Southill Solar gets planing permission

Sat 15 Aug 2015, 17:31

I am all for this.

Sat 15 Aug 2015, 09:49

Well said John Werner, we have a fantastic output on our roof panels.

Sat 15 Aug 2015, 00:23

I really don't understand why those 'handsome' solar panels must be put on land!!!Especially when more houses are needed (and all those could actually be covered with the solar panels, or not?). Or we just keep going for the easiest solutions???

Wed 22 Jul 2015, 09:39

Thank you Janet for your comments, but there is one flaw in your argument about the amount of bread one acre of wheat grown here could produce. So far as I am aware "strong Flour" is needed for bread making and our climate does not produce strong flour, therefore we import strong flour from Canada for our bread supplies. Local wheat is probably OK for cakes etc. Until my wife died last year I would buy Cotswold Wholemeal Flour from Matthews of Shipton u Wychwood, to make my bread, but it said on the bag "produced in Canada". Whether this makes any difference to the argument as to whether we occupy good agricultural land with solar panels or not, I do not know, but I do think we should put solar panels on land unsuitable for food production wherever possible

Tue 21 Jul 2015, 19:44

Hi Peter
I have read your question, and the response from Liz Reason. And I strongly feel that the information provided should not be misleading, or incorrect.
The planned site for the solar farm is classified as Grade 3 agricultural land. You will find that the majority of the land in the Cotswolds is Grade 3. In fact it is the most common type of agricultural land. And a key use Oof this land is to produce arable crops such as oil seed rape and wheat, as examples. In fact, if you stop in the lay-by be on the road you will find that the land is currently in production and is growing an arable crop.
A good average yield on this type of land will produce at least 3 tonnes of wheat per acre. And with modern farming methods it is possible to produce well in excess of 3 tonnes per acre. And just that acre producing those conservatively estimated 3 tonnes of wheat will produce enough flour to make well over 5000 loaves. So the whole site in arable production is capable of producing many tens of thousands of loaves.
But that production will now cease. And the wheat/flour will then have to be sourced from elsewhere. Probably from overseas, with the associated transport costs and their impact on the environment. And as a "captive" consumer nation, we may then find that the price of wheat increases, and then so will the cost of the loaves in our shops.
However, the solar farm plans have been approved, and so we must all accept this and live with it. I am not against the concept of such environmental schemes, but I am very much against the concept of environmental schemes in the wrong place.
Geoffrey Burroughs BSc Agri Hons, UCW Aberystwyth.

Mon 20 Jul 2015, 23:34

Thankyou Liz.

Mon 20 Jul 2015, 21:14

Hi Peter. To answer your question, the site is on the road between Charlbury and Witney, starting just beyond the electricity substation, and between the road and the railway line, stretching towards the station at Finstock. It's a field usually given over to rape in the spring. Not sure what's there now, but it's not prime arable land. I think it's designated C1.

Fri 17 Jul 2015, 17:10

I have read many of the comments for and against but one thing of prime importance to note is that permission is granted for up 20 or 25 years and therefore in theory is not permanent
Secondly, the committee felt that everything had been done to mitigate visibility and that the benefits for the community far outweighed the objections.
Solar power is a great demonstration of how we can utilise our natural resources and in the right hands, (as I believe it is)will make a discernable difference. Let's give it the chance it deserves!!

Wed 15 Jul 2015, 15:14

Fair point, Richard. But policy NE4 of the local plan still says that "The conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside of the Cotswolds AONB will be given great weight when determining developments within or impacting upon the AONB…".

And even more to the point, policy NE12 says "…within the Cotswolds AONB, proposals will *only* be acceptable where they are small in scale *and* where it can be shown to be in the public or national interest *and* no alternative sites exist." [emphasis added]

That is why I have suggested the decision shows a willingness to disregard agreed planning policies which might be a cause for regret in the future. (I don't expect everyone to share my regret in the current decision!)

Wed 15 Jul 2015, 11:06

I have read the 'fors and against' of this project, but I remain ignorant of one aspect. Just where is Southill? Without this knowledge I am unable to decide what its visual impact is likely be. Please enlighten me!

Wed 15 Jul 2015, 09:05

It's worth noting that the Sandford Principle - that conservation of natural beauty is the most important consideration in planning decisions - does not apply to AONBs, only to National Parks. If the Cotswolds were a National Park then I might agree with Alan that a principle has been broken; but the expectation in an AONB is that the planning authority will weigh up various factors, of which landscape quality is only one.

Tue 14 Jul 2015, 21:55

I find it sad that I have seen very little evidence of those who support the scheme actually really listening to those who have expressed concerns. As Jimi Hendrix has been quoted as saying "Knowledge speaks, wisdom listens." The key concern was not of the concept of a solar scheme, into it is recognised a lot of time and energy has been invested, but of ensuring it went in the right location. The site is designated an AONB, and the purpose of this designation is "to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape". I fail to see how anyone could actually claim that a solar farm will do this. Moreover, the land is productive agricultural land - and that is now lost for the foreseeable future. You cannot grow wheat on rooftops, but you can place solar panels there. However, the plan has been approved and will, provide Charlbury with the promised benefits. But in the meantime, as Alan has said, a precedent has now been set which may impact on future planning applications.

Mon 13 Jul 2015, 12:36

Sure - I've never claimed to be objective about this! But there will always be someone who lives near a site, and a larger number of people who don't. So if you think that a majority view is all that counts, then those who are not adversely affected by a development are always likely to be able to outvote those who are. That is precisely why planning policies are designed in the first place, so that the majority can agree on general principles that should apply to any development before those principles are outweighed by the gains and losses that arise from a specific development in a specific location.

Mon 13 Jul 2015, 11:37

To describe it as 'triumphalism' ('excessive exultation') seems a rather pejorative way to describe the pleasure of the supporters that it has been approved. I'm not sure which 'explicit planning policies' have been ignored, if any, and at this stage it's rather academic - the scheme has its plus points and its minus ones, no doubt, but the team behind it have gone to impressive lengths to meet objections, and the planning committee is not at liberty to ignore planning legislation. Perhaps your Cassandra-like warnings will come back to haunt us - but it's hard to guarantee the objectivity of someone who happens to live near the site.

Mon 13 Jul 2015, 10:39

A degree of triumphalism from supporters of this scheme is highly understandable given the obstacles the project has had to overcome to get to this stage. But I hope people will bear in mind that if explicit planning policies can be ignored in order to approve something they support, then the same thing can happen again in the future to approve something that they might be considerably less keen to see.

Thu 9 Jul 2015, 20:06

Hooray!

Thu 9 Jul 2015, 12:09 (last edited on Thu 9 Jul 2015, 17:42)

That is brilliant news. Good to see the views of the majority prevail, including in AONB's.

Wed 8 Jul 2015, 12:54

Mike, I was responding to Stephen's comment rather than yours. He seems to be suggesting that the decision was right because the benefits of solar are thought to exceed the costs. In truth, listening to the discussion it did feel a bit like that was the basis for the decision, at least for some members of the committee, but I was just pointing out that that isn't actually the issue that was decided.

Wed 8 Jul 2015, 11:49

Agreed, Alan. And I'm pleased that the decision finds that it is appropriate.

Wed 8 Jul 2015, 10:51

Congratulations to all involved, a significant achievement.

Wed 8 Jul 2015, 08:41

The issue was never about whether it was sensible to build a solar farm, simply about whether this particular location within the AONB was the appropriate place for it.

Wed 8 Jul 2015, 07:10

I would like to think that an understanding of the ever improving cost/benefits of solar technology over carbon fuels is gradually being recognised; at least by those in decision making positions. One day soon we will call it commonsense.

Tue 7 Jul 2015, 17:48

Woohoo! Faith in humanity restored. Partially.

Tue 7 Jul 2015, 16:03

Great news Tim, well done to all involved.

Tue 7 Jul 2015, 10:04

Fantastic news this afternoon, Sustainable Charlbury achieved planning permission for it's community renewable energy scheme, with the Uplands Area Planing Committee voting 7-5 in support of the scheme.
We would like to thank everyone for their involvement, however great or small, and the wonderful support from the community that has enabled this project to go forward. We know there is much hard work still to be done and would like to continue to work with those who have on-going reservations about the scheme. Thanks to you all once again.