Another councillor felt they were “impotent” and unable to go against officers’ advice to approve an application by the centuries-old St Aubyn Estates to build a solar farm on over 25 hectares of agricultural land across three fields at Trevarthian Farm, near Marazion.
The solar farm would be operational for 40 years and provide enough clean energy for 4,345 family homes.
The general consensus among members of Cornwall Council’s strategic planning committee was that they wanted to refuse the contentious “industrial development near a World Heritage Site” but were being forced to allow it due to policy and the threat of huge costs to the council if a subsequent appeal was successful.
The council’s planning department recommended approval as it “considered that the benefits of the proposed development in terms of significant renewable energy provision during a climate emergency outweigh the harm caused”.
That possible harm included food security fears as the solar farm would be built on a site that was 70% ‘best and most versatile agricultural land’ and its close proximity to Grade II listed Trevarthian Farmhouse and the Tregonning and Gwinear Mining Districts World Heritage Site.
The meeting heard that both St Hilary and Ludgvan parish councils objected to the proposal, which also includes a battery energy storage system (BESS), as did local Cornwall councillor John Martin, who brought the matter to committee, as well as the World Heritage Site office and the Environment Agency (EA).
There have been 51 comments on the council’s planning portal, 49 of which are against with just two in favour.
Jane Howells, speaking on behalf of concerned residents, told the meeting: “This location is in the most rural part of the parish and will cause significant harm to the distinctive nature of the site and our surrounding area.”
She added it would be an “out-of-keeping industrial area” and mentioned local concerns about flooding and land saturation, and highlighted the Environment Agency’s objection on flood risk grounds.
Cllr George Ford, chair of St Hilary Parish Council, said: “This application has provoked unprecedented amounts of anxiety.
“At a well-attended public meeting it attracted overwhelming opposition from residents and is the subject of an online petition which has received the signatures of over 1,500 opponents and a storm of public objections on the planning portal.
“We’ve heard local farmers say they would love to farm the land – its loss would permanently reduce the area’s agricultural capacity and harm the rural economy.
“This landscape is cherished for its beauty and recreational use. The Ramblers Association and West Cornwall Footpaths Preservation Society have objected due to harms of public rights of way and enjoyment of this historic landscape.”
Zac Hemborough, planning agent for St Aubyn Estates, said there would be a 21% biodiversity net gain, including new hedgerows, which would “significantly enhance the ecological value of what is currently intensively managed farmland”.
He said the solar farm would be overseen by the St Aubyn Estates, which has managed the land for generations and was “not an anonymous development company”.
Mr Hemborough added that landscape impacts would be mitigated by planting and screening, with public rights of way preserved and open during construction and operation. He also promised that the EA’s technical concerns would be met.
Henry Matthews, head of land and property at St Aubyn Estates which owns 5,000 acres of land in West Cornwall and employs 200 local people, said the estate’s interest in the project was not “short-term” but rooted in land stewardship “over centuries not decades”.
“We recognise this is a sensitive landscape valued by the local community and is close to important heritage assets, ” he added. “That is precisely why this scheme is not the large proposal encompassing 20 fields originally explored during a pre-application inquiry in 2021.
“We listened to public consultation and we are continuing to listen. St Aubyn Estates is not looking to industrialise the landscape – we are seeking to diversify responsibly.”
The committee then discussed what they had heard, with Conservative councillor Martyn Alvey saying: “My heart is saying we should be refusing this for the many reasons that have been stated. However, my head says that we are still duty-bound to make a decision that is defendable in planning terms.”
He added that the loss of farmland didn’t feel right. “However, planning policy is against us on this, whether we like it or not,” said Cllr Alvey, adding that it could cost the council tens of thousands of pounds in costs if an appeal was successful. He proposed approval as set out by officers.
Reform UK councillor Roger Tarrant said: “I’m not quite sure why we’re here if we’ve got significant reasons why we shouldn’t support this.” He added there was valid enough reason to refuse and he wouldn’t be supporting approval.
Independent councillor James Ball said: “Unless we’ve got a serious material planning consideration, which I don’t think has come before us, we can’t do anything else [but approve] in this application.”
“I think we’ve got a situation here where the committee feel impotent to a degree,” added Independent councillor Dulcie Tudor. “This is what is going to keep happening when you have government policies on renewables combined with our own council’s climate emergency policies working towards a net zero target of 2050, which is unobtainable.
“When those collide with reality, we’re being forced into giving permission to an industrial development near a World Heritage Site.”
Reform UK’s Cllr Peter Channon said: “At the end of the day, we’re here to try to come some agreement that helps the local community. If we can’t do that then we’re losing the plot here.
“We’ve got national policies and our own policies, but the fact of the matter is we’ve got a local community that has to be happy with what’s going on in their area.
“They’ve got to live with it and I think we have to come back to that, seriously, and it’s not always an easy decision because sometimes there are costs involved, but there are enough issues here that we can put up a defence.
“That shouldn’t worry us, otherwise there’s no point in having committees. We might as well let AI decide it all for us.”
Councillors Tarrant and Tudor both asked for a deferment to enable the committee to have a site inspection with officers.
Cllr Tudor said it was a shame councillors had developed a “backbone” on this application, which appeared to be responsible and wasn’t huge. “Why weren’t we having these conversations on the ones that were huge solar farms in less pretty areas?”
A vote to approve failed, while a subsequent proposal to vote to hold a site inspection led to a heated and at times terse debate about whether councillors should actually refuse it. In the end, the committee voted to defer to visit the site.
The application will eventually come back to the strategic planning committee for a decision.
