Something unsavoury about the whole project. Unless someone has something to hide? 2nd The huge industrial site proposed is within the boundaries of Callington and also on Agricultural Land. 3rd an area of outstanding natural beauty ie Kit Hill would be clearly visible. A hugely negative affect on visitors and buisnees in this area. 4th Development of this piece of important agricultural land is totally unsuitable. 5th Solar energy yes a very positive step forward but the size and scale is totally out of proportion for a tiny market town. I assume to that the resource is not being used for local residents to help with escalating energy bills? 6th A proper enquiry with public opinion should be requested except this is a waste limited of public funds Object most strongly. Cornwall Council you need to be honest and open with your local people and tell them what is going on.
Mr Chris Baker (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 07 Mar 2011
This would appear to be a large, highly visible development in what is, essentially, a very rural, agricultural area, albeit on the edge of a town. I would have concerns as to the visual impact it would have, quite apart from the issue of access along very small roads which are used widely by local people for horse riding, cycling and even walking.
Mr Jan Mazgaj (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 25 May 2011
In my letter to the authorities concerning this application I made no direct objection HOWEVER I would repeat that the issue of contaminated land of which I have personal analysis within what in my opinion is the geological location has not been addressed. It is contaminated with such toxins as Chromium, Arsenic above what is considered acceptable by the Dept. of the Environment. Will you please personally confirm that there will be no airborne contaminants which may be a potential danger to public health during the work and movement of traffic should this application proceed and that the committee will be made aware of this concern. I have attached a analysis report for your information
Comment submitted Thu 03 Mar 2011
I make the following observations on the applicants reports/statements whilst bearing in mind that most are not that simple minded, that this is not indeed a profit motivated venture: 1) Design and access statement states that ?These roads are currently used by agricultural vehicles.? No mention of either motor vehicles which use Haye Lane nor the horse riding community. Could not have been monitored correctly. 2) Sheep/goats (Goats!!) can continue to graze. No mention of findings for example by Axio Power of Canada that triallings of sheep grazing in Europe has shown the animals try to eat the cabling 3) It may be necessary to raise the panels above that indicated in order to continue to allow grazing of sheep, which will help maintain the grass height as well as the current habitat on the property. 4) What guarantees will be put in place to ensure the maximum use of local trades people with specialist training to accommodate where necessary the local long term community benefit. 5) What bond will be put in place to ensure the cost of any ?clear up? operation necessary will not fall at the feet of either the UK tax payer or worse the local Council should this technology be superseded leading to insolvency. For example the use of subterranean heated water in conjunction with the Sterling Engine or by Hydrogen cells. 7) More specific details and covenants made available to the public of community benefit from revenue should be in place before permission is granted. All to often vague obligations under planning agreements are ?watered down? by future owners. 8)The use of emotive arguments? regarding Global Warning which should not be confused with climate change should be questioned when it can be often proven that mans current futile efforts are often nullified by such things as a volcanic explosion or an Amazonian drought. That is not to say the author does not advocate we should ?sit on our laurels? but beware of arguments without guarantees. Much of the submission is taken up with ? However, not taking action could plunge the world into an economic crisis of comparable magnitude to the Great Depression of the early 20th century.? ?I think that the banks have managed that. Surely an outdated analogy. 9)Excuse my ignorance but what guarantees will be in place covering noise emission levels-if any- from the inverters? 10) What guarantees will be in place to ensure no toxins will be used for cleaning purposes of the arrays? 11) I note that under the question as to whether the area of land is known to be contaminated, the applicant has answered NO and the same answer to the question ?Land where contamination is suspected for all or part of the site?. I would comment that having had two areas of land assessed (by acknowledged authorities and reports to hand) which in geological terms are in close proximity both of which have FAILED showing unacceptably high levels for example of such toxins as Chromium, Lead and Arsenic then I believe the answers to these questions should be reviewed as being in my opinion open to debate and indeed unproven. 12)? Cornwall County Council are currently carrying out a landscape capacity study for solar farm development, this is not yet complete.? Surely any decision should be taken in conjunction with this report and its general publication. 13) ?The nearest settlements to the site are the small villages/hamlets of Maders, 1km to the north and Higher Keason, 3.8km to the southwest. The settlements of St Ive Cross and Parkfield are partially within the ZTV and are both situated over 4.2km to the southwest of the site? Callington? Kelly Bray? And never a mention of Trevigro .How professionally accurate is this report? 14) Have the military been informed as we are in an area of not infrequent low level training flights. Objections from the military over concerns with reflections interfering with pilot?s vision and possibly onboard radar may occur. Finally whilst not necessarily against the principle of this application and I could go on with further remarks/comments but consider that sufficient has been stated to highlight what I believe indicates an application with a number of flawed statements. Much copied from Central Governments general advisory information to justify what will have commercial implications and not just all about Climate Change and Global Warming. The applicants are basically American, the net work distributors (Western Distribution) are American. If they use what many regarded as the best PV cells in the world they are German. They may sell to the energy supplier EDF ?they are a French state run business. We supply the land and habitat and not forgetting the possibility of tax payers grants. In view of the above I wish to object to the current application
Mr Roy Burridge (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 02 Mar 2011 Objection - Various issues
Mrs Joanna Taylor (Neutral)
Comment submitted Wed 02 Mar 2011
It was agreed by the majority to defer the application and the deadline for response be extended. More information was required regarding the classification of the land ie. 3(a) or 3(b) and feedback from Highways was needed. More information was also required regarding Health issues and implications. It was recommended that Sunpower Corporation consider holding another public consultation event. (Please confirm that the application deadline will be deferred so that more information can be obtained)
Mrs Victoria Kinger (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 25 Feb 2011
I would like to logde an objection of the proposed developments, pending drawings of the development becoming available.
Mr John Russell (Objects)
Comment submitted Sun 27 Feb 2011 with reference to consultee comments (as below) for related planning permission PA10/05746. "The question to be addressed is whether the development is likely to give rise to significant environmental effects, having a significant impact on the landscape of Cornwall. " I cannot find any documents that clarify the points raised in the document relating to suitability of this land for a solar photovoltaic farm. I cannot find any documents,as suggested below,that should be available to the public in order to have an better understanding of this project. Once the above documents become available I am sure we would have have a more solid base on which to base our objection to this planning application. Landscape And Urban Design Unit Comment Date: Mon 27 Sep 2010 PV Screening/Scoping Response July 2010 Thank you for requesting a screening/scoping response to the above application. Due to the unusually high number of screening/scoping requests currently being submitted for Solar Farms, I have been unable to personally visit this site. I would however like to respond to your request for advice, as I feel landscape considerations need to be embedded in the decision making process, especially as the most significant environmental effect of a development such as this will be the impact on landscape character and visual amenity. The question to be addressed is whether the development is likely to give rise to significant environmental effects, having a significant impact on the landscape of Cornwall. There are a number of elements associated with a solar farm development which have the potential to influence the significance of the impacts on landscape character and visual amenity :- Gradient of the site and the surrounding landform, Extent of the application site, Height and layout of the panels, Colour of the panels surrounding frames, Treatment of the ground below and between the panels, for example to grow crops, graze livestock, or to lay down mulch to reduce maintenance, Perimeter fencing. The Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Second Edition Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2002 states in paragraph 7.39 that the two principal criteria in determining significance are :- the scale or magnitude of effect and the environmental sensitivity of the location or receptor. The following is an example of how significance maybe determined with reference first to landscape character and then visual impact. Assessment of the impact on landscape character Magnitude or scale of effect on the landscape can be described as high, medium or low, adverse or beneficial through the assessment of the 1. loss of key elements of the pre-development landscape; 2. introduction of elements into the receiving landscape with a resultant effect of changes in overall landscape character. High magnitude of effect on landscape character - total loss or major alteration to key elements of the pre development landscape, or the introduction of elements considered to be uncharacteristic when assessed within the attributes of the receiving landscape, or the proposal becomes a dominant feature within the scene with the surrounding elements becoming subordinate and the resultant effect is a change in the overall character. Medium magnitude of effect on landscape character - partial loss of, or alteration to one or more key elements of the landscape pre-development, or the introduction of elements that maybe prominent, or form a visibly recognisable new feature, but may not necessarily be considered substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape. Low magnitude of effect on landscape character minor loss or alteration to one or more key elements of the pre-development landscape, or the introduction of elements which constitute a minor component of the wider landscape, and are not uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape. Sensitivity of the landscape as a resource can be defined as high, medium or low, and is dependent on the landscapes 1. Character what contribution does the site make to the character of the area in its undeveloped state? Is it part of a recognisable pattern of elements / attributes specific to the area? Does the site contribute to the areas sense of place and distinctiveness? 2. Quality in what condition is the existing landscape? 3. Value is this landscape valued by people, local community, visitors? Are there special cultural associations? Is the area covered by a landscape, ecological or historic designation? Is the landscape recognised, locally, regionally or nationally? 4. Capacity what scope is there for change in the existing landscape character? High importance a quality landscape with valued features, and positive character which is particularly sensitive to change. A landscape of importance, or rarity on a local, regional or national scale. Medium importance generally positive character, but there may have been degradation or erosion of features resulting in areas of more mixed character and reduced overall value. Moderately sensitive to change, although some change maybe tolerated however this maybe detrimental if inappropriately dealt with. A landscape of medium importance or rarity on a regional or local scale. Low importance few valued features, the landscape is tolerant of substantial change. An area of low importance and rarity at a local scale. The levels attributed to sensitivity of the landscape to change and the magnitude or scale of the landscape effect combine in the following matrix to determine significance of effect on landscape character. Sensitivity Of Landscape High Medium Low High adverse High adverse significance High / Medium adverse significance Medium adverse significance Medium adverse High / Medium adverse significance Medium adverse significance Medium / Low adverse significance Magnitude of Landscape Effect Low adverse Medium adverse significance Medium / Low adverse significance Low adverse significance Nil Neutral significance Neutral significance Neutral significance Low beneficial Low beneficial significance Low beneficial significance Low beneficial significance Medium beneficial Medium beneficial significance Medium beneficial significance Medium beneficial significance High beneficial High beneficial significance High beneficial significance High beneficial significance Assessment of the visual impact Magnitude of visual change can be described as high, medium or low, adverse or beneficial, through the assessment of 1. loss or addition of key elements of the pre-development view; 2. alteration of the overall composition of the wider view looking at the proportion of the view the development occupies, 3. over what percentage of the area will the change in view be apparent, 4. will the change be temporary, 5. to what extent will the scale, massing, layout, colour of materials contrast with the predevelopment view, 6. topography of the site and the surrounding landform 7. distance between the viewer and the development. High magnitude of effect total loss, or major alteration to key elements of the existing scenery which are substantially uncharacteristic leading to a detrimental change in visual character. The proposal becomes a dominant feature in the scene to which the other elements become subordinate. Medium magnitude of effect partial loss or moderate alteration to some elements of the existing scenery which maybe prominent and readily noticed by the observer, and are uncharacteristic in the overall visual character. Low magnitude of effect minor loss or alteration to one or more key elements of the scenery / view. The proposals constitute only a minor component of the wider view and introduce elements which are not uncharacteristic when set in the overall view visual character. Awareness of the proposals would not have a marked effect on the overall quality of the scene. Nil unperceivable change to elements within the view or overall visual character. Sensitivity of visual receptors can be described as high, medium or low and is dependent upon 1. the distance from the site, its size, the angle / elevation of the viewpoint, context, weather conditions 2. the differing individual receptors and the expectation of the view that brings, 3. the importance of the view, assessed by the number of people affected, or by its popularity, appealing to locals, visitors, referenced in books, guides and maps. High importance viewpoints within a high quality landscape, recognised in published maps and guides. Where a large number of residential properties experience a similar view. Receptors / individuals who have a high interest in their environment and engage in leisure activities associated with the aesthetic experience of the views / general surroundings. Medium importance viewpoints within a medium quality landscape. Where a small number of residential properties experience a similar view. Receptors / individuals who have a moderate interest in their environment whilst engaged in outdoor pursuits, sport or recreation. Low importance viewpoints within a low quality landscape. Receptors / individuals who have a passing / short interest in their environment for example whilst engaged in other activities such as work or travelling through the area, on an occasional basis. The levels attributed to sensitivity of the visual effect and the magnitude or scale of that visual effect combine in the following matrix to determine visual significance. Sensitivity Of Receptor High Medium Low High adverse High adverse significance High / Medium adverse significance Medium adverse significance Medium adverse High / Medium adverse significance Medium adverse significance Medium / Low adverse significance Magnitude of Visual Effect Low adverse Medium adverse significance Medium / Low adverse significance Low adverse significance Nil Neutral significance Neutral significance Neutral significance Low beneficial Low beneficial significance Low beneficial significance Low beneficial significance Medium beneficial Medium beneficial significance Medium beneficial significance Medium beneficial significance High beneficial High beneficial significance High beneficial significance High beneficial significance The current Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (EIA) do not make reference to solar farms, but this should not be reason to automatically decide that an EIA is not required. Having looked at the EIA Regs I feel a comparison can be drawn between PV and the glasshouses, as they also alter land cover over potentially large areas, and have associated significant landscape and visual impacts. The regulations circular describes Development (such as greenhouses) on previously uncultivated land is unlikely to require EIA unless it covers more than 5 Ha This site proposes solar panels over a 17.Ha site. The EIA Regs also note industrial installations for the production of electricity, where development area exceeds 0.5Ha, and one of the main considerations includes visual impact. All of the proposed Solar Farm applications I have so far received for scoping comment exceed 0.5Ha. It will be vital in the process of determining a formal application for the installation of solar panels, to clearly and methodically assess all factors which have the potential to create an adverse impact on the areas landscape character and visual amenity. A comprehensive Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment must be undertaken to assess the impact of the proposal. Such an assessment will need to cover the following detail : 1 Description of the development The need for the development set within local regional and national strategies; The timescale for construction, operation and decommissioning; The sites location and overall layout; Solar panel design and specification, method of construction / installation; Reasonable estimates of quantity and type of traffic which will be generated through construction and operation. 