PA12/11941 Site address: Land At Wilton Farm Proposal: Installation of solar farm and associated infrastructure Parish: Applicant: Murex Energy Ltd

Public Comments

Andrew Beaumont (Objects)

Comment submitted Wed 17 Apr 2013

I wish to object to the Planning Application PA12/11941. The proposed development (which includes about 40,000 solar photovoltaic panels, seven inverters, one substation and security fencing and surveillance cameras covering over 36 acres) would have a significant and substantial adverse visual impact on (i) the designated Area of Great Landscape Value and (ii) on the setting of the immediately adjacent Cornwall Nature Conservation Site, and (iii) would look completely out of place and in complete contrast to the surrounding unspoilt countryside landscape and rural fields and nearby fishing lakes. The development covers over 36 acres of farm fields and is situated on the highest area of the local landscape. This application would conflict with policies CL2, CL8 and CL9 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy 1 of the Cornwall Structure Plan. The National Planning Policy Framework states that planning should protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside. The , village and the Seaton Valley have suffered from episodes of significant flooding over several years. The road between Hessenford and Seaton is currently awaiting expensive repairs due to flood damage. The necessary footings for the solar panels and the substation and the seven inverters would result in a significant loss of existing permeable ground and there would also be some increased run-off from off the solar panels. This would cause increased surface water run-off and increased further the risk of flooding in the above areas, which is unacceptable and is contrary to both policies ALT4 and ALT5 of the adopted Caradon Local Plan. The proposed development would involve use of agricultural classification grade 2 land which is designated best and most versatile. The development would conflict with Policy CL5 of the adopted Caradon Local, Policy 3 of the Cornwall Structure Plan and with the National Planning Policy Framework which encourages the use of 'Brownfield' or previously developed land before higher-quality agricultural land is used. Despite the potential for renewable energy generation by the development, this planning application should be refused as the solar photovoltaic development is inappropriate in this location and would cause substantial harm and industrialisation to the landscape character.

The Occupier (Objects)

Comment submitted Wed 17 Apr 2013 Please see the documents tab for comments.

Jennifer Gill (Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 16 Apr 2013 for full objections please see documents tab

Mrs Pauline Harry (Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 16 Apr 2013

I would be grateful if you would register my objection to the above proposal on the following grounds: - 1) It lies within an Area of Great Landscape Value 2) It lies adjacent to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty 3) The development will cause increase in water run off into the Seaton Valley, thereby increasing the flood risk. 4) The cumulative impacts of other such proposals in the vicinity must be taken into consideration 5) Contrary to Cornwall Structure Plan and the retained Caradon Plan as it conflicts with CL2, CL8 and CL9 In summary the negative impacts of such a development overwhelmingly outweigh any perceived benefits, therefore such a development should not be granted planning permission.

A And P Blonden (Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 16 Apr 2013

It was with sadness I learned of the application for a solar energy farm at Wilton, covering a full 35 acres of agricultural land. While you will already have received comment from others concerning conflict with Caradon and Cornwall Planning policies, my own concerns revolve, more specifically, around the "industrialisation" of this rural landscape - over such a large area, which, due to its elevation, will be clearly seen for very many miles around and, even more importantly, because of the impact that it will have on the wildlife of the area, which latter, because "solar" energy is generally regarded as 'clean', is rarely given serious consideration. To begin with, almost certainly, prior to construction, the whole site will be sprayed with herbicides and, once covered by the panels, virtually nothing will be allowed to grow in the vicinity. Thus, over this wide area, all indigenous wildlife will be excluded, as there will be no food supply: not only mammals, but insects and invertebrates and, therefore, birds ie. the area, to all intents and purposes, will become and remain sterile. This is bound, also, to have a "knock-on" effect throughout the surrounding countryside. While it could be argued that these adverse consequences might be acceptable in large tracts of wasteland, this would not apply to the area proposed - nor, indeed, in most areas of the rural south west. It may be understandable that the need for sustainable energy creates well-meaning disciples who wish, at all costs, to maximise such apparently benign developments; sometimes, however, this zeal risks the danger of ignoring the consideration of the very environmental aspects they should be striving to conserve. I sincerely hope that you will not be overwhelmed by such "single-issue" thinking and, having more regard for the wider picture, will refuse this application. Thank you.

Ruth Hughes (Objects)

Comment submitted Mon 15 Apr 2013

I am writing to express my objection to the proposed Planning application PA12/11941 Solar Photovoltaic proposal at Wilton, Trerulefoot Cornwall. The proposed development, which includes 40,000 solar photovoltaic panels, seven inverter, one substation, as well as security fencing and surveillance cameras will have a significant and sub-verse impact on the visual impact of:- 1. A designated area of great landscape value, 2. On the setting of the immediately adjacent Cornwall Nature Conservation Site, 3. The immediate surrounding area of natural beauty as well as the Fishing lakes in extremely close proximity. The development cover over 36 acres of farm fields and is situated on the highest area of the local landscape. The application would conflict with the planning policies CL2, CL8,and CL9 of the adopted Caradon Local Plan and Policy 1 of the Cornwall structural plan. The National Planning Policy Framework states that planning should protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside. The River Seaton, Hessenford village and the Seaton Valley have suffered from episodes of significant flooding over several years. The road between Hessenford and Seaton is currently awaiting expensive repairs due to flood damage. The necessary footings for the solar panels and the substation and the seven inverters would result in a significant loss of existing permeable ground and there would also be some increased run-off from off the solar panels. This would cause increased surface water run-off and increased further the risk of flooding in the above areas, which is unacceptable and is contrary to both policies ALT4 and ALT5 of the adopted Caradon Local Plan. The proposed development would involve use of agricultural classification grade 2 land which is designated best and most versatile. The development would conflict with Policy CL5 of the adopted Caradon Local, Policy 3 of the Cornwall Structure Plan and with the National Planning Policy Framework which encourages the use of 'Brownfield' or previously developed land before higher-quality agricultural land is used. Despite the potential for renewable energy generation by the development, this planning application should be refused as the solar photovoltaic development is inappropriate in this location and would cause substantial harm and industrialisation to the landscape character.

Paul Harry (Objects)

Comment submitted Mon 15 Apr 2013

Please accept my objection for the above proposal. If one looks at the Cornwall Planning Department's own web-site, it is evident that there is an abundance of applications for solar farms and the erection of wind turbines. However, if care is not exercised in choosing the most appropriate sites for such applications, Cornwall is in danger of having its most valuable asset, its most beautiful landscape, being irrevocably destroyed. Landscape character designations are given in order to protect those areas which are felt to be the most important. It therefore seems an absurdity that such a development could possibly be granted permission given that this area is an AGLV, adjacent to AONBs, the conservation area of Hessenford, Historic Parklands etc. Even Cornwall Councils own Landscape officer is not in favour of this development.

Mr John Whitham (Objects)

Comment submitted Sun 14 Apr 2013

I wish to object strongly to this application. This development would change a huge area of prime agricultural land into an ugly overbearing industrial complex with fencing, buildings and cameras. This is in an area of importance for its rural green landscape. This sort of development if allowed would spoil this are for a very long time. You know that it is contrary to the local area plan made by the Caradon Council which is still in place. It would be against the Cornwall structure plan as well as National Planning Policy which states that developments should not harm and should enhance the landscape of the countryside. OK so it would contribute to the "green renewable energy resources of the County but this sort of development could and should be sited in areas where it would not spoil the most valuable asset of this County, the picturesque idyll that attracts people to come and visit the place and bring with them the much needed revenue for the local economy. If we spoil this place with such developments as this then I do not think that as many visitors will come to admire the contribution to the green energy production as there are that come here to enjoy the green and pleasant land. It should be noted that other county authorities are rejecting both wind and solar developments because of the harm that it is causing to the landscape. Somerset Council - coincidentally? the home base of the developers- have recently stated that they have no wish to spoil swathes of their County with such developments and have stood by nuclear power generation as the real means for the future generation of power that will sustain the needs of the country. I can see the attraction for the developer, they will make a substantial profit for themselves without having to look at it or concern themselves with the impact that it would have on the local area and its residents and economy. I can see the attraction for the land owner. A considerable income with no need to till the soil. Other industrial developments provide long term employment for local people and generate business rates for the benefit of everyone. This industrial development will not. It will provide employment for people in China and India where these panels are produced. it will provide employment for the itinerant foreign labourers that are used to install these panels. It will provide employment for the German and Spanish engineers involved with the planning and installation. The ploughman will no longer homeward plod his weary way he will never have left home for there will no longer be any land to plough. No grain for the miller and no carcass for the butcher. I can only see reasons for this application to be rejected.

