Decision to come on 'eyesore' Didcot battery facility
The facility would connect to the Didcot substation south-west of the site via an underground cable.Commenting on the planning portal, resident Vicky Johnson said: "At a time when food security is more important than ever, the development will result in a loss of fully productive agricultural land and would have a major impact on the landscape and rural character of the area."The area which is already under threat from nearby development and many environmental harms from the adjacent waste transfer facility, landfill, and gravel and cement works."The development will be a huge eyesore and a highly visible industrial presence in a rural village setting."Officers have recommended the scheme for approval and said it "would not have a detrimental effect on the environment".In a report, they said benefits of the development included the "production of renewable energy for use by the technology centre, along with proposed landscape mitigation, benefiting both the site and wider landscape".If approved, the site would be operational for between 40 and 50 years, before reverting back to being agricultural fields.
You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Cash Isa bickering masks the real crisis for savers
The debate about whether Rachel Reeves should or should not limit the amount that people can save into a cash Isa has been heated. A good argument can be made that too much money has sat in low-yielding cash accounts that could be working harder in the stock market. But many people still feel, with some justification, that this is just another raid on prudent people trying to do the right thing. The problem with this debate is that most people expressing an opinion have a dog in the race. The Chancellor says she wants people to earn more on their savings – of course she does. But she also has her eye on £300bn of idle cash that would provide a useful boost to the growth promise on which she was elected if it were redirected towards UK-listed companies. That cash would also raise a useful amount of fresh revenue if, as is more likely, it simply moves from a tax-free cash account to a taxable one. You may not be surprised to learn that banks and building societies view that same money as a funding source for the mortgages and other loans they offer. They, therefore, make the case for precautionary saving, and they highlight the danger of putting money to work in the market that you might need soon to pay for a wedding, school fees or a house move. It is no surprise that their counterparts in the asset management and investment platform industry (full disclosure: that's me) prefer to focus on the historical outperformance of stock market investments over cash. We warn that holding too much cash for too long poses a different kind of threat to your financial security. We are all right, of course. There is a place for both cash and investments in our financial lives. The bigger problem is that most people don't understand financial risk. So they don't know how much importance to attach to the arguments on either side of this debate. Or what the right balance of cash and shares should be for them. Reeves highlights one risk of holding too much cash. Doing so usually means you are paying too high a price for certainty. You prefer a return of your money to a return on it. Which is reasonable for some of your savings, but not for all of them. Everyone should set aside a cash buffer before they start to think about investing in the stock market. But once they have done that, there is no reason to park any more in cash. How big that cushion should be is harder to say – it will vary according to your age, your ability to find new work if you lose your job and many other factors. Most people don't know how much cash they should sensibly hold. Consequently, some will hold too little and others far too much. But there is a long list of other risks over which they don't have a good grasp either. And, until they do, tweaking contribution limits may make less of a difference than the Chancellor hopes. You can lead a horse to water, as they say. There are a few things we, as an industry, have not done a great job of explaining. The first is the difference between volatility and risk. Volatility is the natural ups and downs of the market. This is only ever a risk if we sell our investments in response to a fall in their value and crystallise the loss. The stock market fell 20pc between February and April. But unless you sold at the bottom, you won't care now because it quickly recovered. Another point of the cash buffer is to prevent the next risk – being a forced seller. You should always have enough cash in the bank to be able to ignore short-term market volatility. Or to actively desire it as a chance to buy assets at a discount to their real value. Holding that cash is a first step towards avoiding another poorly understood risk: putting our eggs in too few baskets. One of the reasons I have been able to shrug off the market's change of heart on US assets this year is that America is only a part of my portfolio. Yes, there have been times in the past 10 years when I wished it was a bigger part than it was, but broad diversification has felt like a pretty good strategy in the first half of 2025. The biggest risk for most people when it comes to investing (or saving, come to that) is to put it off. I often tell a story about twin sisters, one who starts saving young and one who for too long finds other things to spend her money on. The prudent sister gets to a point in mid-life when she has so much capital that further saving is largely pointless. The other, meanwhile, can never catch up, no matter how long she keeps putting money aside. The point rightly made by the pro-investment lobby is that achieving the first sister's happy state is really only possible by tapping into the stock market's superior returns. The final risk that very few people properly understand is the ravage of inflation. Even those of us who think about how much we might need to fund our retirement fall into the trap of thinking about this in today's money. What we need to understand is that even at the Bank of England's 2pc target for inflation, the pot we manage to accumulate will buy us half as much in 36 years' time as it does today. At 3pc inflation, our purchasing power will halve in just 24 years. This is the strongest argument for shares over cash, which in the long run tends only to match, not beat, inflation. So while I support the Chancellor's desire to get people more focused on their investment returns than the return of their investments, this is just the start of it. Informing people how to save and invest sensibly is more important than bickering over whether they should do so via cash or the stock market.
