Registration Comments Cassington Parish Council
1.0 Landscape
Cassington Parish lies in West Oxfordshire alongside the river Evenlode to the west and to the north of the river Thames. It comprises at least two ancient villages (Cassington and Worton) as well as a number of outlying farms (Purwell Farm, Burleigh Farm and Rectory Farm) including a farm converted to residential purposes (Jericho Barns). Most of the Parish comprises agricultural fields bordered by hedgerows with a few patches of ancient forest. The area is part of the National Character Area of the Upper Thames Clay Vales and the Local Character Area of Eynsham Vale. This area is described as having “an attractive and largely unspoilt, rural character but with some localised variations in quality and condition” (ES Volume 3 Appendix 8.1 Landscape Character Para 1.4.38). Overall, the parish is low-lying to the south and rises to the north in a series of hills forming the vales of the River Evenlode and smaller drainage streams.
The village of Cassington is of a relatively small size (~300 households) with a core area of stone-built 17th Century houses built around the village green forming, along with the 900-year-old, Grade 1-listed St Peter’s Church, the village Conservation Area. The village has expanded over time with more recent development infilling where old farms or farm buildings were present, as well as extending out along the Eynsham and Yarnton Roads. The village benefits from considerable “green infrastructure” including allotments, village green spaces, the sports and recreation grounds, and the surrounding countryside including a network of Public Rights of Way which provide for amenity and exercise for residents of the parish as well as corridors for green transport (see Cassington Parish Council 2022a). Most of the Parish lies in the City of Oxford’s Greenbelt. According to West Oxfordshire District Council: “This area [Cassington] is also within the Green Belt, which performs particularly well in this location in terms of protecting the historic character of settlements and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment” (Table 8.6 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 8 Chapter 8: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment [LVIA]).
The Central Section of the Botley West Solar Power Station development occupies about 50% of Cassington Parish. Not only will the development dominate the Parish in terms of area but because of the location of solar arrays on the slopes of the hills in the north of the Parish they will be visible over many kilometres of distance from multiple directions transforming what is now a chequerboard of open fields divided by hedgerows to an industrial / urban landscape. This issue is also identified by West Oxfordshire District Council (WODC) “WODC also suggest that development be restricted from land to the north of Cassington. Although the masterplan indicates that development would be set back from the edge of the settlement in this location, land rises steeply to the north of the settlement making any development in this location prominent and visually exposed” (Table 8.6 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 8 Chapter 8: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment [LVIA]). In addition, they recommended “removal of development areas from the visually exposed and prominent valley sides to the west of Lower Road and valley sides of the River Evenlode could minimise negative impacts of the proposal” (Table 8.6 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 8 Chapter 8: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment [LVIA]). Furthermore “WODC considers that much of the proposed development area is within a highly valued and high-quality landscape with limited capacity to accommodate significant change, particularly at the scale currently proposed.” (Table 8.6 Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 8 Chapter 8: Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment [LVIA]).
We also refer to a letter written to PVDP by ICOMOS dated 26th July 2024. In this letter, expert independent opinion is provided by Hal Moggridge OBE VMH PPLI FIHORT RIBA AADIP on the current proposal (ICOMOS, 2024). He states:
“Solar arrays are proposed far to close to Cassington Village. There should be wide open fields between the NW edge of the village and dense new hedges planted along the solar array boundary. Much of Bays 2.100, 2.102 and 2.110 should be excluded from consideration for development.”
The Bay numbers here refer to the original map of the scheme produced by PVDP November 2022. Hal Moggridge goes on further to say that blocks alongside both the eastern and western sides of the Evenlode Valley should also be removed from the proposed development (ICOMOS, 2024).
He concludes in general comments with respect to PVDP’s team that (ICOMOS, 2024):
“…there seems to be an absence of a named independent landscape consultant, to ensure that the interests of local people and this attractive landscape receive proper consideration.”
We agree with this statement and as detailed below point out the highly subjective assessment of landscape impacts in the Parish of Cassington and the consistent underestimation of impacts to conclude there are no significant adverse impacts likely after Year 1 of the project.
On the basis of our own assessment, that of WODC and other district councils, the county council and Mr Moggridge, we find that the mitigations proposed to prevent a significant impact on the landscape within and surrounding the Parish of Cassington are inadequate, that the assessment of visual impacts are subjective and underestimate how this project will transform the landscape of this naturally beautiful part of Oxfordshire, part of the setting to Blenheim Palace World Heritage Site and the City of Oxford and its historic colleges. We quote from Volume 1, Chapter 8 of the Environmental Statement that the NPPF (Para 36) requires that “plans should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and that strategic policies should provide for the conservation and enhancement of landscapes. This can include nationally and locally designated landscapes but also the wider countryside”. This proposal falls far short of this requirement by the NPPF and in fact has a severe and negative impact on the countryside of the Parish of Cassington and surrounding area. We specifically identify the following issues with the LVIA.
1.1 Viewpoints from private properties
Referring to Paragraphs 8.6.78 – 8.6.80 of the LVIA we point out that the 2.3m height of solar arrays is not low level and, furthermore, other associated infrastructure such as Converter Stations (up to 3m high) and Substations (up to 6m high) are much higher. Along the northern edge of Cassington, as well as at Jericho Barns and Purwell Farm and Burleigh Farm the proposed development will come to within 25m of the curtilage of properties. It is inconceivable that private views will not be substantially adversely affected especially when those views are of land rising to the north or northeast of the affected properties (Cassington Village, Jericho Barns), or where properties are surrounded by the development (Purwell Farm, Burleigh Farm). At present, residents of these properties enjoy open views of fields rising on hills as part of the Eynsham Vale / Upper Thames Clay Vale. This will be transformed into an industrial landscape of glass-covered fields, likely reflecting the sun at certain times of day. We are aware that up to 500 properties across the whole of the Botley West proposed site are similarly in close proximity to the development. It is very clear that an RVAA is required for this development.
1.2 Views from outdoor recreational facilities
The only specific outdoor recreational facility mentioned in terms of landscape impacts is Blenheim Palace Registered Park and Gardens (8.6.67). The LVIA then goes on to claim that “People involved in sports and other formal recreational activities at a rural location are considered to have a Medium sensitivity to the Project. This is because the focus of their attention is generally on the activity in question (e.g. football); appreciation of the surrounding environment is secondary” (8.6.68). This is then used to justify: “There is little potential for the proposed solar arrays and / or substation to visually affect the above resources in a significant way and therefore they have not been taken forward for detailed assessment” (8.6.69). We point out that our own recreational fields abut directly to the proposed development. Yes, they are used for outdoor sports (football, hockey, tennis and cricket) but they are also used regularly by walkers and have an outdoor gym and play equipment. The location is also used for celebrations over the spring and summertime as well as major events such as Cassington Bike Night, the biggest annual fundraising event in the village calendar. Therefore, there is likely to be a significant loss in amenity value of the Village Sports and Recreational Grounds and the benefits of using such outdoor space. We view it as an error of judgement that such impacts have been excluded.
1.3 Footpaths
The LVIA has taken an approach of identifying specific footpaths and then using photographs from specific viewpoints to assess the impact of the proposal through both construction and operational phases. We note that of 55 recommended Viewpoints only 31 have been completed (mentioned in numerous places in Volume 1, Chapter 8 of the ES). It would seem that the Cassington Neighbourhood Plan was not examined in detail as several important footpaths used by our residents were not included. Specifically, footpath 152/8/10 was not included, a Public Right of Way which will be severely impacted by this proposal because not only will it be surrounded by solar panels through part of its length but also the distant views of the hill on which Purwell Farm is located and through to the Evenlode Valley will be transformed by solar panels. This footpath is used for leisure purposes and provides a local route for movement by foot or bicycle between Cassington, Begbroke and Yarnton.
The most heavily used footpath from Cassington is 152/6/10, known locally as The Track. This is covered by Viewpoints 37a,b, 38, 39. During the construction phase it is concluded that impacts on Public Rights of Way will not be significant (ES Vol. 1 Chap. 8 Para 8.9.28). Footpath 152/6 /10 has open views in places looking south all the way across to Cassington Village, Wytham Woods and Oxford City itself. These are not short views but in fact cover distances of ~5km or more. Furthermore, this footpath will be adjacent to the proposed development on either side. We point out that landscape is not just visual but also includes the soundscape which presents a rural environment of tranquillity and natural sounds. Both the visual presence of construction equipment, workers and the activities of pile-driving and construction will undoubtedly result in highly significant adverse impacts. The conclusion of the ES (Vol. 1, Chap 8) is simply not credible (see also descriptions of Viewpoints 8.9.80 – 8.9.83).
Likewise for the Operational Phase of the Botley West Solar Power Station an almost identical statement is made in ES Vol. 1 Chap. 8 Para. 8.9.125 and 8.9.126. This is corroborated by examination of the individual footpaths, again, most notably The Track (footpath 152/6/10) in Paras. 8.9.223 to 8.9.226. These paragraphs are contradictory as 8.9.125 states that impacts would only be “moderate” when, as can be seen from 8.9.223 and 8.9.225 they are potentially “major”. Secondly, in both cases it is claimed that mitigation in the form of planting will reduce impacts to minor or moderate adverse. We find it highly doubtful that this will reduce the visual impact of the development but also, that the mitigation proposed, the planting of hedging along PRoW 152/6/10 will significantly restrict the currently open views of the countryside from the footpath. Whether or not such mitigation is effective at hiding the solar panels is irrelevant if the view of the surrounding countryside is destroyed. Again, we do not find the assessment of impacts, especially at 15 years, credible or the proposed mitigation. These criticisms extend to other Public Rights of way used by our parishioners including footpath 206/11 (Eynsham Mill) and 238/5 (to Church Hanborough) as well as others in the local area.
1.4 Views from the Surrounding Road Network
Central Site
Considering 8.9.37 to 8.9.40 we point out that at present, local road users and transient road users enjoy a largely rural aspect whilst using the parts of the A40, A44, A4095 and Cassington (known locally as the Burleigh Road) and the Low Road. This adds to the overall feeling of a rural environment valued by our residents and why this part of Oxfordshire is seen as desirable as a place to live. As with the analysis of footpaths / landscape we find this assessment of visual impacts from these roads underestimated. Open views from both the Low Road and Cassington Road will be severely harmed by this development. The sides of the beautiful Evenlode Valley will be largely obliterated by solar panels. The views of open fields lying to the west and east of the Cassington Road, including the views up to the edge of Bladon Heath and Burleigh Wood will likewise be destroyed. The Central Section of the Solar Power Station will likewise impact on views from the A44, a main route to Blenheim Estate WHS and will impinge on that of the A40. Overall, the impacts on local residents using these roads will be considerable because of the conversion of this open countryside to an urban landscape. It will lead to a grievous sense of loss to our residents and overall, a large-scale downgrading of the rural landscape of the area.
1.5 Summary of Landscape Impacts
PVDP summarise their findings on landscape impacts in section 8.14 Summary of Effects, mitigation measures and monitoring. We contend that the conclusions that “No significant effects are predicted during construction, operation and maintenance or decommissioning of the Botley West Project on landscape character areas within the 5 km study area” are made on the basis of a subjective study where decisions have been made during the assessment to bias conclusions that the scheme will have no impacts on landscape. As reflected by the comments of local governing bodies and an independent expert landscape consultant and based on our own local knowledge of the area, the Central Section of this proposal can have nothing but a serious and significant impact on the landscape of the Parish of Cassington, by virtue of its scale, its unsympathetic and ill-considered distribution on sensitive landscape and lack of consideration to residents, their use of amenities and the overwhelming visual impact this scheme will have as they go about their general activities, such as commuting to work, travelling for leisure or shopping or otherwise. One example of this has been the finding of moderate adverse impacts on many of the footpaths but then the downgrading of this to non-significant in further consideration. If the entire footpath network in the Cassington area is moderately impacted (and some of it is “major”) then this must cumulatively add up to a significant adverse effect. This biased judgement has arisen through the lack of an independent landscape consultant having input to the landscape assessment by PVDP as indicated by Mr Moggridge.
2.0 Flooding
As identified in the ES Volume 3 Appendix: Surface Water Modelling Report, as well as other chapters relating to flooding and drainage, Cassington has suffered from flooding in 2007 (West Oxfordshire District Council, 2008). Subsequently, Cassington flooded again in September 2024 (Cassington Parish Council, 2024a). The two events were similar in that they both followed periods of intensive rainfall and both effected properties on Elm’s Road. As correctly identified in the Surface Water Modelling Report, this flooding was pluvial, resulting from runoff into a natural drainage feature from the high ground to the north of the village to low ground underlain by Oxford Clay, a soil known for poor drainage characteristics. Both Jericho Farm and Worton are also threatened by flooding with the latter often having its main entrance road flooded.
Mitigation for flooding at Cassington has been specifically planned on the basis of the Surface Water Modelling Report and is proposed as a combination of shallow ponds, bunds and ditch widening to the north / northwest of the village (see Section 6.5 of the Surface Water Modelling Report). However, this modelling, and indeed the overall design of the Drainage Strategy is predicated on the contention that the Solar Arrays of this scheme will not add to the rate of water runoff from the land on which they are positioned. In Paragraph 3.13 of the Environmental Statement Volume 3, Appendix 10.2 it is stated:
“Modelling work undertaken by Cook and McCuen (2013) shows that solar panels themselves do not have a significant effect on runoff volumes, peak flows or times to peak. However, where design decisions or lack of maintenance lead to bare ground then the peak discharge may increase requiring storm water management.”