Mr Kenneth Potter (Objects)

Comment submitted Mon 08 Apr 2013

Cornwall is facing a proliferation of these space consuming developments, which can visually impact on the landscape for a very wide area. There is no way that rural solar PV parks can be said to blend in with the local landscape. They are wide aspect, uniform, artificial structures whereas the local rural landscape is invariably a mix of all or some of soft featured, rolling hill, valley, hedgerow, woodland and pasture. They can therefore severely impact on the character of the local rural environment. I understand that this particular installation would be in an Area of Great Landscape Value and surely, if this designation is to mean anything, this sort of development should not be allowed. The pace at which these solar PV parks are being erected across Cornwall is alarming. With so many already erected and with even more planned, there is a huge risk of destroying two of Cornwall`s most precious assets - its beautiful environment and its tourist industry. Enough is enough. I strongly urge that this application is refused.

Ms Amanda Harry (Objects)

Comment submitted Thu 04 Apr 2013

I would also like it to be noted that most of the people writing in support of this application are either employees or customers of WH Bond and sons and as such their residential amenity and enjoyment of the Area of Great Landscape Value would not be adversely affected by this development. In a recent residents meeting in Hessenford the development was unanimously rejected- a letter of objection has been sent by the chair of this meeting.

Ms Amanda Harry (Objects)

Comment submitted Thu 04 Apr 2013

Please find attached the submission of Cornwall Council for the Appeal for the erection of a wind turbine at Wilton on the land directly adjacent to the proposed solar farm. We feel that the comments made are prudent for this development also and wish to draw your attention to it especially the following:- Reason 1 'By reason of its elevation, size and siting, the proposed wind turbine would be out of character and scale and would result in an overbearing and oppressive feature that would unacceptably impact upon the visual amenity of the area within an Area of Great Landscape Value. This harm is not outweighed by the positive contribution made toward renewable energy. The application is therefore contrary to saved policies 1, 2, and 7 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004, saved policies REN1, REN2, CL7, CL8 and CL9 of the Caradon Local Plan First Alteration 2007, and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, with particular regard to paragraphs 97 and 109'. 1.4 Reason 2 'By reason of its siting, proximity and scale, the proposed wind turbine would undermine the character and historic setting of the Registered Park and Garden at . The application thereby would cause harm that is not outweighed by the positive contribution made toward renewable energy and is therefore contrary to saved policies REN1, REN2, EV3 and CL21 of the Caradon Local Plan First Alteration 2007, saved Policies 1 and 2 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 and paragraphs 17, 126, 129, 131 and 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework'. 1.5 An appeal, APP/D0840/A/13/2190692/NWF, has been made by the same appellant in respect of planning application PA12/05275 Land adjacent to Bake Sawmills, Bake Lane, Trerulefoot, , PL12 5BW and also seeks a single turbine 67m to tip. The site lies some 850m to the south west. If this Land At Wilton Farm, Trerulefoot, Saltash, Cornwall, PL12 5BX Date: 25 March 2013 4 Statement CC ref: PA12/05276 Cornwall Council APP/D0840/A/13/2190702/NWF application was approved prior to the determination of this application a further reason for refusal would be required namely: 1.6 Reason 3 'By reason of its elevation, size and siting, the proposed wind turbine in combination with the turbine approved on land adjacent to Bake Sawmills (LPA ref: PA12/05274) would be out of character and scale and would result in an overbearing and oppressive feature that would unacceptably impact upon the visual amenity of the area including the nearby Registered Park and Garden at Catchfrench. The visual harm created by this cumulative impact with a nearby wind turbine is not outweighed by the positive contribution made toward renewable energy. The application is therefore contrary to saved policies 1, 2, and 7 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004, saved policies REN1, REN2, EV3, CL7, CL8, CL9 and CL21 of the Caradon Local Plan First Alteration 2007, and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012'. 1.7 It will be noted Deviock Parish Council, St Germans Parish Council and Parish Council all objected to the proposal. The proposal also attracted a considerable number of objections. 2 Site and surroundings 2.1 The proposed wind turbine site is located within an agricultural field, currently in arable rotation, near the top of a plateau (c120m AOD), above the River Seaton river valley, within the South-East Cornwall Landscape Character Area (CA22). The nearest villages to the site include Hessenford to the south, the majority of the village a conservation area. Catchfrench Manor a Historic Parkland lies to the north. 2.2 The nearest dwellings unconnected with the applicant and proposal are Wilton Farmhouse, Bonyalva, South Bake Cottage and Bake Manor. 2.3 Although the site is without specific statutory environmental designation, it does lie within the and Seaton Valleys Area of Great Landscape Value. Land At Wilton Farm, Trerulefoot, Saltash, Cornwall, PL12 5BX 2.4The appeal site lies approximately central to the plan below and within the South East Cornwall Plateau landscape character area (CA22) colour washed brown on the plan being surrounded by the Seaton River Valley landscape character area (CA24) colour washed green on the plan. The pink area to the east of the plan is the Lynher and Tiddy River Valleys (CA25). Copies of the character area descriptions are copied at appendix 1.

Comment submitted Thu 04 Apr 2013

I would like to make a couple of additional comments regarding this development. As you know there is currently an ongoing appeal for wind turbines in this area. These developments must be considered together as they will have an impact upon each other we're they both to be granted. The solar panels will act as a flat reflective surface for sound waves and this will increases the noise generated from the wind turbines and cause a greated degree of amplitude modulation of the noise generated. Simple physics would lead us to believe that this would cause a louger noise which would be heard for greater distances. Already there are concerns regarding e nose generated by the turbines as stated in the Cornwall Councils response on the appeal for the Bake wind turbine. In their appeal response to this application they mention that " as a consequence of the presentation and inappropriate data and its use in reported analysis of potential noise impacts, an unacceptable degree of uncertainty exists regarding potentially significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupants of Bake Manor, South Bake Cottage and Wilton farmhouse, the nearest sensitive receptors of noise effects from the proposed wind turbine. The application therefore fails to adequately demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in harm to residential amenity, contrary to provisions within the local development plan, Saved policy 3 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004, saved policies REN1 and REN2, of the Caradon Local Plan First alteration 2007, and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, with particular reference to the core principles and section 10, paragraph 98" With these concerns the solar farm would greatly increase this risk of noise interference and amplitude modulation modulation and as a result have a further detrimental effect on residential amenity. Please also be aware of Cornwall Council recommendation of refusal for the wind turbine developments on the grounds of the Area of Great Landscape value and at the very edge of CA22 South East Cornwall plateau and immediately on the border of Cornwall Landscape Character Area 24 which is Seaton River Valley. As can be seen on the Cornwall Planning web-site there are a multitude of applications and scoping for solar and wind all over the county. Where all of these to be granted permission then the landscape of Cornwall would be detrimentally affected forever. Landscape designations are put into place to protect areas where the landscape is deemed to be important. This area is certainly not suitable for a development of this size and I believe that there are areas much more appropriate for such a development. In view of these extremely serious concerns I would respectfully request that you recommend refusal for this application.

Mr J Small (Objects)

Comment submitted Wed 27 Mar 2013

I am a resident of the Parish & neighbourhood where this development is proposed. The land is too good an arable quality to be taken out of food or biofuel production. The area has been reaffirmed by the County Council as Great Landscape Value [only 24% of the county is graded as this]. It makes a mockery of this designation to permit this development & in an area that only has tourism as its major income source. The power would be used locally to industrialize the area, thus changing its character. This development & other macro energy generation schemes are not supported by the Parish Plan [2007] nor are they permissable in the draft Neighbourhood Plan. Localism must be respected & now it is enshrined in legislation. Recent flooding, land slip & damage to roads & lanes on Church Hill Lane, the lower Seaton Valley & Hessenford have caused much damage to properties & infrastructure. These developments on the higher run-off ground will not help an already unstable geology & environment

Mr Michael and Stephanie Stockbridge (Objects)

Comment submitted Wed 20 Mar 2013

We object to the proposed installation of a solar farm and associated infrastructure on land at Wilton Farm Trerulefoot Cornwall. Our main objections are as follows: 1. The plan to use good quality agricultural land and thereby essentially transform it to a brownfield site which could in future be turned into a housing development. We are sure that there are many other areas of land owned by the applicant that are already brownfield and would therefore be more suitable for a solar farm. 2. We have concerns that this application along with PA12/05275 and PA12/05276 (67m wind turbines at Bake and Wilton) are the start of a larger campaign to flood the area with turbines and solar farms. Can we be assured that the Cornwall Council planning department are considering these applications, as well as others in the county, within an overall strategic framework for renewable energy and not just treating each application in isolation. Without such a strategy we could end up with a free for all and wanton destruction of our beautiful county. 3. The proposal does not appear to comply with a number of local plans and policies which are well documented by other objectors. 4. Having invested heavily in recent years in the conversion of some disused buildings into holiday cottages we have been attracting a considerable number of holiday makers to the area which is helping to support the local economy. I have concerns that the construction of this and other similar projects will blight the landscape to the extent that, in the longer term, Cornwall becomes less attractive to visitors.

