Battle against plan for huge solar farm in Wroughton

Swindon Advertiser: Henry Oliver, director of North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Henry Oliver, director of North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

THE price for building the UK’s biggest solar farm in the middle of one of the country’s most beautiful sites on the outskirts of Swindon is too high, say campaigners.

The effect of building 50,000 ground-mounted PV arrays at the former RAF Wroughton will be crippling, say bosses at the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

They were dealt a major blow last week after learning the development has been recommended for approval.

The site would produce 41MW of electricity on 200 acres – an area larger than Chiseldon, or the size of more than 100 football pitches.

AONB director Henry Oliver said he was extremely disappointed to learn Swindon Council’s planning officers had recommended the scheme for approval despite major objections from the AONB, English Heritage and Natural England.

The solar farm, proposed to be in the AONB, could be visible from the Ridgeway National Trail and Barbury Castle Iron Age hill fort.

“It’s going to significantly reduce the beauty of the area and transform it into an industrial landscape,” said Mr Oliver, who has worked at the organisation for four years.

“We are all for renewable energies but they have to be to the right scale in the right places. We already have solar panels in our area but they are small ones people hardly notice.

“We just feel that the benefits do not match what will be lost from the views – the price is too high in this case.”

Andrew Lord, who works as a planning advisor at the AONB, said if the councillors do vote in favour of the application by Swindon Commercial Services Ltd, he will recommend the matter to Greg Baker, Minister of State at the Department of Energy & Climate Change, to reconsider.

“Greg Baker said he takes these big PV solar farms very seriously and he will be watching closely what councils decide,” said Mr Lord.

Councillor John Newman from Wroughton Parish Council said he thought the development could take place somewhere else.

But councillor Ann Richards, who represents Wroughton and Wichelstowe, said she was all for the development. She said: “I’m absolutely delighted it has been recommended for approval. I am fully supportive of new renewable energies taking place in the area. I don’t think it will be too intrusive. There has already been an airfield there.”

James Owen, commercial director at Swindon Commercial Services Ltd, said: “Renewable energy developments should benefit the people who live near them, not just the developers and funders – and the Wroughton project is a great example of how this can be put into practice.

“We’ll be investing over £1m in community projects during the lifetime of the scheme.”

The application will be debated on Tuesday at 6pm at the council’s Civic Offices.

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:51am Sat 7 Dec 13

leafy1 says...

I am all for a few solar panels but things are getting a bit out of hand now.We have lost even more fields to them in South Marston now and the landscape is looking a right ole mess ...............toppi
ng that off with plans to build god knows how many houses as well in the village.

To cover the ground with 200 acres worth of ground mounted PV arrays In such an area of outstanding natural beauty in Wroughton will be a bloody eyesore and should never go ahead .It won't end there,once they have their foot in the door more will follow.
I am all for a few solar panels but things are getting a bit out of hand now.We have lost even more fields to them in South Marston now and the landscape is looking a right ole mess ...............toppi ng that off with plans to build god knows how many houses as well in the village. To cover the ground with 200 acres worth of ground mounted PV arrays In such an area of outstanding natural beauty in Wroughton will be a bloody eyesore and should never go ahead .It won't end there,once they have their foot in the door more will follow. leafy1

7:01am Sat 7 Dec 13

ging999 says...

Message to Henry and leafy1..........if you make sure that you keep your heads in the sand as the lights go out, you may not notice any difference.
Message to Henry and leafy1..........if you make sure that you keep your heads in the sand as the lights go out, you may not notice any difference. ging999

7:39am Sat 7 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

lots of disagreement on both sides of the argument, but is 1 solar farm really going to make a difference when the oils and gas run out in 50 years or so. I always love the electric car argument that conveniently forgets you need to create the electricity somehow first!
this is a national and worldwide issue and sticking a few solar panels or wind farms around the place will just be a drop in the ocean.
lots of disagreement on both sides of the argument, but is 1 solar farm really going to make a difference when the oils and gas run out in 50 years or so. I always love the electric car argument that conveniently forgets you need to create the electricity somehow first! this is a national and worldwide issue and sticking a few solar panels or wind farms around the place will just be a drop in the ocean. house on the hill

8:20am Sat 7 Dec 13

AGINGER says...

Dear Leafy1, you failed to tell them all that the LIGHTS will go out,the PV cells only produce power in daylight hours and the majority of us put our lights on in the house when darkness comes along.
So,if the sun is not up and the wind is but a whisper, better get the candles out, cos TV in the evening will be out,the pubs will not be able to pump the beer or the petrol pumps dispense fuel.
Dad.
Dear Leafy1, you failed to tell them all that the LIGHTS will go out,the PV cells only produce power in daylight hours and the majority of us put our lights on in the house when darkness comes along. So,if the sun is not up and the wind is but a whisper, better get the candles out, cos TV in the evening will be out,the pubs will not be able to pump the beer or the petrol pumps dispense fuel. Dad. AGINGER

8:59am Sat 7 Dec 13

Al Smith says...

George Osborne announced this week that he is cutting the feed in tariff (the core of the business case) for solar yet SBC plough ahead with the solar plan.
George Osborne announced this week that he is cutting the feed in tariff (the core of the business case) for solar yet SBC plough ahead with the solar plan. Al Smith

9:23am Sat 7 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

Stick some wind turbines up there too. Nice and hilly so they'll work well
Stick some wind turbines up there too. Nice and hilly so they'll work well Davey Gravey

9:28am Sat 7 Dec 13

Always Grumpy says...

" in the middle of one of the country’s most beautiful sites "

Hmmm, Emma Lidiard doesn't appear to have travelled very far making statements like that! Typical of her second rate reporting though.
" in the middle of one of the country’s most beautiful sites " Hmmm, Emma Lidiard doesn't appear to have travelled very far making statements like that! Typical of her second rate reporting though. Always Grumpy

9:44am Sat 7 Dec 13

Davethered says...

Instead of putting them up in fields , it should be made Law that every single new building whether it is house , factory , shop etc has to have solar panels built onto their roofs , end of problem , also put them onto peoples houses who don't mind having them. Cheaper electric for all. Mind you the amount of decent sunshine we get in this country , you'd probably get about enough electric to run a light bulb for a day.
Instead of putting them up in fields , it should be made Law that every single new building whether it is house , factory , shop etc has to have solar panels built onto their roofs , end of problem , also put them onto peoples houses who don't mind having them. Cheaper electric for all. Mind you the amount of decent sunshine we get in this country , you'd probably get about enough electric to run a light bulb for a day. Davethered

11:07am Sat 7 Dec 13

Meldrews Dad says...

So our enviromental friends want to stop get another scheme! Swindon Council should ask them to explain to our children why they do not want us to have electricity in the future.
The site is vitually invisible to most people and will make an inefficient museum storage site into a productive unit that will have the money to display the wonderful collection they posses.

I live within 400 yards of the proposed site and cannot see a thing of the area that will be used. I am not connected with the museum and want to see the site used in a productive manner and to display its collection.

Wildlife will not be affected and the site could well form the basis of a Science Park of the past and future.

Perhaps our negative environmentalists should concentrate their efforts on defending their pet project of gloabal warming, which has been so thoroughly discredited in recent years.
So our enviromental friends want to stop get another scheme! Swindon Council should ask them to explain to our children why they do not want us to have electricity in the future. The site is vitually invisible to most people and will make an inefficient museum storage site into a productive unit that will have the money to display the wonderful collection they posses. I live within 400 yards of the proposed site and cannot see a thing of the area that will be used. I am not connected with the museum and want to see the site used in a productive manner and to display its collection. Wildlife will not be affected and the site could well form the basis of a Science Park of the past and future. Perhaps our negative environmentalists should concentrate their efforts on defending their pet project of gloabal warming, which has been so thoroughly discredited in recent years. Meldrews Dad

11:16am Sat 7 Dec 13

Chowmai says...

They don't want a sight that may smoke, they don't want a sight that whizzes in the wind but they do want....ooh look the only 'green person' in my street is wasting electricity with colourful Christmas lights in their window.
How very eco friendly!
They don't want a sight that may smoke, they don't want a sight that whizzes in the wind but they do want....ooh look the only 'green person' in my street is wasting electricity with colourful Christmas lights in their window. How very eco friendly! Chowmai

11:39am Sat 7 Dec 13

toyota777 says...

How can anyone seriously support Green proposals like this and then say they're protecting the environment they seem to want to either smother the planet in glass panels or disfigure it with ugly great windfollies ,Pylons are bad enough but adding to the problem in this way is ridiculous
How can anyone seriously support Green proposals like this and then say they're protecting the environment they seem to want to either smother the planet in glass panels or disfigure it with ugly great windfollies ,Pylons are bad enough but adding to the problem in this way is ridiculous toyota777

12:07pm Sat 7 Dec 13

moonshine50 says...

Put some trees around the site . Make it prettier with shrubs and flowers then it will be less of an eyesore.
Put some trees around the site . Make it prettier with shrubs and flowers then it will be less of an eyesore. moonshine50

12:19pm Sat 7 Dec 13

AdderB says...

One small point. Swindon Commercial services is owned by Swindon Council. Why are the council allowed to grant planning permsision to a wholly owned subsidery?. Is this actually a conflict of interest ?

Will this site be profitable in the long term . If not , who will pay for it please?
One small point. Swindon Commercial services is owned by Swindon Council. Why are the council allowed to grant planning permsision to a wholly owned subsidery?. Is this actually a conflict of interest ? Will this site be profitable in the long term . If not , who will pay for it please? AdderB

12:55pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Klinkerhoffen says...

ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: The site is a huge concreted, industrialised AERODROME. Thats what it is. This proposal isn't about concreting virgin green fields. Its arguably less environmentally invasive than thousands of acres of bright yellow rape-seed monoculture too.

The arguments about the validity of so-called 'green energy' are irrelevant to the nimby argument of it 'spoiling' the landscape. We aren't talking chimneys or factory buildings are we?

Are plastic and glass squares really so much worse than acres of concrete runway or the huge hangars already there? Clearly not.
ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: The site is a huge concreted, industrialised AERODROME. Thats what it is. This proposal isn't about concreting virgin green fields. Its arguably less environmentally invasive than thousands of acres of bright yellow rape-seed monoculture too. The arguments about the validity of so-called 'green energy' are irrelevant to the nimby argument of it 'spoiling' the landscape. We aren't talking chimneys or factory buildings are we? Are plastic and glass squares really so much worse than acres of concrete runway or the huge hangars already there? Clearly not. Klinkerhoffen

1:00pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

Amazing how people can whine about their energy bills going up, and then support the subsidy scams that pile green taxes onto those bills. Google "Germany's Energy Chaos" and read what happens when governments switch off their nuclear power plants and introduce massive subsidies for 'renewables'... consumer bills skyrocket, and more and more coal-fired power stations are built to fill the gaps in the erratic supplies from wind and solar, which means even more carbon emissions. Nuclear will prevent any risk of 'the lights going out' long before windmills and Chinese PV tubes ever become 'essential' to meet the UK's energy demands.
Amazing how people can whine about their energy bills going up, and then support the subsidy scams that pile green taxes onto those bills. Google "Germany's Energy Chaos" and read what happens when governments switch off their nuclear power plants and introduce massive subsidies for 'renewables'... consumer bills skyrocket, and more and more coal-fired power stations are built to fill the gaps in the erratic supplies from wind and solar, which means even more carbon emissions. Nuclear will prevent any risk of 'the lights going out' long before windmills and Chinese PV tubes ever become 'essential' to meet the UK's energy demands. Hmmmf

3:13pm Sat 7 Dec 13

ging999 says...

toyota777 wrote:
How can anyone seriously support Green proposals like this and then say they're protecting the environment they seem to want to either smother the planet in glass panels or disfigure it with ugly great windfollies ,Pylons are bad enough but adding to the problem in this way is ridiculous
Errr................
.....without pylons where would we be ? Keep your head in the sand and we'll all be around your house when the lights go out, to ask your opinion again.
[quote][p][bold]toyota777[/bold] wrote: How can anyone seriously support Green proposals like this and then say they're protecting the environment they seem to want to either smother the planet in glass panels or disfigure it with ugly great windfollies ,Pylons are bad enough but adding to the problem in this way is ridiculous[/p][/quote]Errr................ .....without pylons where would we be ? Keep your head in the sand and we'll all be around your house when the lights go out, to ask your opinion again. ging999

3:51pm Sat 7 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

it is still nowhere near enough for a long term solution though. What are we going to use to fuel planes and ships in the future, nuclear? Cant see a plane covered in solar panels going into the clouds!
it is still nowhere near enough for a long term solution though. What are we going to use to fuel planes and ships in the future, nuclear? Cant see a plane covered in solar panels going into the clouds! house on the hill

4:17pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Hangbrownhigh says...

Davethered wrote:
Instead of putting them up in fields , it should be made Law that every single new building whether it is house , factory , shop etc has to have solar panels built onto their roofs , end of problem , also put them onto peoples houses who don't mind having them. Cheaper electric for all. Mind you the amount of decent sunshine we get in this country , you'd probably get about enough electric to run a light bulb for a day.
Totally agree and also place water tanks under back garden lawns for waste water so it can be used to flush toilets and used for gardening.
[quote][p][bold]Davethered[/bold] wrote: Instead of putting them up in fields , it should be made Law that every single new building whether it is house , factory , shop etc has to have solar panels built onto their roofs , end of problem , also put them onto peoples houses who don't mind having them. Cheaper electric for all. Mind you the amount of decent sunshine we get in this country , you'd probably get about enough electric to run a light bulb for a day.[/p][/quote]Totally agree and also place water tanks under back garden lawns for waste water so it can be used to flush toilets and used for gardening. Hangbrownhigh

4:26pm Sat 7 Dec 13

swinres says...

Would it not make more sense to put these solar panels on the roofs of all the industrial units around the town or all the flat roofs in the town centre then the power could be used locally where it is needed and spread around the town without causing an eyesore.

These renewable are not a realistic way of power generation to replace fossil fuels as they cannot perform 24/7 and therefore can only ever be a top up solution

And by the way the greater percentage of land at Wroughton air field is grass not concrete, go and stand on Barbury and have a look.
Would it not make more sense to put these solar panels on the roofs of all the industrial units around the town or all the flat roofs in the town centre then the power could be used locally where it is needed and spread around the town without causing an eyesore. These renewable are not a realistic way of power generation to replace fossil fuels as they cannot perform 24/7 and therefore can only ever be a top up solution And by the way the greater percentage of land at Wroughton air field is grass not concrete, go and stand on Barbury and have a look. swinres

9:50pm Sat 7 Dec 13

villageoldman says...

Science Museum and SBC , partnership made in hell...no new job vacancies created . Bring back War Birds, car shows, ect..
Science Museum and SBC , partnership made in hell...no new job vacancies created . Bring back War Birds, car shows, ect.. villageoldman

10:31pm Sat 7 Dec 13

John~R says...

I like the wind turbines suggestion: The wind doesn't stop when the sun sets. And, to me, some wind turbines on the landscape is evidence of progress.
I like the wind turbines suggestion: The wind doesn't stop when the sun sets. And, to me, some wind turbines on the landscape is evidence of progress. John~R

8:25am Sun 8 Dec 13

Mochyndeaer says...