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Pound falls despite Starmer's reassurances over Reeves's future
The value of the pound slipped further despite Sir Keir Starmer's assurances that Rachel Reeves will remain as Chancellor 'into the next election'. Sterling dropped nearly 1pc on Wednesday and government borrowing costs surged after the Chancellor shed tears in the Commons and the Prime Minister failed to back her when questioned at the depatch box. He later backed her but the pound and gilt yields – the return the government promises to buyers of its debt – failed to recover from one of the sharpest moves since the Liz Truss mini-Budget crisis. Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at Allianz, said: 'The concern in markets is that a new chancellor may not be as committed to the fiscal rules.' In early trading, the pound was last down around 0.1pc against the dollar at $1.364 and was 0.2pc lower versus the euro, which was worth 86.5p. Asked about Ms Reeves's emotional state on Wednesday, Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC: 'It was a personal matter for the Chancellor and I've been absolutely clear with you it has got nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with any discussion between me and Rachel, nothing to do with the matters of this week. 'She will be the Chancellor for a very long time to come. She is going to be the chancellor into the next election and for many years afterwards.'
The Sun
41 minutes ago
- The Sun
B&M knocks £75 off reversible corner sofa that's perfect for entertaining in the garden
B&M shoppers are scrambling to get their hands on a reversible corner sofa after one customer spotted it in-store for just £175 – down from £250. Posting in a popular deals group, she wrote: 'Reversible corner sofa spotted at B&M' – and it didn't take long for others to take notice. 2 The stylish grey sofa features a switchable chaise, meaning it can be set up to suit either side of the room. It's ideal for smaller spaces, rented homes, or anyone after a versatile living room upgrade without breaking the bank. It quickly caught the attention of fellow shoppers. Shoppers react Comments came flooding in, with people tagging mates and planning store visits. One excited shopper said: 'Wow, heading off now.' Another asked: 'Which aisle is it in?' Others simply said they 'needed this' and tagged their friends. The sofa has a clean, modern look with soft grey fabric and chunky cushions. It's not available to buy online, so anyone keen to grab it will need to check their nearest store. And it's not just sofas turning heads at B&M – a wave of recent deals has had shoppers racing to stores across the UK. Other deals to look out for One lucky customer found a luxurious velvet accent chair worth £100 scanning at the tills for just £30. Parents were thrilled to spot a giant garden slip-and-slide reduced to £10, while a chic wavy garden mirror dropped to just £1, perfect for brightening up patios. Another shopper picked up a trendy rope lampshade for £10, saving around £60 compared to designer versions. There was even a supermarket-style bargain when a customer bagged six boxes of cereal for just 50p each. Garden features that add the most value to a house A well-kept garden can add anywhere between 5-20% to the value of a property. carried out a study and consulted 36 estate agents, garden designers and property professionals from across the UK. And the experts revealed the garden feature which adds the most value to a property is a shed. Shed - 82% Patio or paving - 76% Secure fencing, walls or gates - 72% Outdoor lighting - 66% Sturdy decking - 62% Water features eg. fountain or pond - 58% Modern garden furniture - 54% Artificial lawn/grass - 40% 2