Ms Amanda Harry (Objects)

Comment submitted Sat 09 Mar 2013

South Bake Cottage Trerulefoot Saltash Cornwall PL12 5BP 20/2/13 FAO Mrs Gemma Halstead Planning Officer Planning and Regeneration Service Cornwall Council 3-5 Barn Lane Cornwall PL31 1LZ Ref: PA12/11941 Installation of solar farm and associated infrastructure- Land at Wilton Farm, Trerulefoot, Cornwall Applicant Name:- Murex Agent:- Aardvark Application Validated:- 9/1/13 Dear Mrs Halstead, I wish to object most strongly to this application CONSULTATION There has been absolutely no consultation with the local people regarding this development proposal. The lack of public consultation and public information reinforces the lack of consideration that the developer has for public opinion and that they are trying to get this application passed with the minimum of public involvement. CUMULATIVE IMPACT AND QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE EIA The initial screening application was applied for on 20/12/10 and given on the 16/3/11 and was for a proposed 5mW ground mounted solar array. The development was deemed to be not suitable for a formal Environmental Assessment. I feel that this is out of date and that it should be reconsidered on the grounds that other applications are currently in the pipeline by the same developer locally and thus a cumulative impact should be considered- e.g PA12/05275 and PA12/05276- 67m wind turbines at Bake and Wilton (The developer has taken these applications straight to appeal on the grounds that the Cornwall Planning Department have taken too long to come to a decision) and PA12/03543- appeal against refusal to erect a 67m wind turbine at Fursdon farm. This does not take into consideration similar such applications within a 5-7 mile radius by other developers. I believe that Cornwall Council Planning Department must take an overall view of all these developments. The way in which these EIA decisions have been taken in isolation favour the developer and have little regard for locals who have to live with the consequences. This application is one of approximately 20 such proposals for solar farms within a 7 mile radius of this application. The pilings will irrevocably transition the land from greenfield to brown field status long beyond the 25 yr lease. The quality of this land is varied but the original premise was to recruit brownfield sites closer to towns or land of low agricultural value, which would not include this plot which is regularly farmed and grazed and is assessed at Grade 2/3. This area has very little natural shielding and will be very conspicuous. Original screening was for 5Mw Ground mounted solar farm on 16.7 ha- over 2 fields ?At the time of the screening application the development officer was unaware of any other prospective solar farm developments in the visible surrounding area. It is not considered that there would be a likely significant cumulative visual landscape impact?. As the consideration for an EIA quoted the above in 2011, then surely this needs to be updated particularly in light of the current proposals in particular a screening opinion for a solar farm at Catchfrench Farm. I would also like to point out that a recent screening opinion was sought for a proposed development for up to 10mW development at Farm in , and this was deemed to ?comprise of a schedule 2 development exceeding the relevant threshold and would likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of scale, location and cumulative impact of the development proposed?. Also of note when that particular developer applied for a screening opinion on a 5mW solar farm in November 2010 it too wad deemed not of a scale which warranted an EIA. It seems preposterous that the developer can apply for a screening application for a 5mW solar farm (EIA not required) and then apply for a 9.8mW solar farm and the same decision hold true, particularly taking into consideration of other current proposals in the vicinity. I would also like to draw your attention to other proposals in the area ? this is by all means not a complete record 1) PA12/05854- 17.25ha solar farm at - refused on 17/1/13 at strategic planning meeting on the grounds of unacceptable visual impact. 2) PA12/01530- 3mW solar Farm approved with conditions at Trevatha Farm, Pengover 3) PA12/03543- 67m Wind turbine- refused at planning meeting but appeal lodged. 4) PA12/06666- 5mW solar farm- at Ford Farm , . Approved 5) PA12/04228- 5mW solar farm at Pensipple Farm, - approved 6) PA12/05275- 67m Wind turbine at Bake Trerulefoot- developer has requested appeal as planners have delayed decision 7) PA12/05276- 67m wind turbine at Wilton, Trerulefoot-developer has requested appeal as planners have delayed decision 8) PA12/11024- 9.6mW solar farm Trehawke, Blunts- pending consideration LOCALISM and ADVERSE VISUAL IMPACT The development of a solar farm at this site would significantly detract from the visual amenity of the area. The proposed structure is also contrary to Deviock, Caradon, and National Planning policies. This proposal is contrary to the local Deviock Plan. This is a crucial point when considering the importance of Localism as promoted by the Government and as noted on the UK Parliament website: ?For this to work we need to give people the power to improve our public services, through transparency, local democratic control, competition and choice. We are doing this by: ? beginning a new era of transparency, accountability and openness so local people can hold elected officials to account ? cutting red tape and central bureaucracy and freeing local councils to deliver for the public not central government ? changing the balance of power in the country so power goes right back to the people giving them a genuine voice in their neighbourhood.? [ http://www.communities.gov.uk/corporate/about/whatwedo/ and http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons- select/communities-and-local-government-committee/role/ ] According to Councillor Richard Kemp, leader of the LGA Liberal Democrats, localism includes key components such as: ?Involving people, wherever possible, in the decisions that affect their life, and devolving to officers, members and civil society?that's probably the easiest way to describe it?power to make those decisions at the lowest possible level, so we meet the real needs of local communities and individuals, not the perceived needs of people in Whitehall and town halls.? The local plan was devised to reflect to the concerns and requests of the local population. These were submitted to the local parish council. Therefore, The Deviock Plan represents the concerns, requests, and wishes of the local community at the grass-roots level, in keeping with localism and its emphasis on local democracy in action. The Deviock Plan states in J3 section V1V: ?Any sustainable energy schemes implemented in the Parish should have minimal impact on residents and visitors in terms of noise, visual presence, i.e. should be carefully sited and landscaped) in order that ?green? energy can be regarded as favorably as possible. Micro generation of electricity and local use of marine resources would be acceptable.? The Government further emphasises the importance of localism: ? ?To lift the burden of bureaucracy?by removing the cost and control of unnecessary red tape and regulation, whose effect is to restrict local action; ? To empower communities to do things their way?by creating rights for people to get involved with, and direct the development of, their communities; ? To increase local control of public finance?so that more of the decisions over how public money is spent and raised can be taken within communities.? Within this definition, the control of public finance becomes an issue. This development is not the best use of public finance. Solar energy itself is not the best use of public finance. If we wish to rely on electricity 24/7, to switch on our lights when needed, then we cannot rely on generation of power by solar, which is unpredictable, unreliable, inconsistent, and capricious. The industrialisation of this rural landscape is a significant departure and would detract from the landscape as a resource to those who enjoy and benefit from the landscape. The proposed solar farm would scar and impair the character and quality of the landscape, and the overall impact would be substantial and adverse. The proposed industrialisation and construction(s) conflict with the Cornwall Structure Plan Policy 2, which aims to protect and enhance the quality, character, diversity and local distinctiveness of the natural and built environment, and requires that development must respect local character. The proposed industrialisation and construction(s) are also at odds with Local Deviock Plan D2, which states that, ?The diversity of habitats and features today must be protected and enhanced.? This development is in conflict with Cornwall Structure Plan Policy 2, section 26: ?People appreciate and value Cornwall's varied character and local distinctiveness. Where there is physical evidence of this character it should be retained and where development is proposed, it should reflect and consolidate the character of Cornwall's natural, semi-natural and man made environments: wildlife, biodiversity, geodiversity, history, landscape, townscape and people.? ADVERSE VISUAL IMPACT ON SURROUNDING COUNTRYSIDE The proposed development would be in an area of Great Landscape Value, adjacent to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and near the Conservation Area of Hessenford and adjacent to the designated Cornwall Nature Conservation site . The visual representations provided by the developer are misleading. By using adobe photoshop to fuse together several photographs of 50mm focal length, the panoramic field of view of 90deg thus obtained seriously under-represents the visual impact, particularly when viewed on a computer screen. Therefore the images shown make the area in question appear much further away than it would do in reality. The legislative framework for EIA, which concerns the assessment of effects of certain public and private projects in the environment, is set by the European Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (Council Directive No. 85/337/`EEC and amendments 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC). Because the UK has a number of different development consent regimes, the EIA directive has been transposed into UK law through a number of statutory instruments, which apply in , Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. An important factor in the preparation of an EIA is an emphasis on using the best available sources of objective information and in carrying out a systematic and holistic approach. Part of this is not to deceive the public by photographic manipulation. The development will be visible and have a negative effect on the local vista particularly from the dwellings in Wilton. Wilton Farm and barn being most affected. It would be clearly visible from the public footpath which enters the field opposite Bake Manor and crosses into Bake woods. It would be clearly visible from the Caracawn Cross and from the A38 between and Tideford. What with potential wind turbine developments in these areas the eye will be automatically drawn to these areas thereby increasing the overall negative impact. The proposed development cover a massive 14.7Ha of nearly 40,000 photovoltaic panels, which would stand 2.95m above ground, there would be seven invertor/transdusor units ? each 10mx3m and an additional substation again 10mx3m standing 3.3m tall. These buildings, fencing and PV units would be completely at odds with the surrounding countryside, which comprises of rolling pasture and farmed fields. FLOOD RISK There are huge concerns regarding increasing the flood risk within the area of the Seaton Valley. Yet again, locals in Seaton, Hessenford and the Seaton Valley have been subject to flooding during the heavy rains this year. Any projects which could potentially increase that risk and make more people vulnerable to this problem should not and must not be approved. The developer has stated in section 4.3.5 of its Flood Risk Assessment:- ? Flooding as a result of the development. The proposed development has the potential to induce impermeable areas around the site where the land was previously permeable. This would have the potential to increase the run off rates across the site which could increase the flood risk to adjacent sites.? From this statement alone this development should not be granted planning permission. The increase in impermeable area is estimated to be 882m2 and is increased with the potential for soil impaction below the panels. The developer has also stated ?the increase surface run off rate from the panel arrays causing rilling/gullying and localized ponding in fields and an increase in run off to the copse in the south of the field`? This copse will ultimately drain into the stream in Bake Woods which drains into the river in the Seaton Valley- again increasing flood risk. By way of ameliorating this problem the developer has proposed the development of wet swales to allow the retention of water. However it has taken a little bit of research into this areas to show that wet swales have very little effect on reducing run off and have more of a role in filtration. So it would appear that the developer is unable to reduce this increase in flood risk. If you look at the environment agency website on: http://maps.environment- agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?ep=query&floodrisk=1.4&lang=_e&topic=floodmap&floodX=230762&floodY=57355 This looks at the flood risk for Hessenford- this comes out as significant with a 1.3%(1 in 75) chance of flooding in the next 12 months. This takes into account the local flood defenses. If you use this tool to look along the Seaton Valley then the flood risk is significant all along the valley. (Bearing in mind that Hessenford residents have had their homes flooded twice this year already.) Aardvark has been negligent in its attention to this detail. For the people living in the Seaton Valley this is an annual fear. The information provides an indication of the likelihood of flooding in this area. This information comes from the Environment Agency's Flood Risk Assessment, which uses ground levels, predicted flood levels, information on flood defenses, and our local knowledge. The likelihood is described in one of three categories, low, moderate or significant, as used by the insurance industry. As the developer is intending to put these people at greater risk of flooding, what are they going to put in place should these floods occur subsequent to the development and what protection will they give these families when their insurance companies will no longer provide them with cover. This application must not be taken in isolation as the developer has two further applications, currently being appealed, for two 67m wind turbines.. one adjacent to this development and one a field away. Both of these structures individually or combined will have an additional risk to flooding in the Seaton Valley, as the fields involved drain into the same stream which ultimately feeds into the river Seaton. This increase in flood risk is completely unacceptable. This is contrary to Caradon Plan ALT 4 and ALT 5 regarding surface water run off and flood risks and also contrary to Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 Policy 3. These developments are also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework section 100. AS THE FLOOD RISK IN SEATON VALLEY AND THE CONSERVATION AREA OF HESSENFORD IS VERY LIKELY TO BE INCREASED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT THE APPLIATION SHOULD BE REJECTED. INAPPROPRIATE USE OF HIGH QUALITY AGRICULTURAL LAND The council planning site states that the agricultural land is of Grade 2 and 4. The application states that it is Grade 3. Unfortunately it is virtually impossible to state with accuracy from the DEFRA web site which the classification would be, but on discussion with local farmers it is most likely to be grade 3a/b. This is high quality agricultural land which would be best served to grow crops rather than housing a photovoltaic development. The pilings will irrevocably transition the land from greenfield to brown field status long beyond the 25 yr lease. The quality of this land is varied but the original premise was to recruit brownfield sites closer to towns or land of low agricultural value for such developments, which would not include this plot which is regularly farmed and is assessed at Grade 2/3. This area has very little natural shielding and will be very conspicuous. In summary this proposal should be rejected on the following grounds:- 1) Adverse visual impact when considered alone or as part of a cumulative impact of multiple solar and wind turbine applications in the surrounding area. 2) Increase in flood risk of the Seaton Valley 3) Inappropriate use of high grade agricultural land 4) Any slight potential benefits from this proposed development is greatly outweighed by the negative impacts that such a development would have on this area 5) please note the number of supporters who are WHBond and sons employees. These people will not have to live near this development and this should not underestimate the adverse effect that a development of this nature will have on this Area of Great Landscape Value. Therefore I would be grateful if you could recommend that this application be refused planning permission. Yours sincerely, Dr Amanda Harry Ref: PA12/11941 Objection Dr Amanda Harry Ms Hayley Shipton (Supports)

