Land at Trevemper, Crantock Cornwall. Proposal: Construction of a 4.4Ha Photovoltaic Farm with Attendant Infrastructure Parish: Cubert Applicant: the Green Company

PA11/00374 Site address: Land at Trevemper, Crantock Cornwall. Proposal: Construction of a 4.4ha photovoltaic farm with attendant infrastructure Parish: Cubert Applicant: The Green Company

3.1 Venue and Attendance

The community consultation events were held over the course of three days: Camborne Community Centre - 9th August 2010 Probus Village Hall - 10th August 2010 Lostwithiel Community Centre - 11th August 2010 Each event was open from 3pm until 8pm to provide as many people with the opportunity to attend as possible. Approximately 40 people attended each event, with the majority of these being local residents.

Parish Councils Comments

Newquay Town Council - Object

Comment Date: Wed 09 Mar 2011 but we note in the community report that Newquay and Cubert were not involved and that the community events were held in Probus, Loswithiel and Camborne and nowhere near Newquay. The lack of consultaton has left NTC no alternative but to OBJECT. All in favour.

Cubert Parish Council - Object

Comment Date: Mon 14 Mar 2011

At our Regular Parish meeting on Wednesday it was RESOLVED: To NOT SUPPORT the application For the following reasons: According to your informal guidance document: "Community involvement" should be considered as an integral part of the development process. The local community should be engaged by the developer, at the pre-design, conceptual stage, ideally utilising a local exhibition/presentation, where community views can be sought and recorded. A second exhibition/presentation should be arranged by the developer, some weeks prior to the submission of the planning application." The developers did not provide for ANY community involvement. There were no local exhibitions/presentations they did NOT contact any of the Parish Councillors contrary to what is stated in their application. The first that was known about this proposed development was when the Clerk discovered the application on the Cornwall Council Planning Portal. The venues stated in their COMMUNITY CONSULTATION REPORT were so remote to the site in question we doubt if any of our Parishioners would have attended these events or even have been aware that they were proposing a Solar farm at this site. We seriously doubt if any of the attendees were local to the proposed installation site. We are not aware of any advertising in our local post offices or shops. LOCAL PEOPLES VIEW'S - Feedback and Analysis - As stated, as none of the venues were anywhere near the proposed site the whole community consultation was a farce - how can they talk about this proposal being "warmly welcomed by locals" when it is highly unlikely that any locals were present. In addition we note they do not include any dissenting views. Are they trying to imply there were none. ADVERTISING - The applicant states that the meetings were advertised in the West Briton, the Cornishman, and the Cornish Guardian. A copy of the advert is included in Appendix 1. The advertisement makes no reference to Cubert or Crantock (the Parish's within which the site sits) so would not have necessarily attracted the attention of any of the "Locals". It does not give details of where the proposed site is. For all our parishioners might have know they could have been talking about a site at RAF ST. Mawgan and hence of little interest to them. "Community Gain" The developers have made no efforts to explore such opportunities to give something back to our community as they have had no contact with community local to the proposed site. Land Type : The developers have failed to identify the Land Type. They say it is grade 3 agricultural land. Is this Grade 3A or Grade 3B. We are concerned that tenant farmers may be dispossessed of productive agricultural land to the detriment of the sustainability of their agricultural businesses. PPS7 expresses a preference for development to be directed to land outside of this classification (3b, 4 and 5), but it also recognises the need to support diversification of agricultural land that helps sustain and agricultural enterprise. Dispossessing tenant farmers, who will receive no financial gain from the proposed development ,of agricultural land does not support diversification in agriculture, it can damage the agricultural businesses concerned. Could you please clarify the size of this proposed development as we could not find details in the application. The application as it stands has miss- representations and errors that make assessment difficult. The Parish Council feels this application is being rushed through with little or no concern for the views of the Parishioners or the Parish Council. The Parish Council strongly suggests that the Applicant should re-submit the application once it has dealt with the items above. If you need any further information then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Crantock Parish Council - Object

Planning Application PA11/00374 At an extraordinary council meeting, held on 15th march, 2011, Crantock Parish Council RESOLVED NOT to Support the application for the following reasons: It is situated on important & productive agricultural land. The tenant farmers have proof of rotational crops; horticultural use and livestock use over the past twenty years. It is in an Area of Great Landscape Value that contains nationally important estuary wetlands used by countless migratory birds. It will be visually intrusive in an area of high tourism Crantock Parish Council is sympathetic to the concept of renewable energy. However, in the knowledge that there are at present NO large scale solar farms in Cornwall the Parish Council feels that the Planning Authority should bear in mind the following points when considering this and future applications: This applicant has no previous experience of the installation of such an array. The applicant would need to import the necessary expertise from Germany. In Cornwall Council’s Guidance on the Development of Large Scale Solar PV Arrays it states that ‘the planning permission would be for a temporary period only and a maximum period of 25 years from the commissioning of the facility should be applied’. It further states ‘Solar farms should normally be regarded as a temporary use of land, and hence the need for reversibility’. If the applicant company fails financially (and it is a new company so has no proven track record) what happens to the arrays when the failure occurs or when they have come to the end of their productive life? No solar panels of the intended type are available in the UK. They would have to be imported. Thus it will be of no benefit to the UK economy. It has been suggested that sheep would be grazed on the land under the arrays. Notwithstanding that grass will not grow vigorously beneath the shadow of the panels, any farmer will confirm that in order for grass to be maintained in grazing condition it needs to be used as a rotational crop and ploughed and re-sown on a cyclical basis. This would be impossible with the arrays in-situ. PPS7 recognises the need to support diversification of agricultural land and help sustain agricultural enterprise. Dispossessing tenant farmers does not support diversification in agriculture. It was stated at the Consultative meeting that – if planning consent was given – construction would take place during the summer. The road near the site is heavily used by tourist vehicles and chaos, both to the construction deliveries and to the tourist traffic, would ensue. Community Gain The applicants made little of Community Gain in their Planning and Design statement. When pressed at the meeting they admitted that they anticipated generating an income of £1.2m per annum following an initial outlay of some £3.0m. Their offer of £2,000 per MW produced would seem to show a lack of enthusiasm and dedication to the local community. Both local councils in this application feel that an annual payment equal to 5% of feedin- tariff income for the entire site would be appropriate. This should be used as a yardstick for future applications. On 19th March the government announced its revised proposals for the Feed-in- Tariff. This would slash the FiT from 30.7p per kWh to 8.5p per KwH. Does this mean that such schemes will no longer be viable? A Westcountry energy expert has stated that ”It is now hard to imagine how large scale projects will ever get off the ground.”