The Drainage Strategy document goes on to state that peer-reviewed literature concluding that solar panels do lead to increased runoff cited by Cassington Parish Council (Cassington Parish Council 2022b, 2023, 2024b) are not relevant to the current development because the studies were mainly conducted in arid or semi-arid environments (see 4.17 – 4.19, Environmental Statement Volume 3, Appendix 10.2). These papers included Pisinaras et al. (2014) and Yavari et al. (2022).
Pluvial flood risk has been identified as a critical issue for the Botley West Solar Power Station proposal by Clive Carpenter, GWP Consultants, Charlbury, Oxfordshire, an independent expert in Hydrogeology and Groundwater Resources with more than 30 years of post-graduate experience in water management and impact assessment projects in the UK and overseas, including technical leadership of flood risk assessments and flood alleviation strategies (Carpenter, 2024). In his preliminary assessment of the PEIR with respect to flood related matters for the Community Group, Stop Botley West, he specifically addresses recent evidence related to runoff from solar panels and states:
“More recent research in this technical area however provides consistent conclusions that solar panels increase peak run-off, increase total flows and increase erosion compared to the pre-development situation. This more recent research is considered to better represent the micro-hydrology of, and the inter-relationship between, the solar panels, the below-panel shaded vegetation and the inter-panel access corridors.”
He cites three more recent peer-reviewed scientific studies in support of his statement: Gullotta et al. (2023), Galzki et al (2024) and Liu et al (2023).
Mr Carpenter identifies that the consequence for the Applicant is that they will need to manage (capture, store and slowly release) the storm water rainfall run-off from nearly all 1,100 hectares of the development as opposed to the few hectares they are proposing (e.g. associated with substations), an underestimation of surface water flood risk by almost 3 orders of magnitude. Mr Carpenter identifies that surface water management of this scale will require significant use of land with implications for the design of the scheme. Although some precautionary design measures for the solar arrays are included in the Drainage Strategy (see Drainage Strategy 4.3.6 – 4.3.15) these are predicated on the assumption that solar panels do not increase runoff.
Cassington Parish Council has written to West Oxfordshire District Council (Cassington Parish Council 2024c) requesting that the solar arrays on the hills above Cassington and Worton / Jericho Barns are removed from the Scheme. We believe that despite the measures proposed by PVDP in the Surface Water Modelling Report, failure to adequately account for increased runoff from solar arrays represents an increased risk of flooding for our village as well as for Jericho Barns and Worton. This problem may affect a much wider area than this as heavy rain in November 2024 demonstrated that both the A40 between Cassington and Eynsham, and the A4095, between Bladon and Long Hanborough (near the Junction with Low Road) are also vulnerable to flooding. These are major transport routes through the area. We note that no modelling of flood risk has been undertaken for areas other than Cassington and therefore no additional measures proposed to mitigate increased rates of runoff from Botley West Solar Farm on these areas.
2.1 Land drainage
A letter from a Rural Business Management Consultant, Roderick Craig, on the 29th January 2024 to the Cassington Parish Councillor, Alex Rogers, is particularly pertinent to questions around flooding risk (Craig, 2024). Mr Craig was involved in management of the Blenheim Estates land in question from 1978 to 2001 and he has acted as a consultant for the farmers of the land until 2022. Mr Craig points out that “A lot of the land is under drained at 22-yard intervals all of which will be severely compromised during construction. This will change water flow and certainly increase surface run off from untapped springs.” Field drainage is necessary in the areas south of Bladon and in Purwell Farm because of the presence of heavy, poorly draining clays in the area.
The matter of field drainage is dealt with in Sections 10.9.99 to 10.9.125. There is a statement here that field drainage will be restored following installation or avoided but it is unclear whether this refers to surface drainage structures (e.g. ditches) or to undersurface drainage. Elsewhere in the document, specific locations are mentioned but land drainage is stated not to exist. We believe that this matter has not been dealt with by RPS in consideration of the effects of construction. Sinking up to over a million piles up to 3m deep will undoubtedly disrupt and possibly destroy under drains to the agricultural fields of the area and again, pose an increased risk of flooding. These drains are typically 0.7m below the soil surface and are emplaced in soil using a trenching tool deployed behind a tractor (AHDB, 2018). It is not obvious how such equipment could be deployed in the Solar Farm after construction to replace damaged drainage.
Mr Craig goes on to describe his concerns that the increased runoff and destruction of subsurface drainage could pose an increased flood risk in all of the catchments effected by the Botley West development and potentially further on down the Thames.
2.3 Soil Compaction
A study for the Welsh Government has identified soil compaction as a significant issue with the building of solar farms (ADAS, 2023). Compaction of the soil will result from vehicle movements, earthworks and the extensive pile driving of piles for mounting solar arrays into the land on which the Solar Power Station will be constructed. The only mitigation against compaction which is mentioned in the Conceptual Drainage Strategy relates to the use of geotextile underlays for maintenance tracks to prevent compaction during operational maintenance. There is no mention of soil compaction in the Conceptual Drainage Strategy with respect to pile driving and construction. Land in the Central Section of the Botley West Solar Power Station may be particularly vulnerable to soil compaction because of high moisture content resulting from the presence of subsurface clay (ADAS, 2023). Soil compaction damages soil structure, perhaps permanently in some cases (ADAS, 2023) and furthermore, may decrease the ability of the land to absorb water and increase rates of runoff.
2.4 Lack of infiltration testing
There is no evidence of soil infiltration testing in the ES and indeed in one section (4.4.1 of the ES Volume 3 Appendix 10.2 Conceptual Drainage Strategy) it is claimed it is not needed. On examination of the PEIR Mr Carpenter concluded that this lack of infiltration testing was a critical issue and without it viability of proposed drainage schemes could not be demonstrated. Given the same flaws exist in the PEIR and the ES (i.e. lack of consideration of increased runoff from solar panels and the lack of infiltration testing) this issue remains in the proposed project. We ask, how can the Applicant be confident that flood mitigation and drainage plans are effective without infiltration testing.
2.5 Routing of water entering the site
The site has at least 10 Ordinary Watercourses passing through the development land parcels and numerous more ancillary drainage routes (Carpenter, 2024). This runoff increases the amount of water that captured and managed associated with the site (Carpenter, 2024). There is no evidence that PVDP or their consultants have considered this water in their Conceptual Drainage Strategy largely because they assume there is no additional flood risk arising from the presence of the solar panels. Such an omission increases the risk of flooding to vulnerable locations such as Cassington, Jericho Barns, Worton, the A40 and the A4095.
2.6 Construction runoff
Construction phase surface water management requires the clarification of run-off water to reduce the inevitable increases in turbidity (sediment) that occurs during the construction period (Carpenter, 2024). Such clarification places further constraints on run-off management, necessitating further land take for settlement ponds and/or larger attenuation basins to restrict flows to low rates to enable the use of turbidity settlement units (Carpenter, 2024). Clearly for this development with dozens of micro-catchments flowing off hillslopes, this will necessitate dozens of construction phase retention basins and treatment facilities (Carpenter, 2024). There is no evidence to demonstrate that these issues have been adequately evaluated to confirm the construction of up to more than 2 million solar panels in a 1,100ha area is feasible (Carpenter, 2024).
3.0 Buffer Zone
PVDP have publicly made the point that they have increased the buffer zone of the Botley West Solar Power Station from 20m to 25m in response to comments in the consultations. This barely perceptible increase in buffer zones from the solar farm to the boundaries of properties lying immediately adjacent to the Solar Power Station is inadequate. Whilst data on buffer zones is often not available for solar farm developments an examination of other projects in the U.K. shows that 25m is below what other developers consider a reasonable distance. These include:
- Chimmens Solar Farm, Kent (https://www.chimmens-solarfarm.co.uk/faq/ ) Buffer zone of 100m.
- Ship Meadow, Suffolk (https://www.shipmeadow-solarfarm.co.uk/ ) Solar Panels 100m from residential properties, Inverters, 200m.
- Cottam Solar Farm, Lincolnshire (https://www.cottamsolar.co.uk/ ) Buffer zone of 50m to properties.
Evidence of what occurs in other countries is also hard to come by but one example of information provided by a US solar company, Go Solar Florida (https://gosolarfloridastate.org/ ) recommends a buffer zone of 500m from residential property for large solar and 200m for small projects. Examination of the academic literature related to planning of solar farms both in the U.K. and in Europe indicates that they also use a standard buffer distance from residential property or towns and villages of 500m (e.g. Castillo et al., 2016; Palmer et al., 2019). The reasoning for this given in Castillo et al. (2016) is:
“In terms of populated areas, the appropriated site for the solar farm should consider a buffer distance in order to avoid most direct impacts and resistance of the local communities (Turney and Fthenakis, 2011; Tsoutsos et al., 2005, Janke, 2010). In this sense, locations at distances greater than 500m from cities/residential areas (more than 1 inhab/ha) were considered more suitable for PV system installations.”
We believe the proposed buffer zone of 25m is far too narrow where the Botley West Solar Power Station abuts villages and residential properties. This is not the sole view of Cassington Parish Council and the residents of Cassington and Jericho Barns but is also supported by the opinion of an independent landscape expert Hal Moggridge, as pointed out above. We view 25m as an inadequate buffer because of the visually intrusive nature and scale of the proposal on views of the landscape currently enjoyed by residents of properties adjacent to the proposed development. It is also intrusive to the residents of Cassington Village and Jericho Barns going about their business and amenity activities in the area. Sound and other activities during construction and operation will also be a source of disturbance inadequately mitigated by the narrow buffer zone
A further concern is safety. Cassington and the surrounding area have been subject to Strong to Severe tornados in both 2012 and 2021. The most recent event, 31st October 2021, saw a Moderate to Strong tornado (T3 strength) pass through the village of Cassington causing significant damage to trees and properties in the village (Horton 2021a). A notable feature of this tornado was the projection of heavy debris over distances of 40m from their site of origin. On the same day a Severe tornado (T4 strength) originating in the vicinity of Church Hanborough moved through Burleigh Wood doing significant damage resulting in damage to trees or their complete felling (Horton et al., 2021b). Given the occurrence of two such events in the space of less than 10 years it is reasonable to consider such extreme weather events as possibly occurring on a decadal timescale. This frequency may increase as a result of climate change driving more severe weather events in the U.K. We believe that the area may be prone to such extreme weather events because of the topography. The Thames River Valley may act to funnel wind as a result of high ground to the south and north. Given the evident damage to the Porth Wen solar farm in Anglesey as a result of Strom Darragh in December 2024 it is apparent that solar arrays are vulnerable to catastrophic damage from high wind events. Were such an event as struck Cassington or Burleigh Wood in October 2021 be repeated following construction of the Botley West Solar Power Station as proposed, substantial damage to the installation might be expected resulting in the destruction of solar panels. Given the evidence presented above (Horton, 2021a,b), glass and other debris from the solar arrays might be projected hundreds of meters posing a threat of injury or death to our residents. A buffer zone of 25m is inadequate to protect people during such an event. We would also view the potential event of fire during summer, when the vegetation below solar arrays is dry, as a further risk inadequately mitigated by a buffer zone of 25m.
4.0 Greenbelt
As stated in the Environmental Statement, Document 7.1 69% of The Botley West Solar Power Station is located on Green Belt Land, including most of the Central Site and all of the Southern Site. The Applicant makes the case that harm to the Greenbelt and its purposes are limited (e.g. Other Documents 7.1 Para 8.4.32). The applicant further justifies this by referring to the limited lifetime of the project (Other Documents 7.1 Para 8.3.16). The Applicant also claims that the requirement for Very Special Circumstances are met by the priority need for accelerated renewable energy development to reach the Government Target of 70GW by 2035 set out in the document Powering Up Britain Energy Security Plan, 2023 (Other Documents 7.1 Para 2.2.3).
We dispute the Applicants claims of the limited impact on openness and the largely rural aspect of the Greenbelt effected by this development. This is based on the evident visual impact of the proposed solar arrays and other infrastructure as laid out in Sections 1.0 – 1.5 of this Representation as well as the overwhelming size of the development. Claims that the impacts on Greenbelt would be “limited” represent a gross underestimate of the visual impacts of this development on a high-quality landscape with a high level of sensitivity to such development. As we have also pointed out, mitigation measures designed to prevent people who use this landscape from seeing the development will, if effective, also destroy the openness of the landscape by virtue of obscuring it from, for example, villages and Public Rights of Way. The claim that such impacts are temporary depend very much on perspective. For many of the residents of the Parish of Cassington and over the wider areas of the project who are in middle age or elderly, this development will be permanent.
The Very Special Circumstances (VSC) used as the main justification for the development of Botley West can be called into question on two grounds. The first is on the question of alternatives. Whilst the applicant has largely justified the choice of development area at a national and regional scale, outlined in the Environmental Statement Vol. 1 Chapter 5, we believe there are alternatives at a local level that both avoid development on the Greenbelt as well as use land that is flatter and thus more amenable to mitigation measures to hide the development. For example, land to the north and west of the Northern Section, would appear to offer a flatter landscape. Given that the cable route already reaches this area to connect at the Cumnor Grid Connection, the distance would not seem to be a barrier. So why has such a large area of land take of Greenbelt been taken when other locations would appear to be available locally and in the hands of the main landowner, Blenheim Estates? We would like to see a clear presentation of what other local alternatives to this scheme were considered, if any, and why they were rejected.
The second area of consideration for VSC relates to the large number of solar project proposals that have now come forward for consideration by the National Energy System Operator (NESO). In their report Clean Power 2030 (NESO, 2024) they identify that a trebling of solar energy is required to increase current capacity of 15GW to 47GW by 2030. They conclude that the current connection queue has a greater volume of projects to 2030 than is required in renewable energy pathways, across the key technologies including solar. According to the Solar Power Portal, there is over 100GW of transmission connected projects with Grid in the UK (see: https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/breaking-down-the-solar-grid-connection-queue/ ). The implications of these statements, both from NESO itself and from the Solar Industry and Press are that there are a large number of project applications coming forward that will make attaining the national targets for solar straightforward. This means that the Government can afford to be more choosey about what schemes are accepted and at what size. We believe that such projects can no longer be given carte blanche on the basis of the renewable energy VSC and this should be reflected in assessment of the balance of this project compared to the obvious severe adverse impact on Oxford’s Greenbelt either as proposed or a reduced spatial scope from that currently proposed.
We do not consider VSCs 2-8 presented by the Applicant as relevant as they either do not represent very special considerations with respect to balancing take of the Greenbelt or are not relevant planning matters when considering Greenbelt impact (e.g. compensation payments or discounted electricity). We will, however, consider Biodiversity Net Gain below. We note that the Economic Benefits outlined in VSC 5 have not included the economic impacts on residents who live in households close to the proposed project in terms of loss of value of property. It is important that both positive and negative economic impacts are considered.
5.0 Agricultural Land
The Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 17 states that 36.4% of the land surveyed is Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land, that is of Grades 1, 2 and 3a and that 59% of the land, the majority of the rest, is Grade 3b (good to moderate productivity). It is estimated that this land, most of which is used for arable farming, produces about 10,839 tonnes of cereals per annum. (Environmental Statement Volume 1, Chapter 17). The Applicant suggests that only a small amount of agricultural land will permanently be lost, mainly where hard standing is placed for substations and other electrical infrastructure (~5.5ha) and that soil management practices, mainly around the construction bases for the project, where soil will need to be stripped back, will be used to maintain soil structure. It is also proposed to undertake conservation grazing of sheep on the land as a natural means to reduce overgrowth of vegetation and to improve soil condition by the input of sheep dung as a source of organic carbon.
Detailed examination of Annex C Outline Soil Management Plan (APP 233 7.6.1 – Outline Code of Construction Practice – Part 2) reveals that many of the activities around construction are likely to disturb the soil. For example, access tracks may need to have soil stripped back and ground compaction may take place in some areas where heavy vehicles may repeatedly run over the ground. In addition, the driving of piles into the ground will also likely compact the ground. There is no mention of destruction of land drainage, which may result in significant and long-term changes to soil structure and moisture content nor of changes to ground moisture content because of the cover provided by the solar arrays themselves. Ground compaction is a serious issue related to solar farm construction (ADAS, 2023). Furthermore, the presence of solar panels themselves can alter the microclimate of soils below and around solar arrays leading to changes in soil properties, including in the U.K. (e.g. Yavari et al., 2022). Outline practices for removal and replacement of soil during stripping operations and of “decompacting” soils are given in an Institute of Quarrying Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils in Mineral Workings in Annex C Outline Soil Management Plan. Soil decompaction methods are likely to disturb soil structure and, furthermore, may not be compatible with field drainage.
This adds up to the likelihood of unpredictable widespread disturbance and damage to soil structure during construction, operation and decommissioning of the Botley West Solar Power Station casting doubt on the contention that the vast majority of the land will be immediately returnable to arable agriculture on cessation of the project. We hope that these and other land management practices can be examined for more detail during the examination.
6.0 Biodiversity
Referring to the Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 9: Ecology and Nature Conservation (EN010147/APP/6.3) we note that Table 9.2.3 shows no reference to the Cassington Neighbourhood Plan. This plan contains sections on green infrastructure, biodiversity and restorative farming of adjacent land. Failure to include it in Table 9.2.3 is therefore an omission.
We note in Table 9.3.1 (EN010147/APP/6.3) that the applicant submitted the Scoping Report paragraph 5.4.6 stating that the land is considered to be a suitable location taking into account its location on low productivity arable land of low ecological value. This is demonstrably not the case when the Applicant’s own data presented in Environmental Statement Volume 1 Chapter 17 states that 36.4% of the land surveyed is Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land, and that 59% of the land, the majority of the rest, is Grade 3b (good to moderate productivity). Therefore, is the contention that this is suitable land for the development simply incorrect, and if so, surely this undermines one of the Applicants prime justifications for location of the development? We also contest the statement that the area has low ecological value, the justification of which is the Applicant’s own ecological studies which we will explore below.
Also, in Table 9.3.1 (EN010147/APP/6.3) we note our previous statement with respect to the existence of the Nature Recovery Network designations around Cassington. There is no response to this statement as to measures to take into account these elements of the Nature Restoration Network in the area. This is also noted by Natural England. We also note a lack of consideration of the Nature Restoration Network in 9.4.8 (EN010147/APP/6.3).
In Table 9.4.2 (EN010147/APP/6.3) the Applicant states “The Project will remain greenfield during construction with no significant change in the impermeable area across the site, as such, there will be no change in the hydrology regimes experienced by ecological receptors during construction.”
These statements are not true because during construction topsoils will be removed from construction site bases and also potentially from other areas of the proposed development (see flooding above). These activities, along with soil compression resulting from construction traffic will certainly alter the hydrology of the affected sites. Furthermore, on the basis of the evidence presented above on increased runoff from the solar panels and damage to undersurface drainage hydrology will be altered both during construction and operation. This matter therefore should not have been scoped out of the assessment.
6.1 Bats
We note that static bat detectors were deployed areas suitable for bat foraging and commuting such as woodland edges, hedgerows, and by rivers, as in the PEIR (9.4.28; EN010147/APP/6.3). However, bats also forage over arable land to a varying extent depending on species (e.g. Heim et al., 2017; Finch et al., 2020; Tinsley et al., 2022; Foxley et al., 2023; Szabadi et al., 2023) and furthermore there is evidence in the UK and elsewhere that the presence of solar arrays has a significant impact on bat numbers over open countryside (e.g. Montag et al., 2016; Tinsley et al., 2022; Szabadi et al., 2023) which for some species is severe. In 9.6.40 it is further stated: “The majority of the Project site is considered to be of limited value to bats because it comprises intensively managed agricultural fields.” Given the evidence in the references above, in our view this means that the survey methodology is flawed. This is a serious concern given the high number of bat species detected in the area (12) including the rare Annex II listed barbastelle and Bechstein’s bats (9.6.41; EN010147/APP/6.3). The diversity of bat species, especially within the Central Section of the proposed project, is likely a result of the mosaic of different habitats in the area including woodland, hedgerow, water bodies and open fields. So important is the bat assemblage in the area that the Applicant’s own ecological consultants have classified the area as of International Importance for bats (Table 9.6.4; EN010147/APP/6.3).
The consultants later conclude that the presence of the solar farm will have no significant impact on bat populations (EN010147/APP/6.3 Paras. 9.9.133 and 9.9.134). This is an erroneous conclusion given the very strong evidence, including from the U.K. that the presence of solar arrays has a significant impact on bat numbers over open countryside (e.g. Montag et al., 2016; Tinsley et al., 2022; Szabadi et al., 2023) which for some species is severe and for bat populations overall is serious. The reason for the negative impacts of solar arrays is currently unclear but may reflect reduced insect numbers over solar panels, a decreased efficiency of bat foraging or collision of bats with panels or a combination of several of these. We therefore conclude that the conclusion of “negligible impact” on bats reflects a lack of appreciation of recent peer-reviewed scientific literature on bats habitat use and the negative and, in some cases, severe impact of solar arrays on bats. This has led to the use of a flawed baseline survey methodology which has neglected to include the habitats on which the solar arrays will be placed. The conclusion of the Environmental Statement cannot be supported by recent literature or the methodology of assessment.
Our conclusion is that the proposed area for this project represents a very special mosaic of habitats creating a high diversity of bat species of international importance and that the construction of a large-scale solar farm would have a high risk, given recent findings on the impact of solar arrays on bats, of doing significant harm to multiple species severely compromising the abundance and biodiversity of bats in the area, especially the Central Section of Botley West Solar Power Station.
6.2 Birds
First, we note the contradiction that both Breeding Birds and Wintering Birds in the project area are considered as of County Importance in Table 9.6.4 (EN010147/APP/6.3) but are only considered of “Local Importance” for assessment of impact as this is mainly considering one species (the skylark). An example of this is in EN010147/APP/6.3 Para 9.9.91. This presents yet another example of deliberate “downgrading” of impacts in the Environmental Statement. In this case, the breeding bird assemblage is downgraded from of County Significance in Table 9.6.4 to “Local Interest” in 9.9.91. Of course, after this “downgrading of significance the loss of habitat for ground nesting species is considered as “low” (9.9.93 EN010147/APP/6.3). As we note below, the numbers of breeding skylark in the area surveyed was considerable (228 breeding pairs). This conclusion also fails to consider habitat connectivity and the importance of farming (see below).
In total 107 species of birds were observed during breeding bird surveys of which 61 were assessed to be breeding (9.6.55; EN010147/APP/6.3). Of these 33 species were considered to be of conservation interest including a number of farmland bird species (e.g. linnet, skylark and yellow hammer) which are all red listed (9.6.56 and Table 9.6.3; EN010147/APP/6.3). For skylarks 228 breeding pairs were identified in the second year of survey. For wintering birds 96 were observed of which 50 are of conservation interest (9.6.58). Of these 6 species were Annex I species (golden plover, kingfisher, little egret, merlin, peregrine, and red kite; 9.6.59 EN010147/APP/6.3) and 15 species were Red Listed (corn bunting, fieldfare, greenfinch, grey partridge, herring gull, house sparrow, lapwing, linnet, marsh tit, merlin, mistle thrush, skylark, starling, woodcock, and yellowhammer; 9.6.60 EN010147/APP/6.3).
We note that the only breeding birds considered to be affected by the loss of arable land are ground nesting birds, most notably skylarks. The ES states that the majority of nesting birds will not be affected because they nest in habitats avoided by the development, such as trees and hedgerows (see 9.9.91 EN010147/APP/6.3 above). This, however, completely ignores the connectivity between habitats used by many farmland birds that rely on a mosaic of hedges, trees and farmed arable land to meet the requirements of their lifecycles (e.g. yellow hammer). It again is reflective of the broader erroneous approach of the ES in excluding connectivity between habitats. Many of these farmland birds are in decline nationally and will likely be significantly impacted by this development. A “low” level of impact or “no change” (9.9.333 EN010147/APP/6.3) for the breeding bird assemblage is therefore considered to be an erroneous conclusion of the ecology impact assessments. It is simply not credible that hundreds of hectares of arable cropped land is replaced with solar arrays and grazed grassland and there be no impact on farmland birds. Compensation with 36 ha of wild grassland over archaeological sites (Table 9.8.1 EN010147/APP/6.3) is not a credible replacement for the farmed land.
The Outline Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (EN010147/APP/7.6.3) states that it is intended that approximately double the number of 5m x 5m skylark plots will be created as territories lost (228 territories = 456 plots). We note these are placed to provide foraging for skylarks during the breeding period, not breeding territory. An industry sponsored study of the effects of solar power stations on biodiversity concluded that skylarks do not nest under solar arrays (Montag et al., 2016). At present, all scientific evidence relating to the effectiveness of skylark plots refers to their use on arable farmland (as AB4: Skylark Plots is intended for, not solar farms) and so is not relevant to use on solar farms (e.g. Dillon et al., 2009; Dicks et al., 2014). Even on agricultural land there is evidence that such plots may be subject to high rates of predation, specifically where they are located near field boundaries (Morris and Gilroy, 2008). Evidence from the use of bird plots on other solar schemes is not encouraging. For example, Gwent Wildlife Trust in a letter to the Minister for Climate Change detail that bird mitigation plots for lapwing had failed and no nesting lapwings were observed on plots and numbers of the birds had decline in the area along with disappearance of cranes which had only just recolonised the area (Gwent Wildlife Trusts 2022). Overall, there is reason to be highly sceptical about the potential for skylark plots to compensate for the enormous loss of breeding territories on the Botley West Solar Power Station. No evidence is presented of their effectiveness in the ES and no comparison of this as a skylark conservation measure is given with respect to other conservation strategies.
We also note that it is explicitly stated that herbicides may be used on skylark plots in 11.6.4 (EN010147/APP/7.6.3). It is clearly stated elsewhere in the ES that no pesticides or herbicides will be used in maintenance of grasslands in the solar arrays. This would therefore seem to be a contradiction.
