Southill Solar

Mon 3 Nov 2014, 11:26

Mark, are you are in a position to say any more about decommissioning, which you say is simple and leaves the site uncontaminated? One thing I must admit I have wondered about is the removal of the metal posts used to support the panels. As I understand it there will be hundreds of these posts, hammered several feet into the ground for stability. I don't think there are any precedents yet for restoring agricultural land after removing a solar farm, but I can't help wondering whether people will find it easier to cut through such posts even if this is done slightly below ground level, rather than to remove them completely. Is this something on which you can set my mind at rest?

Mon 3 Nov 2014, 11:15

My understanding is the same as yours, Hans. It is a complete misconception to think that Charlbury would get its electricity from the solar farm as Mark claims (and also to imply that getting electricity from elsewhere would require more pylons, since we already get electricity that way and would have to continue to do so after building a solar farm).

Fri 31 Oct 2014, 17:21

Thanks Mark. I thought the electricity will be fed to the national grid and Charlbury residents won't be able to use that electricity generated directly.

I also did a back of envelope calculation - the feed in tarrif payments may only be something in the region of £ 250,000 p.a. which is less than the cost of capital for financing the project cost of £ 5 Million. Perhaps I'm wrong on the financials.

Fri 31 Oct 2014, 14:32

I'm really excited by the prospect of a renewable electricity project on my doorstep which could not only provide all of Charlbury's electricity - but also be owned by local people.

Being located close to our town (as opposed to thousands of miles away the Sahara) means we don't have the huge cost (or visual intrusion) of miles of pylons or the losses of power that come when its send across long distances. Unlike nuclear or coal power stations - there aren't billions of pounds in decommissioning. Taking down a solar site at the end of its life is a simple operation and the ground remains unpolluted.

There's a real opportunity in that the project income stays in Charlbury. If the project can be owned by local people who have a couple of hundred pounds - as opposed to the typical developments - which are owned by overseas developers.

The Westmill wind and solar community cooperatives are a potential model (and I should declare I'm a director in both). It is local people own the project, turn decide how its run, elect its directors, sponsor low carbon arts and education and attend other events. We've shown almost 9,000 people around the site over five years. Not that you'd know from the road that the panels are there - as the hedge has grown up since they were put in.

Finally - for those who don't agree (and I do understand and respect those views) the question is where does Charlbury get its electricity from? All alternatives have drawbacks. Fracking often needs a lot of energy to extract the gas, other traditional fuels come from far away - and we can end up paying some pretty unsavoury regimes as well. Nuclear is very costly and no-one wants the waste near them, offshore wind is very expensive. And I haven't even mentioned the risks of climate change.

Charlbury has a real chance to create something ground-breaking. I really hope it gets the go-ahead.

Mon 27 Oct 2014, 09:13

Yes, these installations are temporary in theory. But 20-25 years is a pretty large proportion of our remaining expected lifespan for some of us! It is also worth bearing in mind that as far as I know there isn't a single example anywhere in the world of a solar farm being successfully dismantled and the land restored to alternative use. Of course most of them haven't been around long enough yet to reach the end of their projected life, but there are examples in the US where solar farms are no longer being used and the land has simply been abandoned to derelict concrete and metal.

Fri 24 Oct 2014, 00:21

Golly gosh! There is so much warm air here, it makes you wonder about a wind installation... I loved Russell's mention of 'bald men fighting over a comb'. Why don't we agree to just do it?
If it is wrong; well, it can disappear after the agreed term. It is not a power station or a factory... it is temporary!
If Candide was to be looking down upon us now, would he not be laughing at all of this 'dancing on the head of a pin'? Just a thought.

Thu 23 Oct 2014, 18:40

Hi all,I must admit that I havent read all the comments but I must say (coming from the Czech Republic where solar 'farms' just past their booming time) I really dont like an idea of putting those on to places like meadows or fields (also they look pretty ugly even next to motorways!!!). I do understand the need for more sustainable source of energy but I really think those arent right places for solar panels. On the other roofs or supermarkets or warehouses - why not?!? ALso - I am surprised there are no plans of putting some kind of sun-powered devices on a roof of the (future-fingers crossed) new community center at Spendlove....

Thu 23 Oct 2014, 10:20

Just for info, the website is currently reaching around 5,400 unique visitors a month (yes, that's individual visitors, not visits!). Given that the population of Charlbury is 3,000 I'm sure this thread will have caught the attention of many.

Thu 23 Oct 2014, 09:47

Given this forum stream started with people concerned they had not been consulted the very fact it is approaching 100 posts I hope means the word has got out. Since this discussion started we have also had the Umbrella day and another public presentation which I believe should be up on the Sustainable Charlbury website soon, if not already. Input/ comments are invaluable to this process and to ensure we produce a scheme that is the best possible solution for the site.

Wed 22 Oct 2014, 09:42

Another interesting article today: www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/21/are-solar-farms-really-hitting-british-food-production

Quoting a Dorset farmer: "It's nonsense for anyone to say that you can't use land for solar production and agricultural production. The sheep compliment the solar really well. For them to pull the rug out, I don't really think this government understands the word sustainability."

Wed 22 Oct 2014, 08:38

The Times today reports that "Solar farms, which once seemed an acceptable alternative to wind turbines, are coming up against increasing opposition as they spread across the British countryside."

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 18:43

Given the likelihood of global resource and food wars within the next 50 years Charlbury's woes over the location of a few solar panels and the provenance our food is rather like bald men fighting over a comb! Just joining up a few threads there.