2 Site Description Area of proposed land which the panels will occupy, clearly described and indicated on a map or diagram; Illustrated description of the land use of the surrounding area; Description of the policies plans and designations which are relevant to the proposal; Evaluation of the direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative, short medium and long term effects resulting from the existence of the development. 3 Consideration of Alternatives Description of the main alternatives to the proposal which have been considered, for example other sites, options for site layout; Clearly state the advantages and disadvantages of each option; Description of the main reasons for the selection of the preferred option. 4 Landscape Baseline Conditions The current condition of the landscape and an indication of how the existing landscape could be expected to develop if the proposal were not to go ahead; Cornwall Landscape Assessment 2007 to provide the broad scale detail of the landscape character supplemented by an assessment specific to the development and its surroundings; Relationship of the site to any designated areas of landscape at a national, regional or local level; Assessment of the sites relation to areas of landscape value or scenic quality. Description of all baseline date sources, and methods used to supplement this information; The landscape baseline should be evaluated in relation to its sensitivity and importance. The sensitivity evaluation of each landscape element should reflect its quality value, contribution to landscape character and the degree to which the particular element or characteristic can be replaced or substituted. 5 Predictions of Impact Assess the scale, or magnitude of change to the landscape and visual elements as a deviation from the baseline conditions for each phase of the proposal. Consideration will need to given to visitor and resident populations, and seasonal variations; Provide a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) diagram for the development indicating 3km, 5km, and 10km radii from the site; The methods used to establish the magnitude should be clearly described and be appropriate and reasonable in relation to the importance of the landscape and visual impact; Where assumptions or unsupported data has been used in the predictions, these should be highlighted and accompanied by an indication of the reliability / confidence of those assumptions or data; Evaluation of the direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative, short medium and long term effects resulting from the existence of the development. 6 Impact Significance Clearly describe the judgements which underpin the attribution of significance; The assessment of significance should consider the impacts deviation from the established landscape baseline condition, the sensitivity of the landscape and receptors and the extent to which the impact will be mitigated or is reversible; The range of factors which are likely to influence the assessment of significance should be clearly identified; Provide detail of how these variables will affect the significance of the impacts over the life of the development; Identify the significance of impacts that remain following mitigation. 7 Mitigation Describe the measures proposed to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy significant adverse impacts on both landscape character and visual amenity; Provide an indication of the effectiveness of the stated measures; Clear indication of how the mitigation measures will be implemented. 8 Presentation of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment The document should be clear and logical in its layout and presentation and be capable of being understood by a nonspecialist; It should be a balanced document providing an unbiased account of the landscape and visual effects, with reasoned and justifiable arguments; A glossary of all technical terms and full reference list should be provided; Plans, diagrams and visual representations should be provided to assist in the understanding of the development and its impact, and should be clearly labelled with all locations reference in the text. 9 Non Technical Summary 1. A stand alone document to be available to a non-specialist reader, to enable them to understand the landscape and visual impacts of the proposal; 2. To include a summary description of the development, the main alternatives considered, the aspects of landscape character and visual amenity likely to be significantly affected and the likely significant impacts and the mitigations measures to be implemented; 3. Include as a minimum the plans, maps and other visual representations which illustrate the location of the application site, the footprint of the development, and the location of key features. Should you require any further advice or clarification of matters raised in this response, please the responding officer named above.
Comment submitted Fri 25 Feb 2011
I agree entirely with all public comments as to the reasons why the planning application should be refused. My added concerns are related to possible Health & Safety issues: 1)if the panels were vandalised (as happens these days) would any toxic release occur ? 2)if the panels were damaged (as we are on the London flight path ) by falling ice from aircraft (been known to happen) would any toxic release occur? 3)if these panels are flammable would any toxic release occur if they catch fire (lightning strikes,grass fires etc.) 4)if oil filled transformers are used in any part of the process would the oil be carcogenic,if so,how would the public be protected if an oil leak occured ? 5)would there be access lanes between the rows of panel to allow access for the emergency services if neccessary? Somewhat disappointed that no drawings of proposed application are available at present.
