Duke of Beaufort in row with villagers – and his ex-wife – over solar farm near King’s Highgrove estate
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
A plan backed by the Duke of Beaufort to build a 2,000-acre solar farm near the King’s Highgrove estate has sparked a row with residents including his environmentalist ex-wife.
Protesters claim that the Lime Down Solar Park scheme, which is designed to generate 500 megawatts of clean energy will blight swaths of the countryside near the Fosse Way, a Roman road.
Part of the farm will be housed on the Duke’s 52,000-acre Badminton estate in Gloucestershire – as well as on land in a triangle between the market towns of Malmesbury, Tetbury and Chippenham.
Nicknamed “Bunter of Badminton”, the Duke, 71, who is worth an estimated £300 million, is friends with the monarch, 75, whose private residence is nine miles down the road.
Tracy Ward, the Duke’s ex-wife, is among those objecting to the scheme, which is currently in the consultation stage.
“I totally oppose all large-scale solar parks,” she said. “Solar panels should be on roofs, along motorways, or industrial sites. Land should be for growing food, not profits for a few landowners, manufacturers and investors.”
Claiming it “will destroy the area for local walkers and riders, tourists and biodiversity”, she added: “Be careful what the climate change fear-mongering will lull us into accepting.”
Lime Down Solar Park claims it would “contribute towards government targets to reach net zero by 2050” and could provide “enough clean affordable electricity to power around 115,000 homes”.
he project is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project because the capacity of the proposed development is over 50 megawatts.
This means permission for the scheme will need to come from Claire Coutinho, the Secretary of State for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero, rather than Wiltshire council.
Alex Frost, the chief executive of the UK Tote Group, is among residents of the affected village of Sherston who have been objecting to the proposals.
He said: “There’s absolutely not a Nimby [not in my back yard] element to this. People around here are actually very pro-renewables but the Government’s own guidelines state that these sorts of developments should occupy brownfield sites, not greenfield.
“This is all agricultural land, it borders the Fosse Way, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It’s an extraordinarily rich ecosystem, which we are trying to preserve. It’s right next door to Highgrove.”
Amid claims farmers have been offered in excess of £1,000 per acre per year to rent their land – five times the return that might be expected from farming – he added: “We know solar farms are important but this should be a well thought out and proper process rather than just a situation where a bunch of farmers have been offered a load of cash – it’s an absolute shambles.”
Protesters also fear that the development, comprising three and a half square miles of 14ft-high solar panels surrounded by security fencing and floodlights, will be turned into housing once the solar farm has served its purpose.
A spokesman for the Duke of Beaufort said: “The estate’s decision is commercial and aligns with government guidance that the development of low-carbon infrastructure, such as solar farms, is a critical national priority.”
A Buckingham Palace spokesman declined to comment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/01/solar-farm-near-highgrove-estate-sparks-row/
.
Bunter might pretend he is saving the planet, but I am sure £1000 per acre rent had nothing to do with his decision!
The point made about what happens when the solar farm reaches the end of its life in 15 years time is a very pertinent one. Maybe the panels will be left to rot, but it will prove much harder to prevent the land being used for houses once it has desecrated.
Given the almost unanimous opposition from locals, the fact that govt guidelines clearly state solar farms should ideally use “previously developed land, brownfield sites, contaminated or industrial land”, and the devastating environmental damage which will inevitably follow, this is surely an ideal opportunity for King Charles to prove his green credentials.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
As usual, the Telegraph reporter doesn’t know the difference between power and energy. This dreadful proposal also includes a BESS. When the application goes in to the SoS I will be helping the locals with their opposition.
They don’t make economic sense, even with subsidies, without a BESS to smooth, at great expense, the very instability they cause. Nice work if you can get it.
they make even less sense with subsidies!!!
Make sense to the promoters and boosters.
Phillip,
I have no evidence but my sceptical nature assumes that with any BESSsolar farm that the battery will also or often be charged from the grid when rates are low and sold back when rates are high.
Winter produces little solar generation but grid demand is highest so using a battery in this way is both profitable and makes the solar side a trojan horse for acceptance of the scheme? From the comments the general perception of solar generation is positive where , in my view, it is the very worse of bad bunch of generation that is renewables.
