This campaign is about challenging Cornwall Council’s approval of a large-scale industrial green waste site in the Roseworthy Valley.

A major commercial and industrial green waste processing operation has been approved above the Roseworthy Valley, in a sensitive rural location close to homes, farmland and watercourses.

The application site extends to 5.9 hectares (approximately 14.5 acres), within a wider 15.9-hectare landholding (nearly 40 acres in total) under the applicant’s ownership (shown hatched red in the cover photo).

The development raises serious concerns about soil and air contamination, flooding, landscape impact, dangerous HGV traffic volumes and health and safety impacts on local communities.

A High Court legal challenge is now underway and the Court has agreed there is an arguable claim that the decision was made unlawfully. Permission has now been granted and we are seeking support to take this case forward at this critical stage.

This isn’t about compost – It’s about location. 
It’s about where we live and work.

ABOUT ME

I became involved with this application after following the planning process closely and becoming increasingly concerned about the location of this development and the risk of lasting and irreversible harm to the surrounding environment, landscape and local communities.

This judicial review has been brought with careful consideration including specialist legal advice with leading counsel, to ensure Cornwall Council’s decision is properly tested in the courts. 

INTRODUCTION

This case concerns the approval given by Cornwall Council in December 2025 of a large-scale industrial waste site in a sensitive rural location on high ground in the Roseworthy Valley in Cornwall, close to local communities, productive agricultural land and in close proximity to four designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

Watercourses on, adjacent to and beneath the site feed directly into the Roseworthy Stream, the Red River and onward to the coast at Godrevy.

This is not simply about a planning decision.

It is about what happens when an industrial-scale development is placed above the environment, the health and safety of local people, farmland and a highly sensitive rural landscape — and the serious and irreversible consequences that may follow.

This facility will impact Roseworthy, Connor Downs and the entirety of Gwithian Gwinear Parish.
Every day, 365 days of the year.

WHAT’S HAPPENING

The approved development is described as a “green waste” facility, but in practice it is a large-scale industrial waste processing operation handling not only green waste, but also wood (including end-of-life timber) and farm plastics, which are often heavily contaminated.

It would operate daily, year-round, and serve a wide area across West Cornwall, as well as Falmouth and Helston.

This is not a small local operation. It is a permanent industrial site in a rural setting, incongruous with the surrounding landscape.

It involves major engineering works to the hillside, including the creation of a vast level concrete platform (approximately 17,400 square metres), likely requiring tens of thousands of tonnes of concrete, fundamentally reshaping the hillside forever.

The applicant’s traffic evidence relies on outdated 2018/19 data from another site. The traffic data does not reflect the company’s own growth since then, nor Cornwall Council’s policy-driven requirement to increase waste capacity.

When those factors are applied, the picture changes significantly:

• Current movements estimate around 15,000 vehicles per year
• Equivalent to over 30,000 HGV journeys on local roads 
• Volumes are expected to more than double within a decade if growth continues as the Council's policy demands

This is not a static level of traffic — it is the start of a sustained and accelerating increase, with lorries arriving at and leaving the site morning till night from across West Cornwall, placing growing and unmitigated pressure on narrow, constrained rural roads and the communities they pass through.

The location is central to the concern.

The site sits on a ridge above a valley landscape, with natural drainage pathways leading directly into nearby watercourses and onward to the coast.

The site also lies adjacent to the historic Roseworthy arsenic works, a scheduled monument, and has a known history of elevated heavy metal contamination.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE

The application generated a substantial and detailed local response, with nearly 140 individual objectors recorded on the planning portal and a higher overall number of objections submitted as many individuals engaged at multiple stages, including re-consultation. The Parish Council, local ward councillors and CPRE also objected.

Concerns covered a wide and interrelated range of issues, including environmental impact, hydrology and flooding, public health and wellbeing, site suitability for this type of development, and traffic and road safety.

These were not single-issue objections, with each person raising multiple distinct concerns.

Moreover, even the applicant’s own contamination assessments identified:

• Heavy metals in soils, requiring protective measures including the wearing of PPE during site operation
• Concerns about potential contamination pathways to surrounding land and watercourses

The community raised detailed concerns about how this information was presented throughout the decision-making process. Alongside the environmental and site-related implications, serious questions were also raised about the way both the application was considered and the information was made available to decision-makers. This included whether:

• All relevant material was accurately and properly presented
• Key environmental information was fully assessed
• The process followed was fair, complete and robust

The decision itself was closely contested at the Strategic Planning Committee meeting in December 2025, with the Committee voting 6 in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention.

Despite this level of sustained and significant local objection, planning permission was granted.

WHY THIS DECISION MATTERS

This development would introduce a permanent industrial operation into a rural setting, without co-location alongside existing industrial uses, and outside areas identified for such development in the local plan.