Mr John Littlewood (Objects)
Comment submitted Fri 25 Feb 2011
At a meeting of the residents of Haye earlier this week in which every household was represented, there was a unanimously and strongly held objection voiced against the Planning Application for the Photovoltaic ?farm? on Haye Lane. We recognise that any objection to yourselves must be within planning criteria and draw your attention to the East Cornwall County Local Plan section POLICY REN1 clause (i) that states the proposal for generation of energy from non-fossil fuel sources must not have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the immediate and wider landscape, and of areas of natural, cultural, historical or architectural interest. It is our opinion that the Application of 43 acres on prime agricultural land adjacent to the hamlet, does just that. The site in question is adjacent to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a County Wildlife Site that can clearly be seen from neighbouring Kit Hill and residences above the main Callington town. The Change of Use from agriculture to light industry cannot help but alter the character irredeemably.
Mr John Butterwick (Neutral)
Comment submitted Tue 22 Feb 2011
Public Health and Protection (East 2) has no objection and no comment with regard to the proposed development.
Mr Christopher Forgan (Objects)
Comment submitted Tue 15 Mar 2011
Further to the above planning application. please can you answer all of the following 1. Has a Health and Safety impact report been done 2. Has there been an Environmental impact study 3. Has there been a study on the impact on the increased traffic on the country lanes near farm 4. Has there been a study on the effect on the Rural / residential area 5. Has there been a study on the effect on the Solar glare from the panels 6. Have they done a primarily , secondary or tertiary study on visual impacts from the scheme 7. Has the scheme been approved based on its proximity to a heritage site and 2 country wildlife sites 8. What are the implications of the long term maintenance in the area ? 9. Why is the scheme so short sighted that after 25 years it will be scarped 10. Why is there only 3 weeks to consider the application , when an extension on a house takes 6 ? 11. Why were the residence not consulted for consultation ? 12. what are the planning constraints ? 13. the plans give no details of the other buildings, what exactly is going in. 14. what guarantee from the land owner to resort the land to arable at the end of the 25 years ? 15. what guarantee from the operator to maintain the power station ? 16. what planning considerations are given to power stations.. as this is one ? 17. Who will remove the scheme and guarantee it. 18. Who will enforce the up keep 19. It will be impossible to farm the land while its used for the solar farm due to fences around each solar panel which is in contradiction to the planning application 20. Who will guarantee the scheme will not come in to disrepair and become a blot on the landscape 21. Why has the land owner not offered as the applicant 22. Why has the land owner not wrapped the solar farm around his house! 23. What are the health and safety effects on small children 24. What effect will it have on wildlife 25. Why was the community not informed of the consolation period 26. There are no gains for the community only big business , because of grants 27. The scheme is only beneficial to speculators not the community 28. Cornwall is being targeted by speculators for fast cash 29. There are large subsidies for developers 30. Devalue the local houses by 50% 31. What are the effects of the substation from electromagnetic waves 32. What are the proposals for the power lines 33. Only jobs being created for overseas suppliers 34. There are no details on the attendant and `other buildings' 35. Campaign for rural Britain says they are a blot on the landscape 36. The scheme will only supply the same as if 230 home had solar panels, why not use the money to put them on the houses !! 37. The scheme does not boost the local economy 38. Charles Hendry MP... says the scheme is being abused by big business rather than small scale local schemes 39. The Scheme will destroy the local community, not an industrial area 40. What is the compensation for having a solar farm 41. The scheme will not reduce green house gas, insulation will do more. 42. The solar farm will be almost 3m high and have security fences around each 43. The farms are not economically viable without subsidy which would be paid to the owner and no benefit to the community of environment 44. What studies on EMF have been done to ensure it will be shielded to ensure people living nearby do not get Cancer ! 45. Why has the scheme been only given 3 weeks for application when even a house has 5 weeks 46. No formal address given on the application sent 47. No long term objective - after 25 years ... it will be scrapped after this. 48. The scheme is not near a major road.
