Frodsham Solar
Embedded Files
Solar Examination Meetings November 2025
Climate Action Frodsham report.
Frodsham Solar application to Planning Inspectorate for development consent.
Report of December 2025 meetings.
Preliminary meeting Tuesday 2 December 9.30
The room was arranged with a hollow square of tables. At the head were the
Examining Authority (EA) Jason Rowlands and Stewart Cowperthwaite.
On the left were six members of the applicants (Cubico) team, mostly from their
consultant Axis. The lead presenters were from the consultant.
On the right were five members from the responding authority CWAC. The lead
presenter was a consultant on behalf of CWAC.
The fourth side was empty spaces at the table with chairs behind for the public.
There was good use of Teams for online participants.
Cheshire Wildlife Trust had a representative there, National Highways, Innovyn and
one other had representatives on the Teams system. There were others listening on
Teams.
There were three members of the public, Ashley McCraight (FTC and CNC). Chris
Cleaver (CAF) and a nearby resident.
The purpose of the meeting was to outline the examination process and programme.
CWAC requested that Procedural Deadline one on 22 December could be delayed
from 12 noon to 23.59 to give more time for response as CWAC were resource
constrained.
The meeting took less than 1 hour.
Issue specific hearing. Tuesday 2 December 1pm and Wednesday 3 December
9.30
Attendees were the same but without Ashley.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss previously identified principal issues.
Tuesday was a painstaking grind through of the detail of some of the crucial high-
level documents such as the draft development consent order prepared by the
applicant. This defines the rights and responsibilities of both the developer and of
adjacent land owners. The EA clearly knew the documents thoroughly and were
asking difficult questions. The developer wants to keep powers loose and
responsibilities tight so they have flexibility in the future, the EA were working in the
other direction. The final will be a compromise.
I could not attend on Wednesday.
The transcript of the meeting records that the Visual Impact Assessment and view
from Frodsham War Memorial will be covered in correspondence.
Open floor hearing. Thursday 4 December. 9.30
The room was set up with two tables, the head table for the EA and the facing table
for any speakers.
The applicant and CWAC both had a few members in the seating. There were only
two members of the public, Chris Cleaver (CAF) and another.
The meeting was an opportunity for anyone to speak for ten minutes. The only
speakers were Chris Cleaver and a representative for Innovyn on line.
Mr Cowperthwaite preceded Chris Cleaver’s statement commenting that he had read
the CAF submission about the effect on the view from Frodsham War memorial.
Chris Cleaver CAF statement.
I have a statement and questions for the EA.
I feel as if we are standing in front of a steam roller and we are relying on the
Examining Authority to reduce the damage it causes.
Climate Action Frodsham is in favour of renewable energy generation including solar
farms. We feel it would be best if there were central planning so the developments
were in the best locations rather than the most profitable location, but there is not.
The Frodsham Solar scheme has given CAF a dilemma, we are not promoting
NIMBY but we do not wish to accept the developer designing BIMBY. Badly in my
back yard. We object to the scheme because the developer has not done their best
to minimise the impact of the scheme on Frodsham. The submission is very complex
so we have concentrated on one simple issue. The Visual impact assessment has
misrepresented the view and attempts to minimise the radical impact of the scheme
on the view of the marshes. It is essential mitigation measures are included in the
scheme to reduce this impact.
I am not going to use time repeating the detail of our representation in the belief it
will be read and taken into account by the EA.
I have questions for the Examining Authority to give me confidence in the process.
Does the EA have the necessary experts to review in detail the submissions by the
developer and the responses by interested parties?
Can the EA reject a submission and ask the developer to repeat or revise the
study until it is acceptable?
Stewart Cowperthwaite (EA) responded. He and Jason Rowlands are appointed
because the secretary of state believes they have the knowledge and experience to
carry out the examination. They also have access to experts in appropriate fields.
They have accepted the developers documents as having sufficient detail for
examination. They will review in detail and ask questions to gain full understanding.
The developer was offered the opportunity to respond. Their spokesman said they
stood by the assessment carried out.
The meeting took less than half an hour. The video and transcript are available on
the website. The CAF section is between 7 minutes and 13 minutes on the timer.
Climate Action Frodsham comments on the Frodsham Solar scheme proposed by Cubico.
11 August 2025
Climate Action Frodsham recognise the climate emergency and support measures
such as solar farms to reduce carbon output.
Unfortunately we feel that Cubico have not done their best to reduce the impact of
Frodsham Solar. We therefore must object to the scheme until Cubico have
improved their proposals.
The environmental assessment is very large and complex and we have concentrated
on the simplest aspect: the Visual Impact Assessment. The solar array is
approximately 1.8km x 2.7 km and is overlooked by most of Frodsham and has a
major visual impact. Unfortunately, we find that the visual impact assessment
produced by Cubico is flawed.
The visual impact assessment covers 30 viewpoints and we have concentrated on 1
of them.
Viewpoint 9 Frodsham Hill War Memorial. This gives an unrestricted view of the
whole development. The principles discussed here apply to many other viewpoints
even though their view may be restricted.
Figure 6-39i shows the existing view as a baseline and Figure 6-39iii after
development.
The description of baseline points out the existing industry and infrastructure in the
view (as well as industrial features that are 75 degrees to the west and out of the
view) and mentions that "the estuary and farmland within Frodsham Marshes are
also prominent features".
This undervalues the farmland on the marshes, it is not just a prominent feature of
the view, it is the basic nature of the view. Farmland with industry around it. It is more
prominent in the view than the total of the industrial features. The view of green
farmland is particularly valuable in that it provides relief from the surrounding view of
housing and industry.
The report states "The presence of the solar array would result in an incremental
increase in the well-established influence of industry and infrastructure in views".
The suggestion that the increase is incremental implies a small increase on a large
base whereas the solar array covers approximately 1.8km by 2.7km. It extends
around 70 degrees of the panorama and has twice the visual area of the existing
chemical industry from Rocksavage to Weston Point. There is not an incremental
increase, there is a tripling of the influence of industry.
The report states "the expansive, diverse and panoramic nature of the baseline view
strongly influenced by industry and infrastructure development would remain
essentially the same.".
The view would not be the same, the largest feature of the view would have changed
from varied green fields to a solid array of black solar panels. Its character would
have changed from agriculture with industry nearby to industrial with some green
patches.
The faulty analysis concludes incorrectly that "The effects would not be significant.".
It is therefore essential that the visual impact assessment is repeated reflecting the
actual landscape and that remedial measures are designed to reduce the impact.
Have your Say
Here are links for a Cubico PR document and the detailed documents on the project and how to register your comments on the planning inspectorate website.
CAF have submitted the above comments stating that we object to the scheme until Cubico
produce a credible visual impact assessment and design appropriate landscaping
and screening.
The photomontage of the view from the hill with the solar panels, Figure 6-39iii, shown above. What do you think of the effect on the view?
We hope that other organisations are reviewing other aspects of the proposal.
It is important that you have your say on the development. There is an opportunity to
comment but you must register by 28th August.
Below are links which will take you to Cubico PR information and to the Planning Inspectorate to view the documents provided by Cubico and to register to comment.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse