Send in your responses to the Secretary of State by 23:59 on 16 July
Send in your responses to the Secretary of State by 23:59 on 16 July
Answers to the Secretary of State’s (SoS) questions were published on 11 June. The deadline for responses is 16 July 2026.
Send in your responses to these answers to the Secretary of State by Email to: BotleyWestSolar@planninginspectorate.gov.uk
SBW are still studying the 93 published documents (including 192 pages of answers and 56 other documents from PVDP) but please read on for a summary of the main points.
Read the Applicant’s answers in full in their 192 page document here
LANDSCAPE
PVDP say they did not have time to complete the requested updated Landscape study (including footpaths and viewpoints) or to carry out the full Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) - ie the impact on local residents that the Examiners and all of us, as Interested Parties (IP), have been calling for since last summer! However they have finally conceded that further panel removal is required.
They are proposing a larger buffer for some properties, including:
Maps showing these areas are available here.
Warning: These are only provisional and PVDP are proposing that precise buffer sizes (between 100m and 250m) will not be finally decided until after the Development Consent Order (DCO) is granted. This creates a serious risk for residents, as it would prevent us from being consulted or having any meaningful role in the final decision.
This situation has arisen because PVDP have run out of time — and have been refused any further extension — to complete the work properly. We are concerned that this is simply an exercise by PVDP to push their Application through despite its many shortcomings. The proposal may appear attractive to residents in the selected areas, but other areas have been entirely overlooked, and several oddly shaped pockets of panels have been left in place, giving the clear impression of a rushed job.
By PVDP’s own admission, this is a “unilateral decision” and “this new approach has not been discussed with the OHAs” — the Oxfordshire Host Authorities (the joint councils). OHA, in their published submission, say they do not have the time, resources or expertise to administer the full and fair property-by-property assessment required. Of course, PVDP should have done this, at their own expense, months ago - as requested by the Inspectors during the Examination.
SUBSTATION
National Grid (NGET) now predicts a connection date in the last quarter of 2031. PVDP still claim 2029. NGET must apply and receive planning permission from the VHDC first before they can proceed which will involve a public consultation and there is still not a decision on exactly where it will be sited.
ALTERNATIVE SITES CONSIDERED
PVDP have suddenly written a surprising amount about their search for a suitable site and how/why they chose this one. None of this information was offered during the Examination and we wonder why it is only now being presented?
HERITAGE
PVDP continue to disagree with ICOMOS and Historic England on “setting issues”.
ECOLOGY & PROTECTED SPECIES
Still no clarity on issues such as avoiding tree damage, protecting habitats, skylark mitigation strategy. Some requested reports Incomplete or missing.
SOILS & AGRICULTURE
PVDP’s revised reports set out to defend the use of what they wrongly refer to as “poor quality land”.
COMMUNITY FOOD GROWING
PVDP are still proposing to use 30ha (75 acres) of land around Church Hanborough, Long Hanborough and Bladon for what they misleadingly call “Community Food Growing”. They now assert that they have consulted and have agreements with just 2 thirdparty organisations - neither local to our villages, who have previously said they want to use around 4 hectares. So no agreements for the remaining 26 hectares? They also claim there is “easy and safe access” to these fields. Residents know this is not true.
PVDP admit that they have not yet consulted Parish Councils or residents who have already raised strong objections during the Examination to these plots that are neither wanted nor needed as there is already sufficient allotment provision in more appropriate locations in all the villages.
Please continue to object and call for this land to be removed from the red line boundary to safeguard its status as productive agricultural land.
FURTHER ISSUES
We are still analysing answers to questions on Heritage, Ecology, Veteran trees, Alternative sites considered, Airport Safety, Soils and Agriculture and additional Landscape matters.
------------PLEASE RESPOND!------------
Because of the SoS decision to delay the decision and ask more questions, we now have the opportunity one more time to respond and we urge everyone to send in something to show the SoS the strength of feeling.
We continue to argue that the application should be refused on the key issues, many unique to this Application, of Landscape and Visual impact, Heritage, Airport safety, flood risk, tree damage, loss of Green Belt, of good agricultural land and of wildlife habitats and we urge all of our supporters, wherever you live, to call for refusal with your own clear reasons backed up by personal local knowledge and factual evidence.
We also know that many of PVDP’s claims about “existing vegetation screening” are inaccurate or even completely wrong. If this is the case for your property please point it out in your response.
Get in touch with SBW (contact@stopbotleywest.com) if you want us to check what’s been said about your property or to check anything else..
If you live in Bladon, Church Hanborough or Long Hanborough, please object to the unnecessary 0Community Food Growing plots being foisted on these villages.
If you live in Cassington or Cumnor, please emphasise the flood risk - there’s no change in PVDP’s strategy or mitigation.
If you live in Bladon, Begbroke or Woodstock continue to raise concerns over Airport Safety.
------------DEADLINE IS 23.59 on 16 July 2026------------
Send in your responses to the Secretary of State by Email to: BotleyWestSolar@planninginspectorate.gov.uk
Send in your responses to the Secretary of State by Email to: BotleyWestSolar@planninginspectorate.gov.uk
DaysDays
HrsHours
MinsMinutes
SecsSeconds
The Applicant (PVDP) sent a letter to the Secretary of State (SoS) requesting an extension of nearly 4 months to complete the work required to answer the 70+ questions asked by the SoS in April.
The SoS replied and refused any extension, giving PVDP just one more day to submit what they could by the original deadline of 9 June.
This appeared on the Government Inspectorate website on 10 June.
Botley West Solar Farm
Project information
Latest update - 10 June 2026
The Secretary of State received a request (PDF, 155KB) dated 22 May 2026 from the Applicant to extend the Request for Further Information deadline from 9 June to 25 September 2026.
The Secretary of State issued a letter (PDF, 136KB) on 8 June 2026 to the Applicant refusing this extension request.
This is a very interesting development and not good news for PVDP!
Click the links to read the letters in full.
The answers that PVDP have managed to submit by the original deadline of 9 June will be published soon and we will send another mailer when this happens.
Watch out for the next exciting installment - and get ready to send your responses!
WHAT YOU CAN DO - AFTER 9 June

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