Comment submitted Wed 09 Mar 2011 with regards to the planning application above I reject it based on the following lines; ? the documents supplied do not highlight where the power feed to the grid will go, if it's over land , will they use power lines on Pylons or down the road ? If they do the latter , they will have to cross a 18th century clapper bridge, have they got permission for the this, if not they will have to place the cable through a stream, do they have authority from southwest water and the environment agency to do this. Finally the cable would pass next to a phone cable layed under the ground , which they cannot do.. ? The motors will make a noise when operating , please provide the British standard these are tested to , what volume they produce individually and also collectively , please provide the BS standards these are tested to for decibels and supply the figures ? The transformers will make a noise when operating , please provide the British standard these are tested to , what volume they produce individually and also collectively , please provide the BS standards these are tested to for decibels and supply the figures ? The site will be covered by video CCTV, please can you supply the location of these and also confirm that they will not affect my ( and my families and neighbours ) Human Rights under article 8 of the European Court of justice. These cameras cannot display any of our land in their scope. ? The Visual impact study does not take into account , primary , secondary and tertiary view points, the study is flawed and does not give a representative perspective of the visual impact it will have. The Report also fails to show that the solar farm will boarder onto gardens and also there are no reports on the visual views from the site towards Haye and Callington which need to be supplied. ? There is no data on the health and safety of using Solar panels , especially regards to EMF ( electromagnetic Fields) , known to cause cancer. One this site there will be over 15000 panels and a huge EMF filed will be created from all the panels. please supply support evidence from test houses or Government testing under British law that there is no potential to cause harm and illness from cancer or related diseases from these panels. ? Haye lane is barley wide enough for a tractor , let alone 70 HGV's planned. Please provide details of how the vehicles will enter and exit the lane, they cannot exit via Haye road as there is a 7.5 ton weight restriction. ? The site is surrounded by an ANOB , World heritage site , Area of great landscape significance and world life trust area, Under what grounds can it be justified to turn the site into a light industrial site. ? What Financial Bonds will be placed on the developer to remove all the construction material after 25 years. ( what happens if the company goes Bust who will pay then) ? The development is for a " power station" , please provide all the necessary paperwork that comply with government guidelines on installing such a facility. Department of Energy and Climate Change(DECC) administered under the provisions of section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for developers seeking development consents from the Secretary of State for the construction, extension or operation of electricity generating stations for generating (onshore) in England and Wales. Onshore power station applications are also to considered by the local planning authority in the normal planning regime (i.e. the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). ? The applications is in direct conflict with Cornwall Local Policy REN1 : non fossil fuel sources. which states that the proposal must not have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the immediate and wider landscape and of areas of Natural , cultural, historical and architectural interest...etc ? No details have been given as to the amount of Solar Glare , " a little" is not quantitative and the sola tiles will have a refractive index that needs to be confirmed and also its effect on the local residence. They cannot absorb all the sun light and the light will not be reflected straight back to the sun, as quoted by Sun corporation at Callington town council meeting march 1st. This statement is total inaccurate by the applicant. ? the soil analysis in the report is inconclusive and does not take enough Random samples across the site, which has old spoil dumps on it. Two areas of land assessed locally which in geological terms are in close proximity both of which have FAILED showing unacceptably high levels of such toxins as Chromium, Lead and Arsenic ? What guarantee will the developer have for polluting the soil with respect to contaminates currently present and those they intend to put into the ground. ? The proposer , Sunpower corporation has not published the application enough and made it Cleary aware to the local populous, as confirmed at a meeting of Callington town council on the 1st march 2011, None of the local residence knew of the application until 2 weeks ago. No local community involvement has been made by Sun corporation. ? The proposal says that Sheep/goats (Goats!!) can continue to graze. No mention of findings in North America and Canada that trialing of sheep grazing in Europe has shown the animals try to eat the cabling and also the fact the Grass will die under the panels ? the hedge rows are only 1.5m high , how will this shield the panels that will be 2.5 - 3m high, How is this meant to shield the Solar Farm from view ? ? ?The nearest settlements to the site are the small villages/hamlets of Maders, 1km to the north and Higher Keason, 3.8km to the southwest. The settlements of St Ive Cross and Parkfield are partially within the ZTV and are both situated over 4.2km to the southwest of the site? Callington? Kelly Bray? Haye ? And never a mention of Trevigro . ? Have the military been informed as we are in an area of frequent low level training flights. Objections from the military over concerns with reflections interfering with pilot?s vision and possibly onboard radar may occur. ? What guarantees will be in place to ensure no toxins will be used for cleaning purposes of the arrays? ? Sun corporation have no experience of doing this work in the UK, Under our Building regulations, weather and working practices. They are an American corporation ? the Privacy from the development will severally effect us , it will be bearing down on our property as well as other neighbours, we have very low hedges and gates ? ? There is no need for the development on this site, and the applicant has not made sufficient grounds to find a brown field site or to installer small installations as intended by the FIT scheme ? 20,000 people who use Kit Hill every year will have their view destroyed. ? The area is frequented by many walkers, children on Bikes and horse riders, this will several effect the visual aspect of the area and also become very hazardous during construction ? The panels will be made in the Philippines, please confirm no child labour will be used. Also surely this defeats the " green" policy of the whole scheme, they should be locally manufactured PV cell ? What benefit will the construction of the site have, how many local jobs will be made, the report outlines No local gain except that of the land owner. ? The panels will be mounted on steel mounts, It is essential that these are designed to take into account corrosion allowance and they need to be protected suitably for 25 years. As a Chartered Engineer, I would like clarification of the size of the steel to be used, the calculations for the corrosion allowance, the coating that will last for 25 years and to which British standard they are designing to and also the anode protection, as the soil the steel and the water will in effect make a battery which will eat away the steel, polluting the local area. I have worked in the marine field for 20 years, dealing with protective coatings in an aerobic ,caustic environment. I know NO coating that can last this long especially when piled into another material, it will destroy the coating. These frames will also be placed in a similar environment as the top 1m of soil is high in moisture, salts and corrosive minerals. The applicant MUST demonstrate that the fames will not rust in 25 years and approval of the application cannot be granted until these are demonstrated. Finally the report / application is flawed with many other errors, which can only be the result of plagiarisms from other applications.
Comment submitted Tue 22 Feb 2011
With regards to the above planning application, we oppose its approval on the following grounds: 1. The solar farm will destroy prime arable land 2. The area is a Rural residential area not an industrial brown filed site 3. It will Put the health of my Children at risk 4. The roads are too small to have access to such a farm 5. the farm will devalue our property 6. The FIT system is for domestic solar Not commercial. 7. the increased traffic will destroy the area 8. the solar glare will affect the health of most residence in Haye and also Callington 9. No visual impact study has been put forward for the residence from the haye Hamlet Please confirm receipt of this email by return
Mr Paul Haye (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 21 Mar 2011
I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife Mrs Philippa Mary Haye to notify you of our objection to the above mentioned application, on the following grounds: 1. The County Council's planning policies include the statement `Cornwall's landscape is of national and international importance?' The proposed development of approx 44 acres of agricultural land to the north-west of Haye Lane is directly contrary to that statement of policy. 2. Many of the arguments put forward in the application would be equally relevant to the construction of a light industrial site. Granting the application would create a deeply unfortunate precedent, and would encourage the proliferation of non-agricultural uses in this predominantly agricultural area. 3. The application suggests that the photo-voltaic installations have a natural life-span of 25 years. On the expiry of this period it would be very difficult for the Council to find any reason to refuse a renewal of the proposed use with updated equipment, or some alternative, non- agricultural use. 4. Both Haye Road and Haye Lane are narrow country lanes, single track with inadequate passing bays, those in Haye Lane being surfaced only with mud. Haye Road is (quite rightly) subject to a weight limit of 7.5T. Neither of these accesses can tolerate any substantial increase in traffic. Both are frequently used by local walkers and horse-riders and as such are a valuable amenity. Whilst initial construction traffic to the site may be of a temporary nature, it is difficult to believe that the proposed development would not require inspection, maintenance and replacement of equipment, with resulting increase of traffic. 5. In general, this application would be suitable for an industrial site adjacent to, say, Plymouth, but it is not suitable for a predominantly agricultural area which, whilst lacking any formal classification such as AONB, etc, is nonetheless an area of considerable natural beauty.
Mr A H Bairstow (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 14 Mar 2011
Concerns
Mrs J Hextall (Objects)
Comment submitted Wed 09 Mar 2011
Opposition to the planning application
Mr Simon A. G. Scammell (Objects)
Comment submitted Thu 24 Mar 2011
I should be grateful if you would kindly note my strong objections to the above application. These are based upon what I believe to be ` material considerations ` and , accordingly, will, I trust, be given your fullest attention. Landscape The site is virtually surrounded by landscapes considered to be of County importance, including Caradon Hill, South East Caradon and the Lynher Valley. Further, it is directly sandwiched between an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, an Area of Great Landscape Value and a County Wildlife Site. Kit Hill, the highest point in the neighbouring Tamar Valley, rises immediately to the east and , in the words of Cornwall Council's very own website, " is famous for it's fine views?" If this development proceeds, will the website be updated to direct the visitor's gazes to the " fine views ?.. of a 43 acre Solar Farm nestling amongst the lower slopes"? It will overshadow and have an overbearing effect upon hundreds of nearby residences. There is surely no doubt that the proposed site will have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the immediate and wider landscape. It will be unduly prominent from Kit Hill and the majority of Callington, and will adversely affect the views from and around such areas. If the most beautiful parts of the county are gradually destroyed in this way we shall not be in a position to complain or be surprised to see the tourist trade, our greatest source of income, begin to wane. It will be our own fault. We must not be complacent. For the Applicant to say that the site will be screened from view by hedgerows is utter nonsense when considering that it is not flat and most of the surrounding area is on higher ground. With the greatest respect, common sense must surely prevail? Any development of this nature should not even be considered unless first making good use of the lowest grade of land. Such land should be flat and away from higher ground and/or residential areas. There is a total and convenient lack of information from the Applicant to show that any proper investigation has taken place as to other alternative and suitable locations. As I understand it, a recent development by Tesco close to the industrial estate in Callington required that details of at least 10 other possible sites be supplied. If the Applicant maintains this failure, then the application should be refused or, at the very least, postponed pending provision of the same. The proposed sight is prime grazing pasture. Once lost to light industrial use it will surely be destroyed forever? Only the most na?ve amongst us would believe that any farmer worth his salt would graze sheep in between 15,000+ solar panels!! The grass would be largely in shadow and totally inaccessible for the purposes of fertilisation. It would have no nutritional value and would largely die off in a short space of time. What is that going to look like in 25 years time? Sorry Mr. Applicant, but those fields will never be the same again. Highway safety, traffic levels and access I have very grave cause for concern in relation to vehicles accessing the site, particularly during the six month construction period. In my view, these should not aggravate traffic congestion, increase the risk of accidents or harm the environmental and amenity conditions in the area. I am firmly of the view that danger and inconvenience will result for existing highway users, especially on Haye Lane, due to the inadequacy of the local road network in failing to accommodate the traffic generated. Haye Lane is single track and in a poor state of repair. Traffic movement is light, consisting mostly of cars and agricultural vehicles. It is also used by horseriders and walkers. It is simply not built, or indeed fit, to withstand the type or volume of construction traffic which has been promised, namely 70 HGV's over the initial six month period. It will become completely off limits to local users by reason of it's very width and construction. The movement of heavy, wide construction vehicles will present constant danger to all other users and animals. Accessing from the A388 at its junction with South Hill Road will, I believe, also add considerably to the congestion and danger already present at such junction and through Callington. Location of the Fire Station and the Community College near the junction is also a major aggravating factor. The Applicant has failed to supply full details and/or a schedule of traffic movement and access to the site. If this failure is maintained I would again urge refusal of the application or, at the very least, a postponement pending provision of the same. At the Town Council meeting on the 1st. March, the Applicant indicated that laying a transmission cable from the site to the substation would involve the excavation of Haye Lane and Haye Road. This work would necessarily take a lengthy period of time, effectively cutting off the residents of Haye and Trevigro and forcing a minimum six mile detour. Does the Applicant have any contingency plan in the event of an emergency? Archaeological significance There is a sizeable hillock situated in the middle field of the proposed site. This suggests that significant remains may exist. Should not the Applicant be requested to arrange for an archaeological evaluation before this planning application is determined? Environmental Issues Consider:- Noise from transformers and panel tracking motors. Intrusive infra red security cameras close to residences. Solar glare effects from the panels. Electromagnetic emissions. The Applicant has not properly identified any of these issues Commercial Issues At the Town Council meeting on 1st. March the Applicant admitted that the project will simply not be viable in the absence of a specific Feed in Tariff. The Government never intended this incentive for such industrial purposes and is in the process of review in an effort to achieve it's original aim i.e. to encourage small scale use. It should also beg the question of what would occur if, upon a later change of government, such a tariff was withdrawn or dramatically reduced. If forced in to bankruptcy what would become of the site then? The outcome of the government review should be awaited prior to final consideration of this application. I am hopeful that the above objections and observations are considered well founded and helpful and that, when combined with the absence and/or serious lack of information on the part of the Applicant, this application is recommended for REFUSAL.
Mr Kenneth Dawe (Objects) Comment submitted Fri 04 Mar 2011
O object to the above proposed development for a photovoltaic farm close to Callington. I am concerned at the environmental and visual impact, and the effect on wildlife. The very large development would be clearlyvisible from higher land, including parts of Kelly Bray and Kit Hill. It would detract from the amenity value of the public footpath which would run alongside part of the development. I am also concerned at the effect of heavy traffic alongside Haye Lane during construction, and also of the disruption caused when laying the connecting cable to the sub station. We are told that the motors driving panels are "relatively quiet", What is the cummulative effect of so many motors.
Mr A Oliver (Objects)
Comment submitted Mon 14 Mar 2011
Object