The Strategic Planning Committee met to discuss two planning applications and a list of appeals. The committee voted to refuse an application for a solar farm near St Dennis and deferred a decision on a geothermal power plant near Camelford pending a technical briefing.

Planning Application PA24/09234: Land Adjacent Trerice Manor Farm, St Dennis - Refused

The committee voted to refuse planning application PA24/09234 for the construction, operation, and decommissioning of a ground-mounted solar array and battery energy storage system (BESS) on land adjacent to Trerice Manor Farm, Trerice, St Dennis. Councillors voted 5 in favour of refusal, 4 against, with 1 abstention.

The application sought permission for a 40-year operational period for a 32MW Solar Photovoltaic (PV) array and 45MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) covering 61.5 hectares of mainly agricultural land. The proposed site has a connection point to the National Grid Electricity Distribution South West (NGED) substation at Indian Queens.

Dick Cole, Electoral Division Member, raised concerns about the impact on the landscape, the cumulative impact of industrialisation in the parish, and the loss of 31 hectares of best and most versatile land. He challenged the officer's report, arguing that the impact would not be minor and that the rural ambience would not be maintained.

Objectors, including Mrs J Floyd and Councillor J Clarke of St Dennis Parish Council, spoke against the application, raising concerns about environmental, landscape, economic, transport, and heritage impacts. They argued that the development would industrialise open countryside, harm existing trees and hedgerows, and lead to the permanent loss of agricultural land.

Supporters, including Mr E Salter, argued that the project would provide a clean source of renewable energy and allow for continued grazing on the land.

The Senior Development Officer, Alex Lawrey, recommended approval, subject to conditions. He noted that the solar farm was expected to power 10,000 homes and prevent 7,500 tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. He acknowledged the temporary loss of agricultural land but argued that the land was not of the highest quality and could still be used for grazing.

During the debate, councillors raised concerns about the impact on the local community, the loss of good farmland, and the cumulative impact on the area. One councillor noted that the applicant had chosen the site due to its viability and questioned why the government was not subsidising connection costs to make other sites more attractive.

Councillor Andrew Long argued that the development would result in significant harm to the distinctive character of the site and the wider surrounding area. He stated that the application was contrary to policies 2, 12, and 23 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030, Policy RE1 of the Cornwall Council Climate Emergency Development Plan Document, and paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning Application PA23/10067: Land Adjacent Wind Turbine, Station Road, Camelford - Deferred

The committee voted to defer planning application PA23/10067 for the development of a geothermal power plant on land adjacent to a wind turbine on Station Road, Camelford, pending a technical briefing for the committee. Councillors voted 6 in favour of deferral, 3 against, with 0 abstentions.

The application from Geothermal Engineering Ltd sought permission for the drilling of two deep geothermal wells, resource testing, and the construction of a binary cycle power station. The power plant was expected to have a gross generating capacity of around 4.9MW of electricity and around 20MW of thermal energy.

Councillor Mark Burnett, Electoral Division Member, raised concerns about the uncertainty of the impact on the environment, especially the River Camel, and the lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). He also expressed concerns about human error, visual impact, and noise disruption.

Objectors, including Mr D Stark and Mr A McLeod, spoke against the application, citing concerns about the environment.

Supporters, including Mr W Page and Mr J Carley, spoke in favour of the application.

The Principal Development Officer, Ellie Inglis-Woolcock, recommended approval, subject to conditions. She advised that the previous Case Officer and the Secretary of State had agreed that the proposal did not meet the test for the EIA regulations. She also noted that technical advice had been taken from Natural England and the Environment Agency, and neither had raised any objections.

During the debate, councillors expressed concerns about the impact on the Camel Estuary, water quality, and nutrient neutrality. Some councillors felt that they did not have the full picture and needed a more balanced look at the pros and cons.

One councillor stated:

Members did not have the full picture the proposal was highly technical. It was considered that the Committee needed a more balanced look at the pro's and cons and should have a technical briefing before the matter was taken any further.

List of Appeals

The committee noted the list of planning appeal decisions received, of appeals lodged, and dates of public inquiries.