Comment submitted Thu 21 Feb 2013

I am in full support of the solar farm application. Everyone can look at an application subjectively quoting planning policies, but the reality is we all have to look at the bigger picture. We simply must increase sustainable energy to prevent the continual draining of the national grid, reflected in the government directives. In an ideal world it would be great to use brownfield sites, but clearly from the lack of planning applications these sites are few and far between, reserved for sustainable homes that further drain the national grid. Homes cannot keep being built without renewable energy on a large scale. This proposed development will undoubtably provide an enormous energy boost to local area to support and enable its future growth for generations to come.

Miss Emma Delbridge (Supports)

Comment submitted Tue 19 Feb 2013

I would like to support this application as it is not close to any villages or settlements and is of low landscape visual impact. I do not believe it will destroy outstanding landscape character of this area. Whbond continues to farm 2000 acres and employee over 100+ LOCAL staff directly/indirectly ? Surely this shows the company not only cares for the environment but also strongly supports the community within it.

Mr Shaun Getson (Supports)

Comment submitted Tue 19 Feb 2013

I am in full support of the solar farm application at Wilton Farm,as we take our energy usesage for granted .This development along with wind turbines can only be good for our future renewable energy needs and is with in the council planning policy.

Miss Jo Lock (Supports)

Comment submitted Fri 15 Feb 2013

I fully support this application by W H Bond, as it meets many of the required planning guidelines as a site suitable for solar. I would also like to take issue with some of the objections regarding the applicants use of their own land. In the past 10 years they have planted over 35 acres of hardwood trees and created over 20 acres of aquatic habitat. They also recycle over 5000 tonnes of green waste each year enabling a considerable improvement in Cornwall's recycling rate and reducing the amount of off-farm inputs required. They have been farming in the area since 1957 and their concern for the countryside is as great or greater than the majority of local residents. Mr Steve Courts (Supports)

Comment submitted Fri 15 Feb 2013

I'd like to pledge support on this application. We all take our energy useage for granted and renewables has to be the way forward. I've visited this site on many occasions, it is rurally situated and will cause little visual impact. This proposal is also in line with council planning policy as a suitable site for a solar farm.

Miss Claire Scarle (Supports)

Comment submitted Fri 15 Feb 2013

Please pass on my support for the above application. It will have little effect on anyone and once built will provide valuable energy locally.

Miss Annette Woodman (Supports)

Comment submitted Fri 15 Feb 2013

I would like to lend my support to this application as an immediate neighbour to a Solar Farm in South East Cornwall. Whilst I'm a lover of the countryside I realise the need for renewable energy and the alternatives would be far more detrimental to the area.

Mrs Sally Pearce (Supports)

Comment submitted Fri 15 Feb 2013

I am supporting this application as it has little impact on the area and will provide much needed renewable energy. It will also ensure continued work for local people during the construction phase and longer term will ensure W H Bond continues to be one of the larger employers in the area. I believe they farm around 2,000 acres locally so it is obvious they are a family who cares about the surrounding countryside.

Mrs serena crutchley (Supports)

Comment submitted Thu 14 Feb 2013

I think this application is a great idea and it will be a good opportunity for local businesses. Mr Tony Hilton (Objects)

Comment submitted Wed 13 Feb 2013

Please see associated documents tab for comments

Mr Tony Farrant (Supports)

Comment submitted Tue 12 Feb 2013

I fully support this application because it provides much needed power from renewable energy with no lasting damage to the environment. We can no longer expect nuclear power to provide all our energy needs. It is not situated near any villages or close to any residential properties. I would like to point out that even the stongest objectors would find any renewable energy source is better than them having no electric at all which can happen as I am old enough to remember the power cuts in the seventies and would hate for future generations to suffer that experience. Therefore, let us meet the needs ot the nation head on by producing renewable energy before it's too late.

Mrs Ida Bishop (Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 12 Feb 2013

To view these comments, please go to the documents tab

Mr L Milburn (Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 12 Feb 2013

To view these comments please see documents tab. 7/2/13 - 2nd Letter Sent - To view these comments, please go to the documents tab

Mr Will Evans (Supports)

Comment submitted Mon 11 Feb 2013

I suppport this application as it is not close to any villages or settlements and is of low landscape visual impact. I believe it is also in line with Cornwall council planning guidance as a suitable site for solar. Claire And Stuart Watkins (Objects)

Comment submitted Mon 11 Feb 2013

We write to object to Cornwall Council Planning Application PA12/11941 for the development of solar photovoltaic array and associated infrastructure development at Wilton Farm near Trerulefoot. Our family has frequently holidayed in Cornwall over the past two decades and we have visited most of the county. We have stayed locally in this area, and have walked on the public footpath from Bake through Bake Woods to Hessenford on many occasions as well as around the surrounding local lanes. The proposed solar photovoltaic development would be located in a beautiful and outstanding area of countryside landscape and with great unspoilt rural amenity value. Such a development covering over 36 acres of quality agricultural land would be completely alien to the existing wonderful natural landscape in this area, particularly when the site, we believe, is in a designated area of special landscape value and is adjacent to a designated Cornwall Nature Conservation Site. This development would totally and unacceptably change and destroy the outstanding landscape character of this area to an industrialised one which we feel would be wholly inappropriate, and would surely lead to more creeping industrialisation which would further ruin the locality. This planning application with the industrialisation of unspoilt rural countryside, either on its own or taken together with the other local planning applications for two large wind turbines at the immediate vicinity would seriously detract from our wish to visit and stay in this area again. We are, in general, in favour of renewable energy being part of the electricity generation mix but we do not think that a large solar photovoltaic farm is right in this area. We urge Cornwall Planners to refuse permission for this planning application.

Mr P Bowers (Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 05 Feb 2013

I refer to Cornwall Council planning application PA12/11941 - proposal for the creation of a 9.8Mw solar farm on 14.7 hectares at Wilton Farm. I wish to object to this proposal for the following reasons: i) This is one of a number of applications relating to energy generation which have been submitted in locations of close proximity and which should not be considered in isolation. Should not the regulations regarding the requirement for EIAs apply? ii) This proposal relates to an Area of Great Landscape Value. Is this appropriate development? I would suggest not having regard to Cornwall Structure Plan Policy and retained Caradon Local Plan Policy. iii) Will this not adversely affect drainage into the river Seaton and exacerbate flood risk to Hessenford? iv) Is this an appropriate use for grade 2 agricultural land? v) This will set a precedent for the further industrialisation of the landscape. vi) I find it absurd and inequitable that individuals should be able to make substantial financial benefit from developments which are supposed to be for the benefit of all, and are certainly being paid for by everyone by way of energy surcharges, to fund what would otherwise be totally uneconomic initiatives. vii) The planning authority do not appear to have any coherent policy relating to this sort of development. They should, and it should exclude the use of inappropriate sites such as this. viii) The Design and Access Statement shows traffic will access the site for deliveries etc. via Bake Lane. Having already had a large section of my front garden fence demolished by a 40 ton lorry (which did not stop) last month, I am unsuprisingly not supportive of any proposal which will intensify the use of this road. ix) I am also concerned that if the local planning authority do not determine this application within the statutory time limit then the applicants will appeal to the Secretary of State and the application will be determined by the planning inspector (as appears to be the case with the applications for the wind turbines). Under such circumstance the opinion and decision of the local (and locally elected) planning authority is absent. Is this democracy? Peter Bowers, Cornerways, Bake Lane End, Trerulefoot

Mr anthony wagner (Supports)

Comment submitted Mon 04 Feb 2013

I would like to support whbond in their continued effort to use renewable energy, i do not see these solar panels as an eye sore, nor the wind turbines, the one i can see from my house is quite elegant. Would we all rather see a power station from our houses / towns / or villages? Whbond is a major employer in our area, and also supports and keeps a lot of small businesses going. I cant help but feel a lot of people objecting this have probably moved here at some point during there lives from further a field and have no idea how hard country life can be. possibly the same sort of people that cant reverse and moan when theres mud on the road or when we haven't trimmed our hedges correctly. Steps need to be taken to invest in more in renewable energy, wether solar panels or wind turbine form. I wonder if any of the people objecting have solar panels fitted to their roofs?

Dr Simon Fullalove (Objects)

Comment submitted Mon 15 Apr 2013

I would like to draw your attention to some recent new important information which has strong relevance to the above planning application. These comments are made in addition to my previous detailed submission to you in February 2013. Firstly Cornwall Council has recently responded to The Planning Inspectorate regarding the planning appeal ref no APP/D0840/A/13/2190702/NWF concerning planning application ref no PA12/05276 for erection of an industrial wind turbine and associated infrastructure on land at Wilton Farm (please find a copy attached). As I am sure that you are aware, this is at the same location as the aforementioned solar photovoltaic development planning application. Cornwall Council has stated that they would have refused the application through its delegation procedure for the following reasons: Reason 1 'By reason of its elevation, size and siting, the proposed wind turbine would be out of character and scale and would result in an overbearing and oppressive feature that would unacceptably impact upon the visual amenity of the area within an Area of Great Landscape Value. This harm is not outweighed by the positive contribution made toward renewable energy. The application is therefore contrary to saved policies 1, 2, and 7 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004, saved policies REN1, REN2, CL7, CL8 and CL9 of the Caradon Local Plan First Alteration 2007, and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, with particular regard to paragraphs 97 and 109'. Reason 2 'By reason of its siting, proximity and scale, the proposed wind turbine would undermine the character and historic setting of the Registered Park and Garden at Catchfrench. The application thereby would cause harm that is not outweighed by the positive contribution made toward renewable energy and is therefore contrary to saved policies REN1, REN2, EV3 and CL21 of the Caradon Local Plan First Alteration 2007, saved Policies 1 and 2 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004 and paragraphs 17, 126, 129, 131 and 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework'. An appeal, APP/D0840/A/13/2190692/NWF, has been made by the same appellant in respect of planning application PA12/05275 Land adjacent to Bake Sawmills, Bake Lane, Trerulefoot, Saltash, PL12 5BW and also seeks a single turbine 67m to tip. The site lies some 850m to the south west. If this Land At Wilton Farm, Trerulefoot, Saltash, Cornwall, PL12 5BX Date: 25 March 2013 4 Statement CC ref: PA12/05276 Cornwall Council APP/D0840/A/13/2190702/NWF application was approved prior to the determination of this application a further reason for refusal would be required namely: Reason 3 'By reason of its elevation, size and siting, the proposed wind turbine in combination with the turbine approved on land adjacent to Bake Sawmills (LPA ref: PA12/05274) would be out of character and scale and would result in an overbearing and oppressive feature that would unacceptably impact upon the visual amenity of the area including the nearby Registered Park and Garden at Catchfrench. The visual harm created by this cumulative impact with a nearby wind turbine is not outweighed by the positive contribution made toward renewable energy. The application is therefore contrary to saved policies 1, 2, and 7 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004, saved policies REN1, REN2, EV3, CL7, CL8, CL9 and CL21 of the Caradon Local Plan First Alteration 2007, and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012'. *The proposed 9.8MW solar photovoltaic development covering 14.7ha would have a significant adverse impact on the registered Historic Parkland of Highpark Wood at Catchfrench and would not preserve or enhance the heritage assets or their setting. The proposed development would also have significant adverse impact on the unlisted heritage asset of Wilton Farm. The importance of the protection of the settings of heritage assets as well as the heritage asset itself have been restated by the recent 'Barnwell Manor' High Court Judgement (Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 473 (Admin) Case No: CO/4231/2012) by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang on 8 March 2013). *By reason of its siting, proximity and scale, the solar photovoltaic development would be substantially damaging to the setting and character and would undermine the character and historic setting of the Registered Park and Garden at Catchfrench. The application thereby would cause harm that is not outweighed by the positive contribution made toward renewable energy, and is therefore contrary to saved policies 1 and 2 of the Cornwall Structure Plan 2004, saved policies EV3 of the Caradon Local Plan First Alteration 2007, and the advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, with particular regard to paragraphs 129, 131 and 132. Secondly the Cornwall Council Principal Public Space Officer (Landscape) has recommended objection to this planning application for the significant adverse harm that it would cause on the landscape, which is a designated Area of Great Landscape Value. The proposed site would be visible from the well-used public footpath between Bake and Bake Woods and from places on the lanes around Bake and Wilton/Bonyalva areas as well as from further afield such as . The location of the proposed development site is on a high position in the local landscape. The visibility of the proposed development site is also noted in the comments of the Principal Public Space Officer (Landscape). Thirdly it is important to note that the Cornwall Councillors have insisted on retaining the designation of Area of Great Landscape Value and reaffirmed its importance in the draft Cornwall Local Plan. [The following extracts are taken from my earlier submission to the Cornwall Council Planning and Regeneration department.: The proposed development is in a designated Area of Great Landscape Value (conflicts with adopted Caradon Local Plan Policies CL8/9; and contrary to Cornwall Structure Plan Policy 1 which states that planning applications should preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the countryside). The proposed development is immediately adjacent to a designated Cornwall Nature Conservation Site. The proposed development involves 14.7 hectares (over 36 acres) of farm land. The proposed development (which involves approximately 40,000 solar photovoltaic panels, seven inverters, one substation and security fencing and surveillance cameras) would have a significant and substantial adverse visual impact on (i) the designated Area of Great Landscape Value and (ii) on the setting of the immediately adjacent Cornwall Nature Conservation Site, and (iii) would look completely out of place and scale, and in complete contrast to the surrounding unspoilt undeveloped countryside landscape and rural fields and nearby fishing lakes. It must be remembered that is not only views from windows that need to be considered. In the Planning Inspectorate Appeal at Penpell (APP/Q0830/A/05/1189328) the Planning Inspector said that the visual effects of a development proposal are the effects upon views and the general visual amenity as experienced by people, and in the Inspector's opinion, people are sensitive receptors not only when in their home or garden, but also when moving around the locality in the course of daily life, coming to and from the home, visiting neighbours, walking the dog, riding out on a horse and so on. In another Planning Inspectorate Appeal at Beech Tree Farm, Lamerton (APP/Q1153/A/04/1170234) the Planning Inspector said that occupiers of local dwellings would be aware of the presence of a development and they would carry that awareness with them at all times as they move about the locality, anticipating glimpses or views. Hence they would sense their presence even though structures might be hidden by vegetation, landform or buildings for longer or shorter periods. Such perceptions are important; in effect the development would become part of the landscape in the minds' eye of those living and working locally. As the landscape surrounding the site is clearly in an AGLV then its sensitivity should be classed as high. This has been confirmed by a number of Planning Inspectors at public inquiries such as the Oak Farm public inquiry (APP/P1133/A/07/2055627) where the Inspector said "This very attractive countryside is of high landscape value and is designated as an AGLV. It is particularly sensitive to development." The fact that the impact of a development on a valued landscape would be significant, even though the development proposed would be temporary (because the development proposed would be for 25 years) was acknowledged in a Planning Inspectorate Appeal decision made on 4 July 2012 regarding a planning proposal at , near in Cornwall (APP/D0840/A/11/2162570) - please see paragraph 20 in the attached document.] The National Planning Policy Framework and sustainable development sets out that true sustainable development is a balance of factors. As previously stated, the benefits in terms of renewable energy production are greatly outweighed by the significant and substantial environmental harm and industrialisation that the development would do for at least twenty five years to the highly-valued landscape and local heritage assets, and the effective loss of high-quality agricultural land and the potential increased surface water run-off and unacceptable increased risk of flooding into a river valley with a history of flooding problems. The planning balance in this case lies with refusal. Thank you for your attention to and consideration of this important information. Please would you confirm receipt of this e-mail. Yours faithfully, Dr Simon Fullalove South Bake Cottage Trerulefoot Saltash Cornwall PL12 5BP

Comment submitted Mon 04 Feb 2013

I am a local resident living in the vicinity of the proposed development. I object to the planning application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development is in a designated Area of Great Landscape Value (conflicts with adopted Caradon Local Plan Policies CL8/9; and contrary to Cornwall Structure Plan Policy 1 which states that planning applications should preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the countryside). The proposed development is immediately adjacent to a designated Cornwall Nature Conservation Site. The proposed development involves 14.7 hectares (over 36 acres) of farm land. The proposed development (which involves approximately 40,000 solar photovoltaic panels, seven inverters, one substation and security fencing and surveillance cameras) would have a significant and substantial adverse visual impact on (i) the designated Area of Great Landscape Value and (ii) on the setting of the immediately adjacent Cornwall Nature Conservation Site, and (iii) would look completely out of place and scale, and in complete contrast to the surrounding unspoilt undeveloped countryside landscape and rural fields and nearby fishing lakes. The site would be visible from the public footpath and lanes around Bake and from further afield such as Narkurs. It must be remembered that is not only views from windows that need to be considered. In the Planning Inspectorate Appeal at Penpell (APP/Q0830/A/05/1189328) the Planning Inspector said that the visual effects of a development proposal are the effects upon views and the general visual amenity as experienced by people, and in the Inspector's opinion, people are sensitive receptors not only when in their home or garden, but also when moving around the locality in the course of daily life, coming to and from the home, visiting neighbours, walking the dog, riding out on a horse and so on. In another Planning Inspectorate Appeal at Beech Tree Farm, Lamerton (APP/Q1153/A/04/1170234) the Planning Inspector said that occupiers of local dwellings would be aware of the presence of a development and they would carry that awareness with them at all times as they move about the locality, anticipating glimpses or views. Hence they would sense their presence even though structures might be hidden by vegetation, landform or buildings for longer or shorter periods. Such perceptions are important; in effect the development would become part of the landscape in the minds' eye of those living and working locally. As the landscape surrounding the site is clearly in an AGLV then its sensitivity should be classed as high. This has been confirmed by a number of Planning Inspectors at public inquiries such as the Oak Farm public inquiry (APP/P1133/A/07/2055627) where the Inspector said "This very attractive countryside is of high landscape value and is designated as an AGLV. It is particularly sensitive to development." 2. The fact that the impact of a development on a valued landscape would be significant, even though the development proposed would be temporary (because the development proposed would be for 25 years) was acknowledged in a Planning Inspectorate Appeal decision made on 4 July 2012 regarding a planning proposal at Cubert, near Newquay in Cornwall (APP/D0840/A/11/2162570). 3. This proposed development taken either individually or together with the proposed wind turbine developments at Wilton (PA12/05276) and/or Bake (PA12/05275) would change the local countryside landscape to an industrialised landscape (which would have obvious implications for future planning applications and developments in the area). 4. I would like to make reference with regard to Technical Paper E4 (b) Annex 1 : Landscape Sensitivity and Strategy Matrices for each Landscape Character Area in Cornwall prepared by for Cornwall Council by Land Use Consultants Council and published in January 2012. The commission was to undertake an assessment of the landscape sensitivity to onshore wind and large scale solar photovoltaic development in the Cornish landscape. The planning application PA12/11941 is sited on land immediately on the border of Cornwall Landscape Character Area 24: Seaton River Valley and at the very edge of CA22: South East Cornwall Plateau. The key landscape area characteristics description at the proposed development location sites is much more in keeping with LCA 24: Seaton River Valley. The planning application PA12/11941 for 9.8MW solar photovoltaic development and associated infrastructure on land at Wilton conflicts substantial adversely with regard to Landscape Strategy and Siting Guidance for LCA24 Seaton River Valley as follows: (i)The proposed solar photovoltaic development on land at Wilton would be directly on the border of CA24: Seaton River Valley Character Area. The paper states that due to the intimate scale and form of the landscape this LCA is likely to be highly sensitive to solar PV development of any greater scale than the `small' scale [small scale is considered to be 1-5ha whereas the proposed planning application PA12/11941 is for 14.7ha which is deemed `large scale' (being 10-15ha)]. (ii)The steep valley sides to the south of the A38 would be particularly sensitive according to the report. (iii)The document states that the Landscape strategy should be for very occasional very small PV developments associated with buildings/settlements south of the A38 - again the planning application is for a `large' solar PV development and it is not associated with buildings. (iv)The report advises Siting Guidance for solar PV development that scenic quality of the AGLV should be protected, protecting the features such as the woods within the valleys and avoiding siting solar development on valley slopes south of the A38. The proposed solar PV planning application would be located within the AGLV and immediately adjacent to the wooded valley of the Cornwall Nature Conservation Site of this part of the Seaton River Valley LCA. 5.The proposed solar photovoltaic planning application would be located on land of designated `Medieval Farmland' Historic Landscape Character. Cornwall Council's HLC Sensitivity Mapping for solar PV development assesses the HLC of `Medieval Farmland' as of moderate-high vulnerability to solar PV development. This planning application would clearly cause substantial adverse harmful impact on this HLC, particularly as this proposal is for a solar PV development at the upper limit of `large scale' solar PV development. 6. The proposed development would cause unacceptable and unnecessary increased risk of flooding of the River Seaton and the Seaton Valley due to the footings and loss of permeable ground (at least an estimated 883sqm in the applicant's own submission), even taking into account the proposed mitigation measures (conflicts with adopted Caradon Local Plan Policies ALT4/5). The seriousness of the flooding risk cannot be underestimated. The river Seaton, Seaton Valley and the village of Hessenford have suffered from episodes of flooding problems over the past several years. There has even been a fatality when the river Seaton was swollen at Hessenford in November 2009. The flooding carries serious financial and insurance issues, as well as of course the emotional and psychological health problems of those concerned. The use of wet swales is to try to provide some reduction in the flow velocity of the storm water run-off and to provide some pollutant filtering rather than reducing the quantity of surface water run-off volume. There is no proof available from the applicants that their proposed mitigation measures will guarantee any protection against the potential increased surface water run-off volume and increased flooding potential. This planning application will cause an unnecessary and dangerous additional risk for the village of Hessenford and the Deviock population. 7. The proposed development would involve use of land of agricultural classification grade 2 which is designated best and most versatile agricultural land (conflicts with adopted Caradon Local Plan Policies CL5; and Cornwall Structure Plan Policy 3 which encourages the lowest possible grade of land suitable for the development to be used). National Planning Policy Framework also directs that quality agricultural land should not be used before `brownfield' and lower grade land. 8. The proposed development (with approximately 40,000 large photo-voltaic panels, seven 10mx3m inverter units and one 10mx3m substation cabin, over 2m high metal security fencing surrounding the development and three 20 feet high CCTV surveillance cameras) is out of character with the existing buildings and would introduce incongruous factors and materials that do not reflect the local vernacular tradition (conflicts with adopted Caradon Local Plan Policy CL2). 9. The loss of 36 acres of habitat for the local fauna in the area would adversely impact on the existing birdlife (reduction in feeding site for the local Barn Owls, raptors and bats) as well as the potential nesting areas for Skylarks and Corn Buntings which have been sighted on the farmland over several years. 10. The judgement at the High Court of Justice in London by The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang on 29 May 2012 regarding a proposed wind turbine development in Norfolk established the principle that National Planning Policy regarding renewable energy does not have primacy over local landscape policy (Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 1419 (QB) Case No: CO/13120/2010). 11. There are also several inconsistencies in the applicant's submitted documentation- for example (i) the Location Plan shows the proposed development extending right up to the edge of Bake Woods but other plans do not; (ii) the maximum height of the CCTV cameras varies within the LVIA summary and is also different in the plan diagram. 12. The screening opinion submitted by the applicant with this planning application is out-dated. It was for a 5MW solar photovoltaic development - not the 9.8MW development of this planning application - and the screening opinion made no reference to the cumulative impact of two planning proposals, by the same applicant, for industrial wind turbines on land at Wilton and at Bake in a designated Area of Great Landscape Value and adjacent to a Cornwall Nature Conservation Site. 13. This application should not just be taken in isolation but consideration with the immediately adjacent planning applications for industrial wind turbines (PA12/05275 and PA12/05276). 14. To my knowledge neither the applicant nor landowner has not made any attempt of prior engagement with the local nearby residents regarding this proposal which is contrary to the guidelines for community involvement with renewable developments. In summary, this proposed development in this location would cause considerable and unacceptable detriment and harm to the local highly-valued countryside landscape, utilise agricultural land of designated best and most versatile quality, detrimentally affect local birdlife (as well as affecting other fauna), and create potential public safety/flooding problems. The planning application is contrary to several Policies of the adopted Caradon Local Plan (2007) and the Cornwall Structure Plan (2004) as outlined above. Much is being made of the National Planning Policy Framework and sustainable development. However the Framework sets out that true sustainable development is a balance of factors. In this case the environmental and social harm clearly outweighs the benefits to be gained; the proposal does not constitute sustainable development and cannot be supported by the Framework. The benefits in terms of renewable energy production are greatly outweighed by the significant and substantial harm and industrialisation that the development would do to the highly-valued landscape, the increased risk of flooding, and the effective loss of high-quality agricultural land. The planning balance in this case clearly lies with refusal. The planning application should therefore be refused by Cornwall Council.

D Stewart (Objects)

Comment submitted Fri 01 Feb 2013

To view these comments please go to the document tab

Mrs louise clarke (Objects)

Comment submitted Thu 31 Jan 2013

Whilst I am a firm believer in appropriate renewable forms of energy, having myself installed solar panels, it is apparent that this proposal is inappropriate to this unspoilt beautiful countryside and rural landscape and I therefore want to make a formal objection to the planning application. Yet again I find myself having to object to the apparent destruction to the area in which we chose to reside and continually appreciate and which is designated as of Great Landscape Value. When I chose to live in the area, 8 years ago, I accepted the additional cost of travel to work and shops for the enjoyment of the open countryside, walking the footpaths, riding the lanes and the peace and tranquility of the countryside. This proposal will cause a significant impairment to this residential amenity which will continue for a generation. It is wholly apparent that those who have submitted the applications, including the two turbine applications, are intent on changing the land in this area from agricultural to industrial with the loss of farmland. There is a place for solar energy which many members of the community are trying to contribute to but in a practical and sympathetic way to all concerned. Development of solar panels on roofs of buildings would be a better use of public money as there is no destruction caused to fauna, flora and the visual landscape. There is a lack of sensitivity shown in this site by creating a monstrous construction at this visible location and altering the character and attributes that this area is renowned for thereby attracting tourists to the county. This application conflicts with policies CL2, CL8, and CL9 of the Adopted Caradon Local Plan, as well as Policy 1 of the Cornwall Structure Plan. The National Planning Policy Framework also states that Planning "should protect and enhance the quality, character, and amenity value of the countryside, with a high level of protection afforded to the most valued landscapes such as AONBs and AGLVs". We're are most concerned about the increased risk of flooding because existing drainage under the field would be affected by the necessary ground works, the sub-station, the inverters and required footings to make way for the panels. This is the biggest issue for me as a local resident. There are already immense problems with drainage and the disbursement of water in this area. We constantly have a large amount of water running off the fields, down the roads, flooding our drive area and now even our property. This occurance has intensified in recent months, due to weather climate change which the whole country is experiencing. The insertion of the solar panels will undoubtedly cause more water displacement by limiting the absorption of water to the large area they cover together with the run-off from the panels. Which further increases the regularity of flooding to my property. The River Seaton, Hessonford village, and the Seaton Valley have suffered increasingly over several years from periods of severe flooding and even a fatality. This of course conflicts with Policies ALY4 and ALT5 of the Adopted Caradon local Plan, and the proposed wet swales, designed to reduce the flow velocity of storm water run-off, which are an unproven feature where coping with such a large surface area is concerned. We already know that numerous applications are being submitted to the Cornish local planning office for turbines and solar panel farms. If this development goes ahead it will be setting a precedence and potentially our countryside will be covered with fields of solar panels rather than crops. This will surely put in jeopardy the designation of Area of Great Landscape Value . Shouldn?t we be protecting our countryside for future generations and using brown field sites before taking arable land?? I can?t believe that it is acceptable for quality farmland to be taken out of agricultural production causing detriment and destruction of our beautiful countryside and landscapes. The Deviock Plan states in J3 VI- that:- any sustainable energy schemes in the Parish should have a minimal impact on residents and visitors in terms of noise, visual presence (i.e should be carefully sited and Landscaped) in order that ?green energy? can be regarded as favourably as possible.

Ian Fullalove (Objects)

Comment submitted Wed 30 Jan 2013

I wish to register my objection to the application for a large Solar Photovoltaic Array and associated infrastructure at Wilton Farm, Trerulefoot. As a resident in Cornwall for many years, and being very familiar with the area around Trerulefoot, I ask for the application to be refused for the following reasons: (1) 40,000 solar voltaic panels, seven inverters and one sub-station, together with the necessary security fencing and CCTV cameras would have a significant and substantial adverse visual impact on a designated Area of Great Landscape Value and on the immediately adjacent Cornwall Nature Conservation Site, and be totally out of place, and in complete contrast with the surrounding, and hitherto unspoilt rural landscape of fields and nearby fishing lakes. The countryside of South East Cornwall is one of the County's greatest assets an attraction that brings many tourists to the area. The application conflicts with policies CL2, CL8, and CL9 of the Adopted Caradon Local Plan, as well as Policy 1 of the Cornwall Structure Plan. Also, National Planning Policy Framework states that Planning "should protect and and enhance the quality, character, and amenity value of the countryside, with a high level of protection afforded to the most valued landscapes such as AONBs and AGLVs". This application fails on all counts. (2) I know from personal experience that the River Seaton, Hessonford village, and the Seaton Valley have suffered increasingly over several years from periods of severe flooding and even a fatality contributed to by the swollen river. The necessary ground works, the sub-station, and the inverters all require footings that will cause significant loss of permeable ground and together with the run- off from the solar panels, can only increase the problem of flooding. This of course conflicts with Policies ALY4 and ALT5 of the Adopted Caradon local Plan, and the proposed wet swales, designed to reduce the flow velocity of storm water run-off, are an unproven feature where coping with such a large surface area is concerned. (3) Having walked on numerous occasions over many years in and around Bake Woods, the lakes, and local lanes past Bonyalva, and having made regular sightings of Barn Owls, raptors, Pipistrelle bats, as well as a host of Migratory birds that visit the Lakes, I am concerned over the impact that a development covering 36 acres of prime agricultural land will have on the ecosystem and habitat for the local fauna. I note that the proposed development would be on land designated as 'best and most versatile' and it would be perverse, at a time when there is increasing awareness for the need of security for food production, to act against the Policy CL5 of the Caradon Local Plan, and Policy 3 of the Cornwall Structure Plan as well as the National Planning Policy Framework which encourages the greater use of 'Brownfield Sites' or previously developed land. Finally, this application should not be considered in isolation, but linked with the immediately adjacent applications for industrial wind turbines ( PA12/05275 and PA12/05276). Whilst there is a real need for renewable energy, this application is totally inappropriate for this location and should be refused.