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 18:24 (last edited on Thu 10 Nov 2016, 22:00)

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 11:55

I suspect that if Dean Pit was one of the options in Richard's ''straw poll'', it might it might ''do a UKIP''

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 09:40

That brings me back to a point that I have made before that energy production FOR Charlbury does not necessarily have to be energy production IN Charlbury. We don't produce locally all the steel or chemicals we use in the town, and the same can apply to energy. Economists have recognised the benefits of specialisation and trade for hundreds of years.

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 09:39

Alan like most politicians they are ill informed and are pandering to those who vote for them want to hear. This might sound daft but a lot of "modern" agriculture is actually harming the environment, and peoples health in some countries due to the extensive use of drugs in meat production. There is over production of milk and much of the grain is fed to animals for meat production not directly to humans. Take a look at these recent BBC Horizon documentaries they are a real eye opener!!
www.dailymotion.com/video/x24ifl1_horizon-2014-2015-1-should-i-eat-meat-the-big-health-dilemma_lifestyle
www.dailymotion.com/video/x24ieya_horizon-2014-2015-2-should-i-eat-meat-how-to-feed-the-planet_lifestyle

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 09:22

I suspect that if you took a straw poll asking "would you prefer solar panels on roofs in the historic town centre, or in an agricultural site one mile from the centre?", the majority would vote for the latter; and I'd be amazed if Listed Building Consent was forthcoming for widespread installation on roofs. Can you imagine the header pic on the front page of this website with solar panels between each gable?

Tue 21 Oct 2014, 08:18

Interesting to see that the Environment Secretary takes the point about food production seriously. She was quoted yesterday as saying she did not want to see farmland "blighted by solar farms" and explained "I am committed to food production in this country and it makes my heart sink to see row upon row of solar panels where once there was a field of wheat or grassland for livestock to graze."

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 16:08

Part of the problem with your presentation, and I don't see what can be done about it, is that you based the view from the Oxfordshire Way on the how the hedgerow is now. It's coppiced on a regular basis by the Cotswold Wardens so visibility towards the proposed site can change dramatically depending on what stage of the coppicing cycle any particular area of the path is at.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 15:50 (last edited on Mon 20 Oct 2014, 15:51)

There are many people who cannot benefit from PV panels on the roof for many reasons e.g. not facing in the correct direction, roof structure issues, economic size, cost etc. Southhill Solar would surely benefit those people who are unable to take advantage of PV generation on a personal basis.
You site the use of the land for non food production purposes or AONB. Well how many golf courses and houses have been built on agricultural. At least it won't be like the Trump Corp fiasco in Scotland!

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 15:40 (last edited on Mon 20 Oct 2014, 15:40)

I don't think I said that. Development of commercial roof top and brownfield site solar is definitely something that I support. Unfortunately Charlbury is limited with these options, but I am also wholeheartedly behind the government Community Energy Strategy that states their ambition to be 'that every community that wants to form an energy group or take forward an energy project should be able to do so, regardless of background or location. We will back those who choose to pursue community
energy, working to dismantle barriers and unlock the potential of the sector.'
I do not believe that the issue of food waste is irrelevant and brought it up in the context of using agricultural land for renewable energy generation. The information that I provided came off the NFU and IEA websites, mainstream bodies representing the 2 areas we are talking about.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 15:21

So you don't think the government has got its policy on solar energy right by putting the emphasis on roof space and brownfield sites?

(I didn't argue with the information presented at the meeting on food waste because it was so peripheral to the main issues, but frankly I thought it was utterly irrelevant. We can all agree that it would be a lot better if less food was thrown away, but unless you can make that happen it isn't an argument for using the land for something else. And indeed if you can make it happen it doesn't follow that solar PV is the best alternative use for the land.)

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 14:42 (last edited on Mon 20 Oct 2014, 14:49)

Alan, the Cotswold Conservation Board Position Statement on Renewable Energy Projects www.cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/userfiles/file/Publications/renewableenergyoct05headed.doc states that
"With care solar photovoltaic and solar thermal applications can be installed with only limited visual impact and should be encouraged." I think it is overwhelmingly if not unanimously agreed that the Southill Solar proposal has done…

Long post - click to read full text

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 13:44

Hi Liz - thanks for changing the headline. Yes, I agreed that you had done a lot to genuinely minimise visual impact, and I expressed thanks for that. It would be churlish not to appreciate the thought and effort that has gone into this. But that doesn't mean I am necessarily convinced about the overall merits of taking greenfield land for this sort of development, particularly in the context of planning policies designed to protect the AONB.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 13:33

Hi Alan. I thought you had actually conceded to our view in the sense that you agreed that we had done a lot of work to genuinely minimise visual impact. I've now changed the news item.

Mon 20 Oct 2014, 11:39

It's a bit disappointing to see Sustainable Charlbury misleadingly claiming unanimous support for their latest proposal. Last week's public meeting certainly showed significant support for the work that they have put into developing a new proposal with less visual impact, but equally certainly did not show everyone was in favour of the revised plans. There was concern expressed that the revisions did nothing to overcome objections that the scheme was simply in the wrong place, with concerns about the negative effect on food production of putting solar panels on fields previously used for crops, and also that it did not reflect the main message from the government's Solar Strategy that they are keen to focus growth of solar PV in the UK on domestic and commercial roof space and on brownfield sites.

Fri 17 Oct 2014, 09:14

I'd like to stick my neck above the carefully-placed shrubbery and congratulate the Southill Solar team for their impressive hard work, and last night's informative meeting. For those uncertain about their plans: they have listened a great deal to people's concerns, especially over visual impact, and now have a proposal which would have a startlingly minimal impact on the view from any direction - a proposal which it seems should in principle be able to achieve support from the Cotswolds AONB. It is also not possible for this to be the 'thin end of the wedge' due to limitations of power infrastructure. Further, the scheme is being put forward by members of the community who put community benefits firmly at its heart.

In the future, when lack of government-led action may mean power struggles over power, we may look back on these times as luxurious. This scheme lets us keep our beautiful landscape while at least making some credible effort to mitigating energy needs. Hats off to them.

Thu 16 Oct 2014, 13:04

A reminder to all those interested, Sustainable Charlbury will be presenting this evening, at 8pm in the Memorial Hall, the results of the Southill Solar Bring Your Brolly Day and providing an update on the progress of the proposals.

Tue 14 Oct 2014, 17:17

Jenny, I do not have any kind of hysterical self interest. In fact, I have a social conscience which is why I want to make sure there will be no glare from the site, because given the placement of the panels opposite my house I know exactly how bad it can be. I don't want there to be accidents on a fast road used by private cars, emergency vehicles and passenger vehicles, to say nothing of the trains which will be travelling along a line facing directly towards the panels.

I have as part of my degree studied resource management, which also includes renewables and so I have to confess that I was extremely surprised by Liz's comment that there is no glare from panels. It's accepted by the industry that there is (2/3 light is absorbed, 1/3 reflected), which is why they are working on coatings. I honestly don't know what to think now, given that the people who are supporting the scheme are denying that glare exists and the industry itself admits it does. It makes me wonder exactly how much work has been done on this plan, and whereas before I was just slightly concerned I have to say I'm now very worried, how much of what we are being told is actually true? And given that the existence of glare is denied, can we believe any of the rest of what we are told?

I have panels on my house, I think they're great, but a whole field of them near a fast road and a railway line needs proper siting and it seems that the proponents of this plan don't care.

Tue 14 Oct 2014, 16:31

Actually, I'd like to go a bit further than that. I think those who feel this scheme is in the wrong place (including me!) have also shown commendable patience in the face of a potential planning blight on the town for the past 18 months and more, which now looks like continuing for several months longer as a result of some people's refusal to accept the planners' interpretation of applicable planning policy in this case.

Tue 14 Oct 2014, 16:18

Not really sure what you are referring to there, Jenny. If you'll forgive me saying so I think your comment is pretty much the first one I have seen in this thread that hints at being hysterical. But I think we can at least agree that the Southill Solar team have shown a good deal of patience, for which we should be grateful - though it doesn't mean that they have been right all along, of course!

Tue 14 Oct 2014, 15:06 (last edited on Tue 14 Oct 2014, 15:07)

Tue 14 Oct 2014, 15:04

Thank you to the Southill Solar team for your patience and professionalism in the face of some rather hysterical self-interest. Thanks also to Nick and Diana for your level-headed comments of 6 Oct.
With this scheme we have an opportunity to showcase the way forward for community-led sustainable energy generation. Surely that's a better ethos to uphold than the negative 'not in my back yard' stance.

Tue 14 Oct 2014, 14:51

Charlie P, I read a study recently that showed that the overall energy delivered over the lifetime of the project by a solar PV installation could be as little as 50% more than the overall energy required for maintenance, installation, transport & manufacture, mining of required metals/minerals, etc, etc. So the overall carbon emissions will be highly dependent on the source of energy for all those inputs into the process (eg coal vs nuclear)....

Tue 14 Oct 2014, 14:32

Very true! But when it boils down to it the IRR and the operational life depends on a couple of tiny crack in a couple of graphite bricks..... . .
If a panel fails you just replace it and without having to evacuate every living organism within a 50 mile radius.

Tue 14 Oct 2014, 14:15 (last edited on Tue 14 Oct 2014, 14:30)

Yet also a tiny fraction of the power output and a much lower IRR than nuclear as well ;-)

Charlie Peacock: I found this which may give an indicative answer to your questions en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Tue 14 Oct 2014, 13:51

A) A tiny fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant or oil rig
B) A tiny fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant or oil rig
C) Any small costs/ impacts associated with educating the local future generations of the need for renewable energy is worth spending to move us towards a sustainable future.
D) A tiny fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant or oil rig

Mon 13 Oct 2014, 18:24

Reference Tim Crisp's response dated 28th September 2014, are we Charlbury residents happy for this scheme to proceed with only 19.76% approval arising from the survey. I consider the latter survey to be more accurate than the 95% show of hands at thepublic meetings.
Also, how much carbon will be produced by:-

a)The manufacture and installation of the solar panels and security fencing.
b)Repairs and maintenance of the solar panels throughout the 20 year lifespan.
c)Visits by schools and others during educational visits.
d)Increased road traffic (gawpers/rubber neckers etc looking at the solar panels)
e)Final clearance of the site and disposal of all the solar panels and fencing.

Thu 9 Oct 2014, 16:58

There is however a meeting at Charlbury Primary School tonight about our Solar Scheme that was installed over the summer break. The meeting is in the school hall from 6.30pm. Please arrive from 6pm onwards should you wish to see the solar panels in situ. Everyone is welcome.

Thu 9 Oct 2014, 16:17 (last edited on Fri 10 Oct 2014, 10:51)

I'm sorry. I changed it in News and Events ten days ago and didn't think also to put it up here.

Thu 9 Oct 2014, 15:32

Wow! I'm glad you asked about tonight's meeting, Andrew! It would have been a bit frustrating to rush back to Charlbury for a non-existent meeting. I'm rather surprised there was nothing on this thread before you asked, given that the meeting itself was advertised here, and I must admit I still can't see any indication on Sustainable Charlbury's website warning about this.

Thu 9 Oct 2014, 09:58

The previous application for a solar farm at Cornbury was organised by a private developer on a wholly commercial basis. They contacted Sustainable Charlbury to ask for our public support. We said that we would not provide any support unless we could see some community benefit from the scheme. The developer agreed in writing to allow 25% of the scheme to be owned by the community with community benefit. On those grounds we organised the petition and spoke at the planning committee meeting. Sustainable Charlbury has consistently worked for community engagement and benefit.

Thu 9 Oct 2014, 09:26

It seems slightly odd to read here that the previous (2011) application for planning permission for a solar farm at Cornbury had nothing to do with Sustainable Charlbury. Their name might not appear on the application, but I seem to recall they organised a petition in favour of the development and also spoke at the planning meeting on behalf of the developers. That application was refused for similar reasons to the latest one in that it was felt that it was not an appropriate type of development for a rural area in the AONB, which is one of the reasons I have tried to suggest there is more chance of actually achieving something if the proposal was for a site outside the AONB, which would be more consistent both with national and local planning policies and with previous planning decisions.

Thu 9 Oct 2014, 09:25

Andrew, apologies for the late notification, but we have put the meeting back 1 week as we needed more time to carry out the analysis and prepare the presentation. A poster has gone up at the Charlbury train station this morning and others will be going up on town noticeboards today, as well as on the Events page of this and the Sustainable Charlbury website. The preparation has just taken us a little more time than we initially thought, I hope this hasn't inconvenienced you in any way and you can still make it for next Thursday.

Thu 9 Oct 2014, 07:01

Is the next meeting about Southill Solar still on tonight? There's nothing to say so on this website's events pages.

Mon 6 Oct 2014, 21:10

I too have grandchildren and want a world worth living in for them. So I am in favour of green initiatives. However, I do want to see the right decisions made regarding such initiatives, and making the right decisions involves considering the initiative in the context of the bigger environmental picture.
Decisions on environmental issues have not always been right. Diesel engines?
The issue of renewable energy is an important one, but it is not the only environmental issue to be addressed. Food production, involving the use of productive agricultural land, is another important issue. And it impacts on the energy issue ?" with every acre of land lost to food production in the UK our imports will have to increase, and so will our carbon footprint.
I am not against solar farms, but simply believe that we need to locate them in appropriate locations ?" on top of buildings or on brownfield sites or on low grade agricultural land rather than on productive land.

Mon 6 Oct 2014, 19:28 (last edited on Thu 10 Nov 2016, 21:59)

Mon 6 Oct 2014, 15:45

I don't propose to die in a ditch to defend planning criteria, but I do think having some reasonably consistent criteria to apply is likely to result in a better outcome than a free for all. Having said that, I think the real problem with trying to go against existing planning policies is that you risk wasting your time! I tried to suggest to Sustainable Charlbury at the first public meeting before the previous planning application that by going with a site that contravened planning policies there was a big risk that they would end up wasting their time and hence all the effort going in to trying to get the underlying idea here off the ground. Now there is a risk that that cost will be repeated if a more appropriate site isn't found before submitting another application.

Mon 6 Oct 2014, 15:09

Thanks Nick for so elequently expressing what I was beginning to feel. No 'solution' will ever be completely pain-free for everyone. If 'no costs' were a requirement, progress would become very difficult. And progress is essential. I believe the Southill people are making every possible effort to achieve a good balance between costs and gains. Having just made a few long train journeys through The Netherlands, I was struck by the scale and impact of the wind farms there. Compared to those, being able to see a sea (more a small lake I think) of solar panels will be a doddle. And let's not even think about nuclear power stations. Energy will need to be generated one way or the other. I think this seems a very reasonable, relatively low-impact one.

Mon 6 Oct 2014, 09:56

I may be on my own here, but this whole debate is beginning to smack of fiddling while Rome burns. I supported Southill and also went to put my umbrella up last week. I did so not because I thought the site was ideal nor because on its own the project will save the planet. I did it because I wanted to play a small part in a change of culture which is vitally necessary if my grandchildren are going to inherit a world which is worth living in.Like a lot of people I have a green conscience which I usually don't often live up to. I would like Government and planners to recognise both the gravity and urgency of the issues of climate change and help me to reduce my carbon footprint even if it cost me a bit. Not for the first time, one of only people around who seems to see this clearly is Desmond Tutu www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/21/desmond-tutu-climate-change-is-the-global-enemy. I've little patience with the arguments about planning criteria. Hell, I'd probably support the proposal if it was on the Playing Close.

Sat 4 Oct 2014, 20:03

Alan, I agree with your comment on Friday regarding the criteria for the location. Clearly, clear and justifiable criteria were necessary. However, I also thought that it was interesting to see how well the criteria reflected the chosen site. Another example of this is that the criteria that the land should be Grade 3, or lower, agricultural land. I believe that this land is Grade 3 land. Grade 3 land is land that is capable of producing good yields of a variety of crops, or of producing high yields of grass for grazing or harvesting. With our population expanding, we need to produce as much food for consumption as possible, in order to manage another environmental impact, that of importing food. So we need to retain as much productive agricultural land as possible for food production.

You can place solar panels on other locations such as the rooves of buildings, particularly industrial buildings, but you can't grow wheat or other crops there.

Sat 4 Oct 2014, 11:41

Alan, being near a road is for access. The last site was also next to a road. It had nothing to do with Southill Solar by the way - that was a private developer with whom Cornbury Park was working.

Sat 4 Oct 2014, 10:58

Could I please direct you to the Sustainable Charlbury website where the many Q & A's that came out of the public meetings were written up, and have been in the public domain ever since sustainablecharlbury.org/southill-solar/questions-and-answers/. Many of the questions raised here are answered on the Q & A page but we will identify those that are not sufficiently dealt with, answer them as best we can and add them to that page.

Fri 3 Oct 2014, 22:45

Why can't Hans points be answered here and only verbally at a public meeting?

Fri 3 Oct 2014, 22:13

Liz, I wonder whether you could say a bit more not about what your criteria are, but about why they are what they are, since I must admit it almost looks to me as if the criteria were selected with the site in mind, rather than the site selected with the criteria in mind. Why, just to take one example, does the site need to be near a main road? This presumably wasn't regarded as a necessary criterion for the previous application you refer to. And it also is clearly not regarded as necessary by the chairman of DECC's solar strategy board who I quoted earlier as saying sites should be away from houses and roads.

Fri 3 Oct 2014, 20:03

That is my point Liz, it's not viewable all year round, it depends on sun angle. I don't have a camera good enough to take a picture of it, but it is not "a bit" of glare, and I am not the only person to have seen it. I'm saying no more on the matter, if you wish to believe it doesn't exist that's fine by me, I just hope the proposed farm doesn't cause any glare that is visible from the Witney road.

Fri 3 Oct 2014, 19:28

Happy to see your relevant photo, of course

Fri 3 Oct 2014, 19:27

Harriet, I often look back at Charlbury and I've never noticed the glare from solar panels on people's roofs. I can imagine that at a specific angle there may be a bit of glare but I have already acknowledged that. I look to what I believe are authoritative stories.www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-panels-near-airports-glare-issue/

Fri 3 Oct 2014, 18:58

If you don't believe that panels produce glare, you could try looking on google. I see there are plenty of pictures, plus a relatively recent news article saying a coating has just been produced to reduce panel glare. Companies don't waste money on R&D if there's no reason for it. You could also walk back towards Charlbury along the path from Catsham Lane and look at the glare from the panels on houses in Charlbury.

Fri 3 Oct 2014, 18:39

Liz you are welcome to come round to my house and look at the panels when the glare is evident. Bear in mind it is only certain times of day/year, and if you're not there at that time you won't see it. It won't be immediately because the sun angle isn't right, but I'll send you an email. I know the difference between a mirrorlike reflection from the centre of a panel and the glare of a piece of metal, particularly when it's literally the other side of the road from my house

Fri 3 Oct 2014, 18:33

As to other locations... when Cornbury first submitted an application it was on a field with much less potential visibility - very few cars and people passing. As one of the Planning Committee members said somewhat plaintively "Last time they submitted a scheme out of the way, we turned that down too." As to Ditchley, there is a field that fulfills some of our criteria but it is three miles from Charlbury and further from Finstock and Fawler. And if Ditchley are considering solar, it is likely to be on its own account, not for the benefit of the community. Southill Solar would pay rent to Cornbury but the scheme would be community-owned.

Fri 3 Oct 2014, 17:56 (last edited on Fri 3 Oct 2014, 18:33)

Hi All. I'm obviously not paying enough attention to this post as there are so many contributions that I don't feel I can answer all the questions here. Hans - are you able to come to the public meeting on 16th October where we can answer all your questions?
Harriet, I don't know where you say that you have asked me twice about glare and I have ignored you. I don't ignore people or questions. I have answered this in the public meetings at least. Glare is not an issue with solar panels as they are designed to absorb light, not reflect it back. It may be that you have had trouble with glare on roofs but perhaps that has been from the metal surrounding the panels? The panel design we are opting to use is all matt black with no frame, so there will be no glare.

Fri 3 Oct 2014, 17:04 (last edited on Thu 10 Nov 2016, 21:58)

Wed 1 Oct 2014, 14:30

Was this the site preferred by Lord Rotherwick?

Wed 1 Oct 2014, 13:04

I, or rather the Chairman of DECC's solar strategy board, have some alternative location criteria to suggest. He claims that "if we put solar farms on flat fields, low-grade land, away from houses and roads and get the screening right, no-one knows they are there". The current proposal is not on a flat field, is not on particularly low-grade land, is not away from houses (as an earlier poster pointed out, my house is just across the road), and is not away from roads. I know the developers are doing their very best to get the screening right, but otherwise the site seems to be as far away from meeting these criteria as it is possible to be.

Wed 1 Oct 2014, 11:19

Interesting that you thought of the analogy of water meters, Harriet. I was thinking about exactly the same thing, and my own experience is that I feel much MORE comfortable using water on the garden knowing that I will pay for it. It doesn't make a big difference to the bill, but it provides a strong defence against the feeling that you are using a resource that might be better used for something else. I can imagine a similar feeling regarding electricity use if I had contributed to the development of a power-producing facility.

Wed 1 Oct 2014, 10:58

Alan, the criteria were defined early in in the process and identified in the Sustainable Charlbury Feasibility Study for the Southill Solar project. These criteria were part of our presentations at the public meetings and were included at 1.6 of the Planning Design and Access Statement submitted with the planning application, and are as follows:
1.6 The project fulfils the criteria that Sustainable Charlbury had set for its project, which are that any site should be;
 well-concealed
 over 12 hectares
 south facing in orientation
 easily linked to a 33kv power line or electricity sub-station
 accessible from a main road
 on Grade 3 or lower agricultural land
There might well be sites further afield but no other site was found in the Charlbury locality that matched all these criteria as well as the chosen site did. Solar farms have been approved by WODC in the Cotswolds AONB but we knew from the outset that the principle challenge would be the visual impact and that appropriate mitigation measures would need to be taken. Visual impact was the key driver for the unique site design that we came up with for the initial planning application and we are now taking further measures to assess the visual impact and reduce as necessary.

Wed 1 Oct 2014, 10:39

Alan, Liz might be right, I do gardens for a large number of people and the ones with water meters are easily identifiable because they don't want to spend money on water so their plants all die.

Personally I can't see why it should be in a valley, when it would be much better off up on top of a hill near Ditchley, not in the AONB and less problem with it being viewable from footpaths and roads. I assume it's because a) Ditchley don't consider it financiallky viable and b) there might be supply problems getting the energy from Charlbury.

I'm glad Charlie says they did winter photos because despite asking Liz about this twice nobody has ever said what effect sun height and angle will have on potential glare from the panels. My house faces a house with panels and at certain times of year for short periods both bedrooms, the living room and the kitchen (so that's all the rooms in the house apart from the bathroom) are unusable because of the reflection glare from the panels across the road. If that happens to a vehicle at any point on the Southhill Drive, the road or in the fields it will potentially be very damaging.

Wed 1 Oct 2014, 09:41

One thing that surprises me is that I have never really seen an explanation of why the solar farm has to be on this particular site. As I suggested in my original post, the arguments for a Charlbury-owned facility don't preclude it being a little further away. WODC has approved solar farms outside the AONB, so this could be a way of avoiding further wasted effort.

Liz argues that people will finally connect with the source of their energy supply and become much more careful about how they use it. Leaving aside the possibly large element of wishful thinking in this, it looks like an argument for a Charlbury-owned facility, but not necessarily a facility actually in Charlbury. Or if it does give any support to having a facility in Charlbury, it actually suggests that the bigger the visual impact of the development the better!

Wed 1 Oct 2014, 09:37

Tony, I'm really pleased to hear you did this (assuming it was intended to time it with the event). Your input would be really useful and I'll give you a knock later. If we can agree the position to on a map we can re-stage a part of the grid to review this view as well.

The reasoning behind the five camera positions was they were the most exposed positions in the original report. We also have winter photos from these positions too so can assess how the bare vegetation will influence the views as well.

To date we have had no requests for additional viewpoints or any detailed comments on these from the original planning application so have stuck to the originals but I think its vital we try to cover all angles (within reason).

I know you are a warden and as such might be against the proposals but I'd really appreciate your input.

There is no smoke and mirrors here we are intending to present the facts and then ask the community whether or not they feel this is acceptable.

Hopefully see you later, Charlie

Tue 30 Sep 2014, 20:48 (last edited on Tue 30 Sep 2014, 20:49)

Tony, the site was being photographed from 5 different positions. We had 2 photographers on different points on the tarmac cycle path into the Southill Business Park, one photographer on the upper circular footpath walk, one photographer on the Oxfordshire Way and one photographer near the lay-by on the B4022 next to the site. I think in most peoples eyes that would be regarded as thorough, and all these photographers, the Southill Solar team and the 100+ people who attended the Bring Your Brolly Day did this out of their own free will and in a concerted effort to help define the areas of visual impact.

Tue 30 Sep 2014, 19:10

Malcolm: "..sympathetically designed to minimise the visual impact...".
I sincerely hope that is true. But: on Saturday Judith and I walked along the footpath between Little Park and Finstock and we saw no-one else there to observe the "umbrella array" on the proposed site. Having no observation from the position where visual impact is greatest hardly inspires confidence in the thoroughness of the exercise.

Tue 30 Sep 2014, 18:41

Well Charlie it might be that we need more renewable energy rather than fossil fuels !!

Alan much of the fleece I have seen is white which stick out like a sore thumb. You also didn't appreciate the main point in that developments like the solar farm will be sympathetically designed to minimise the visual impact where as there is no control whatsoever in the agricultural environmental impact

Tue 30 Sep 2014, 11:26

When assessing the impact its important to balance any negative elements against the reasoning/ benefits. Using fleece protects crops from frosts which allows farmers to plant with greater protection and earlier in the season for example. I won't be drawn into a debate about why farmers are being forced to use such means and the extraordinary weather we experienced over the past few years. . ..

Tue 30 Sep 2014, 09:48

Yes, I've seen fields covered in various types of fleece, and I agree they are an eyesore. The fact that there is not much to be done about them does not make we want to ignore other eyesores that can be avoided.

I don't agree that such fields look worse than solar farms, though. In fact, I'm struck how similar from a distance solar farms can look to fields covered in ugly black plastic. When you get closer, of course, there are also security cameras on high poles, concrete buildings to house equipment and so on required for solar farms that aren't required for arable fields.

Mon 29 Sep 2014, 21:26

Well Alan have you seen the fields covered in agricultural fleece in various places in this area. No planning permission is required and to my mind looks 10 times worse than a sympathetically planned development. I know the fleece is only there for part of the year but its a dreadful eyesore during the growing season.

Mon 29 Sep 2014, 13:31

Alan, perhaps you are right, a second survey should be carried out. I would be very happy to sit down with you and work through a series of questions that are agreeable to both of us. I would also be delighted if you could muster some voluntary support to help distribute and collect the surveys. If you wish to do this then lets take the conversation offline and pursue this together.

Mon 29 Sep 2014, 13:08

I'm not suggesting anyone was bounced into saying something they don't believe. But we all hold beliefs that are sometimes contradictory, and may make different judgments at different times depending on which factors are uppermost in our minds. For instance, an alternative survey could ask questions along these lines: Do you think the quality of the surrounding countryside enhances life in Charlbury? Do you think the planning system should take account of the value of areas of outstanding natural beauty in deciding where certain developments should be allowed to take place? Do you support plans to develop a solar farm on the outskirts of Charlbury within the AONB?

I think you are right, Richard, that people in Charlbury will generally know their own minds on the issue now, but I am not convinced that that means much weight can be put on a survey first circulated more than a year ago which may well have been the first time many people knew about the issue at all.

Mon 29 Sep 2014, 13:01 (last edited on Mon 29 Sep 2014, 13:02)

Alan, for the record, we had no survey professional help, it was all done by the Charlbury-based project team.
What is also important to stress here is that I and all of the Southill Solar team were extremely concerned about the project - that is exactly why we went to the lengths that we did for the project, whether it be creating a sensitive scheme design or the community-wide engagement and consultation. Whilst 42% had no concerns about the proposed scheme whatsoever, interestingly many of those who did have concerns were also part of the 76% who still supported the Southill Solar proposals.

