As you will know if you attended in person or observed online, the Applicant had a hard time of it at the Hearings!
The Examiners clearly showed increasing frustration with the Applicant’s answers - at one point declaring themselves to be “very disappointed”.
SBW’s barrister, Hashi Mohammed was present (supported by our experts Sara Boland on Visual & Landscape and Hannah Hamilton-Rutter on Heritage). Hashi was very impressive and provided excellent counter arguments to the Applicant’s attempts to justify their actions (or, in many cases, inaction!).
Recordings and transcripts from the hearings are available on the PINS website here
Part 4 of the Issue Specific Hearing is especially worth watching! - here
Since the hearings closed, the Examiners have issued a list of action points that need to be addressed and a highly critical “Rule 17” letter to the Applicant requiring them to complete a long list of further questions and overdue tasks by 20 October which they will find very challenging.
Here’s an especially damning quote from that letter:
“This comes across as being very dismissive of anyone’s view but your own. Given that the view on residual effects is shared by the Host Authorities, Historic England and many of the Interested Parties (IP’s). The ExA find it extraordinary that you have just repeated your approach and methodology, when this has been questioned on numerous occasions both in writing and in the previous hearings. Many of the IP’s as well as the host authorities and Historic England have made valid professional judgements that should be considered as such. Please could you explain why you still consider your approach to be correct and everyone else’s approach to simply be subjective opinions that would not materially affect your assessments?”
Here’s a link to the letter in full.
It was a very good week for SBW!
STOP PRESS!
Please comment on these questions in your final representation.
If you have already submitted this, you can still send in a brief extra statement of support for these questions by 10 Nov 2025
Written Parliamentary Questions tabled by Calum Miller, MP for Bicester and Woodstock on November 5, 2025, and due for answer by November 12.
Thank you to the many hundreds of you who have seriously engaged with the Examination, sending in many well argued and evidential submissions on a wide range of issues about which you are justifiably concerned.
We are delighted that the Examiners (ExA) have listened to all of us and have not spared their words in criticising the Applicant (PVDP) for their many shortcomings. We hope that they will recommend that the DCO is NOT granted and, because PVDP has failed to provide sufficient evidence, that SoS Ed Miliband cannot be confident of deciding in their favour either.
A key point, made by SBW’s barrister, Hashi Mohammed at the Open Hearing is that PVDP’s whole attitude makes a mockery of the Planning system by failing to respond in a timely manner to or, in some cases completely ignoring, the Examiners’ questions or requirements. “This leaves a significant gap in the knowledge and data available on which the ExA is required to make a robust recommendation.”
As SoS Ed Miliband, said in an interview on the Laura Keunsberg programme on Sunday 19th October “There has to be a proper process that we follow” and “each project is decided on merit”. SBW argues that the proper process can’t be taken through to a decision when so much evidence is still missing. See paragraphs 48 to end of the latest SBW response
Your submission should make this point, that the Examiners cannot recommend the application be accepted when so much evidence is missing and the SoS should come to the same conclusion when considering the proposal on merit”.
Take a look at the summary of more KEY POINTS below to help you compose your statement.
Submit your statement using this link to “Have your say” on the PINS website.
Choose “Closing Statements from IPs”
or e-mail it to BotleyWestSolar@planninginspectorate.gov.uk
Don’t forget to send a copy of your final submission to your MP:
Calum Miller: calum.miller.mp@parliament.uk or
Layla Moran: layla.moran.mp@parliament.uk
The ExA proposes these requirements/restrictions.
These are all given “without prejudice to any recommendation the ExA makes” (ie ExA could still recommend the whole proposal is rejected)
Full text of ExA proposals and Applicant’s reponses for 3,4 and 5 here
There are still major disagreements and unanswered questions relating to these issues:
1.Reduction of panel area on Landscape grounds.
1.1 In their Rule 17 letter of 14/10/25 ExA asked: “Please can you explain why you were prepared to undertake the reductions in panel area that have been submitted in relation to the World Heritage Site (WHS) but are not prepared to give consideration to other areas that have been suggested by professional landscape architects and by the local authorities that have a deep understanding of their local area?
1.2 The Applicant’s very long answer concludes “Applicant is satisfied, based on its professional opinion and in recognition of the mitigation secured for the Project, that the residual adverse effects are acceptable on balance of the substantial benefit to be achieved. The Applicant’s position is that this aligns with the national policy position.” (Applicant’s full response to point 9 here)
2. Width of Public Rights of Way (PRoW). The Applicant continues to insist that PRoW should be just 5m wide and that “narrow greenways are characteristic in the area”. ExA states that “it has been indicated by several IP’s, and confirmed through the ExA’s own site visits, that these instances are the exception and not the rule”. ExA ask why Applicant hasn’t responded to OCC’s call for full 15m corridor between hedges.
3. 66+ trenches with significant archaeological features and deposits have been identified in the only just published archaeological report. Nearly half of these have NO buffer. ExA asks whether buffers should be increased/added.
4. Risk relating to Flood, Storm Damage and Airport Safety - reports missing
5. Purpose and location of “Community” food growing areas - answer avoided. Deliberate blurring of what “Community” means and misleading statements about “consultation” (point 3 in ExA rule 17 letter)
6. Setting of Heritage Assets. Only WHS Blenheim Palace has been considered (and this only to an absolute minimum). Unique prominent listed churches and houses ignored.
7. Loss of best and most versatile land for food production. Applicant’s insistence that land is “poor” due to farming methods contradicted by tenant farmers and soil surveys.
8. Information on the funding for this project is still very sketchy and certainly not “normal” as PVDP claims.
Reference documents:
Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) part 1
Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) part 2
We’ve now passed the final round of public hearings on the Botley West Solar Farm application, led by the Planning Inspectorate. With just weeks left in the examination stage of the process, we still need to raise further funds to ensure our expert team, including our Planning Barrister, Hashi Mohamed, and our Planning Consultants can continue their crucial work - which will be needed even after the examination stage ends.
Thanks to your incredible support so far, we’ve been able to produce over 18 detailed, well-researched submissions and expert responses at every examination deadline. You may have seen Hashi Mohamed, along with our landscape expert Sara Boland and heritage specialist Hannah Hamilton-Rutter, powerfully representing our community during the most recent hearings.
Their expertise, and the high standard of professional representation that sets us apart is only possible because of your donations.
We’ve also started gaining national attention. The recent Observer article, “Heated debate: why Churchill’s birthplace lies at the heart of UK solar battle,” featured our barrister, Hashi Mohamed and shone a spotlight on our campaign.
So please donate today. Every gift, large or small, makes a real difference and helps us continue to stand up for our community.

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