Southill Solar

Fri 9 May 2014, 15:41

Embarrassed to say that I missed this completely. Would like to help if needed at appeal time.

Fri 9 May 2014, 10:06

A sad day for Charlbury. Really disappointing news. I hope that the frustration felt by the refusal will add fuel to a successful appeal.

Thu 8 May 2014, 19:41 (last edited on Thu 8 May 2014, 19:42)

If anyone wants to read the full minutes of the planning meeting (go on, you know you do!) they are here - click the link to Applications for Development and go to page 66: bit.ly/1l2KoWC - there were 58 letters of support.

Thu 8 May 2014, 12:54

Thank you all for your kind comments. Yes, it was an extremely disappointing decision, not least because the council showed no intent to work with us on overcoming their objections. It is early days yet, but we believe we have good grounds on which to appeal and are taking advice on next steps.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone in the community who gave their support over the last year, it is the reason the project has got this far and I hope will continue. We will bring you news of an appeal in the near future.

Thu 8 May 2014, 10:13 (last edited on Thu 8 May 2014, 10:14)

This is hugely disappointing, especially when the public meetings have shown much support and the number of letters in support was more than twice that of those in objection. What happens now? Hopefully someone from the hard-working Southill Solar team can tell us. Is there a chance of an appeal?

Wed 7 May 2014, 20:44

Yes this is a shameful and depressing decision that we should appeal against. Quite apart from narrow-minded nimbyism the arguments for the decision don't really stack up. 'Concern for visual amenity' is very subjective as one person's concern about the sight of some PV panels is another person's approval.

And, as Jenny says, there are factors in such a development that could mitigate any concern, such as it being a visual demonstration of how this part of the country is rising to the challenges presented by energy and climate crises. There are many positives that could flow at a local level.

It was said that the project would lead to 'loss of wildlife'. In fact sensitively planned projects of this sort can actually encourage local wildlife since once installed it is low maintenance - more friendly to wildlife than the monocultural field it is now certainly.

And as for the reasoning that it would 'urbanise the landscape'? So, it's a narrow site that is squeezed between the B4022 and a railway mainline. It's a few hundred metres from a sewage works. Have these 'urbanised the landscape' or are they just necessary infrastructure that serves our community's needs - as commonplace as sustainable energy projects of this kind will soon be?

Wed 7 May 2014, 13:53

Very well put Jenny, I agree with all you said. Also I notice that the BBC article as reported on this site mentions only 23 letters of objection (hardly a flood!), whereas by end of April they had received over 50 letters of support (I don't know what the final total was). It's a sad day and I feel sorry for that talented and hard working team who spent months putting the proposal together.

Wed 7 May 2014, 11:18

Sanity prevailed

Wed 7 May 2014, 10:28 (last edited on Wed 7 May 2014, 18:43)

I am truly astounded that the application has been objected to locally and refused by WODC. I am also rather ashamed of us collectively, that 'we' couldn't see past our nimby-ism and embrace this as a precious opportunity for west Oxfordshire to showcase a sustainable way forward with energy generation. It is small-minded and selfish to put our heads in the sand, when here is a credible and practical option to mitigate the heavy reliance on dwindling fossil fuels and the damage to our climate. I can only hope that the enthusiastic and talented team that came together to deliver this project will not give up.