Mon 29 Sep 2014, 12:38

I think it's slightly demeaning to the people of Charlbury to suggest that they were bounced into saying things they didn't believe by misleading wording. No-one is suggesting that Southill Solar has 100% unanimous support - I doubt there's anything that the 3,000 residents of Charlbury unanimously agree on - and I understand, Alan, that as someone who lives opposite the proposed site you do of course feel strongly about it.

Nonetheless, as this discussion demonstrates, the people of Charlbury are articulate and well-informed, and we should give them the credit of knowing their own views.

On the "community benefit" angle, personally I would indeed prefer that a percentage of the earnings were distributed to local good causes than to npower's Germany-based shareholders. I'm not convinced that this necessarily equates to people "paying more for their energy than they would otherwise need to".

Mon 29 Sep 2014, 12:21

Thanks, Tim. I do recognise that the survey showed support. However, as any survey professional will tell you (and perhaps did!), if you start off a survey in the "right" way you can show support for more or less anything. If you ask people first whether they support renewable energy, whether they support solar energy projects in appropriate places, and whether they believe developing projects that can provide funds for local investment is a good idea, it is not surprising that quite a few will see the positive side of Southill Solar! I see the positive side of it myself, I just don't think it outweighs the negative side of not having an appropriate location. Despite the leading questions, however, the survey also actually showed that more local people had concerns about the plans than had no concerns....

Mon 29 Sep 2014, 11:14 (last edited on Mon 29 Sep 2014, 12:50)

Alan, the figures I quoted were accurate and the results of the survey were as follows, (and as presented in our planing application):
87% support solar parks in appropriate locations
76% support the Southill Solar proposals
Taxes cover all sorts of costs, not least the construction and decommissioning of nuclear power stations, although unfortunately these costs are not identified on the energy bills. There is also the cost of not taking action to address the impact of climate change, as identified in the Stern Report webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf 'Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.'

Mon 29 Sep 2014, 09:15

Let's not forget that the key achievement of the survey was to establish that a significant number of people supported the development of solar farms IN APPROPRIATE PLACES, not that people generally thought Southill was an appropriate place.

Let's also not forget that all the so-called community benefit of the scheme would have to be paid for by electricity consumers paying more for their energy or by taxes being higher than they would otherwise need to be.

Sun 28 Sep 2014, 20:03 (last edited on Sun 28 Sep 2014, 21:04)

My understanding is that the principal reason for opposing the scheme is the visual impact. The scheme was rejected on the basis that the impact of the scheme outweighed the benefits. Although we believed we had addressed the visual impact by coming up with a unique and very carefully designed scheme we are now exploring further ways in which we can accurately measure the visual impact and amend the scheme design as necessary - hence the Bring Your Brolly Day yesterday, which was extremely well attended by a large cross section of Charlbury - from young families with their children to others in their 70's and 80's.
It is important to remember the benefits of the scheme, as these are what any visual impact needs to be assessed against:
1) 2,300 tonnes of carbon saved every year(equivalent to the amount of carbon generated by electricity use in Charlbury.
2) Improved landscape with significantly increased biodiversity across the site as a result of wild meadow seed and increased woodland and hedgerow planting.
3) Land maintained as grazing land for sheep for certain periods of the year.
4) Up to £80,000 of community benefit coming back each year, approximately £1.5m over the course of the 20year scheme.
5) An educational opportunity for local schools and groups in terms of visits to talk and learn about energy supply and demand, and for understanding of micro-ecology.

Sun 28 Sep 2014, 19:49

I know. I doubt there's a known figure for those who can't be bothered to respond to surveys? I'm also fairly sure a large number didn't respond and say they didn't want it because they thought that something like that wouldn't be considered for Charlbury anyway, so there was no need to reply.

Sun 28 Sep 2014, 19:32

Harriet, statistically speaking, and against the normal response rate to this sort of engagement, a 26% rate is regarded as a high return. What the results of the survey show is that 26% of the population responded and of those 26%, 76% were in favour of the scheme and 24% were either neutral or opposed to the scheme. It is difficult to say whether there is sample bias but using your argument it is also easy to say that the figures also very well demonstrate the lack of opposition to the scheme as the survey gave the opportunity for everyone to express if they were opposed to the scheme.

Sun 28 Sep 2014, 19:01

so, 26% reply and out of that 76% think it's a good idea? If I have my maths right, that's 1/5 of the total population of the three places wanting the solar farm and so isn't a majority agreement. I had no idea the figures were so low, but it certainly explains the apparent lack of support.

Sun 28 Sep 2014, 18:33 (last edited on Sun 28 Sep 2014, 18:35)

Charlie, the revenues are of course linked to the feed in tariffs and these, as you have pointed out, are always dropping, sometimes at short notice, but always reviewed on a 3 monthly basis. The initial scheme proposed was for a 5.5MW scheme, but in order to reduce the number…

Long post - click to read full text

Sun 28 Sep 2014, 17:01

I attended both public meetings and noted that during the first meeting a sum of £100,000 was mentioned as being the anticipated annual grant/donation (whatever it may be called) that would be paid to Charlbury/Finstock/Fawler. At the second meeting this sum was reduced to £90,000 and within the first Planning Application this was further reduced to £80,000.
Will this sum be further reduced now that the Government has unveiled proposals to limit the subsidies paid to solar farms as from April 2015?
Like other contributors, I am not sure whether the majority of Charlbury/Finstock and Fawler are in favour of the Solar Farm. It may be that the majority of the completed survey forms favoured the proposed Solar Farm but I would ask how many forms were distributed and of those, how many were completed and returned. Surely, you can only make an accurate judgement if all distributed forms are completed and returned.
Most people I have spoken to are either either completely unaware of the proposed Solar Farm or completely against it.

Sat 27 Sep 2014, 13:29

Thanks Mike, I'll stock up on coffee then!

Sat 27 Sep 2014, 13:26

Charlie - we're planning another public meeting on 9th October at 20.00 in the Memorial Hall to show the results of today's events and the resulting re-design. Please come along.

Sat 27 Sep 2014, 13:14

Charlie, if you mean how many possible permutations are there for 98 people to stand in 98 places it's around 10 followed by 152 zeros. So if you do one a second (impossible) it will take much longer than the life of the universe. So I hope I've misunderstood your question, or you've planned a long afternoon.

Sat 27 Sep 2014, 13:02

Also as there is 98 locations set out in a 30m grid if someone could let me know how many variations are possible id be greatfull

Sat 27 Sep 2014, 12:46

There's a public presentation in two weeks (as advertised) showing the results of this detailed study of the visual impact of this proposal. Perhaps you could all come along and join the debate, as at this stage no application has been submitted and the design is not finalised. Of course your welcome come today and help us to inform the design process and propose a layout the community feel is acceptable.

Sat 27 Sep 2014, 12:42

Charlie - we're planning another public meeting on 9th October at 20.00 in the Memorial Hall to show the results of today's events and the resulting re-design. Please come along.

Sat 27 Sep 2014, 12:18

Charlie & Malcolm - In theory WODC does consult the public about its planning policies. A consultation on housing issues as part of the draft Local Plan has just finished (on 19 September), and you can read the details at www.westoxon.gov.uk/draftlocalplan .

In practice, I wouldn't hold out any hope that Charlbury residents' opinions on planning are given much attention at WODC. Their priorities are big new housing developments at Witney and Carterton (the latter in a location not welcomed by most local residents). Even when Charlbury Town Council raises issues about individual planning applications in the town, the WODC planning committee, which has the final say, rarely takes any notice. We're not alone in this - Bladon Parish Council described WODC's attitude to a recent application in their village as "inability to understand the bigger picture... we expected a more enlightened and forward thinking response", and concluded that WODC wanted Bladon to become a "dormitory village".

In parallel with the initiative to create a 'Community-Led Plan' (a follow-up to the Town Appraisal of the 1990s), Charlbury has applied to create a 'Neighbourhood Plan', which would let Charlbury people, not WODC, set the policies for "the development and use of land" in the town. Around 1,000 towns and villages around Britain are creating such a plan, including Chipping Norton. The people of Chippy evidently believe they are better positioned to make decisions about the future of their own town than a department whose main interests are Witney and Carterton, and I think they're right.

Sat 27 Sep 2014, 11:21 (last edited on Sat 27 Sep 2014, 16:48)

Charlie, I'm sure there is more that we could have done, but we did hold 3 public meetings, 2 of which filled the Memorial Hall. Invitations to these meetings were delivered to every household, as was a survey specifically about the proposed community solar scheme. We also carried out a door-to-door collection of these surveys, creating an opportunity for residents to talk directly with those attempting to deliver this community project.

Everyone is invited onto the site today for our Bring Your Brolly Day where we hope to demonstrate the true scale of the mitigation measures that are and will be taken against any visual impact. I would be very happy to receive any ideas on further consultation measures we could take and to talk about this scheme with anyone that would like further information. Details can also be found on www.sustainablecharlbury.org

Sat 27 Sep 2014, 10:27

I'm in agreement with Malcolm - I have never been consulted either. Nor am I aware of there ever having been a Charlbury-wide survey on peoples' opinions on this matter. May we have more details please?

Sat 27 Sep 2014, 09:05

Just on a point of information:
The Cotswolds AONB was not created until 1966 and only extended to include Charlbury in 1991.
With the possible exception of mobile phone masts all the things you mention, Stephen, pre-date the AONB.

Fri 26 Sep 2014, 23:00 (last edited on Fri 26 Sep 2014, 23:06)

Err..so that would be the same AONB that accommodates the inconveniences of the electricity sub station, the water treatment (sewage) facility, the train station, mobile phone masts, roads...

Fri 26 Sep 2014, 22:15 (last edited on Fri 26 Sep 2014, 22:28)

So were the residents of Charlbury and district consulted about the so called district's planning policies. I for one have never been. Perhaps its the policies that are wrong and not the residents and would-be-developers. I would bet these policies were developed decades ago at a time when the world and priorities were very different? Perhaps it's time for change and a good dose of reality!

Fri 26 Sep 2014, 19:43

Sustainable Charlbury - backed by Charlbury Town Council and those of Fawler and Finstock - have the support of a majority of residents for a community-owned solar farm consistent with national energy policy. We're working hard to demonstrate how little visual impact the scheme will have, and the enormous benefit it will have to the community as a whole. Finally people will connect with the source of their energy supply, and become much more careful about how they use it.

Fri 26 Sep 2014, 18:25

Definitely agree with this comment Alan

Fri 26 Sep 2014, 17:39

I'm disappointed to see that the would-be developers who want to turn a large area of farming land next to Charlbury into a solar farm don't yet seem willing to accept the clear view of both WODC's planning officer and the relevant planning committee that the proposal violates the district's planning policies. Perhaps they see themselves as fighting bureaucracy on behalf of the residents of Charlbury, but the fact is that there are lots of people in the town who agree with the planners that this is not an appropriate site, and I for one hope we can avoid months more uncertainty about whether this blot on the landscape will go ahead or not. National and local planning policies are very clear that solar farms will only be allowed inside an AONB in exceptional circumstances, and I think it would make much more sense to focus attention on whether a Charlbury-owned facility could be located a little further away so that it did not fall foul of this policy.