When Nigel Nimby & his friends heard they wanted to build a Nuclear power station, they all screamed no!
When Nigel Nimby & his friends heard they wanted to build a coal power station, they all screamed no!
When Nigel Nimby & his friends heard they wanted to build a wind turbine, they all screamed no!
When Nigel Nimby & his friends heard they wanted to build a tidal barrage, they all screamed no!
When Nigel Nimby & his friends heard they wanted to build a solar farm, they all screamed no!
When the lights went out, they all cried why didn't they do anything to prepare?
When Nigel Nimby & his friends heard they wanted to build a Nuclear power station, they all screamed no! When Nigel Nimby & his friends heard they wanted to build a coal power station, they all screamed no! When Nigel Nimby & his friends heard they wanted to build a wind turbine, they all screamed no! When Nigel Nimby & his friends heard they wanted to build a tidal barrage, they all screamed no! When Nigel Nimby & his friends heard they wanted to build a solar farm, they all screamed no! When the lights went out, they all cried why didn't they do anything to prepare? Mochyndeaer

8:38am Sun 8 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Still no one has said how the long term will look, this is a drop in the ocean to what will be needed when fossil fuels have been used up. It is quite scary that it took 8 million years for the fossil fuels to develop and we are going to use them all up in around 200! Mochny, when the lights go out it wont matter if you have solar panels and wind farms, it still wont be enough to replace what we use now and will use in 50 years when its all gone. What then?
Still no one has said how the long term will look, this is a drop in the ocean to what will be needed when fossil fuels have been used up. It is quite scary that it took 8 million years for the fossil fuels to develop and we are going to use them all up in around 200! Mochny, when the lights go out it wont matter if you have solar panels and wind farms, it still wont be enough to replace what we use now and will use in 50 years when its all gone. What then? house on the hill

9:51am Sun 8 Dec 13

richie3846 says...

Excellent stuff Mochyndeaer! My sentiments exactly. NIMBYism will be the undoing of our country. We wil end up lagging behind the rest of the world, and be forced to buy expensive green energy off neighbouring countries - the countries that are getting on sorting out their energy needs for the future, creating a surplus to meet future demand. We will pay a premium for this and see our fuel bills rocket, damaging the economy. We might not end up a third world country, but we sure will be second rate behind the likes of China et al!
Excellent stuff Mochyndeaer! My sentiments exactly. NIMBYism will be the undoing of our country. We wil end up lagging behind the rest of the world, and be forced to buy expensive green energy off neighbouring countries - the countries that are getting on sorting out their energy needs for the future, creating a surplus to meet future demand. We will pay a premium for this and see our fuel bills rocket, damaging the economy. We might not end up a third world country, but we sure will be second rate behind the likes of China et al! richie3846

12:03pm Sun 8 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

richie3846 wrote:
Excellent stuff Mochyndeaer! My sentiments exactly. NIMBYism will be the undoing of our country. We wil end up lagging behind the rest of the world, and be forced to buy expensive green energy off neighbouring countries - the countries that are getting on sorting out their energy needs for the future, creating a surplus to meet future demand. We will pay a premium for this and see our fuel bills rocket, damaging the economy. We might not end up a third world country, but we sure will be second rate behind the likes of China et al!
in many aspects we already are!!!
[quote][p][bold]richie3846[/bold] wrote: Excellent stuff Mochyndeaer! My sentiments exactly. NIMBYism will be the undoing of our country. We wil end up lagging behind the rest of the world, and be forced to buy expensive green energy off neighbouring countries - the countries that are getting on sorting out their energy needs for the future, creating a surplus to meet future demand. We will pay a premium for this and see our fuel bills rocket, damaging the economy. We might not end up a third world country, but we sure will be second rate behind the likes of China et al![/p][/quote]in many aspects we already are!!! house on the hill

12:39pm Sun 8 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

RWE npower axed a £4bn offshore windfarm because they were scared that subsidies from the UK bill payers would be cut and they couldn't make enough profit out of the scam as a result. Will the lights go out because of this? No. The only reason for the building of these things is the profit to be had from the arbitrary figure of '15% renewables by 2020' plucked out of the air by the government. And the only reason for these subsidy farms in and around Swindon is exactly the same: money, and Dale Heenan's 'vision':
Dale Heenan
My ambition for Swindon is to have enough low carbon renewable energy being generated locally by 2020 to power every home.

And never mind the planning process, part of his 'vision statement' is: "if a solar farm is located in an appropriate area and is not controversial then it should go ahead with the minimum of fuss and delay.”
Adver wrote:
... the council’s planning team gave the green light for Local Development Orders to be brought in. This scheme allows for non-controversial changes of use to go ahead without planning permission.

Who do you think gets to decide if it's 'non-controversial'.
RWE npower axed a £4bn offshore windfarm because they were scared that subsidies from the UK bill payers would be cut and they couldn't make enough profit out of the scam as a result. Will the lights go out because of this? No. The only reason for the building of these things is the profit to be had from the arbitrary figure of '15% renewables by 2020' plucked out of the air by the government. And the only reason for these subsidy farms in and around Swindon is exactly the same: money, and Dale Heenan's 'vision': [quote][p][bold]Dale Heenan[/bold] My ambition for Swindon is to have enough low carbon renewable energy being generated locally by 2020 to power every home.[/quote] And never mind the planning process, part of his 'vision statement' is: "if a solar farm is located in an appropriate area and is not controversial then it should go ahead with the minimum of fuss and delay.” [quote][p][bold]Adver[/bold] wrote: ... the council’s planning team gave the green light for Local Development Orders to be brought in. This scheme allows for non-controversial changes of use to go ahead without planning permission.[/quote] Who do you think gets to decide if it's 'non-controversial'. Hmmmf

1:53pm Sun 8 Dec 13

twasadawf says...

Davethered wrote:
Instead of putting them up in fields , it should be made Law that every single new building whether it is house , factory , shop etc has to have solar panels built onto their roofs , end of problem , also put them onto peoples houses who don't mind having them. Cheaper electric for all. Mind you the amount of decent sunshine we get in this country , you'd probably get about enough electric to run a light bulb for a day.
Best idea on here,
[quote][p][bold]Davethered[/bold] wrote: Instead of putting them up in fields , it should be made Law that every single new building whether it is house , factory , shop etc has to have solar panels built onto their roofs , end of problem , also put them onto peoples houses who don't mind having them. Cheaper electric for all. Mind you the amount of decent sunshine we get in this country , you'd probably get about enough electric to run a light bulb for a day.[/p][/quote]Best idea on here, twasadawf

5:10pm Sun 8 Dec 13

pigskin says...

swinres wrote:
Would it not make more sense to put these solar panels on the roofs of all the industrial units around the town or all the flat roofs in the town centre then the power could be used locally where it is needed and spread around the town without causing an eyesore. These renewable are not a realistic way of power generation to replace fossil fuels as they cannot perform 24/7 and therefore can only ever be a top up solution And by the way the greater percentage of land at Wroughton air field is grass not concrete, go and stand on Barbury and have a look.
one possible option is to build a nuclear power station on the site;
[quote][p][bold]swinres[/bold] wrote: Would it not make more sense to put these solar panels on the roofs of all the industrial units around the town or all the flat roofs in the town centre then the power could be used locally where it is needed and spread around the town without causing an eyesore. These renewable are not a realistic way of power generation to replace fossil fuels as they cannot perform 24/7 and therefore can only ever be a top up solution And by the way the greater percentage of land at Wroughton air field is grass not concrete, go and stand on Barbury and have a look.[/p][/quote]one possible option is to build a nuclear power station on the site; pigskin

8:30am Mon 9 Dec 13

RichardR1 says...

It's because we've dithered over the last 15 years as to whether to build new Nuclear that shorter term solutions are now required. I think the idea about every new build having solar as part of the build cost would be good. Also given panels to those who want them with the excess day electricity fed into the grid free. It would then be cost neutral.
It's because we've dithered over the last 15 years as to whether to build new Nuclear that shorter term solutions are now required. I think the idea about every new build having solar as part of the build cost would be good. Also given panels to those who want them with the excess day electricity fed into the grid free. It would then be cost neutral. RichardR1

8:37am Mon 9 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

keep the countryside green and let the chinese take over the British Energy sector......
keep the countryside green and let the chinese take over the British Energy sector...... A.Baron-Cohen

8:49am Mon 9 Dec 13

swindondad says...