Iain. From my experience, you are 100% correct. The developers barely mention the BESS, because they know decision-makers will only really be looking at the solar farm, which they can approve based on it being renewable energy which will help solve the “climate emergency” and will be supported by local and national plan policies. Most of the money will be made from the BESS, which will be used for energy trading, i.e buying energy when it is cheap (demand is low) and selling it when energy is expensive (demand is high at peak times, especially in winter). The solar farm is indeed a Trojan horse.
That is partly correct in that they will definitely be charging the BESS from the grid a lot of the time. However daily arbitrage is a relatively low earner. They will be out to make much more from the very short term Balancing Mechanism payments to smooth out the mounting imbalances in the grid that low inertia renewables create in the first place. Renewables are the gift that just keeps on giving.
If ever proof was needed consider this admission from National Grid…
“In 2020, the ENCC issued 1,800 daily balancing instructions to market participants. Today, balancing services regularly exceed 50% of national demand. For reference, the average was just 5% in 2012”
So when we had lots of large generators spinning around we barely needed to adjust things but now…….progress?
Solar power will never be of any significance in this country. We don’t have enough sunshine. The first bad hailstorm and they will be wrecked.
I keep getting a recurring image of the crop-duster in the film, North by NorthWest chasing Cary Grant….and imagining one paint-bombing a solar farm….
Don’t even need a crop duster, a couple of drones would do the job – or so a friend whispered to me.
Limited significance, perhaps, but none?
I am happy to say that my solar panels have generated a few rays less than 50MW since 2011.
And money in the bank!
Mine have only managed half that. I suspect I am further north. National grid all time statistics show solar at 3.1%. Barely worth bothering with.
Surely you mean 50MWh.
The really big solar problem is its seasonal slew. The entirety of UK solar panels produced 2,050GWh in June 2023 BUT only one tenth of that at 204GWh in December 2023. A seasonal swing of an order of magnitude so just when you need the most, it produces the least.
https://www.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive/
Yes of course.
Clean Electricity?
If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?
The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment” because it “is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle.”
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there was about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 MILLION metric tonnes by 2050.
Solar panels contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. “Approximately 90% of most PV modules are made up of glass,” notes San Jose State environmental studies professor Dustin Mulvaney. “However, this glass often cannot be recycled as float glass due to impurities. Common problematic impurities in glass include plastics, lead, cadmium and antimony.”
Horrific Details here —
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/?sh=541f1717121c
Interesting stat, George. That could mean that recycling that much PV could take more energy than was provided by them in life.
Exactly Harry.
Solar Panels are Three Times More Carbon-Intensive than the IPCC Claims.
Here’s the appalling truth —
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2023/7/3/solar-panels-are-more-carbon-intensive-than-experts-will-admit
Piece about solars on Countryfile, they never mentioned what happens to the million panels they were talking about at end of life
Which of this cast of characters drives a BEV? Spurns jet flights? Eats worms and beetles?
I’m campaigning against solar farms locally. I’m struggling to find any information on how these are financed – the proponents just say that solar power is ‘free’ but of course it isn’t. But I can’t explain to them the levels of consumer or taxpayer subsidy that goes into a solar farm. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Can anybody answer this question? It is very important in the fight against solar farms.
The amount of power a solar farm generates has also to be covered by conventional generation as well.
The concept of grid supply and demand balance requires that controllable generation must modulate output to achieve this essential state of operation. (What comes out must be matched by what comes in on an instantaneous basis)
Solar in summer can produce a fair amount of power around mid day, and the balancing generator (Combined cycle gas generation) ramps down its output, but is still running. As evening approaches solar diminishes quite significantly and gas then increases to match that drop in power and also the rise in demand.
This means that the essential gas generators run less economically than they could so their cost to the consumer is higher and must be paid.
In winter solar power is low for about four months of the year and grid demand is higher so we must maintain sufficient capacity of conventional generation to maintain grid balance and that as wind cannot be relied on (Wind output is very variable so whatever capacity it has cannot be used as basis for readily usable power).
