The deadline for deciding the future of the Botley West Solar initiative has been pushed back by four months.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero moved the initial May 10 cutoff—which coincided with the weekend after local elections—to September 10.
The final determination lies with the energy secretary, currently Ed Miliband.
Martin McCluskey, the minister overseeing energy consumers, indicated the prolongation would allow his department to seek further particulars from the applicant, providing other interested parties sufficient opportunity to examine this data.
He remarked that establishing a fresh deadline for this submission does not prefigure whether development consent will receive approval or rejection.
Botley West would rank as the continent’s biggest solar facility, covering roughly 1,000 hectares (2,471 acres) across three locations—north of Woodstock, west of Kidlington, and west of Botley.
Developers Photovolt say the scheme would need an £800m outlay and produce up to 840 megawatts (almost one gigawatt), enough to power more than 300,000 homes.
Managing director Mark Owen-Lloyd called the extension a routine part of the Development Consent Order procedure, allowing the department to assess supplementary materials.
He added that they welcome the opportunity to sustain productive engagement with government and other concerned parties, noting their submission remains robust, having been developed through comprehensive community consultation and thorough environmental and technical assessment.
The Stop Botley West campaign group labelled the postponement as disappointing news for Photovolt, noting that inadequate documentation across numerous sections had been submitted.
The organisation said that while the precise details of the additional information requested remain unspecified, another four-month delay serves neither the applicant well nor alters their view that necessary paperwork was missing in several areas throughout the examination.
Calum Miller, MP for Bicester and Woodstock, suggested the revised timeline indicates the Planning Inspectorate recommended refusal.
He criticised the process for giving the developer further opportunity to bolster a submission that ought to have been complete already.
Miller observed the Planning Inspectorate had voiced explicit criticism of Photovolt’s conduct when issuing a Rule 17 letter detailing various objections and describing the applicant’s reply as dismissive.
The Inspectorate further commented it was striking that the developer had simply repeated its methodology despite numerous concerns.
Miller concluded that ministers ought not permit developers additional time to evaluate their own proposals, adding the application should have been turned down with guidance to resubmit with a strengthened scheme.
He also noted that with domestic energy bills still exposed to shifts in worldwide oil and gas markets, renewable energy sources must assume an essential function in strengthening energy security, and that if the government seeks public backing for the clean energy transition, it cannot overlook local scrutiny whenever a developer’s case starts to falter.