A MILLIONAIRE landowner is considering going to the Supreme Court after losing a Court of Appeal battle against a £10.5 million solar farm near his Grade II-listed home.

Daniel Gerber, from Broughton Gifford, initially won a High Court order quashing the 2013 planning permission allowing solar panels to be erected on a 22.1 hectare site near Gifford Hall, his six-bedroom residence worth nearly £3m.

But the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court decision because of his delay in taking legal action.

Mr Gerber said he first realised the site was being developed when he noticed work being carried out in March 2014 and launched his legal proceedings the following August.

He objected to the solar farm on the grounds of the detrimental impact it would have on the setting of Gifford Hall.

High Court judge Mr Justice Dove extended time limits to allow him to bring judicial review proceedings and then allowed his challenge.

But three appeal judges - Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, sitting with Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Justice Sales - ruled Mr Justice Dove had been wrong to extend time.

Lord Justice Sales said speedy action was required in such challenges in order to be fair to everyone, including developers. Mr Gerber had given no good excuse for the lengthy delay in launching his challenge.

Plans for the solar farm had been widely publicised locally, said the judge.

"Landowners are expected to be reasonably observant in keeping an eye on developments in their locality which might affect them," said Lord Justice Sales.

The judge said "major financial detriment" would be suffered by site operators Norrington Solar Farm Limited and Terraform Powers if the planning permission was quashed.

The companies had told the courts that the installation cost was £10.5m and that restoration of the site would cost £1.5m, with only an "uncertain" second-hand market for the panels.

The judge said viability of renewable energy schemes, which were in the national interest, was likely to depend on attracting investment at significant levels in capital markets.

The judge said investment might not be forthcoming "if there is any serious question mark about the validity of necessary planning permissions after a reasonable period has elapsed with no steps being taken to mount a legal challenge to the lawfulness of such permissions".

Lawyers later indicated that Mr Gerber was reviewing the option of taking his case to the Supreme Court as it raised planning issues of general public importance.