Essentially we need as much conventional generation capacity as we have of renewable generation. This has to be paid for.
We could have no renewables and still maintain grid security, the converse is zero grid security.
Simply renewable generation is not the same as conventional generation , for practical and technical reasons, nor can it replace or supplant it.
I have tried to be as brief as possible on this one aspect but there is much more to it.
To understand what I am saying look at this site and take a little time to study and understand the graphs to se the dynamics of the grid:- G. B. National Grid status (templar.co.uk)
Also on that note how pumped storage is used so often to assist with demand as solar output falls off.
The concept of grid supply and demand balance requires that controllable generation must modulate output to achieve this essential state of operation.
In my experience, most believers do not understand (or refuse to understand) that solar energy destabilises the grid.
Iain Reid has given a very good answer but astonishingly there are even more “undisclosed” costs to consider. Solar panels produce DC (direct current) our grid runs on AC (alternating current) which is a completely different animal. Solar panel’s output is inverted from DC to AC but only by matching the alternating frequency and voltage already active on the system.
This provides no “grid forming” inertia and most importantly no Reactive Power. Reactive Power (measured in VAR) is an incredibly complex concept so much so it is variously described as “Phantom” or even “Ghost” power even by experienced electrical engineers. This descriptor by Drax is probably the easiest to follow.
Reactive power is critical to the operation of the grid and incorrect levels have caused by far the most grid collapses. We now have the crazy situation of having to pay conventional generators to “spin up” generators unpowered to provide ancillary services (such as Reactive power) but also to manage myriad other needs not provided by renewables such as solar AND Wind turbines.
The total subject is very complex so just consider this one aspect – Short Circuit Level The link is pretty self explanatory.
I literally could go on about all this for days (it was my profession) but I won’t bore you! Suffice to say solar (and wind) only generate a “partial” form of power and there are huge additional costs required to make it work. In fact beyond a certain level of supply penetration it is simply impossible to operate.
Hi again Richard, A further few points I should make are these. You are no doubt looking for direct subsidy costs such as ROCs/CfDs etc. What I have tried to show above is that there are other huge costs that are not being directly attributed to renewables. These services were previously provided (in most cases free) by conventional generators. Here is an example of Synchronous Condensers being fitted to one of the UK’s most important sub stations https://www.grupotsk.com/en/quinbrook-infrastructure-partners-and-its-development-partner-welsh-power-award-tsk-a-new-grid-stability-plant/
The cost of this sort of thing is being completely disregarded but as the link states
“This type of installation is playing an increasingly important role in electricity systems, due to the increase in the proportion of electricity generation from renewable energies.”
A further issue relates to local electricity distribution. This link is written evidence to Parliament from electrical engineering professor Steve Broderick. Although it relates to EVs, exactly the same issues (even more so) restrict roof top solar.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/82722/html/
Part 4 indicates that up to 200 customers are regularly connected to lines that max out at 300kW. Every home could not simultaneously draw significant power as it would literally blow the “fuse” at the substation but at present people don’t and the system averages out. However this simultaneous high power draw is exactly what would happen with mass adoption of Heat Pumps and/or EVs. So it simply cannot work without every home being rewired with larger power handling cables i.e. dig up every single road or replace every single overhead line in the entire country! That would cost £Trillions. Think about it though, and exactly the same problem arises from mass rooftop solar. If everyone had a 3.5kW set up they would all be simultaneously generating and trying to feed power into circuits that simply cannot take the load – just ain’t gonna happen without spending mega bucks. The hidden costs dwarf the subsidies you may come across.
“This type of installation is playing an increasingly important role in electricity systems, due to the increase in the proportion of electricity generation from renewable energies.”, which, no doubt, the renewables companies would reply: “not our fault the system isn’t able to handle it”.
Two questions, Ray et al:
What is the nature of the electricity they try to feed back? I know PV produces DC. Do they convert it to AC before the push back, or are they sending DC? Does it go back over the same power circuit over which they receive their grid power?
How does the power company/grid operator integrate the homeowner’s supplied power into their available grid power? Voltage, power, frequency, synchronization.
Is the homeowner supplied electricity really worth anything? I get the feeling it really isn’t.
Sorry, lost count.
There is a group Colchester Council Watch who are doing their best to hold that organisation to account over declaring a “Climate Emergency”.
There is a YouTube channel of presentations to the council which you may find useful. For both content and style.
This is a typical video
Thanks – yes, I have been following this group but they don’t seem to have the hard facts I’m after. I’m surprised they aren’t available as Paul Homewood regularly reports on other renewables subsidies (at least by reporting on strike prices etc.)
Solar energy is “free” in the same manner as water is “free”.
In the case of water however, at least the basic product can be stored to cope with changing demand and fluctuation in the supply of the raw product.
Unhappily solar fails on all those counts because as far as I know solar “reservoirs” have yet to be invented.
Using the same arguments, oil is also ‘free’ except that extraction rights are normally owned by somebody. The next thing to assess is the cost of backup battery storage and of standby power sources.
Richard
I suggest you contact my friend and colleague Ed Hoskins. He produces a vast amount of information on renewables such as in the link I have provided
All you need to know about Weather-Dependent “Renewables” – edmhdotme (wpcomstaging.com)
Thank you very much – that looks like an excellent resource from which some valid and justified cost comparisons can be drawn.
Brill, a wealth of useful data !!
I also came across this
Electricity price by country 2023 | Statista
Our electricity prices are some of the highest in the world, not helped by expensive renewables, propped up by subsidies both transparent and hidden . This of course means that money is sucked out of consumers pockets and into the pockets of overseas investors.
Also, the high prices makes our goods and services internationally expensive, directly impacting on our economy. No wonder our economy has been limping for years.
Our electricity prices are some of the highest in the world
It would be interesting to see price comparisons with electricity prices from a (fictional) UK grid supplied from non-renewables where the grid (inc power stations) was constructed and managed by a competent organisation over several decades.
PWR (as per Sizewell B) x several
DRAX (coal not wood! ) x several
Modern HELE coal x several
Some gas
An interesting idea. The alternative supply would have to recognise that Solar works for 11% of the time Onshore wind 22% and off shore 33%. so that shortfall needs to be made up by buying in electricity and also by storing it in non existent batteries
Try looking at the OFGEM registers on ROCs and REGOs also extracted at ref.org and the CFD Register at the Low Carbon Contracts Company. Smaller older sites may be financed by feed in tariffs, again searchable at OFGEM. Once you have some company names, Companies House searches will reveal accounts and Returns which will allow you to trace back to shareholders and provide details of share and debt finance.
You may need to get into the costs of their grid connections and who pays for them and what they are charged. Also how any corporate PPAs work. Check out websites that specialise in renewables news for references to the solar farms and stories you may have missed. Also the local press.
You are asking us why you are campaigning against them?
the proponents just say that solar power is ‘free’ but of course it isn’t
The variable cost of solar is indeed ‘free.’
The fixed cost of solar is outrageously prohibitive.
Two things to remember about large scale solar power:
they will not revert to farmland. I am told by a local farmer that the agricultural tie will be removed from the land, so it can and will be used for development.
Homes to house all the immigrants no doubt.
Hi Richard! The other evening on CountryFile (I know….) Dung Heap was banging on about solar farms and saying how good it was that animals could graze under the panels and the farmland be reinstated after they have been removed. But the farmer pointed out that the land would be redesignated as brown-field so could be used to build housing on.
I only watch CountryFile so that I can shout at Dung. ‘Cos That’s pretty much what he talks,
The Heap got too much for me quite a long time ago
Seems the greenies don’t like their own proposals when it affects them. The rest of us have to put up with (and subsidise) their ugly, intrusive nasty chemical panels but they don’t want to.
“There’s absolutely not a Nimby element to this.“
Uhhh . . . yes there is. Just cos you have reasons you think are good doesn’t change it.
Someone proposes a solar farm; locals protest. Of course they do.
Suppose the climate could change in Gloucestershire to produce many thunderous hail storms.
Fire crews are battling a huge blaze in Kilwinning this morning.
Terrified residents were told to evacuate their homes after the blaze started at the Fenix Battery Recycling plant in the Ayrshire town in the early hours. Some locals had to flee their homes while others were told to stay indoors and close their windows as the flames ripped through the factory.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/huge-fire-scots-battery-recycling-32542332
Fenix Battery Recycling Ltd is the first facility in the UK to offer on-site recycling for multiple battery types from our state-of-the-art battery shredding and recycling plant in Willenhall, West Midlands. Battery recycling facilities in the Midlands and Scotland, recycling lithium ion, alkaline, nicad, portable batteries, EV, Electric vehicle batteries, Lithium primary, lead acid, compliance consultancy. Our own collection services for small box and large bulky collections, with full Europe
https://fenixbatteryrecycling.com
Off to a good start then….
In the Mail today: an e-bike exploded on the platform of Sutton railway station, South London. Thank goodness it was not on the train.
I would guess there is a development team designing and developing fast eBike and eScooter charging points for train carriages.
Thank goodness it was not on the train.
LNER ( a UK railway company) states that ” Trains are not permitted to carry any petrol–powered vehicles, for safety reasons ” . On the evidence available, e-bikes are demonstrably unsafe to carry on trains.
On TV at the weekend that a farmer makes THREE TIMES as much per acre renting out to solar power companies than he does growing crops.
So the wonder is that the whole country isn’t carpeted yet.
It’s not your land, honey britches.
Everybody should do what I want and everything should be arranged according to my wishes.
We are a civilisation composed almost entirely of spoilt, entitled children.
Good advice, but odd coming from someone with biodiversity anxiety.
Solar Panels?
Why Everything They Said About Solar is Wrong!
Solar Panels Will Create 50 Times More Waste & Cost 4 Times More Than Predicted, New Harvard Business Review Study Finds:
Horrendous Details here —
https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-everything-they-said-about-solar?s=r
With a big oversupply of solar panels – something unknown the Australia’s clowns who are going to chuck taxpayers at solar panel production – some people are now using them for fencing as they are low maintenance.
They cannot get anything like 500 MW peak power from 2,000 acres.
General UK advice is 5.5 acres to accommodate each MW of panels. I struggle to see them making more than 360MW peak power and even then only under ideal conditions. 500MW peak from 20,000 acres is pure fantasy land figures…par for the course from the solar industry here.
Even 5.5 may be inflated to sell the junk. I found an EPA analysis of a specific plant site including spacing, roads, maybe some steep grades that ran 15 acres per MW.
My bit everyone involved seems to be desperately stupid.
“Land should be for growing food, not profits for a few landowners, manufacturers and investors.“
Does the really think the landowners, manufactures and investors growing food aren’t making profits?
We have a mega solar farm near us and NOBODY got any say in the matter…………………………………
”… designed to generate 500 megawatts…”
But how many MWh?
John,
U.K. solar availability averages about 11%
That looks like a fair assumption. This one is just up the M4 near Swindon.
https://www.ref.org.uk/generators/view.php?rid=R00741RUEN&tab=sm&returnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ref.org.uk%2Fgenerators%2Fsearch.php%3FTechGroup%3DSO%26TechCode%3DPV
This one is at an adjoining site. It gets 1.5ROCs per MWh, worth over £100/MWh in subsidy currently.
https://www.ref.org.uk/generators/view.php?rid=R00210RUEN&tab=lf&returnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ref.org.uk%2Fgenerators%2Fsearch.php%3FTechGroup%3DSO%26TechCode%3DPV%26order%3D14%26dir%3Ddesc%26start%3D100
I took a look at the accounts of Steadfast Marsh Solar Ltd. to try to get some idea of the profitability of solar. It is a relatively older project (there are few recent ones in operation because solar was discouraged after we reached the point at which it was starting to become a nuisance on the grid in summer).
It appears to have started production in January 2014. The most recent accounts cover the year to end September 2022. Revenue was £2,736,201, covering 10,612MWh over April-September, and 3,660MWh in the preceding six months, so average revenue was £191.72/MWh. ROC income from 1.6ROC/MWh and £59.76/ROC in the latter period was £1,014,677, and £58.24/ROC in the earlier period was £341,053, so subsidy averaged £95/MWh – almost 50% of revenue. The actual revenue is a long way below market prices because it appears that they were selling via PPAs that fixed prices ahead of time. Solar sold at day ahead prices over the same time garnered over £200/MWh before subsidies.
The farm cost £16,720,580 to build, and is depreciated over a 25 year assumed life (£668,824 per year). That’s around £1.2m/MW, but the low load factor makes it more like £10m/MW of production – into Hinkley Point territory. It appears shareholders contributed about 10% of the cost in shares, with the balance financed via intergroup loans, which will in turn be backed by debt, but since the company is held by an Austrian entity the trail runs cold on real underlying financing costs. However, amortising the cost at 5% over 25 years leads to an annual capital charge of about £1.186m.
Costs for operation and maintenance and land rents are reported as £1,327,041. Absent the subsidy (which is almost exactly the same size at £1,355,730) it is hard to see how it could ever generate enough income to cover its costs and pay off the investment.
It seems likely that the rash of new projects under AR4 and AR5 will not have sufficiently lowered costs to be profitable. Indeed, the Low Carbon Contracts Company has already terminated 276.2MW out of 2209.4MW of solar awarded AR4 CFDs. The current value of AR4 and AR5 CFD solar strike prices is £64/65/MWh. These bids look like placeholders in the queue trying to secure grid connection rights.
There are a couple of posts missing with links to details of other local solar parks, one near Swindon, and the Marsh Court farm that is close to where the new farm would be. They can be found at the ref.org.uk listing in the first couple of pages if you limit the list to solar.
What about the light pollution? Every year it gets worse and worse yet that is one source of pollution that these eco clots never mention.
Off-topic, record tides in the UK according to the BBC, no mention of the fact that the sun and moon are perfectly aligned (eclipse), which produces the highest tides.
Plus storm surges, 0.7m yesterday in Faversham, Thermageddon style pictures in paper of some idiot driving an expensive 4×4 through the salt water that covers the road past S&N bottling plant and brewery several times a year when the Creek backs up via the road drains, at least it wasn’t a BEV. Somebody stole the bronze tide flaps a while back apparently. The biggest surge recently was +1.0m (to 7.0m at Sheerness tide gauge) on 6/12/2013 (more in February 1953 probably but no reliable records). We also had an impressive -1.8m (anti)surge on 9/02/2020 during ‘storm’ Ciara (4.0m recorded at Sheerness against a predicted high tide of 5.8m).
One of the reasons why tidal barrages aren’t always predictable generators.
Solar Panels?
Damn Farmers! —
Meanwhile another recycling operation goes up in smoke and flames…. 40 firefighters, 2 days and only, afaics – on BBC local news.
International battery recycling “first” ….
https://fenixbatteryrecycling.com/
I expect a lot of objection to the Duke of Marlborough’s plans for 800MW of solar called Botley West that stretches from West of the eponymous Oxford suburb all the way up to the grounds of Blenheim Palace at Woodstock, surrounding Churchill’s grave at Bladon. it will be visible from the Wantage Downs, over 20 miles away.
As yet there are no plans for batteries, but they will be essential to manage fluctuating output from passing clouds. Perhaps they hope to rely on Didcot power station to provide the offsets, but the required ramp rates are huge, like dealing with the sudden loss of an interconnector cable.
I thought Didcot had closed …
The coal station has, but there is a CCGT there – rather essential when JET Culham wants to run experiments. It used to take almost the entire output of the coal station doing that.
The batteries are mainly to make huge profits from supplying peak spot prices to smooth the very instability that they cause. Topped up from cheap mains off peak rather than the panels. Surprised there are no plans for batteries, softly softly probably, get them approved later once the initial objections have been overcome.
Developers may have spotted this.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/faversham/news/protest-planned-for-solar-farm-battery-safety-council-meetin-302555/
There’s a 150MW/MWh battery called Minety Storage close by.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/minety-battery-storage-project/
Always worth checking the lay of the land here:
https://openinframap.org/#10.57/51.6242/-1.9886/L,P,S
Will the panels be jumped by the horses at the 3 day Badminton event? Hooves sliding down a bank of solar panels could do some nice damage. I wonder what the Tindalls and Princess Anne think.