The consequences would extend far beyond the site itself. The applicant owns the adjacent fields and expansion of the site could soon follow, with further industrial applications for development made more likely.

Should this decision stand uncontested, a precedent for industrialisation of the Valley would then be set.

This gives rise to real and well-evidenced concerns about:

• Loss of highly productive agricultural land long used for food growing 
• Known flooding and drainage conditions in the area, and how these interact with the proposed development 
• Contamination risks associated with waste processing and identified heavy metals in soils, including the potential for leachate and contaminated runoff entering surrounding land and watercourses
• Contamination risks to crops in adjacent fields
• Effect of dust, odour and emissions on nearby communities and everyday quality of life 
• Significant increase in heavy goods traffic on narrow rural roads used by residents, including our children and elderly, who would be exposed to increased traffic, dust, odour and bioaerosols in an already busy village environment, close to local schools 
• Visual and landscape impact of an industrial-scale development in an elevated and exposed position, visible from multiple vantage points across the area, including from Carn Brea — a prominent historic hilltop landscape, designated as a Conservation Area and home to scheduled ancient monuments, approximately 5 miles / 8 km from the site — where it would appear as a permanent and scarring feature within otherwise undeveloped long-range views.

These are not abstract risks — they arise from the nature of the development and the characteristics of the site itself.

Once established, the effects of this development are not temporary — they become an irreversible part of the landscape and how people live within it.

Because the site sits directly above a steep valley landscape where water, land and community are closely connected, what happens here does not remain within the site boundary.

This is not a contained landscape, but a connected and living one through which contaminants are borne by wind and water beyond the site itself and the valley below.

That movement continues through an extended network of watercourses, carrying effects beyond the immediate landscape.

Wind and water contamination carry over great distance, linking the valley to the wider coastal environment.

This is where that connection ultimately leads...

THE LEGAL CHALLENGE

This case is not about re-running the planning merits.

It is about whether the decision to grant permission was made lawfully.

I have been given permission by the High Court to challenge Cornwall Council's decision at judicial review. Four of the six legal grounds advanced have been granted, confirming that key aspects of the case are properly arguable.

The case has already passed an important legal threshold, and will proceed to a full hearing. This reflects the importance of ensuring that all relevant matters are properly considered and assessed.

These include whether:

• The Council’s decision-making process was procedurally fair 
• The Council’s relevant planning policy was correctly applied 
• Important environmental information was properly considered and consulted on 

Taken together, these issues are being challenged on the basis that the decision was not made in a legally adequate and properly informed manner.

I am currently seeking permission to pursue the outstanding two legal grounds which relate to the treatment of objections, environmental assessment and the adequacy of the information before decision-makers.

The case is now listed for a hearing in the High Court this December, with an interim hearing to take place quite shortly.

WHAT THIS CASE SEEKS TO ACHIEVE

This judicial review seeks to ensure that the decision to grant planning permission is properly tested in the High Court. 

If successful, the Court can quash the permission, requiring the application to be reconsidered through a lawful and properly informed process.

This would ensure that the environmental, planning and community issues raised are fully and fairly assessed before any new permission for this development can be granted by the Council. 

WHY YOUR HELP IS NEEDED

Legal challenges of this kind are complex and costly, particularly where specialist planning and environmental law issues are involved. 

I began this legal challenge in December 2025 with the support of specialist solicitors and King's Counsel experienced in environmental judicial review. I have funded the case to this point personally and cannot continue alone. 

While the claim benefits from Aarhus costs protection, which limits my potential liability for the other side’s costs if the case is unsuccessful, it does not cover the costs of bringing the case itself - and the next stages involve significantly higher costs. Based on current estiamtes, the overall cost of taking this case through to a full substantive hearing is likely to be a further £50,000. 

Our initial fundraising target is set to £4,000 as this will cover the cost of the upcoming renewal hearing. As the case advances, we will provide regular updates so you can follow our progress closely.

Your contributions will fund:

• Specialist solicitors and King’s Counsel
• Court fees 
• Legal preparation, advice and strategy 

HOW YOUR SUPPORT WILL HELP

This campaign will be funded in stages, aligned with key points in the legal process.

This means you can see clearly what each stage is funding and how the case is progressing.

Every contribution, however big or small, helps ensure the case is heard fairly and properly. All contributions are handled through CrowdJustice to settle legal fees - no funds are received personally.

WHY THIS CASE MATTERS MORE WIDELY

This case is about more than one site. It raises much wider questions about:

• How planning decisions are made 
• How environmental risks are assessed; and
• How communities are represented in that process 

PLEASE HELP

If you are able to offer financial support, your contribution ensures this case can be properly heard at a critical stage.

If you are not able to donate, sharing this campaign as widely as possible — and encouraging others, including individuals and organisations who may be able to support — is equally valuable and helps more than you might realise.

Thank you so much for your support.