The decision by the Secretary of State (SoS) on whether to grant the Development Consent Order (DCO) to PVDP has now been delayed again until 10th November 2026.
We, as interested parties, now have just 3 weeks - until 4 October to send in further responses. Many of you will feel angry that this has happened when you have already responded so many times before and expected to have done this for the last time. It is unreasonable to ask you to respond yet again.
Nevertheless, we are asking you to send a brief letter (see below) to show your continuing support for the SBW campaign and the unresolved concerns you still have about Botley West.
If you have time to add a paragraph or two of your own to make it more personal, that would be especially valuable but even the pro forma on its own will be fine.
Send your letter to BotleyWestSolar@planninginspectorate.gov.uk
Text of letter to cut and paste:
Dear Secretary of State
Botley West Solar Farm: EN010147
I am disappointed that the Applicant’s late submissions have been accepted causing further delay in the decision for Botley West and requesting yet another response from Interested Parties.
I am a supporter of the Stop Botley West campaign and fully endorse the comprehensive SBW submission of 16 July [C2-161]. I am concerned that despite these new proposals the Application is still irretrievably flawed. Too many questions remain unanswered and the Applicant seeks to defer too many important decisions until after any development consent is granted when they will be beyond public scrutiny and challenge.
Add any additional comments here - or delete this line
I respectfully request the Secretary of State to refuse outright the grant of a DCO for this Application.
Name: _____________________________________________
Interested Party Registration No: _______________ (delete if you can’t find this!)
ISSUES YOU MAY WISH TO ADD TO YOUR LETTER
1. Areas of concern posed by the new submissions
2. Unresolved issues still not addressed. These include:
Documents submitted for 16 July deadline were published on 2 September.
Huge thanks to over 200 of you who answered the call and sent in submissions. Your detailed and well argued responses and letters to the Secretary of State are very helpful in showing the strength and depth of feeling still in evidence in the community after 4 years of consultations!
The detailed submission from StopBotleyWest covered all the questions asked in the Secretary of State’s April letter to the Applicant (PVDP) and responded to PVDP’s answers submitted at their 9 June deadline. It’s over 150 pages long but the key points are in the Cover letter and Executive Summary on the first 10 pages in case you can’t face reading it all!
You can read the SBW submission here
Other significant submissions include:
PVDP made 25 late submissions on 16 July (well past their 9 June deadline) which, though heavily criticised by SoS, have been accepted for consideration and were published on 4 September. We are invited to respond - yet again!
The SoS letter (read it here) is highly critical of PVDP and blames them for this further extension!
The new submissions include a few significant changes (generally not for the better) but many other issues remain unresolved. Read a list and details of these in the section linked to RESPOND BY 4 OCTOBER 2026
Throughout the Stop Botley West campaign, our media strategy has been to ensure that influential national and local media are kept up to date with the information and evidence that we have gathered.
In the last three years, media including the Sunday Times, The Times, the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, Private Eye, BBC TV and Radio, ITV, Oxford Mail and Times and Witney Gazette have reported on different aspects of the proposed Botley West development.
Their coverage has focused on the distinctive issues and concerns that relate specifically to the scale, location and ownership of the proposed Botley West solar power station. These include:
A consistent concern has been the very real risk of fatal accidents faced by the thousands of trainee pilots from London Oxford Airport who regularly overfly the proposed Botley West site. In the past, a number of pilots have used neighbouring fields for emergency landings after engine failure. The seriousness of these concerns was highlighted by a recent Oxford Mail news story citing evidence submitted by two flying schools who use London Oxford Airport – see here

Nowhere in the world has a ground mounted solar farm this vast (bigger than Heathrow) been built so near to human habitation (11,000 homes within 1.5km) and for very good health and safety reasons (learn more).

It would remove thousands of tons of crops each year at a time of growing concern about food security. 250,000 hectares of unused, south-facing commercial roofs in the UK could be used instead (learn more).

There are many better ways to produce green energy. Offshore wind is up to 51% efficient compared with solar panels less than 22% (learn more).

There will be no natural gains for wildlife or the environment. There will be loss of wildlife habitat, increased risk of flooding and 51 miles of 8ft high animal proof security fencing restricting movement (learn more).

Botley West may never pay back the carbon debt it accumulates in the construction, transportation and decommissioning of panels. There is a huge amount of carbon generated in all these operations (learn more).

The current plans show Botley West SF could encroach within 100m of Blenheim Palace boundary wall and threaten its UNESCO World Heritage Site status. Historic sites like Sansom’s Platt in Wootton and Churchill’s grave in Bladon Churchyard would also be overwhelmed (learn more).

75% of the proposed site is on greenbelt land which should be protected. It would industrialise the countryside for 40 years and may never be returned to agricultural use (learn more).

Solar Panels will be highly visible at ground level from roads and footpaths for visitors and residents alike over an 11 by 3 mile area, It cannot be ‘landscaped to only be seen through gaps in the hedges’ as claimed (learn more).

The main financial beneficiaries of this industrialisation of the countryside are overseas developers PVDP (of dubious pedigree) and landowners Blenheim Estate (NOT the Palace itself) (learn more).
The Local Solution
Solar energy should be used specifically to meet local demands and directly benefit local communities, not big landowners and overseas companies.
And there are other imaginative means of providing green energy. These are just four:
The National Solution
As well as a national rollout of these local solutions we have offshore windpower which offers peak electricity in the dark winter months when the UK most needs energy and when solar panels are least efficient. And, of-course, there are other offshore energy sources – wave power, tidal power etc already in use.
Finally, Andrew Tettenborn, Professor of Law at Swansea Law School sums it up in the Spectator: “In the dash for Green Energy “corporate capital is being handed a heaven- sent opportunity at the expense of you, me and the country we live in at least as regards solar power (Government policy) is not working for the benefit of the people ……..
but instead seems to favour a more international clientele.”
All of this means we don’t need old fashioned, large scale, inefficient solar ‘farms’.

Welcome! Share your contact details to receive regular email updates on the Botley West proposal