Mr Local Resident (Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 29 Jan 2013

I object to the scale of this development. Covering a 41-acre field with solar arrays, inverter buildings and 20-foot CCTV towers would industrialise an unspoiled landscape in the heart of an AGLV. The proposed solar farm is part of a bigger scheme including two giant wind turbines, all within the same area. Nothing against WH Bond and their employees (who will no doubt make a concerted team effort to register their support here, as they did with the wind turbines). Their company may own the land, but it's our environment too!

Julian Kinsey (Objects)

Comment submitted Mon 28 Jan 2013

I wish to register my objection to the above planning application. I do so as the joint owner of the home nearest the site and for all the reasons expressed in my wife's letter to you of 16/1. I would also point out that, as with applications PA12/05275 and PA12/05276, there has been no community involvement with or consultation in respect of this application whatsoever. The arrogance of the applicants and the landowners in seeking to foist these things onto people without having even the common courtesy to discuss their proposals with them is quite breathtaking. Mr Jamie Hatch (Supports)

Comment submitted Sun 27 Jan 2013

I would like my Support registered for this forward thinking application that will make a valuable contribution to the local and national renewable energy targets set out by Government. It will also secure energy for future generations, allow for farm diversification and allow local businesses to tender for the work.? The fact is though that it will not make any difference to the final decision if this application is supported or objected to, all that matters is if it meets National Planning Policy, and in my view it does. Law is Law and planning policies are planning policies, people can embrace progress or they can belly ache as much as they wish, but it will not make a bit of difference to the outcome. The Local Planning Authority, will take public comments, as well as consultee views into consideration, but the LPA can only make its ultimate judgement based on National Planning Policy, either it meets said policies or it does not meet policy, simple as that.? If, on the other hand, the LPA decide to ignore the policies, notably the NPPF introduced by the current Government, and refuse, or indeed fail to determine the application, they risk wasting large sums of tax payers money in cost claims when, ultimately, the application is allowed by the Secretary of State at appeal. This is farm diversification, it meets planning policies and it produces something that each and everyone of us use all day, everyday. I therefore support this farming of the sun application.?

P Denise Harry (Objects)

Comment submitted Thu 24 Jan 2013

To view these comments please see documents tab.

Mr Andy Pearce (Supports)

Comment submitted Tue 22 Jan 2013

I fully support this application which will enable a local farming family to continue their diversification in line with Cornwall Council and Government Policy. W H Bond are a large local employer and this renewable energy project will be a valuable contribution to the business. The NIMBY's will no doubt object however I'd like to point out that the recently erected Wind Turbine on the outskirts of Liskeard is clearly visible from my own house and I have no issue with this at all.

Mr J Weale (Objects)

Comment submitted Tue 22 Jan 2013 I wish to record my objection to the above planning application. I do so as a resident in the immediate area to the proposed site for development. Specifically, I would ask you to take account of the following points: 1 A small area of land within an AGLV is now subject to separate applications by the same applicants for two 67m turbines (PA12/05725 and PA12/05726) and 14.7 hectares of solar panels (with who knows what more in the pipeline). The Council must treat these applications as one and demand an EIA. I note in that regard that your screening opinion was for a 5MW development; the application is for a 9.8MW development. How odd that there appears to be no reference to the cumulative impact of the applicant's proposals in the papers submitted to you. My understanding is that the application is contrary to adopted Caradon Local Plan Policies CL8/9 and Cornwall Structure Policy Plan 1. 2 I am concerned about the risks of flooding to the residents of Hessenford if this application proceeds. The village has been prone to increased flooding in recent times causing damage to property and, tragically, one fatality. I do not believe that a flood risk assessment prepared by the applicants is sufficient to allay those concerns. I would have thought that an objective assessment would be more appropriate. The application appears to be contrary to adopted Caradon Local Plan Policies ALT4/5. 3 There has been no community consultation about this application or any opportunity for community involvement with it. The LVIA specifically states that "access to private properties and land was not obtained". That was because it was not asked for. It is yet another example of this applicant not engaging with the local community and striving to maximise financial gain at the expense of the wider community 4 In the context of proposed mitigation the applicants refer to a Landscape Concept Plan (SP.1724.3). This is not available on your website and I would be grateful if you would please forward a copy of it to me. 5 Are Areas of Great Landscape Value and County Wildlife Sites the appropriate locations for the erection of security fencing and CCTV cameras? Surely these areas deserve our protection from industrialisation. In this regard the application is I believe contrary to adopted Caradon Local Plan Policy CL2. 6 Cornwall should have a coherent strategy for the siting of solar panels - Brownfield sites and farm and industrial buildings before productive agricultural land for example. In the absence of that we run the risk of the destruction of the countryside by a proliferation of adhoc developments instigated solely by opportunistic developers and those landowners more prepared to pursue financial gain than others. 7 Quality agricultural land should be retained for agricultural use. The application appears to be contrary to adopted Caradon Local Plan Policies CL5 and Cornwall Structure Plan Policy 3. 8 There is no provision for security for the costs of decommissioning. What comfort is there that 40,000 panels will not just be left to pollute the countryside in 25 years' time rather than being removed and disposed of within an environmentally acceptable manner? 9 I am concerned about potential safety issues in connection with the operation of the nearby commercial heliport. We now have the prospect of glint and glare from 40,000 solar panels to add to the mix of the two massive wind turbines that the applicants wish to foist upon a local community, which does not want them. 10 There seem to be a number of inaccuracies/inconsistencies within the paperwork: (a) There are various places where north, south, east and west appear to be muddled. For example the Design and Access Statement says "access to the site will be provided via the existing field gate at the south west corner of the site connecting to the local road network". There is neither a gateway nor a local road network at the south west corner of the site. (b) The summary of the LVIA says that the maximum height of the CCTV cameras will be 6.5m. Para 6.2 says that the maximum height will be 4m. (c) The Environmental Consideration Statement says that the construction period is anticipated to be 8 weeks, the Design and Access Statement says it is anticipated to be 10 weeks. If a non qualified reader of the papers finds these sort of issues one wonders what errors an objective qualified expert would find. 11 I am very confused about the access and traffic management proposals. Please bear in mind the difficulties that local residents already suffer as a result of lorries accessing and egressing the landowner's saw mill along lanes that cannot cope with them. In addition to the point referred to at 10(a) above: (a) The Design and Access Statement says that the site is accessed "from existing tracks from the Bake fishing lakes and via a farm track connecting to Wilton Farm". There is no such connecting track between Bake lakes and Wilton Farm. (b) 40,000 solar panels and components would be delivered "by standard HGVs" according to the Design and Access Statement. The construction phase traffic management plan shows the route to be followed going across country (on a track that doesn't exist) within just a few feet of the front door of my house. (c) Over the 8 (or is it 10?) week construction period, these HGV deliveries will go past my front door along a track that doesn't exist and the necessity for temporary access tracks will only be considered "at the time". (d) Despite the fact that, as patently demonstrated above and by the applicant's own submissions, the local lane network is completely unsuited to this sort of proposal, the Design and Access Statement proclaims that "the site benefits from good access to the local and to the wider highway network"! 12 The Historic Environment Assessment informs that there are "two designated heritage areas in close proximity to the site". I would have thought on that basis that a more robust survey than a desktop assessment and walkover would be both prudent and appropriate before impaling the ground with 1.2m screws. There will presumably be 40,000 of them multiplied by the number of screws required for each panel. 13 I am concerned by the impact this development would have on the local flora and fauna both during the construction period and beyond it. I have seen nothing tangible in the papers to ameliorate this or, indeed, any attempt to encourage diversity of butterflies, insects, birds, other animals, plants and flowers. For the above reasons I urge the refusal of this application.

Comment submitted Tue 22 Jan 2013

PFA a letter of objection to the proposed development of a 14 hectare solar farm at Wilton. This application is in addition to those requested for 67M turbines at Bake and Wilton (PA12/05275 and PA12/11941), both of which I have previously written to object against their construction. I would ask both the County and respective Parish Councils to consider all 3 applications as one as each is for the development on the same site; converting a site of registered Outstanding Natural Beauty into one of significant industrial dimensions. I would highlight that the applicant has never engaged the local community when considering and developing any of the respective applications, indeed, the applicant has ignored any consultation and the impact these developments would have on residents in the immediate area. It is noteworthy that the applicant does not reside in the immediate location of any of these applications. My letter details the significant impact these applications will have on the immediate area, the local flora and forna, and the potential dangers they represent to vehicle access and drainage. I would add that recent Government Minister reports have also identified that the financial benefits of such applications, to the applicant, have been greater than the power generation actually realised. This is likely to stimulate a ministerial review as the cost to the Tax Payer is likely to be greater than that experienced from recent PFI challenges experinced by the last government. I would urge you to reject all 3 applications.

Ms A Kinsey (Objects)

Comment submitted Thu 17 Jan 2013

Please see the documents tab for comments. Mr rory whittaker (Supports)

Comment submitted Wed 16 Jan 2013

It is good to see a company looking for ways to use natural resources to create energy we increasing rely on without noise or pollution being created.