6.3 Other Species
6.3.1 Brown Hare and Hedgehogs
Hares have been in decline in the U.K. since the 1960s and are now designated as a priority species of conservation concern as well as being listed as protected under Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Reynolds et al., 2010). The reasons for decline are various but evidence suggests persecution, changes in agricultural practices leading to a decline in crop diversity and also the impacts of predators, most notably foxes (Hutchings and Harris, 1996; Reynolds et al., 2010; Sliwinski et al., 2019). Scientific evidence suggests that arable fields are important to hares as the prime habitat for foraging and breeding (Hutchings and Harris, 1996; Reynolds et al., 2010; Sliwinski et al., 2019). It is therefore likely that the Botley West Solar Power Station will have a significant and negative impact on this species. This is not just because of taking farmland out of production but also because grassland can be an unfavourable habitat (Hutchings and Harris, 1996).
Hedgehogs have also undergone a major decline in the U.K. and are also a species of conservation concern (Yarnell and Pettett, 2020). Reasons for their decline are various and include agricultural intensification, leading to a loss of hedgerows and expanding field sizes, fragmentation of rural landscapes, reductions in food availability as a result of use of pesticides and farming practices and the increase in their natural predator, the badger (Williams et al., 2018; Yarnell and Pettett, 2020). Hedgehogs favour lowland habitats such as arable land as well as mixed-use plains, valley bottoms and undulating landscapes (e.g. Williams et al., 2018). They are also attracted to villages in arable land probably because of enhanced food availability, shelter and other factors perhaps explaining their continuous presence in villages such as Cassington in the project area (Petett et al., 2017; ADR pers. Obs.). They tend to be associated with field margins and hedgerows and will tend to preferentially avoid open arable land in the presence of badgers (Williams et al., 2018; Yarnell and Pettett, 2018). The likely impact of solar power station development on hedgehogs is therefore unclear although probably less significant than for hares.
We note that both these species occur frequently in the Central Section of the Botley West proposal and in Cassington hedgehogs are frequently observed in gardens. It seems an assumption to simply conclude that populations of brown hare and hedgehogs are only of Local Importance (Table 9.6.4) without any form of survey other than incidental sightings.
6.3.2 Reptiles
Several sites were investigated for reptiles and reported in Environmental Statement Volume 3 Appendix 9.7: Reptile Survey Report (EN010147/APP/6.5). It is notable that the area occupied by the allotment to the north of Cassington has abundant populations of viviparous lizards, slow worms and grass snakes (see iNaturalist records). This is adjacent to area of the proposal to the immediate north of Cassington. It is therefore an omission that the entire block of the proposed site north of Cassington was not surveyed for reptiles.
6.4 Biodiversity Net Gain
Biodiversity Net Gain is an algorithmic approach to assessing the conversion of habitat types including consideration of their condition during a development. As such it is primarily based on types of vegetation, water bodies etc. and not impacts of development on individual species, particularly animals. It therefore offers no insight into the potential impacts of the Botley West Solar Power Station on the matters discussed in Paragraphs 6.0 – 6.3 of this documents. Biodiversity Net Gain does not inform on the impacts of this large-scale solar farm on bats, wintering or breeding birds or other species. As such this is a metric that speaks solely to changes in habitat.
Examination of document Environmental Statement Volume 3 Appendix 9.13: Biodiversity Net Gain Statement (EN010147/APP/6.5) is informative as to how Botley West provides a “Biodiversity Net Gain”. It shows that there is a gain in Habitat Units of 80.80% and a gain in hedgerow units of 57.93%. It is important to recognise that on the information presented, the large proportion of BNG is generated by the loss of arable farmland and conversion of it to grassland (majority) and floodplain wetland mosaic. Hedgerow gain would seem to mainly be achieved by improvement of existing hedgerows rather than including new hedgerow, which will likely be of poor habitat value until established.
One feature of this plan we query is the creation of 100 ha of Grassland – floodplain mosaic along the banks of the Evenlode River. We note that this area is already subject to seasonal flooding and therefore might already be classified as Grassland-Floodplain mosaic in part or whole.
7.0 Air traffic
Cassington Parish Council have been made aware of issues related to glint and glare from the proposed solar power station and also issues with thermals generated by the Solar Power Station effecting radar at RAF Brize Norton and London Oxford Airport. Whilst we have limited understanding of these issues given that we have air traffic from both airports over the village we would want to be reassured that the present development, whether at the proposed or reduced scale does not present a hazard to aircraft or air traffic control. Issues as we understand it include inadequate consideration of the effects of glint and glare on pilots, the covering of fields potentially used for emergency landings with solar arrays (London Oxford Airport) and disruption to radar caused by rising columns of air produced by heating of the solar arrays. London Oxford Airport is one of the busiest training airports in the UK and a “Protected Airport” so these matters are a serious safety concern.
8.0 Financing of Botley West and Slave Labour
Cassington Parish Council have seen insufficient evidence of legitimate and legal financing available to fund this project. This includes both construction and decommissioning. In terms of the latter, we would like to see financial guarantees for the dismantling and disposal of all infrastructure associated with the current proposal as well as for land restoration.
Cassington Parish Council would also seek guarantees that all materials for the present proposal were obtained with the certainty that manufacture, and transport was free of slavery. Ensuring that supply chains do not involve slave labour is a legal requirement in the U.K.
9.0 Consultations
Cassington Parish Council believes that its concerns were not taken seriously during the consultations with respect to alternative options, flooding, impacts on landscape and amenity, loss of greenbelt, loss of farmland and for the Targeted Consultation. Consultation materials were in some cases inadequate, misleading, or unclear and the consultation meetings lacked the necessary experts to answer the questions by our Parishioners and other attendees of the meetings (e.g. on hydrology). Examination of the submitted proposal indicate that many of our concerns have still not been addressed and many concerns simply ignored or downplayed. Overall, despite the claims of the Applicant this proposal has changed very little since it was first put forward to our community, especially within the Parish of Cassington. In some cases, the so-called responses are token gestures of no material consequence to affected communities (e.g. changing the Buffer Zone from 20m to 25m.
10.0 References
ADAS (2023). The impact of solar photovoltaic (PV) sites on agricultural soils and land. Work Package Three: Review of Impacts. Report for the Welsh Government by ADAS, Preston Wynne, Herefordshire, U.K., 79pp.
AHDB (2018) Field drainage guide: Principles, installations and maintenance. Document produced by AHDB, Warwickshire, 27pp.
Carpenter, C. (2024) Initial Independent Review of Botley West Solar Farm Preliminary Environmental Information Reports with respect to flood-risk related Matters. Report to Stop Botley West by GWP Consultants, Charlbury, Oxfordshire, 7pp.
Cassington Parish Council (2022a) Cassington Neighbourhood Plan 2021-2040 Presubmission Plan, Cassington Parish Council, Cassington, Oxfordshire, 40pp + Figures + Appendix A (Green Infrastructure Plan). https://cassington-pc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CNP_Pre-Sub-FINAL_January-2022-LR.pdf
Cassington Parish Council (2022b) Cassington Parish Council Response to the Botley West Utility Scale Solar Power Station Response to the Photovolt Development Partners Pre-Planning Community Consultation Leaflet. Cassington Parish Council, Cassington, Oxfordshire, 14pp.
Cassington Parish Council (2023) Cassington Parish Council: Response to Scoping Report for Botley West Solar Farm, June 2023. Cassington Parish Council, Cassington, Oxfordshire, 29pp.
Cassington Parish Council (2024a) The Cassington Flooding Event 23rd – 24th September, 2024. Cassington Parish Council, Cassington, Oxfordshire, 15pp.
Cassington Parish Council (2024b) Cassington Parish Council Response to the Botley West Proposal Phase Two Public Consultation to West Oxfordshire District Council Development Control Meeting 5th February 2024; PVDP and the Planning Inspectorate. Cassington Parish Council, Cassington, Oxfordshire, 7pp.
Cassington Parish Council (2024c) Letter to Andrew Graham, West Oxfordshire District Council. Alex Rogers, on behalf of Cassington Parish Council, Cassington, Oxfordshire, 3pp.
Castillo, C.P., et al. (2016) An assessment of the regional potential for solar power generation in EU-28. Energy Policy 88: 86–99.
Craig, R. (2024) Email from Roderick Craig to AD Rogers. Roderick Craig, Rural Business Solutions, North Leigh, Witney, 1pp.
Dicks, L.V. et al. (2014) A transparent process for “evidence-informed” policy making. Conservation Letters 7: 119–125.
Dillon, I.A., et al. (2009) Assessing the vegetation response to differing establishment methods of ‘Skylark Plots’ in winter wheat at Grange Farm, Cambridgeshire, England. Conservation Evidence 6: 89-97.
Finch, D. et al. (2020) Habitat associations of bats in an agricultural landscape: linear features versus open habitats. Animals 10: 1856.
Foxley, T. et al. (2023). What drives bat activity at field boundaries? Journal of Environmental Management 329: 117029.
Galzki, J., Mulla, D. (2024) Stormwater runoff calculator for evaluation of low impact development practices at ground‑mounted solar photovoltaic farms. Discover Water 4: 35.
Gullotta, A. et al. (2023) Modelling Stormwater Runoff Changes Induced by Ground-Mounted Photovoltaic Solar Parks: A Conceptualization in EPA-SWMM. Water Resources Management 37: 4507–4520.
Gwent Wildlife Trust (2022) Re: A Temporary Halt on Major Development on the Gwent Levels SSSI. Letter to Julie James, Minister for Climate Change. Gwent Wildlife Trust, Dingestow, Monmouthshire, U.K., 4pp.
Heim, O. et al. (2017). Landscape and scale-dependent spatial niches of bats foraging above intensively used arable fields. Ecological Processes 6: 24.
Horton, S. (2021a) CASSINGTON TORNADO 2021: Report by the Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO). Tornado and Storm Research Organisation, U.K., 16pp.
Horton, S. (2021b) BURLEIGH WOOD TORNADO 2021 Report by the Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO) SI20211031_Burleigh Wood. Tornado and Storm Research Organisation, U.K., 17pp.
Hutchings, M.R., Harris, S. (1996). The current status of the brown hare (Lepus europaeus) in Britain. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, U.K., 78pp.
ICOMOS (2024) Letter to Photovolt Development Partners. ICOMOS, London, U.K. 4pp.
Janke, J.R. (2010) Multicriteria GIS modelling of wind and solar farms in Colorado. Renewable Energy 35: 2228–2234 (In Castillo et al., 2016).
Liu, J. et al. (2023) Effect of solar farms on soil erosion in hilly environments: A modeling study from the perspective of hydrological connectivity. Water Resources Research 59: e2023WR035067.
Montag, H. et al. (2016) The Effects of Solar Farms on Local Biodiversity: A Comparative Study. Clarkson and Woods, Blackford, Somerset, U.K., and Wychwood Biodiversity, Kingsbridge, Devon, U.K., 48pp.
Morris, A.J., Gilroy, J.J. (2008) Close to the edge: predation risks for two declining farmland passerines. Ibis 150 (Suppl. 1): 168–177.
NESO (2024) Clean Power 2030: Advice on achieving clean power for Great Britain by 2030. Report to the Government by the National Energy System Operator, Warwick, U.K. 136pp.
Palmer, D., et al. (2019) The future scope of large-scale solar in the UK: Site suitability and target analysis. Renewable Energy 133: 1136-1146.
Pettett, C.E. et al. (2017) Factors affecting hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) attraction to rural villages in arable landscapes. European Journal of Wildlife Research 63: 54.
Pisinaras, V. et al. (2014) Conceptualizing and assessing the effects of installation and operation of photovoltaic power plants on major hydrologic budget constituents. Science of the Total Environment 493: 239–250.
Reynolds, J.C. et al. (2010) The consequences of predator control for brown hares (Lepus europaeus) on UK farmland. European Journal of Wildlife Research 56: 541–549.
Sliwinski, K. et al. (2019) Habitat requirements of the European brown hare (Lepus europaeus Pallas 1778) in an intensively used agriculture region (Lower Saxony, Germany). BMC Ecology 19: 31.
Szabadi, K.L. et al. (2023) The use of solar farms by bats in mosaic landscapes: Implications for conservation. Global Ecology and Conservation 44: e02481.
Tinsley, E. et al. (2023) Renewable energies and biodiversity: Impact of ground-mounted solar photovoltaic sites on bat activity. Journal of Applied Ecology 60: 1752–1762.
Tsoutsos, T. et al. (2005) Environmental impacts from solar energy technologies. Energy Policy 33: 289–296 (In Castillo et al., 2016).
Turney, D., Fthenakis, V. (2011) Environmental impacts from the installation and operation of large-scale solar powerplants. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review 15: 3261–3270 (In Castillo et al., 2016).
West Oxfordshire District Council (2008) Parish Flood Report: Cassington November 2008. West Oxfordshire District Council, Witney, Oxfordshire, 20pp.
Williams, B.M., et al. (2018) Reduced occupancy of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) in rural England and Wales: The influence of habitat and an asymmetric intraguild predator. Scientific Reports 8: 12156.
Yarnell, R.W., Pettett, C.E. (2020) Beneficial Land Management for Hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) in the United Kingdom. Animals 10: 1566.
Yavari, R. et al. (2022) Minimizing environmental impacts of solar farms: a review of current science on landscape hydrology and guidance on stormwater management. Environmental Research Infrastructure and Sustainability 2: 032002.