Having watched "countryfile" on BBC1 last night can I put in a vote for "Poo Power".
Having watched "countryfile" on BBC1 last night can I put in a vote for "Poo Power". swindondad

11:11am Mon 9 Dec 13

CJ90 says...

I do love reading about hippies fighting against green power. Ironic. I wonder how much opposition there was to building an airfield on the site?
I do love reading about hippies fighting against green power. Ironic. I wonder how much opposition there was to building an airfield on the site? CJ90

11:25am Mon 9 Dec 13

swindondad says...

CJ90 wrote:
I do love reading about hippies fighting against green power. Ironic. I wonder how much opposition there was to building an airfield on the site?
There would have been no oppositon as the second world war was just around the corner.
[quote][p][bold]CJ90[/bold] wrote: I do love reading about hippies fighting against green power. Ironic. I wonder how much opposition there was to building an airfield on the site?[/p][/quote]There would have been no oppositon as the second world war was just around the corner. swindondad

11:34am Mon 9 Dec 13

CJ90 says...

swindondad wrote:
CJ90 wrote:
I do love reading about hippies fighting against green power. Ironic. I wonder how much opposition there was to building an airfield on the site?
There would have been no oppositon as the second world war was just around the corner.
I agree, and like that massive event we should look round the corner in our own time. Though this wouldnt be war, instead a lack of energy to light our homes. Seeing as though an awful lot of our power comes from the French, it is my opinion to cherish home grown schemes for energy.
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CJ90[/bold] wrote: I do love reading about hippies fighting against green power. Ironic. I wonder how much opposition there was to building an airfield on the site?[/p][/quote]There would have been no oppositon as the second world war was just around the corner.[/p][/quote]I agree, and like that massive event we should look round the corner in our own time. Though this wouldnt be war, instead a lack of energy to light our homes. Seeing as though an awful lot of our power comes from the French, it is my opinion to cherish home grown schemes for energy. CJ90

1:02pm Mon 9 Dec 13

SwindonScienceGuy says...

It's a brownfield site - disused runways, mostly covered in tarmac. No amount of solar panels could damage the view across it. In fact, they could only improve its appearance.

If visual impact is the only argument against this development, then there really is no argument against it.

It's a great project that will have enormous benefits to Swindon, so I support it fully!
It's a brownfield site - disused runways, mostly covered in tarmac. No amount of solar panels could damage the view across it. In fact, they could only improve its appearance. If visual impact is the only argument against this development, then there really is no argument against it. It's a great project that will have enormous benefits to Swindon, so I support it fully! SwindonScienceGuy

1:06pm Mon 9 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

SwindonScienceGuy wrote:
It's a brownfield site - disused runways, mostly covered in tarmac. No amount of solar panels could damage the view across it. In fact, they could only improve its appearance.

If visual impact is the only argument against this development, then there really is no argument against it.

It's a great project that will have enormous benefits to Swindon, so I support it fully!
My only argument against it would be whether it can make a profit without subsidy. If it can, great (in which case, ditch the subsidy). If it can't, the money would be better directed to a more reliable form of energy generation.
[quote][p][bold]SwindonScienceGuy[/bold] wrote: It's a brownfield site - disused runways, mostly covered in tarmac. No amount of solar panels could damage the view across it. In fact, they could only improve its appearance. If visual impact is the only argument against this development, then there really is no argument against it. It's a great project that will have enormous benefits to Swindon, so I support it fully![/p][/quote]My only argument against it would be whether it can make a profit without subsidy. If it can, great (in which case, ditch the subsidy). If it can't, the money would be better directed to a more reliable form of energy generation. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

1:22pm Mon 9 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
keep the countryside green and let the chinese take over the British Energy sector......
Someone is off their meds again!
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: keep the countryside green and let the chinese take over the British Energy sector......[/p][/quote]Someone is off their meds again! house on the hill

1:23pm Mon 9 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
SwindonScienceGuy wrote:
It's a brownfield site - disused runways, mostly covered in tarmac. No amount of solar panels could damage the view across it. In fact, they could only improve its appearance.

If visual impact is the only argument against this development, then there really is no argument against it.

It's a great project that will have enormous benefits to Swindon, so I support it fully!
My only argument against it would be whether it can make a profit without subsidy. If it can, great (in which case, ditch the subsidy). If it can't, the money would be better directed to a more reliable form of energy generation.
What form would you have then?
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SwindonScienceGuy[/bold] wrote: It's a brownfield site - disused runways, mostly covered in tarmac. No amount of solar panels could damage the view across it. In fact, they could only improve its appearance. If visual impact is the only argument against this development, then there really is no argument against it. It's a great project that will have enormous benefits to Swindon, so I support it fully![/p][/quote]My only argument against it would be whether it can make a profit without subsidy. If it can, great (in which case, ditch the subsidy). If it can't, the money would be better directed to a more reliable form of energy generation.[/p][/quote]What form would you have then? house on the hill

1:32pm Mon 9 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

house on the hill wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
SwindonScienceGuy wrote:
It's a brownfield site - disused runways, mostly covered in tarmac. No amount of solar panels could damage the view across it. In fact, they could only improve its appearance.

If visual impact is the only argument against this development, then there really is no argument against it.

It's a great project that will have enormous benefits to Swindon, so I support it fully!
My only argument against it would be whether it can make a profit without subsidy. If it can, great (in which case, ditch the subsidy). If it can't, the money would be better directed to a more reliable form of energy generation.
What form would you have then?
Nuclear, coal, gas, until we have more viable commercial replacements (such as Thorium reactors). A good nuclear, coal or gas power station is vastly more efficient than even the best Solar installations, and can operate every single day of the year.

With Solar/Wind etc you still need to build and maintain the power station for the times when the 'renewables' aren't producing anything.. The only reason for the proliferation of Solar farms such as this is because the owners can make a fast buck out of it, not because it's somehow a long term way forward for energy production.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SwindonScienceGuy[/bold] wrote: It's a brownfield site - disused runways, mostly covered in tarmac. No amount of solar panels could damage the view across it. In fact, they could only improve its appearance. If visual impact is the only argument against this development, then there really is no argument against it. It's a great project that will have enormous benefits to Swindon, so I support it fully![/p][/quote]My only argument against it would be whether it can make a profit without subsidy. If it can, great (in which case, ditch the subsidy). If it can't, the money would be better directed to a more reliable form of energy generation.[/p][/quote]What form would you have then?[/p][/quote]Nuclear, coal, gas, until we have more viable commercial replacements (such as Thorium reactors). A good nuclear, coal or gas power station is vastly more efficient than even the best Solar installations, and can operate every single day of the year. With Solar/Wind etc you still need to build and maintain the power station for the times when the 'renewables' aren't producing anything.. The only reason for the proliferation of Solar farms such as this is because the owners can make a fast buck out of it, not because it's somehow a long term way forward for energy production. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

9:53pm Mon 9 Dec 13

John Smith II says...

I loved this bit:

"The solar farm, proposed to be in the AONB, could be visible from the Ridgeway National Trail and Barbury Castle Iron Age hill fort. "

Thus proving that it clearly won't be an issue, as SWINDON is also visible in the background from both locations.... ....perhaps it will spoil the view of the Nationwide HQ, or perhaps it will blight the excellent vista provided by the Honda car factory....
I loved this bit: "The solar farm, proposed to be in the AONB, could be visible from the Ridgeway National Trail and Barbury Castle Iron Age hill fort. " Thus proving that it clearly won't be an issue, as SWINDON is also visible in the background from both locations.... ....perhaps it will spoil the view of the Nationwide HQ, or perhaps it will blight the excellent vista provided by the Honda car factory.... John Smith II

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree