My 2nd letter with "Comments" (read between the lines: more objections to the Solar Farm Proposal) - Open Letter
Dear Sir/Madam,
Due to repeated technical errors on the Council’s planning portal, I have experienced great difficulty uploading these additional comments. I respectfully request that this letter be added to the public record and considered as part of the consultation process. It feels deeply undemocratic to be prevented from contributing additional comments to a planning application that continues to evolve and affect our community.
I previously submitted an objection to this proposal in its earlier form. However, new evidence has since emerged—including aviation safety risks, archaeological findings, and ecological concerns—which I believe warrant further scrutiny.
I write with further concerns regarding the proposal to develop a 75-hectare industrial-scale solar farm on Grade 2a and Grade 3 agricultural land. While renewable energy is vital for achieving net-zero, converting productive farmland threatens food security, public health, environmental integrity, and cultural heritage.
The UK’s versatile farmland is a finite national asset. With nearly 46% of our food imported, we are increasingly vulnerable to global market volatility, climate shocks, and geopolitical disruption—a fragility exposed during the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Removing 75 hectares from cultivation could deprive us of locally grown food.
Restoring soil fertility post-lease may take decades and cost hundreds of thousands of pounds in grading, drainage correction, liming, and organic matter restoration—liabilities not borne by developers, but by landowners and taxpayers.
Worldwide, communities have voiced health and safety concerns when solar farms encroach on residential areas. In New Zealand, residents near a proposed 13-hectare solar farm lamented that panels sited within 100 metres of homes would “ruin [their] rural outlook” and reduce wellbeing due to noise and traffic impacts.
Rather than sacrificing fertile fields, good-practice guidance from CPRE and industry leaders recommends siting solar farms on commercial and industrial rooftops, decommissioned power stations, and closed landfill and brownfield sites.
Two examples of good practice include: Biffa’s proposal to cover the former Skelton Grange landfill (an area the size of 12 football pitches) with panels for a 25-year period, and SITA UK’s decision to grant British Solar Renewables rights to develop solar on capped landfill sites—preserving farmland for food production.
The proposed solar factory would also have a devastating impact on local wildlife. For thousands of years, deer and other roaming species have moved freely across the fields and woodlands of Oxfordshire. They do not read planning notices or follow diversion signs. Yet this development would introduce miles of fencing, cables, and reflective infrastructure that fragment habitats and block traditional migration routes. According to the UK Department of Energy, fencing around solar farms—often six feet high and impermeable—can trap or exclude larger mammals, preventing access to water, food, and shelter. Studies show that solar panels can also mislead birds and bats by mimicking water surfaces, disrupting migration and foraging patterns through a phenomenon known as polarized light pollution. These animals cannot speak for themselves—but we can. Vast solar farms on this scale are not a symbol of green progress, but of ecological displacement. If this proposal proceeds, it will uproot wildlife, sever habitat corridors, and force animals into unfamiliar terrain—often with fatal consequences. There are better places to install solar panels, including alongside motorways, on car parks, and on warehouse roofs. If other countries can manage this balance, so can we.
Large solar installations require land clearance and compaction, altering drainage and increasing erosion. Panels contain toxic substances such as cadmium telluride, lead solder, and arsenic, which can leach into soil and groundwater if damaged or improperly disposed of. France’s Rosi Solar has pioneered recycling of 3,000 tonnes annually, but no scalable global system exists to process the millions of tonnes of PV waste expected by 2030. How does the Solar Farm developer propose to dispose of damaged or end-of-life panels? Crossing fingers is not an effective strategy.
The presence of heavy metals beneath arrays also raises food-chain concerns. Who will want to eat lamb potentially tainted by cadmium or lead from grazing beneath damaged panels?
Long-term ecotoxicology studies are scarce, yet the risk of biomagnification cannot be dismissed.
Solar farms also irreversibly alter cultural landscapes. In New Zealand, over 300 residents petitioned against the loss of historic views at Ardmore. In our Village, recent excavations by the Archaeology team tasked to provide the archaeological exploration for the proposed site uncovered Roman-period inhumation burials, trackways, and enclosure systems, alongside Saxon pottery and medieval settlement remains. These findings suggest a far more complex occupation than previously acknowledged. The presence of human burials alone warrants deeper scrutiny under Historic England’s guidance. To dismiss these findings would risk erasing a vital chapter of our village's heritage beneath industrial infrastructure.
Finally, the site’s proximity to the local airfield raises serious aviation safety concerns. According to the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s CAST Safeguarding Guidance, solar panels can produce intense specular reflections (known as glint and glare) that impair pilot vision during critical phases of flight. A glint and glare study commissioned for the proposed site predicts “yellow glare” with potential for temporary after-image affecting aircraft on approach and departure. While mitigation measures have been suggested, no 30˚ safety zone has been incorporated for take-off manoeuvres, and the absence of a designated EFATO (Engine Failure After Take-Off) safeguarding corridor raises further safety questions. Given the airfield’s continued use for recreational flying and training, these risks must be taken seriously.
This ill-conceived scheme appears to benefit the landowner and offers limited gain for our local town, with no benefit to the surrounding rural villages. If this were to go ahead, the damage to landscape, food security, and community wellbeing would be profound.
Computers and AI may thrive on electricity. Living beings — people, animals, soils, and biodiversity — cannot.
By the time toxic metals are removed and the land restored at the end of the lease period, our quest for net-zero will have sacrificed the heart of our rural communities and the fields that feed us.
Yours faithfully.
_____________________________________
An Ode to disappearing rural England:
Let the air, the trees, the animals, the birds, the fields, and human life know in the future how we stood for them.
Not with banners or noise, but with words rooted in care, clarity, and truth.
Let it be known that when the land was threatened, we spoke, not for ourselves alone, but for all who cannot speak.
And may those who come after feel the echo of that stand in the soil beneath their feet.
Buried in bureaucracy, this letter remains: a trace of resistance, a whisper of care.
When the fields are gone and the files are dust, let it be known: we did not consent.