The DCO application was potentially lacklustre, but the refusal is nonetheless a bad sign for the industry.
November 11, 2026
The UK government has issued the first refusal of a solar NSIP, declining Photovoltaic Development Partners’ 840MW Botley West solar plant.
Had the project been consented, it would have been the largest in the UK. The decision is the first ever ‘no’ to be given to a solar nationally significant project (NSIP) and comes a fortnight after the 800MW Great North Road solar plant was granted a development consent order (DCO).
The plans, brought forward by German-headquartered Photovoltaic Development Partners (PVDP) on behalf of IPP SolarFive, would have seen ground-mounted solar PV panels installed across about 2,000 acres of land around Oxford.
The refusal is in line with the recommendation of the Examining Authority.
The DCO route to development has, until now, been a relatively safe bet, given the current government’s pro-solar approach. According to the refusal letter, issued by Baroness Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Miatta Fahnbulleh, the site was declined on several grounds.
Related:RES secures planning consents for NI BESS, Scottish solar
Botley West would have caused “substantial” harm to the Green Belt (something that, in the national planning policy framework is given lower weight than the benefit of renewable generation); “significant” adverse landscape and visual impacts; “serious” harm to heritage assets; aviation safety concerns; failure to properly apply the mitigation hierarchy; inadequate landscape and environmental assessment evidence; and loss of best and most versatile (BMV) land.
The solar plant would have covered about one-fifth of the Blenheim Estate, considered to have an adverse impact on the Blenheim Palace World Heritage Site.
The mitigation hierarchy is written into the planning process to ensure that, even if designated Critical National Priority (CNP), as solar plants are, developers make an effort to counterweight any negative effect.
According to the decision letter, the Examining Authority found that PVDP had promoted the proposed development as CNP, but in doing so had determined that its impacts were “inevitable and acceptable”, so hadn’t “appropriately applied the mitigation hierarchy”, an approach that was “systemic from the outset”.
Regarding the aviation safety issue, Oxfordshire hosts several flying schools and the London Oxford Airport (LOA). Safety issues raised by Oxford Aviation Services Limited were emergency landing areas, glint and glare, bird strike and heat-induced turbulence.
The Examining Authority requested, among other things, that thermal plume modelling be submitted. PVDP submitted the reports late, which the Examining Authority said “demonstrated that the applicant failed to apply the mitigation hierarchy properly, overlooked or ignored the critical information from a key stakeholder and put forward a poorly designed scheme from the outset”.
Related:Large-scale solar plant in Nottinghamshire approved by government, second one this week
With that being said, trade association Solar Energy UK pointed out that solar power plants are planned or safely operating at Blackpool, Teesside, Bristol, Glasgow, Belfast, Southend, Edinburgh and Newquay airports.
While PVDP did not put the same effort into its application that peers like Elements Green, developing the approved 800MW Great North Road project, did, the refusal is broadly a blow to the industry.
Chief executive of Solar Energy UK Chris Hewett said the decision is “regrettable”.
He added: “We all know the desperate need for cheaper power and to push expensive gas off the grid – and that’s exactly what solar farms deliver. Moreover, economies of scale mean that the largest developments, such as Botley West, supply the cheapest power.”
The decision, which was delayed twice, comes amidst an apparent change in government focus, away from renewables. Within recent weeks, Fahnbulleh approved the Jackdaw gas field and comments by minister for energy Michael Shanks were framed by the press as a net zero climbdown.
Related:PACE wins appeal for 49.5MW solar plant in Gloucestershire
Hewett did say, however: “Nevertheless, there are multiple gigawatts of consented capacity waiting in the wings. Next year will no doubt see more solar farms constructed than ever before, helping to lower prices by pushing gas off the grid. This is still a very positive time for the sector.”
Liberal Democrat MP for Whitney, Charlie Maynard, said he was “delighted” by the refusal, but that it is “a win for everyone who wants renewable energy and wants it to reflect the wishes of local residents”.
According to a planner from the Oxfordshire County Council, George Gurney, who posted about the refusal on LinkedIn, the three District Councils that would have hosted the site produced joint submissions that raised all of the reasons given for the refusal.
“It was disappointing that these issues weren't addressed by the applicant which ultimately led to the application's refusal,” Gurney wrote, adding: “This refusal could have been avoided if the applicant had sought constructive and meaningful engagement at an early stage of the project's design and this decision is testament to the importance of proper application of the mitigation hierarchy.”
Many of the reasons for the refusal are also major talking points amongst the vocal opposition to large-scale solar development. The loss of BMV land, for example, is often misconstrued to suggest that solar development is antithetical to food security.
Jess Ralston, head of energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), said: “Farmers and rural communities are amongst those seeing the worst of climate change impacts and there's proof that agriculture and renewables can go hand in hand when done well.”
The project plans did include grazing on the farmland around the installation. The decision is no doubt a blow to PVDP, which does not currently have any other UK projects. Given the timeline that the project would have been on, pre-approval procurement was likely either underway or at the forefront of the developer’s mind. It has six weeks to challenge the decision.
Read more about:
Molly Green
Section Editor, Informa
Molly joined the team in 2024 and has led coverage on the UK sites. Now shifting to a more global view, Molly is interested in how legislation shapes market dynamics, covering the intersection of policy design, investment patterns, and energy transition pathways.
Google Preferred Source
Google Preferred Source
Copyright © 2026 Informa PLC. Informa PLC is registered in England and Wales with company number 8860726 whose registered and head office is 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG.

source