Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) I very much welcome the
opportunity that this evening’s debate gives me to raise the matter
of large-scale solar farms. There have been previous debates on the
subject in Westminster Hall, and I know that many right hon. and
hon. Members have raised concerns about the loss of food production
and the planning process. I note that there are one or two
colleagues in the Chamber this evening who may want to chip in.
Food security and...Request free trial
(Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I very much welcome the opportunity that this evening’s debate
gives me to raise the matter of large-scale solar farms. There
have been previous debates on the subject in Westminster Hall,
and I know that many right hon. and hon. Members have raised
concerns about the loss of food production and the planning
process. I note that there are one or two colleagues in the
Chamber this evening who may want to chip in.
Food security and energy security are competing requirements in
our economy, and we must recognise that. No doubt someone
listening to this debate—it is usually some sort of blogger on
some eco-site—will report that we are all anti-renewable energy,
which, of course, is not what the debate is about and could not
be further from the truth; it is, in fact, quite the
opposite.
Let me start by saying that electricity generation from solar has
been a major success, and has come a long way in the last 12
years. Last Sunday at noon, 5.74 GW out of a total of 33.1 GW
delivered by the national grid was from solar. Total solar
generating capacity is now about 14.6 GW, and the energy strategy
objective is to increase that fivefold to 70 GW by 2035. I
understand that, by the end of January 2023, there were 1,360
operational solar farms covering about 100,000 acres. It is
estimated that a further 160 solar farms have been approved and
there are several hundred more planning applications in the
pipeline, including at least seven nationally significant
infrastructure planning applications which are over 50 MW. That
planning and construction pipeline could be equivalent to a
further 150,000 acres of solar panels, the majority of which
would be ground-mounted on farmland.
To date, this solar expansion has received a good level of public
support. In my constituency, the first applications, in 2015,
were approved with the benefit of public support. They were
typically 5 MW, and located near industrial estates. By 2018, 20
MW applications were coming forward, and by 2020, typical
applications were just under 50 MW—the maximum under which the
local planning authority was responsible for deciding the
applications. Now there is public concern about the increasing
number of applications, and the more than tenfold increase in the
size of some of them.
(West Suffolk) (Ind)
As a supporter of solar energy, I think the central point is
that, if there is no local support for projects because they are
in the wrong place, that will undermine support for renewable
energy. In my constituency, I have supported many solar projects
and continue to support them now, but the Sunnica project goes
right round villages and destroys local amenity. The consultation
has been woeful, and both county and local councils are against
the project, as is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
Sport, whose constituency it also covers. Is not the point that
those who support solar should support it in the right place, and
not get people’s backs up with terrible consultation and projects
that should be sent back to the drawing board?
My right hon. Friend is correct. I know how seriously he takes
solar energy in his own constituency, because we have talked
about this before. The public must be on board, and it is
important for there to be clarity for them in the planning
process. I will say more about some of the points he has raised
later in my speech.
(Witney) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has made some excellent points which will
certainly have been heard by my constituents in West Oxfordshire
who are subject to the Botley West proposal, or, as it has been
called locally, the Blenheim power station. He has referred to
large-scale solar farms. The one proposed in my constituency is
to be the size of Heathrow—the biggest, if allowed, in Europe,
and the biggest ever allowed on farmland—and 76% of it will be on
green belt land. What he has just said about public support is
entirely right. We all support solar energy, but when projects
are this size and when they have an irreversible impact on local
areas, that will subtract from public support. Does he agree
that, as well as protecting power, we must ensure that we protect
amenity, farmland, food security and the character of rural
areas?
My hon. Friend is right: we must do all those things and,
especially given the conflicts that are taking place around the
world, we must ensure that our food security is protected. In my
constituency, there are a number of large breweries, which depend
heavily on local growers for their supply chains. My hon. Friend
has made a brilliant point. He also referred to farmland. As the
size of these proposed solar farm increases, so does the amount
of productive farmland—
(Strangford) (DUP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
It would be rude if I did not give way to my very hon. Friend the
Member for Strangford ().
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. Where
there is agreement with the community, yes we can do this, but
where there is not agreement with the community, we should not be
doing it. The hon. Member for Witney () mentioned productive
farmland. That is important because at some stage we want to
become self-sufficient, but we can only become self-sufficient if
we keep the good land for productive purposes. Does the right
hon. Gentleman agree that solar farms must be on unproductive
land, and not on the productive land that can help us to be
self-sufficient and not have to import from the rest of the
world?
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on.
As I said, as these solar farms increase in size, so will the
amount of productive farmland being taken up by them. The
description “best and most versatile” farmland is often included
in these proposals. I understand that the National Farmers Union
says that solar farms should avoid agricultural land of
classification 1, 2 and 3A, which is the “best and most
versatile” land. The NFU advises that that land should be avoided
where practical. It is also my understanding that the new
national planning policy framework guidelines may explicitly
state that land used for food production gains additional
protection in the planning system. I think that is something that
many Members here today would like to see, and so would our
constituents. That would also offer absolute clarity for local
planning authorities. This is a key question that my constituents
and landowners want answers to. So my question to the
Minister—there will be one or two more—is, when can we have clear
guidance? I appreciate that this might not be a matter for her
Department, but it would be most welcome if she could tell us
when we are going to get that guidance and the changes to the
NPPF.
Developers often state that land under and around solar panels
can be used to graze animals. The last time I looked, grass for
grazing required sunlight to grow, but the objective of a solar
farm is obviously to capture as much sunlight as possible, so I
would argue that the grass under solar panels is therefore of
very low quality and that the proposition lacks credibility.
Also, the requirement for security fencing and CCTV surveillance
has increased, because solar farms have suffered thefts of panels
and ancillary agreement. In 2021, 220 solar panels were stolen
from a farm in Lincolnshire.
The need to locate solar farms as close as possible to a grid
connection is leading to clusters of solar farm proposals. In
July 2022, a 50 MW solar farm was approved close to Camblesforth,
which happens to be the village I grew up and went to school in.
It is very close to the Drax power station. The application
received only two objections and was supported by the parish
council. The same developer has since applied for another 50 MW
solar farm to the south of the village, and another developer,
Helios, is preparing an application for a 250 MW, 1,850 acre
solar farm to the west of the village. Then, just to the east,
Boom Power is consulting on a fourth solar farm of 400 MW, which
would cover nearly 3,000 acres in the constituency of my right
hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
(Haltemprice and Howden)
(Con)
I agree with everything that has been said so far, but it is not
just about preserving productive land; it is also about
preserving amenity. This 3,000-acre proposal will surround a
number of villages in what is currently a beautiful piece of
rural English countryside, and the proposal is essentially
anti-democratic because it will not be decided by the local
council—it will eventually go to the chief inspector. I have
asked for the views of all the residents of those villages, and
so far 50% have come back, with 78% of them wanting the proposal
stopped. However, as it stands, there is no mechanism to do
so.
I agree with my right hon. Friend and neighbour. We need
Ministers from, I suspect, several Departments to provide
absolute clarity to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of
the House, and to local planning authorities, given the
cumulative impact of these large-scale solar farms. My right hon.
Friend has a village that, if all these planning applications go
ahead, is likely to be surrounded by solar farms, as could the
village of Camblesforth. By the way, Camblesforth has approved a
solar farm close by, but the cumulative impact of huge solar
farms causes understandable concern for residents.
All four solar farms include containers full of batteries on
farmland. The land to be used for the proposed Helios farm is
almost all “best and most versatile”—category 2 and 3a—land that
currently grows cereals and root crops. About 60% of the land in
the Boom Power proposal is best and most versatile, as is 58% of
the land in the Wade House Lane proposal. In contrast, the three
applications submitted in 2015 were all on category 3b land, and
therefore not within this classification, hence they did not
receive the number of objections that these large-scale proposals
have received. With these four solar farms, we are talking about
a total of 5,500 acres, or nearly 9 square miles, with a large
percentage of it being best and most versatile agricultural
land.
(Henley) (Con)
The concern of my constituents is precisely that the solar farm
described by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney () is just the tip of the
iceberg, and that Oxford colleges will look to have a huge
network of solar farms that will blight the Oxfordshire
countryside for years to come.
My hon. Friend makes a good point, as have most colleagues this
evening. It would be interesting to know how many people who work
at those colleges, which I guess are the developers, would be
prepared to live in the middle of the site.
I also note that there is a changing public response to solar
farm proposals. There has definitely been an abrupt change in
public opinion from support to opposition. There were only two
objections to the first solar farm near Camblesforth, but the
residents group I met a few weeks ago that opposes the latest
proposal has almost 500 members. The most common objection to the
project concerns the loss of productive farmland. They say the
land for the Helios proposal could grow more than 4,000 tonnes of
wheat a year, or 10,000 tonnes of root crops such as carrots or
parsnips. They point to brownfield sites, of which there are
several in the Selby district, or the roofs of buildings. Crikey,
we have a number of ex-coalmine sites in the Selby district, and
some large farm buildings have already been fitted with solar
panels, which has the added advantage of providing power for
energy-intensive operations such as grain drying.
I appreciate that we have only half an hour and the Minister
needs to respond, but residents have lots of other considerations
when they raise objections to large-scale solar, including the
loss of residential amenities, especially where homes are going
to be surrounded by solar farms. There are concerns about safety
in the light of fires and explosions at large battery storage
units.
There is also the fact that applications receive temporary
approval. It was initially 25 years, but I understand it is now
40 years. I remember when the Selby coalfield was given approval.
That land was supposed to be returned back to farmland when
mining stopped but, guess what, that has not happened.
People have these concerns I am outlining. They are concerned
about the noise from the switchgear; the visual impact of the
fences and the cameras; and the low credibility of some of the
biodiversity net gain proposals. I could go on, but I will not,
because I know that the Minister is itching to get to her feet to
tell us when we are going to have answers to some of the
questions colleagues have raised.
Solar power has reached the point where it makes a significant
contribution to our power generation, and it can continue to do
so, but we have to make sure it is done sensitively. This is not
just about using words; we need clear guidance. I am encouraged
by some of the noises made about what could be in the revised
wording of the national planning policy framework, but the
proposals for solar that are coming forward now are much larger
than we have previously seen. We are seeing an increasing level
of opposition to them; we do not normally get this many
colleagues in the House for an Adjournment debate. If that
opposition from communities and Members of Parliament continues,
this will impede our progress in getting towards net zero. The
points I have raised need to be addressed by the Minister, and I
appreciate that input may also be required from Ministers in
other Departments.
7.51pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security
and Net Zero ()
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty
() for securing this important
debate on large solar farms. Let me say in advance that if I am
unable to answer any of his questions, I will get back to him at
a later stage. I also wish to acknowledge all the other
contributions from right hon. and hon. Members on this important
subject.
Decarbonising and securing the UK’s energy supply is one of the
biggest challenges facing us today. Two years ago, the Government
adopted their sixth carbon budget: the world’s most ambitious
climate change goal of reducing emissions by 77% by 2035 compared
with 1990 levels. Of course, 2035 is not that far away—the clock
is ticking—which is why in our net zero strategy the Government
committed to securing and fully decarbonising the UK’s
electricity supply. That will require a sustained increase in
deploying low-carbon technologies such as solar, alongside wind,
new nuclear, battery storage, and carbon capture utilisation and
storage.
The dramatic rise in global energy prices following the covid-19
pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has only served to
emphasise the urgency here and demonstrate how crucial it is that
we build a strong, home-grown renewable energy sector to further
reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and limit consumer bills. In
the British energy security strategy, the Government committed to
enabling a fivefold increase in solar deployment of up to 70 GW
in capacity by 2035, which will require a step change in
deployment. Large-scale solar farms and smaller-scale commercial
and domestic rooftop installations are all essential to meeting
that commitment.
Solar is a safe, mature, resilient and versatile technology that
can be quickly deployed in a range of locations. Its carbon
footprint is much lower than that of coal or gas. Solar is key to
the Government’s strategy to decarbonise the UK’s energy supply
at low cost. Large-scale solar is one of the UK’s cheapest
electricity generating technologies. The Government recognise
that deploying large solar projects, as with any new
infrastructure, will have local impacts. Although Government
surveys indicate that solar is one of the most popular renewable
energy sources, we fully appreciate that people living in the
vicinity of proposed developments may be concerned about the
effects on their local amenity. That point was eloquently
explained by my right hon. Friend and it is why solar
developments of all sizes are subject to robust planning controls
to protect local communities and the environment.
My right hon. Friend will understand that given the Department’s
statutory responsibility for determining individual planning
applications for energy projects, Ministers are unable to comment
on the specifics of individual applications. I can set out,
however, how the planning controls work for solar in general
terms.
Planning applications for projects up to 50 MW capacity in
England are determined by local planning authorities. Most solar
projects in England fall into that category. Local authorities
will consider a range of factors when assessing applications,
including environmental impacts. Projects up to 350 MW in Wales
are devolved and decisions are made either by local authorities
or the Welsh Government. Planning in Scotland and Northern
Ireland is fully devolved.
For projects over 50 MW in England and over 350 MW in Wales,
planning decisions are made by the Secretary of State for Energy
Security and Net Zero through the NSIP—nationally significant
infrastructure project—regime, which allows for rigorous scrutiny
of such projects.
The planning system sets out how decision makers should consider
the impacts on local communities and amenities, particularly
where a number of solar projects are deployed in close proximity.
If designed carefully, the visual impact of a well-planned and
well-screened solar project can be properly addressed within the
landscape. Under local and NSIP planning systems, developers must
complete considerable community engagement as part of the
application process. Members of the public can submit their views
to the planning authorities and significant concerns will be
taken into account as part of the local decision-making
process.
My hon. Friend used the phrase “if designed carefully”. It is not
possible to design carefully a 3,000-acre site that surrounds
four or five villages. By definition, that will cause a massive
assault on the amenity of individuals living in that area.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I have taken
note of it and will report it back to the relevant Minister.
For NSIP projects, communities can participate in the formal
examination process run by the Planning Inspectorate. That gives
communities the opportunity to make their views known on and
influence projects before decisions are taken.
All large solar developers must complete an environmental
statement for any application—
Before the Minister moves on, will she give way?
Of course.
I am grateful. Does that mean that if a solar farm project is not
well designed, it will not be passed? The Sunnica proposal in my
West Suffolk constituency is very badly designed. It looks
completely nuts from first principles because it is all over the
place and around these villages. It damages the amenity of
Newmarket and its globally significant racing industry. Nobody
could argue that it is well designed, so will she confirm that
that should be at the forefront of the Minister’s mind when the
statutory decision is taken?
I thank my right hon. Friend for the question. He will understand
that I do not know the “nuts” project that he is talking about,
but again, I will pass that on to the relevant Minister.
All large solar developments must complete an environmental
statement, as I was saying. Decision makers will consider a range
of factors, such as whether the project proposal allows for
continued agricultural use where relevant or encourages
biodiversity improvements around the proposed site. Solar farms
are temporary in nature and most solar panel components and
equipment can be recycled.
Will the Minister give way?
I will, but I have only about two minutes left.
I will be quick. The Minister says solar farms are designed to be
temporary in nature, but in the case of the Botley West solar
farm, the proposal is for about 40 years. That is not temporary
but long term, and is it not the case that those areas will never
be the same again?
Again, with my hon. Friend’s permission, I will take that point
back to the relevant Minister and get back to him with an answer.
I am aware that I only have a few minutes left, so with your
permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will continue.
Solar projects and agricultural practice can co-exist. Many solar
projects are designed to enable continued livestock grazing.
There is also a science of agrivoltaics developing, in which
solar is integrated with arable farming in innovative ways. Solar
energy can be an important way for farmers to increase their
revenue from land less suited to higher-value crop production.
There is also evidence that solar can improve biodiversity where
it is installed on agricultural land.
Protecting our environment, backing British farmers and
delivering long-term energy security with more low-carbon energy
are all at the heart of His Majesty’s Government’s manifesto. It
is possible to maintain and increase our food production in a
more sustainable way in some areas, and to see land use change
occur in others.
Striking the right balance between different land uses is a
challenging task and will involve trade-offs. There are many uses
of our land that we need to anticipate for the future, such as
growing food, hosting low-carbon energy projects, planting trees,
building homes, natural habitats, land for infrastructure, and
leisure and recreation. In the Government’s food strategy we
committed to publish a land use framework for England in 2023,
which will help to inform how we manage those trade-offs. In
terms of the safety of these systems, when installed, maintained
and decommissioned correctly, electricity storage poses minimal
risks.
To conclude, solar is a UK success story. Over 99% of the UK’s
solar capacity has been deployed since 2010. The technology’s
flexibility, low costs and rapid deployment can help us to reach
our challenging net zero targets, strengthen our energy security,
and bring new green jobs and economic growth. It is clear that
that growth must be sustained and enabled by a robust planning
system that balances those wider benefits against the local
impacts.
Question put and agreed to.
|
