There’s a solution to this problem

Now the owners have submitted a planning application to install 200 solar panels on the island.

The application says that panels will be installed on a former tennis court and surrounded by a hedge that shields them from sight. But residents who live a few hundred yards away on the mainland contend that when they look out to sea they will be dazzled by reflected sun.
In papers submitted to South Hams district council, Deborah Clark and Tony Orchard, the owners, say their electricity costs have spiralled by 40 per cent in recent years. The 25-room Art Deco hotel, which opened in 1929, relies on an electricity supply from the mainland as well as expensive oil and bottled gas.
Mr Porter, who sold the island in 2001, said: “We are horrified that this application has been lodged. We spent 16 years doing everything we could to restore it to its former beauty. Now this green island sleeping in the sun is going to be scarred by this horrible shiny thing. It will visible from miles away. It is going to glint in the sun and spoil the whole thing.”

Four objections have been received to date by the council, including one from Hubert Ashton of Folly Hill, which overlooks the island. He said: “This would be a monstrous carbuncle on an old friend. It would be ruinous for the beauty of the island.”

All of this is fine. We get it. You value the island as it is, the current owners wish to reduce their electricity bills. The solution therefore is for you gentlemen, Mssrs. Porter and Ashton, to put your hands in your own pockets and pay the extra costs of keeping the island the way that you value it.

Otherwise you can fuck off.

18 thoughts on “There’s a solution to this problem”

  1. I drove down there last week to take a look at the hotel (Mrs G. is a fan of Agatha Christie novels, especially those relating to the man with little grey cells). Regretfully the cost of utilities in this neck of the wood is exacerbated by a reliance on expensive domestic heating oil and LPG – and as unsightly as solar panels can be, it is difficult to turn down subsidised electricity.

  2. One of my favorite places on the planet. Anything that helps reduce the costs of staying there, I’m all for. lol
    Its surely not beyond the wit of the installers to arrange camouflage or leylandii on the mainland side.

  3. Horrible shiny thing glinting in the sun…?
    I thought solar panels were supposed to absorb sunlight, not reflect it.
    Silly me, it’s money they absorb. That’s on a different wavelength.

  4. Been driving around Bavaria every Summer for many years. Bright hot sun, and more solar panels on roofs every year. I have not once been dazzled by a reflection. They’re making this shit up.

  5. That hotel is rather a lot of windows which I imagine also reflect the sun, so one more reflective object just means keeping the sun glasses on a bit longer. Its not like its reflecting 24 x 7.

  6. ” panels made of “dark grey non-reflective glass”.
    So how will the complainers be dazzled by the reflection?
    Dismiss that complaint without a hearing

  7. A fascinating clash of one variant of Greenism (conservation, however contrived) and another, the renewables side.

    Generally the renewables side wins these battles, being holier, more ruthless and vastly better funded.

  8. “But residents who live a few hundred yards away on the mainland contend that when they look out to sea they will be dazzled by reflected sun.”

    Yes, the sea does tend to do that.

  9. In this case making the objectors pay is not very libertarian – unless the island is off the grid the solar system’s owners get a nice little subsidy from the rest of us.

  10. We spent 16 years doing everything we could to restore it to its former beauty

    And then you sold it.

    When you sell something, the new owners can do what they like with it. They could concrete over the whole thing if they like, for no other reason than they want to spite you.

    If you want to keep control over something, don’t sell it. Simple.

  11. bloke (not) in spain

    I’m trying to work out the geometry of this.
    The panels are set at the optimum angle to intersect sunlight. For a panel to dazzle a viewer, the reflected light would need to be horizontal. For this to happen, the sun would have to be at well above the optimum angle.
    That’s not to say it can’t happen. I’ve been dazzled by SP’s in Spain, where solar farms abound.. But I’m pretty sure that’s always happened when I’ve been at considerably greater altitude than the panels. l

  12. BIS – presumably the angle is not optimal all day which makes glaring a little more likely? I talked to someone who knew a bit about this last summer, he reckoned that the cost of allowing panels to move throughout the day to track the sun (particularly installation and maintenance) generally outweighed the benefits now the panels are more efficient. Though I may have got wrong end of stick.

  13. Hmm, an island on the south coast. Fair to say the panels are probably inclined to the south, ie away from the mainland?

    Sounds like a trick-shot to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *