Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) I beg to move, That this
House has considered large solar farms. It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank colleagues from
across the House who are attending this debate, many of whom will
be highlighting issues around large solar farms in their own
constituencies. I thank the Minister for attending and all those
watching at home on Parliament TV. I will briefly outline the
planning process for...Request free
trial
(Bassetlaw) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered large solar farms.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I
thank colleagues from across the House who are attending this
debate, many of whom will be highlighting issues around large
solar farms in their own constituencies. I thank the Minister for
attending and all those watching at home on Parliament TV.
I will briefly outline the planning process for solar farms.
Solar photovoltaic panels, known as solar panels, generate
electricity from the sun, and large-scale solar installations are
known as solar farms. Planning is a devolved issue, but energy
plants that generate more than 100 MW for offshore and 50 MW for
onshore generation are treated as nationally significant
infrastructure projects and a development consent order must be
sought from the Secretary of State for them; solar farms that
generate power below that threshold require planning permission
only from the local planning authority.
The national planning policy framework provides the framework in
which local planning authorities draw up local plans and
determine planning applications, and encourages them to promote
renewable development and identify appropriate sites for it. The
goal, which is admirable, is to meet the challenges of climate
change, flooding and coastal change, including our transition to
a low-carbon future.
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this incredibly
important debate and on his excellent speech so far. Does he
agree that his assessment of the planning situation so far is the
core of the issue? While we all accept that net zero is an
important goal and the need for many farmers to find extra
subsidies, the problem with the planning framework as it stands
is that many large solar farms are being put up that generate
just under the 50 MW limit, so they do not require an
environmental impact assessment or the level of community input
that they so deserve. Does he agree that that would be a welcome
addition to the national planning policy framework that the
Minister should consider?
I thank the hon. Member for her input. I agree that it is
extremely important that we move on and invest in renewables, but
having community input and ensuring that we choose the right
sites, that people have been consulted properly and that the
planning process works for everybody, is incredibly important.
That is the key issue. Few people are against renewable energy,
and solar farms in general are not the issue; it is very much a
planning issue of getting things in the right place at the right
time.
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
There is another point, too. Recent events in particular have
shown us that we need more security, including food security, but
these solar farms are often sited on grade 1 or grade 2
agricultural land, which should be used for food production. Does
my hon. Friend agree that the production of energy should be as
close to its consumption as possible, to minimise transmission
and distribution costs? Until we have solar on every large
building, there should be none in fields at all.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. The threat to
agricultural land is the crux of the problem, certainly in my own
constituency, as I will describe a little later. With the
situation in Ukraine at the moment, we have to look to our wheat
supplies, and we want to source more of our food locally, because
that contributes to reaching net zero, which is important too.
Getting that balance right and making sure that we do not throw
the baby out with bath water, so to speak, as we move forward is
key. Of course, solar needs to be used in a mix with many other
energy sources, so that we have a secure supply of energy, bring
less of it from abroad and generate more of our own. I very much
agree with my right hon. Friend.
The planning practice guidance provides more detail on renewable
and low-carbon energy. It notes that
“large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural
environment, particularly in undulating landscapes. However, the
visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar farm can
be properly addressed within the landscape if planned
sensitively.”
That is key. The guidance also states that solar farms should be
focused on
“previously developed and non-agricultural land…that it is not of
high environmental value”,
as my right hon. Friend just mentioned.
The Planning Act 2008 introduced a new consent process for
nationally significant infrastructure projects in order to speed
up the approval process, especially for large-scale developments.
A development consent order removes the need to obtain several of
the consents that would have otherwise been required, including
planning permission, compulsory purchase order and the like, with
the idea of speeding up the process that we had before.
Applications for DCOs are decided in accordance with national
policy statements. In the absence of one, the Secretary of State
has the power to make a decision. Although the current NPS argues
for more renewable energy, it does not explicitly mention solar
energy. However, a revised version is currently being considered,
and an inquiry has been undertaken by the Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy Committee. The revised draft suggests guiding
development away from the “best and most fertile” agricultural
land and, where possible, utilising developed brownfield sites,
contaminated land, industrial land or agricultural land that is
preferably classification 3b, 4 or 5 rather than 1 or 2. Of
course, we want to extend that to the underground cabling and
access routes that will also be required with such developments.
As Bassetlaw has been badly hit by flooding in the past, my
constituents would add to the revised draft a requirement to make
any development safe without increasing flood risks
elsewhere.
Solar installations greater than 5 MW can also bid for
competitive Government funding through contracts for difference,
and installations up to that level can receive payments from
energy companies for the electricity that they export to the grid
through the Government-backed smart export guarantee. The energy
White Paper refers to solar and wind, including unsubsidised
rooftop solar, as part of a low-cost approach to energy
generation. It also mentions green skills boot camps, including
for solar.
Although many people agree that we need to further increase the
supply of green energy, significant concerns have been raised by
constituents in Bassetlaw about proposals put forward by West
Burton Solar Project Ltd and developed by Island Green Power.
They have submitted plans to build a 600-acre solar farm and
energy storage infrastructure, which will be one of the largest
single solar farm sites in the UK. Many believe that it is
disproportionate and not appropriate. The site abuts two special
conservation villages, Clayworth and Gringley on the Hill, and
many people would emphasise the local landscape, which is rich in
wildlife such as badgers, brown hare, deer and a vast array of
farm birds, which has been enjoyed for generations. There are
also related plans to develop several sites across the border in
Lincolnshire, which I am sure we will hear about later.
Many people find it very strange that although they are unable to
have solar panels on their roofs because they live in
conservation areas, they now face the prospect of a large solar
farm effectively connecting both villages. The installation would
be visually intrusive for miles around, and any screening would
therefore provide very little improvement. I have raised some
concerns about the loss of countryside, the environmental impact
and the flood risk, and there is also the issue of the water
management system in Clayworth, which is a concern for us.
In contrast to similar projects that Members have raised,
greenfield developments are supposed to be targeted at
poor-quality farmland. From the feedback we have received, it is
vital that we retain our countryside for the benefit of those who
live there and that we make sure it continues to work for us.
I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend again—I know that time
is pressing. None the less, he may know that the Secretary of
State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—and more or less
everything else—has made it absolutely clear that beauty should
be at the heart of the planning process. Indeed, the planning
process was altered by his predecessor and has been confirmed by
him to do just that. No solar park of the kind my hon. Friend is
describing or industrial wind turbine placed in the middle of the
countryside could pass any test of beauty, except the most
perverse and corrupted one.
I thank my right hon. Friend again. That is certainly an issue in
our green and pleasant land. That is why I find it encouraging
that there has been a move to utilising brownfield sites, not
just for energy, but for housing and so on, making sure we make
full use of brownfield sites before we look at our green fields
and develop for the sake of developing.
Feedback from the consultants for Island Green Power claims that
the soil quality is grade 3b, which would open it up to the
process we have described. There are several questions about that
given the high-yield crops that are grown there, including
potatoes, which only grow in higher quality soils. We have
already mentioned food security and energy. There is a lot of
scepticism about the soil quality analysis, which is arguable,
and I understand that Bassetlaw District Council is carrying out
its own analysis. We need to grow more of our own food locally,
not only to cut carbon emissions, but to mitigate wider problems
such as the soaring price of wheat resulting from the situation
in Ukraine, which is a particular concern at the moment.
I thank my constituents, including the “No Solar Desert” campaign
group, who have worked hard to bring the issue to public
attention and to engage thoughtfully. I had the pleasure of
attending their coffee morning last week. Many are watching the
debate today. It is worth emphasising some arguments made about
the plans, and why local people believe the proposed site is not
suitable.
The site does not meet many of Island Green Power’s selection
criteria. It is not low-grade agricultural land or a brownfield
site. It is near protected areas, such as the Idle Valley nature
reserve. It is not flat or south-facing, and it is not near a
viable grid connection, which creates another issue. Questions
therefore remain about the efficiency of solar panels on this
site, with some estimating it could be a low as 27%. I want to
use this opportunity to throw in a reference from “Robin Hood:
Prince of Thieves”—I do so regularly, as a Nottinghamshire
MP:
“Is there no sun in this cursed country?”
There is, but in many cases there is not enough of it— we could
all do with a little sunshine now—and perhaps this site is not
the best place to utilise the sunshine most effectively.
Island Green Power is a UK-based developer that specialises in
large-scale developments. It has developed projects in Australia,
Ireland and so on. It has signed an options agreement with the
Charity to explore the
potential of the 600-acre site between Clayworth and Gringley—a
huge development. I thank Island Green Power for its engagement
with me on the issue, which I look forward to continuing. The
Charity, which owns the site
and other land in the area, along with several properties, has an
option agreement with Island Green Power. It is a charitable
trust—one of the biggest grant givers in the country—with assets
of around £1 billion, and this is one of its investments. The
charity is governed by a board of trustees appointed by the
. I know that many
have a desire to protect the British countryside. I encourage
them to engage with me and my constituents on this issue, which
has not happened so far.
We must not reach a situation where we have a wild-west style
gold rush, with developers looking to increase the value of their
land and their financial gains—
(Ynys Môn) (Con)
Ynys Môn is known as energy island, as we have wind, wave, tidal,
hydrogen, solar and, I hope, nuclear energy, if I have anything
to do with it. My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently about the
need for balance and that we are addressing efficiencies. Could
he reflect on the number of jobs that solar energy creates
locally?
I thank my hon. Friend for raising one of the key points. Solar
is important as part of our mix, as are the other forms of energy
that she mentioned. I certainly welcome the huge range of energy
sources, which I know my hon. Friend campaigned hard for in Ynys
Môn. The only thing that I would say to people around the country
is, “Please stay away from the fusion project,” because that will
happen in Bassetlaw, ideally.
The Government have made an admirable push towards renewables,
but we do not want areas that would previously have been
off-limits to be taken advantage of. We must cut that off at the
pass. Many have also mentioned things such as greenwashing, and
have rightly questioned where there is actually any local benefit
to some of the schemes.
I believe that sensitive planning has an important role to play
in addressing the visual impact of solar farms and, more widely,
in the development of low-carbon infrastructure. It should
include consideration of the character and beauty of the
countryside, and whether the land is best used for solar or
agricultural purposes. Thank you, Sir Charles. I look forward to
hearing the contributions from colleagues in today’s debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
(in the Chair)
Order. I call Ian Paisley—four minutes.
2.46pm
(North Antrim) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Sir Charles. It is an honour to follow my
hon. Friend from across the House, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw
(), as a co-sponsor of
the debate. I thank him for introducing this important subject so
well. Principally, it is about large solar farms here on the
British mainland, but we have similar issues challenging us in
Northern Ireland. I am all for harvesting our natural resources
for energy, but that policy must be consistent with others. We
cannot just have carte blanche for one of them.
I will make six points, very briefly. First, solar cannot deliver
power output value for land use. Secondly, large-scale solar is
useless without battery energy storage plants, which can pose
inherent dangers to human health and the environment. Thirdly,
large-scale solar developments are a poor use of valuable
agricultural land.
Fourthly, there are human rights abuses in the solar supply
chain, and the UK taking economic advantage and benefit from
those abuses should be called out and challenged. Fifthly, the
use of coal-powered electricity in the solar panel supply chain
means that we reduce our carbon footprint here at the expense of
somewhere else. That is not right. Finally, there is a lack of
consideration of end of life recycling of solar panels, or of
those subject to being upgraded. That should also be
examined.
I will focus on only three of those matters, which you will
appreciate, Sir Charles. The first is the value for land use.
Take, for example, Sunnica’s proposed solar development in
Cambridgeshire. Sunnica claims that it will be a 500 MW solar
power station, delivering 23.5 million MWh over 40 years, and it
will occupy 11 sq km of valuable arable land. That is impressive.
However, when you break down the facts, per year that is 588,000
MWh, which, when divided by 8,760 hours per year, is only 67.2
MW, not 500 MW. That is an important distinction because 67.2 MW
is less than one seventh of the rated power of the scheme.
(West Suffolk) (Con)
The Sunnica scheme is largely in my West Suffolk constituency, as
well as in east Cambridgeshire; it is across the boundary. The
hon. Member is quite right to draw attention to that point, but
will he comment on the fact that the biggest generator of energy
in the proposed scheme is a battery farm rather than a solar
farm? It seems absurd that the two must be lumped together. One
might almost argue that Sunnica has put a smaller solar farm on a
battery project to try to build a battery farm in the middle of
the Suffolk countryside.
I think that the right hon. Member has just put his finger on a
very important point. That was flagged up in some of our
constituencies in Northern Ireland, where it is used as cover for
other applications and other things.
The Sunnica solar power station that has been applied for will
take up 600 times more land to deliver the same average power as
the local gas power station, so the land use is not good value
for money. Those figures encapsulate just how problematic it is
to expect any significant power from large solar farms.
The second issue I want to touch on briefly is that large-scale
solar developments are a poor use of valuable land. In Ukraine,
vast harvests of grain are gathered each year, but it is very
unlikely there will be a planting season this year because of the
war, and there will certainly be a very narrow harvest period at
the end of this year. We get some of our grain from there; it is
a bread basket for part of the world. As our country did in the
last great war, we need to start setting aside vast swathes of
our arable countryside and insist that we become food secure and
grow our own food. I am very proud of Northern Ireland food
production. With fewer than 40,000 farmers, we feed more than 10
million people in the UK. We have to multiply, develop and
increase that.
It is essential that we address the key issue of allowing
developers to get away with putting vast industrial plants on
good, grade 1, arable land that we could grow grain on, or have
cattle graze on, to develop our food security. For me, that is an
essential point. The war that Russia is illegally conducting in
Ukraine should be a warning signal to us all. We should get ahead
of that now by ensuring we have the land planted for next year’s
harvest, which is a very important point.
Finally, I want to make a point about human rights abuses. A 2021
report by the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice at
Sheffield Hallam University, entitled “In Broad Daylight: Uyghur
Forced Labour and Global Solar Supply Chains”, concluded that the
solar panel industry in China has high exposure to supply chain
compromise by human rights abuses—in other words, child labour
and abuse of people working in those plants. We are buying plant
equipment to put in this part of the UK, but allowing the abuse
of people’s rights in China to do it. We should not allow China,
which now dominates the world in these markets, to dominate our
valuable production of—
(in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman went more than 30 seconds over. I
tolerated it from him because of the issue he was discussing, but
I will not tolerate it from any other colleagues. The clock is
the clock. I call .
2.52pm
(Rutland and Melton)
(Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw () for allowing me to
co-sponsor this important debate. I am a big advocate of green,
clean, renewable energy, and a member of the Conservative
Environment Network. I find myself at a difficult crossroads. The
people of Rutland want to play our part but are faced with an
impossible situation, where our heartfelt determination to go
green is being attacked by egregious, cynical and unacceptable
proposals that would destroy England’s smallest county.
The current system for nationally significant infrastructure
projects bypasses the will of communities. It creates a loophole
that gags them, and goes against the Conservative mantra of
community ownership and pride of place. This is not a fair
situation. We need to take steps to ensure that NSI projects and
planning rules are not hijacked into becoming a fast-stream
planning approval conveyor belt for big developers. That is why
NSI programmes can no longer be assessed on an individual basis
but as part of a national solar plan.
In Rutland, we are facing the imposition across Rutland and
Lincolnshire, on which my neighbour and right hon. Friend the
Member for Gainsborough ( ) will speak in a moment, of a
solar plant of 2,175 acres. That is 1,400 football pitches—eight
times larger than the current biggest solar plant in the country,
and bigger than Monaco or the Vatican. I have already made my
opposition to that very clear and I plan to fight it, because I
will not see that imposed on England’s greatest, smallest and
most beautiful county.
I want to touch on Uyghur blood labour and will make two key
points, because I think many others will cover agriculture and
biodiversity. The Sheffield Hallam report, mentioned earlier, was
an in-depth investigation into supply chain links between solar
and forced labour in Xinjiang. As we know, the primary material
for solar panels and modules is polysilicon: 45% of the world’s
polysilicon is produced in Xinjiang. Mallard Pass solar plant is
the best example of that. Canadian Solar are a company who are
seeking to infiltrate our country with Uyghur blood labour. They
are the company proposing to build in Rutland.
Despite their name, Canadian Solar are a de facto Chinese
company. The vast majority of their production is in China, with
only two small manufacturing facilities in Canada. Their founder,
Shawn Qu, lives in China. Since 2019, they have had a supply
contract with a company called GCL-Poly, who operate a production
facility for solar cells in Jiangsu. But who are GCL-Poly? They
are one of the four largest producers of polysilicon in China. An
investigation into GCL determined that they actively
participate
“in the resettlement of ethnic Uyghurs from…areas of
Xinjiang”,
and
“contribute to and implement re-education programs that impose
political and military training on resettled populations.”
They are putting Uyghur people into concentration camps and using
them to build solar panels, and I will not see those imposed on
Rutland.
The US Government have already seized four shipments from
Canadian Solar due to their supply chain links with blood labour
and genocide. I call on the Government to sanction Canadian Solar
and their supplier GCL-Poly, and absolutely not allow them to
build in Rutland. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee
and as a member of the British public, I do not expect to see
blood labour on our soil.
I will not touch on the biodiversity and agriculture points,
which will be well made by many colleagues, but that is good
agricultural land, graded 2 and 3, and Rutland is the bird
capital of the UK, with ospreys, ground-nesting quails, red
kites, buzzards and so on.
I thank the Mallard Pass Action Group for all the work that it
has done, and I promise the Minister that we will deliver a
petition to Parliament that makes clear the opposition from
across Rutland. Ultimately, we need a national policy on solar
farms. We cannot see this constant competition for the biggest
possible solar plant being imposed all across the UK. We need to
make sure that we do not have tainted supply chains, and we must
protect our natural environment and our ability to feed our
people. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw again for
calling this important debate.
2.56pm
(Bath) (LD)
It is important that we are aware where companies operate in this
country that use absolutely unacceptable labour practices in
foreign lands, so I echo what the hon. Member for Rutland and
Melton () said about the
investigation into Canadian Solar, if what she says is true, but
nobody in this Chamber will be surprised that I am going to make
a strong case for solar.
Global gas prices are soaring to the point where many more
families will struggle to heat their homes. We obviously need to
wean ourselves off Russian oil and gas, but we need to wean
ourselves off all oil and gas. Now is the time for a green energy
revolution. Solar farms are an integral part of the UK’s bid to
get to net zero and to reduce our reliance on oil and gas, yet
there are many myths around solar. The first is that solar is
expensive, but that is not true. Solar is the most affordable
energy in history, according to the International Energy Agency,
and the most affordable energy source in the UK. It is efficient
and reliable.
Since 2010, the cost of solar panels has plummeted by 60%. At the
same time they have become much more efficient, meaning that
solar is a very effective way of reducing spending on energy
costs. In 2021, solar provided almost 5% of the UK’s total
electricity supply, but there is plenty of room for growth. All
UK solar markets are subsidy-free. If the UK can achieve 40 GW of
solar capacity by 2030, solar could meet 15% of the UK’s power
needs.
Some Members today have outlined their concerns about the
environment. In fact, studies indicate that solar farms can be
used to boost biodiversity, improve land quality and promote the
growth of pollinating species. Under the Environment Act 2021,
all new developments are required to demonstrate a biodiversity
net gain, and solar farms are no exception. They often go above
and beyond that requirement, typically showing a biodiversity net
gain of 20% to over 100%.
In terms of community support, polling shows that there is the
strongest support for solar farms—over 50%—from those living
closest to them, and that those living near them become more
supportive over time. Once people have a solar farm in their
community, they know what they get and they are supportive.
Solar projects deliver a range of benefits to their local
communities, and I pay tribute to Bath and West Community Energy
in my constituency, who have used their community fund to provide
grants for other environmental projects in the local area. I urge
the Government to review and revise Ofgem’s strategy and policy
statement as a matter of urgency. The net zero target must become
mandatory. It will unlock the potential investment in
urgently-needed grid capacity. One of the largest constraints on
solar is grid capacity. Every DNO region in the country is
affected. Solar Energy UK has identified at least 45 solar
projects, equating to over 40 GW of generation capacity and £1.6
billion in capital investment, that are being blocked by a lack
of grid infrastructure. Many of those projects accepted offers to
connect this year or next, but are now being told that they will
not be able to connect until the end of this decade. That is not
acceptable. The problem will get worse before it gets better.
We have the capacity to be a world leader in renewable energy,
with the right political will. Now is the time for our green
energy revolution. There should not be blockage but further
support from the Government for the solar energy sector.
3.00pm
(Gainsborough) (Con)
It is an honour to take part in this debate introduced by my
constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw
(). He was talking
about the solar farm application in his constituency. That runs
over the River Trent into my constituency of Gainsborough, and
Gainsborough is going to be ringed by a solar farm of no less
than the equivalent of 4,000 football pitches. It is a huge
development. The hon. Member for Bath () represents a lovely city
surrounded by beautiful green countryside; I suspect her attitude
might be quite different if somebody proposed a solar farm of
4,000 football pitches in the countryside around Bath.
I personally believe that this is, in a way, a cheat on the
planning system. The applicants accumulate land just to get it
over a certain acreage, so that it becomes a nationally
significant infrastructure project and bypasses the local
planning process. Nobody is against solar farms because they are
against solar farms. The point we are making is that we want a
proper planning process and we want local people to be involved.
We fear that this will go straight to a Government inspector, who
will be working towards national guidelines to create more solar
energy, and our concerns will be overridden.
Surely, West Lindsey District Council, representing the good
people of the part of Lincolnshire that I represent, should have
a right to have its say, and its say should be enforceable. I
have done quite a lot of travelling around the proposed site.
There could be mitigation in terms of landscaping and the growing
of woodland, hedges and so on, but we want to be absolutely
assured that that will take place.
Before my time is up, I want to refer to a very good answer that
the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (), made to me on 22 February:
“The Government recognise the importance of preserving the most
productive farmland. Planning guidance is clear: where possible,
large solar farms should use previously developed land, and
projects should be designed to avoid, mitigate, and where
necessary compensate for impact.”—[Official Report, 22 February
2022; Vol. 709, c. 162.]
That was an impressive answer. I ask the Minister who will reply
to this debate, given that wheat prices are going through the
roof and that there will be severe constraints on food supplies
and wheat production, why are we taking good agricultural land?
Why is that in the national interest? Dare I say, before we are
too introspective and just talk about ourselves and our
interests, that countries like Lebanon and Egypt are almost
wholly reliant on Ukrainian wheat. That gives us even more
responsibility to plan not just for our own food supplies, but
for other parts of the world.
My main point is this. We want a properly enforceable planning
process so that we can get real mitigation. We want to be assured
by the Minister that when it comes to applications for solar
farms, he will agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for
Chelsea and Fulham and we will avoid taking good agricultural
land and will try to put these developments on brownfield sites.
The point made earlier that this is really an opportunity to
create a battery farm is very apposite. We are littering the
Lincolnshire countryside with not just a solar farm but a battery
farm. It is simply not acceptable.
3.04pm
(Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Mr Walker. I thank the
hon. Member for Bassetlaw () for setting the
scene so well. It is great to be here to discuss the potential
ways that we can advance our solar energy. Although planning
provisions are different in the devolved nations, as the hon.
Gentleman said, the benefits and the issues surrounding solar
farms remain the same. There is much discussion on ways in which
we can advance our solar power system with the goal of
transitioning to a low-carbon future.
In addition, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia has, as others
have said, damaged our fuel provision even further. The impacts
are being felt throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, forcing us into self-sufficiency. The Russian
invasion of Ukraine has made solar energy a priority. Through our
solar farms, we must put more preparations in place for the
future, although some elements of planning by devolved nations
are needed to approve them.
The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee,
the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (), who was at this morning’s
meeting of the eggs, pigs and poultry all-party parliamentary
group, made an interesting point in his contribution. According
to others in the sector, that becomes a real issue. The right
hon. Member for Gainsborough ( ) mentioned the price of
feedstuffs for cattle and sheep. They can graze for eight months
of the year, but for eggs, pigs and poultry, I am afraid it is
very different. The price of feedstuffs for the coming year could
go through the roof. Some of the other producers who were at the
meeting—the pig producers and the poultry men in particular—were
telling me that Spain gets 70% of its grain from Ukraine. That
will put pressure on everyone else, so we must consider what we
can do differently.
Northern Ireland has installed photovoltaic power on a wide range
of farms over the last four years. In addition, the businesses of
my Strangford constituency have been working actively to
distribute more solar farming materials to companies. Just up the
road from me in Carrowdore, a local farm produces the vast
majority of its electricity through solar energy. Areas such as
Comber and Killinchy, which are also in Strangford, also use
solar panels for sustainable electricity purposes. Northern
Ireland’s most notable solar farm would be that of Belfast
International airport, which, in its first 10 months of usage,
saved the airport more than £100,000. Some 27% of the airport’s
electricity, in cost terms, came from solar farm panels, which
highlights that despite the cost, they are a worthwhile
investment. Solar energy cannot be ignored.
At the same time, I recognise, like my hon. Friend the Member for
North Antrim (), that there are concerns about the installation of
solar farms. As someone who lives in a rural area and on a farm,
I want assurances—as do my constituents—that risk assessments are
undertaken for solar farms. The national planning framework
encourages the promotion of renewable energy and identifies
appropriate sites. It aims to assess the sites for risks, such as
those posed by climate change, coastal change, flooding and soil.
Planning systems should support the transition to a low-carbon
future, and will identify probable and possible risks, while
increasing plans for the use of sustainable energy.
I put this question to the Minister. Flood-risk consultants have
concluded that there is cause for concern in relation to solar
farms and flooding, including the location of solar panels, the
location of inverters within the flood plain, and the increase of
impermeable surfaces. In addition, flooding can also cause some
interference. The most common risk is the reflection of the
panels, which means that 100% absorption from the sun is not
always possible.
With all those things in mind, we need to focus on the use of
non-agricultural land. We should not use agricultural land, which
will become more important to us in the next 12 months and in the
years to come. To conclude, I believe that there must be greater
provision for solar energy throughout the UK, but at the same
time we must take into account the concerns of the agriculture
sector, and I declare an interest as a farmer and a landlord.
3.08pm
(West Suffolk) (Con)
I stand as an avowedly pro-solar politician. Indeed, I was the
Energy Minister. I am very proud that 99% of the solar on the
roofs of houses and buildings in this country has been put on
those roofs since 2010. I have supported solar scheme after solar
scheme in my constituency, including in Wickhambrook—close to my
own house—and elsewhere. The case that I will make today is that
solar must be in the right place, with the right engagement and
the right technology, and the proposal for the largest solar farm
in the country, at 2,500 acres, affecting 16 parishes across east
Cambridgeshire and West Suffolk, undermines local support.
There has been much discussion of the food security issue, so I
will not go into that detail, but I will make three critical
points in the time available to me. First, why is there no
requirement for an independent, whole-life carbon assessment to
be carried out for all developments? The advice that I have
received is that the Sunnica proposal will have a net-positive
carbon impact over its lifetime, which would make a mockery of
the net zero ambitions and the importance of tackling climate
change.
The second point is about battery safety. Although the energy
farm will cover 2,500 acres, a very significant chunk of the
energy—a much bigger chunk than the solar energy generated—will
be from a battery farm. We may need battery farms, but they
should be in the right place—they should not be in the middle of
the countryside. Furthermore, there are significant safety
issues. I was sceptical of the arguments about safety issues
until I looked into them in detail; there have been 38 fires at
battery energy storage systems across the world in the last three
years. There was one in Liverpool in September 2020, and the
report into that fire still has not been released. There is a
suspicion—and I understand and share this suspicion—that it has
not been released because it demonstrates that very large battery
installations are inherently dangerous. The battery technology
means that water cannot be used to put out fires. As the fire
authorities say, once one of those fires starts, there is nothing
that can be done to stop it except wait and hope that it does not
lead to toxic fumes. In areas of my constituency downwind of this
proposed development, there are large areas of homes, such as Red
Lodge, where this is a very significant problem.
The final point I will make is about process. The developers are
being allowed to pick and choose how they get their developments
through; there is minimal public engagement. Sunnica has refused
to meet me; it has refused to attend any public meetings. It has
had next to no engagement. It has not, as far as I know, set foot
in the villages and towns affected to answer residents’ questions
since July 2019. As a supporter of solar, I find that the
proposal, which will affect areas in and close to my
constituency, is actively undermining local support for solar
energy. It should be stopped and sent straight back to the
drawing board, so that we can have a reasonable conversation
about where solar will be welcomed locally. We can put the
battery technology where it ought to be—in an industrial area—and
we can make sure that we bring the community together with us in
support of vital renewable technologies, rather than trying to
ram projects through against the wishes of local people.
3.12pm
(High Peak) (Con)
I want to talk about the proposal to build a 77-acre solar farm
off Dolly Lane, near the villages of Buxworth and Furness Vale.
The site sits entirely within the green belt and is adjacent to
the Peak District national park. It is on the back slope of
Chinley Churn, which is best known for its dramatic quarried
face, known as Cracken Edge. It is an iconic landscape not just
for Chinley, but the whole Peak district. I am a keen walker and
it is one of my favourite routes, especially if I can find a way
to end the walk at one of the brilliant local pubs, such as The
Lamb on Hayfield Road or the Old Hall Inn in Whitehough.
I will come on to my concerns about the proposed solar farm, but
before I do, I want to be very clear that I am not a net zero
sceptic. Climate change is the greatest long-term challenge we
face globally, and I am fully committed to fighting it. I am an
enthusiastic supporter of renewable energy. The events in Ukraine
in recent weeks, and the subsequent spike in wholesale oil and
gas prices, demonstrate the importance of energy security.
Clearly, we need to end our reliance on global fossil fuel prices
and transition to clean renewable energy sources. We have made
very good progress over the last decade, particularly on
off-shore wind. The Government are also rightly pushing ahead
with modular nuclear reactors. Solar should be a key part of that
strategy. However, I have a number of concerns about the
proposals on Chinley Churn.
Unlike most proposed solar farms, which sit on relatively
low-lying flat sites, this one would sit on the slope of Chinley
Churn, in a very elevated position, completely changing the
iconic Peak district landscape for miles around. The site would
be visible from thousands of homes, particularly those in Furness
Vale and New Mills. It would also have significant impact on
local wildlife. The Peak District National Park Authority has
already made it clear that it is opposed—with good reason. The
Peak district is a special place; it is the home of the Kinder
trespass, and the first ever national park. We have a
responsibility to conserve it for future generations. It is also
doubtful that the solar farm would generate enough energy to be
economical. High Peak is a very beautiful part of the world, but
we are not blessed with an abundance of sunshine.
A full planning application has not yet been submitted, but
Kronos Solar has applied for an environmental impact assessment.
I understand that it is also in pre-application discussions with
High Peak Borough Council. Government guidance encourages local
planning authorities to prioritise developed and non-agricultural
land for large-scale solar farm developments, so long as the land
is not of high environmental value. The national planning policy
framework is also clear that when
“located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy
projects will comprise inappropriate development.”
Projects can proceed only in “very special circumstances”, which
may include
“the wider environmental benefits associated with increased
production of energy from renewable sources”,
but the proposal by Kronos Solar for a 77-acre solar farm on the
back slope of Chinley Churn in the heart of the Peak district
simply does not match those criteria. The cost of development to
our local environment will be simply too high.
3.15pm
(Grantham and Stamford)
(Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw () on calling this
debate. For me, the debate is not about whether we need to
diversify our energy supplies; of course we do. I want us to
reduce our dependence on foreign energy, and to do that, we need
renewable infrastructure. For me, it is not about “whether”, but
about “how”—how we achieve our energy ambitions in a way that is
fair and proportionate and has the support of our constituents,
and how we build our renewable energy infrastructure in a way
that does not harm the beautiful nature that surrounds us, the
farmland that feeds us and the communities that bind us
together.
It is a great pleasure to be joined by two right hon. Friends
from Lincolnshire: my right hon. Friends the Members for
Gainsborough ( ), and for South Holland and
The Deepings ( ). Lincolnshire has very flat
land. It also has a large number of applications pending across
the county. Some of the proposed developments are small, but some
are extremely large. There is one in particular that I want to
mention today: Mallard Pass, which my hon. Friend the Member for
Rutland and Melton () mentioned. It involves
2,170-odd acres of development land. This is obviously causing
tremendous concern to local people.
I want to use the limited time that I have to put on record my
thanks to the Mallard Pass Action Group: Keith Busfield, Sue and
all the other campaigners, who have put forward to the developer
extremely reasonable points, including on the impact on the local
ecology and the biodiversity of the site; the loss of
agricultural land for 40 years while it is covered in solar
panels and the national implications that that might have for
food production; and the implications that drawing power from the
solar farm will have for energy storage and large lithium battery
facilities.
As the local MP, I have taken these concerns of thousands of
residents and put them to the developers, and I have to say that
the response has been unconvincing. They have done little to
directly address the concerns of my constituents, and they are
relying on statutory requirements to take measures that would be
undertaken regardless of whether there was local concern. The
promise that the issues that have been raised will be considered
as part of the development consent order submission means little,
as that is the final stage of the planning process.
I suggest three things. First, we need to ensure that the
Planning Inspectorate fully takes into consideration the concerns
of local residents. The fact that all consultations are run by
the developers leaves local people disillusioned about their
effectiveness. Secondly, it is critical that we have, as my hon.
Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said, a national
strategy for solar farms. It must encompass both nationally
significant and locally approved applications in order to ensure
that counties such as Lincolnshire are not dominated by
significant developments and small developments that add up to
complete domination by solar farms across the county. Above all—I
say this to anybody listening in the Grantham and Stamford
constituency today—I want you to have a voice, so when there is a
consultation, please let your voice be heard. Be part of it;
contribute to any consultation; and have your say, because if you
do not put your views forward, that makes it a lot harder for MPs
like me in debates like this.
3.19pm
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank my hon.
Friend the Member for Bassetlaw () for bringing it to
the House. I concur with him: if we can get fusion right and roll
it out economically, that will very much be our energy
future.
Sir Charles, you would expect me to talk a little about food
security. That issue is being highlighted now. Given the terrible
situation with the Russians invading Ukraine and all the
destruction going on, not much food will be produced in that
breadbasket of the world. We need to stand up to that and produce
food and wheat; we can do it. We need to produce poultry and
pigs, which need grain. We need this land for grain and food
production, so that we can produce really good food and ensure
high-quality welfare. Let us ensure that we keep land for food
production.
By its very nature, land is finite. At the moment, it is being
asked to produce food; however, we are also asking for greater
biodiversity, which is highly laudable and right to do, but as we
aim for greater biodiversity and more environmental schemes, we
will see a reduction in production of food. We do not want to
couple that with large solar farms.
We all believe that solar panels have a role to play, and that
they produce good-quality electricity, but I would like us to go
back to having feed-in tariffs for people’s homes. It does not
have to be as high a tariff as it was, because solar panels are
very competitively and narrowly priced. Only about 4% of houses
have them. Residents in houses that have them love to see the
energy coming in and the meter going round, especially when they
have high energy bills, as they are being paid for that
electricity, rather than paying out for it. This very much
involves individual house owners and tenants, and keeps our
energy costs down.
From an infrastructure point of view, Western Power Distribution
and others have a great deal of difficulty in wiring up and
connecting large solar farms. Solar power should therefore be
spread across the community, and should be generated on
brownfield sites and in industrial buildings. How many industrial
buildings do we have in this country? Very few have solar panels
on them. We can have both industrial buildings and solar panels,
but we must not keep putting the panels on land. We have an
opportunity with these large farms.
Another large solar farm of some 200 acres has been proposed near
Cullompton. The south-west is God’s own country because of the
light, and that makes it popular for solar panels. We have an
awful lot of solar panels in Devon and across the west country;
we have had our fair share of them. The community needs to be
involved when more are proposed.
Solar farms are not beautiful and have industrial-style fencing
around them. Why do people come to many of our great
constituencies? Because they are beautiful. Tourist love to come
to them, but I promise that they do not come looking for solar or
wind farms. They come looking for beautiful cattle and sheep
grazing peacefully in our countryside. We must be careful how we
deal with the situation. As I have emphasised, we are asking our
farmers, our landowners and those looking after our countryside
to do so much for the environment. We can have energy, but for
goodness sake let us put the panels on people’s homes and
industrial sites, and not on more good, agricultural land.
3.23pm
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
I am grateful for your indulgence, Sir Charles, and I will speak
briefly as a former energy Minister. Before I do so, I draw the
attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’
Interests.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton
() made at the end of his speech
is the first salient point that I want to amplify, and that is
that of course there is an argument for renewables. It is not an
a priori argument, by the way; it has to be legitimised by
renewables’ efficiency, their ability to supply productive
energy, and by the goods and virtues they displace. Every kind of
energy production needs to be measured against those kind of
criteria, as does every specific proposal.
There is a case for renewables in an energy mix—an energy mix
that allows us to deal with our environmental footprint, as it is
known in the modern idiom; that can guarantee steady supply; and
that provides the flexibility necessary to ensure that we can
deal with the peaks and troughs of demand. But renewables should
be measured by their cost effectiveness, too. The point made by
the hon. Member for North Antrim () about the cost-effectiveness of solar was one that I
identified when I was energy Minister, before my right hon.
Friend the Member for West Suffolk () did the job.
It is critical that energy supply be placed as close as possible
to areas of demand. It is absolutely right that we should
populate industrial, commercial and domestic buildings with solar
panels long before we consider putting them in fields, which are
remote from demand and entail all the transmission costs I
mentioned.
My second point is about food security, which I mentioned at the
outset of the debate and has been raised several times since. It
is vital that we protect grade 1 and 2 agricultural land, such as
the land in Lincolnshire that is now being suggested for these
very large-scale solar parks. They are not being suggested for
some rocky outcrop; it is proposed that they be placed on the
very land that can grow the food to guarantee the food security
that so many in this House have called for. The Minister needs to
make it absolutely clear, again, that the Government will not
tolerate that, as we move into a future in which we protect our
economy to the greatest degree possible, in terms of both food
supply and energy provision—as I have always wanted us to do. We
are moving happily into the post-liberal age for which I have
clamoured so long.
I have also clamoured for the protection of our green and
pleasant land—indeed, for our green and pleasant land to become a
new Jerusalem, one might say. A Conservative Government should
understand the aesthetic argument associated with solar farms—and
wind turbines, too, by the way. It is critical that we preserve
the character of settlements, and that we believe in the sense of
place that helps to deliver our sense of worth and identity.
Again, a truly Conservative Government—and I know that the
Minister is truly Conservative, so I have high expectations of
him—would do just that.
In summary, it is right that we consider renewables as part of
the energy mix, but not on any terms or at any cost. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw () on being such an
outstanding servant of the people of his constituency; I am proud
to have contributed to a debate sponsored by him. I look forward
to the Minister’s response with eager —one might say
gleeful—anticipation.
(in the Chair)
Last but not at all least, .
3.27pm
(Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles.
Like other Members who have spoken, I am in no way, shape or form
an opponent of solar energy. However, like others, I believe that
solar technology and solar farms would be best placed on our
factories and brownfield sites, away from the beautiful Great
British countryside. I very much agree with my right hon. Friend
the Member for South Holland and The Deepings ( ) about preserving and protecting
the character of an area.
Planning guidance is already clear: where possible, large solar
farms should use previously developed land. Projects should be
designed to avoid, mitigate and—where necessary—compensate for
impact. However, my constituents have been bombarded with
applications for large solar farms across north Buckinghamshire.
Since I was elected just over two years ago, I have already
opposed five applications for solar farms, including in Little
Horwood, the village of Kingsey, on Callie’s Farm and between the
villages of Ford and Dinton. All those solar farms would have
dominated rural villages and completely changed the character and
rural nature of those places; in one case, it would have
destroyed ancient farmland.
Most recently, I have objected to two solar farms in the peaceful
villages of Leckhampstead and Slapton. My constituents have
expressed concerns about the inappropriate scale and nature of
the proposals. The solar farms will add no net benefits to the
local area and will have a considerable impact on the environment
and wildlife. They will fundamentally alter the character of
those villages and the surrounding countryside.
The Leckhampstead solar farm site is on rising ground, bounded
and clearly visible from the surrounding high and low ground from
the west and south. The woodland bordering the northern edge of
the site is a prominent feature in the local landscape. Slapton
village already has one smaller-scale solar farm, which is ugly
and visible from Ivinghoe Beacon. The scale of that application
is such that it completely surrounds and overwhelms the northern
end of Slapton.
The company behind this development, having seen my objection,
tried to make out in a letter to me the other day that it would
not be a blight and sent me photos of other schemes as evidence.
Yet every single one of the photos it sent me were of ugly masses
of grey and black plastic, metal and glass, in place of natural
beauty, grass and crops. Let us be absolutely frank: there is no
way on earth that replacing our beautiful British countryside
with hundreds of thousands of acres of these monstrosities up and
down the land could possibly be considered anything other than
total vandalism and blight.
With Buckinghamshire facing a tidal wave of these solar farms and
of development on greenfield sites and working agricultural land,
it is vital, as others have said, that we take a step away and
recognise that agricultural land is a finite resource. We need to
come up with a new solution that puts solar on brownfield, and on
the top of the factories and tall buildings in our cities and
towns, and that protects the Great British countryside.
3.31pm
(Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It would be remiss of me not to start by congratulating the hon.
Member for Bassetlaw () on securing this
important debate, and all his colleagues on their impassioned
views. I am not sure I necessarily agree with everything they
said, particularly about some of the planning aspects, but I will
leave that to the Minister to address, especially as planning is
devolved.
Thankfully, in Scotland—and, indeed, everywhere else—direct
sunlight is not required for a solar panel. We are fortunate
enough in Scotland to still have daylight, though, which means
that solar panels do work—as I am sure the hon. Member for
Kensington () will recall from her
years in the north-east of Scotland, we are not exactly blessed
with sunlight. However, solar panels have a key role to play in
the wider energy mix, as the right hon. Member for South Holland
and The Deepings ( ) said.
It is my understanding that around 400 MW of installed capacity
for solar panels exists in Scotland. Will that be sufficient to
supply our needs in the long term? No, of course it will not,
which is why we are so fortunate to have a whole host of other
renewable sources on our doorstep, be that tidal, offshore wind,
onshore wind or hydro pumped storage, or moving into the likes of
hydrogen and so on. That energy mix is incredibly important, and
I was a little surprised to read that, in 2018, solar panels
provided Aberdeen, my own city, with 136% of household
electricity demand. I am told that that was during a summer
heatwave—I do not quite recall that heatwave, but there was
obviously significant supply from solar panels.
One issue on which I am sympathetic to Members’ comments is where
solar panels are located. There are plans afoot—they have been
talked about for many years—for a fairly significantly sized
solar farm in my constituency, but on the site of a former tip,
which makes sense, because that land cannot be used for anything
else. More importantly, that solar farm will provide the
renewable electricity that will hopefully power a hydrogen
station nearby, completing the green hydrogen journey that we
need to be on. If we can secure renewable electricity that goes
right into the hydrogen mix, that has to be the aim, as I am sure
the Minister would agree wholeheartedly.
As I said earlier, solar panels are not necessarily the panacea
for the UK or Scotland. I touched earlier on some of the other
renewable energy sources we have in Scotland. At this moment, in
the midst of this energy security situation, which is of concern
to us all, we are blessed in Scotland to have the capacity to
provide 98% of our electricity from renewable sources alone. That
is quite a remarkable feat, considering that we have not even
started on the 25 GW that has been approved through the ScotWind
round.
I want to pause briefly on the topic of energy security. As I
recently said to the Secretary of State when he made his
statement in the Chamber on the reduction in oil and gas imports
from Russia, what we urgently need now from the UK Government is
a plan for how they intend to accelerate renewables at a speed
never seen before. It is fair to say that a lot of good has been
done—the likes of contracts for difference and so on—but if we
are to treat energy security with the seriousness it deserves, we
need the Government to buck up their ideas, to invest more and to
come forward with a clear and collegiate plan. Solar will not be
the bedrock of that plan, but it will play a role in it. Given
that the Secretary of State was not able to answer my question on
that earlier, I am sure the Minister will be able to do so in due
course.
(in the Chair)
I thank the SNP spokesperson for finishing in four and a half
minutes, not five. My gosh, he has no future in this place if he
is so polite.
3.35pm
(Southampton, Test)
(Lab)
I will attempt to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South
() in being as brief as
possible and finishing within five minutes, but right hon. and
hon. Members will understand that we have a large number of
issues to discuss.
The first thing to say is that I congratulate the hon. Member for
Bassetlaw () on securing the
debate, because it gives rise to all the issues that we have to
consider in the development of renewables and particularly solar.
He has drawn attention to a particular scheme in his
constituency, which is quite right, given his role as a
constituency MP. However, I caution against expressing proper and
justified concerns about the siting of particular solar farms in
particular places while failing to understand just how much we
need renewables, especially of the solar variety, over the next
period.
I have just come from the statement in the main Chamber, and all
sides agreed that our way out of the oil and gas problem, which
has been driven by the situation in Ukraine and Russia, is to go
very fast on renewables. The point is that if we go fast on
renewables, the renewables have to be somewhere, and it is really
not sufficient for people to say, “Yes, I’m very much in favour
of renewables, but I’m not in favour of them being in any
particular place.” I am not saying that that is what right hon.
and hon. Members have said this afternoon, and a number of
Members were very thoughtful and clear about the circumstances
under which solar should be developed. I think that should
perhaps be the watchword, and I agree with a number of Members
that we need a much more strategic and planned approach to the
arrangements. We need to understand what renewables we need, but
also where we need them. However, it is not an option to have
them nowhere at all.
In that context, we know that solar has already been a
considerable success in the UK. It is being developed at the
moment on no subsidies. We have 14 GW installed across the
country, and 65% of that is ground-mounted solar. Frankly, it is
a fantasy to believe that we can get to the sorts of targets we
now need on solar—perhaps 40 GW by 2030, which is what the
Climate Change Committee says—by simply installing them in small
numbers on roofs in cities and towns. Of course we should go with
that, and we ought to have a lot more imagination about how we
put solar in towns and cities or alongside motorways and various
things such as that.
I agree with everybody that not engaging with communities is
simply not on, and it is important that those who want to install
renewable energy installations and solar farms need to engage
with their communities. What does the hon. Gentleman think should
be done to improve community engagement?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member is quite right. Any form of renewable
power—indeed, any form of power—ought to be based on extensive
community consultation and the community being on board with the
idea of that particular power source coming to their area. Hon.
Members have raised a number of issues about agricultural land
and its quality, the visual aspects of particular solar farms,
and various other things, which need to be discussed in great
detail at the local level by communities faced with these
proposals.
Solar farms, and particularly the West Burton solar farm, which
was the subject of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for
Bassetlaw, actually have quite a good grid connection. That solar
farm would potentially be based around the West Burton A power
station, which as I am sure the hon. Member will be aware is
going offline in 2022, as is the Cottam power station just down
the road. However, if we had had a discussion when someone
decided to build the West Burton A power station and the Cottam
power station in the middle of the countryside—which is where
they are—a number of years ago, we probably would have had
exactly this sort of debate in the Chamber.
That underlines the fact that, although we are transferring what
we do as far as power stations and power are concerned, the issue
remains just the same: where we put those power stations and
renewables into operation, not whether we put them into
operation. It is imperative that we have this amount of renewable
energy across our country for the future. Be it offshore wind or
onshore wind, city-based solar or field-based solar—all of those
have to be considered as imperative for delivering our renewable
power supplies. Solar happens to be the cheapest power available,
and it is one of the quickest to introduce if we are thinking
about a dash for renewables in the future.
The hon. Gentleman and I have been debating these issues for
longer than either of us care to remember. I am sure he will
acknowledge that against that backdrop—the objective he set
out—it is important to measure the environmental cost of
renewables. The manufacture, siting and anchoring, for example,
of wind turbines bring an environmental payback period. The same
applies to solar. We need to test these things on a specific
basis against the very criteria he set out.
Dr Whitehead
The right hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to test
these things and take the environmental benefits as a whole, but
these tests have pretty much been carried out, and there is an
overwhelming environmental benefit to solar, which is a cheap and
reliable power source. By the way, the batteries associated with
it that make it more reliable do not need to be sited in the same
place as solar farms, so things can be designed in such a way
that the environmental disbenefits are not all concentrated in
one place.
In the case of the Sunnica proposal, the battery farm is much
bigger than the power that would come from the solar that is part
of the same proposal. That being the case, and the argument he is
making being important and thoughtful, would the hon. Member not
agree that keeping the public onside with the development of
solar and its location is an incredibly important part of meeting
the very environmental objectives he so cherishes?
Dr Whitehead
Yes, the right hon. Member is absolutely right. The public should
be on board with any development that is going on anywhere
concerned with anything. That is a starting point as far as the
developments are concerned. It is worth reflecting on the
Government’s onshore wind policy. Despite the fact that the
public in many areas of England and Wales were in favour of
hosting onshore wind, the Government put a moratorium on it. We
do not want to go in the other direction as far as public support
and renewables are concerned.
I have indulged myself by taking interventions and have gone a
little over my time. I hope that Members will understand,
however, that my comments are founded on the imperative of solar
for the future. Solar needs public support, and a sensible
approach must be taken to its deployment if it is to take its
desired place in our future renewable firmament.
(in the Chair)
Minister, could you sit down at 3.58 pm, so that our mover can
wind up after you have wound up?
3.45pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy
and Industrial Strategy ()
Do feel free to remind me at two minutes to 3, Sir Charles.
(in the Chair)
I will.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. May I start by
congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw ()? The scale of
attendance and the passion with which colleagues have spoken
speaks to the importance of his advocacy and the issue.
I am standing in today for my right hon. Friend the Minister for
Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, but I am absolutely
delighted to be doing so, for a number of reasons. First, I come
from a rural, agricultural constituency that is itself facing the
introduction of substantial, industrial-scale infrastructure
connected to offshore wind energy. The industrialisation of rural
constituencies in pursuit of the noble aims of net zero is a
local issue. It is very important and we have to get that
planning process right. I have seen that for myself. I also drive
through the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk border on my way to my
constituency and see the Sunnica proposal, the signs in every
field around the area and the concern locally.
As the former Minister for agritech, I am passionate about the
importance of this country leading the world in net zero farming
and showing how we can pioneer the technologies for and
approaches to net zero agriculture. Nobody in this Chamber needs
to be reminded that agriculture is the next dirty industry on the
block. We are cleaning the energy system, but we will then have
to decarbonise agriculture and transport globally. That is a big
opportunity for this country.
As the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, including
for fusion, I see it as fundamental to my role to ensure that we
turbocharge our drive towards the technological solutions that
will allow the planet to grow and develop sustainably in the
longer term. I am also committed to the science of the data
metrics of sustainable development, by which I mean both
agrimetrics, so that when consumers pick up a pint of milk or a
piece of British food they are clear about its environmental
footprint—that is the best way to reward advanced, progressive
farming—and carbon metrics, so that consumers can be harnessed on
the journey to net zero, confident that they are making
enlightened choices. That requires good science, which a number
of colleagues have touched on.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is a strong advocate of
human rights. He mentions enlightened consumers wanting to know
what they are purchasing and what is in their community. Does he
agree that we should not install solar panels when we know for a
fact that they are being produced in genocidal camps where people
are being exterminated? I am talking about the Uyghur in
China.
My hon. Friend makes her point powerfully. I absolutely agree
that we should not be supplying to consumers and citizens goods
whose production involves torture and illegal practices. I am not
the consumer affairs Minister, but I will raise that point with
those who have that responsibility.
In the time available, I will set out the Government’s policy on
solar, acknowledge the 16 very important points made today by
colleagues from across the House, summarise the process in terms
of disapplication and more broadly, and then make what I hope
will be some important and helpful undertakings.
It is striking that, for all the concerns raised today, there is
unanimity in the Chamber about the urgency of tackling the
climate emergency. I think that everyone present supports the
commitment, as enshrined at COP26, to reduce global temperature
increase to 1.5°. There is good science behind that, and I think
that many comments were made in that spirit. That is why the
Government have adopted carbon budget 6, which is the world’s
most ambitious climate change goal, to reduce emissions by 77% by
2035—that might sound a long way away, but it is rapidly drawing
near—compared with 1990 levels. With limited time until that
date, the UK’s electricity supply is in urgent need of
decarbonisation. That is why, in the net zero strategy that was
published in 2021, the Government committed that all UK
electricity will be from low-carbon sources by 2035, subject to
security of supply. At the end of my comments, I will come back
to some of the changes relating to the global markets, the
Ukraine emergency and the Prime Minister’s announcement of a
review of energy policy.
I want to touch on the benefits of solar, which merit
highlighting. It is a very flexible technology. As my right hon.
Friend the Member for West Suffolk () has pointed out, we can be
proud that we have deployed 99% of solar at huge scale, quite
small scale and high scale across the country. Solar generates
large amounts of electricity even on cloudy days, and from
indirect sunlight. Solar also works at cooler temperatures, so
its carbon footprint is normally much lower than that of coal or
gas. Most solar panel components can be recycled.
Solar can complement other variable generation sources, such as
wind, to balance the grid on summer days when wind speeds tend to
be lower. We see solar as key to the Government’s strategy for
low-cost energy and decarbonisation, and large-scale solar is one
of the UK’s cheapest renewable generation technologies; I will
come in my closing comments to where the externalities of cost
may lie. That is why in the net zero strategy, the Government
committed to a sustained increase in deploying solar in the 2020s
and beyond, embedded through the contract for difference
scheme.
I want to pick up the points that several colleagues have made,
because those points are hugely important and need to be
acknowledged seriously. The first was about the scale of what is
being proposed. As the equivalent of 4,000 football pitches, this
is not a small-scale development or even, by most people’s
standards, a medium-scale one. This is huge, industrial-scale
development in the countryside. There were fears about a wild
west and a solar rush, and about precedent in the planning
system—if one of these developments gets approved, it may be a
signal that we are locked into precedent. There were concerns,
which I share, about the use of good agricultural land and,
particularly in the light of the Ukraine situation, about food
security.
Concerns were raised about the solar supply chain—both the human
rights point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and
Melton () made, and the carbon
footprint point. There were concerns about the lack of metrics of
sustainability, and about taking into account the full
externalities of the carbon footprint of developments. There were
concerns about the abuse of the local planning system. I have
been very struck in my constituency by the fact that because this
is critical national infrastructure, the views of local people
and local MPs—frankly, anybody locally—are very downgraded. The
planning advice states that those local views are important, so I
think that there is a real issue there.
There were specific concerns about Rutland and habitat impact,
and calls for a clearer national policy on tackling these policy
tensions. Points were made about the impact of the Ukraine
emergency on food supplies, food security and food prices. Points
were also made about the link to surreptitious approvals of,
effectively, battery farms in inappropriate locations, about fire
risk, about the impact on rural tourism and about the need for
better co-location of generation, where possible, with use. My
right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings
( ) made a point about beauty,
identity and character, which is not just a magnificent ethereal
concept; it also underpins tourism in the countryside. Some very
important points have been made, and they deserve to be repeated
and acknowledged. Forgive me; I am not going to list everybody,
but Hansard will report what has been set out.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I have made
several interventions. On the point about fire safety, will he
take on board, and comment on, the need for transparency about
past fires? I should also have mentioned in my speech that the
Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. and learned
Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (), cannot speak because she is a
member of the Government, but she wholeheartedly endorses my
views and is a great campaigner for her constituency when it
comes to the Sunnica plant—and more broadly.
I will happily pick that point up. My right hon. Friend invites
me—wisely, perhaps, given the time—to clarify that at the end of
this debate, I will raise all the points that have been made
today with the relevant Ministers, including, perhaps, the
Minister for fire safety. When such a number of colleagues meet
in the Chamber, their points deserve to be heard and passed
through.
I want to pick up on the planning point. Colleagues will be
aware, but those listening may not be, that planning applications
for projects below 50 MW are determined by the local planning
system. Many hundreds of them around the country have been
approved satisfactorily. Projects up to 350 MW in Wales are
devolved, with decisions 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 Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
(Thirsk and Malton)
(Con)
Local authorities’ declaration of a climate emergency seems to be
overriding the requirement to avoid developments on best and most
versatile land. Should there not be an absolute prohibition of
solar farm developments on BMVL?
My hon. Friend makes his point well. Let me come to the point I
was going to make about planning, which tries to deal with
that.
In 2021, the Government set up a national infrastructure planning
reform programme, bringing several Government Departments
together with the aim of refreshing how the nationally
significant infrastructure project regime works to make it
faster, better and greener. The Government will shortly consult
on reform proposals—we will do so later this year. As a part of
that, the Government are reviewing the national policy statements
for energy. It seems to me that quite a lot of what has been said
today is a call for a clearer national policy statement, and
colleagues might want to raise that with the Minister for Energy
and the Planning Minister. The draft revised national policy
statement for renewables includes a new section on solar
projects, providing clear and specific guidance to decision
makers on the impact on, for example, local amenities,
biodiversity, landscape, wildlife and land use, which must be
considered when assessing planning applications. The Government
plan to publish a response to the consultation on the revised
national policy statement shortly.
Under both local and NSIP planning systems, developers must
complete proper community engagement as part of the application
process. Communities should and must be able to participate in
the formal examination process run by the Planning Inspectorate.
All large solar developers under the NSIP must complete an
environmental statement for any application, to consider all
potential impacts. Planning guidance is also clear that the
effective use of land should be prioritised by focusing
large-scale solar farms on previously developed and
non-greenfield land. It seeks to minimise the impact on the best
and most versatile agricultural land. It requires developers to
justify using any such land and to design their projects to
avoid, mitigate and, where necessary, compensate for impacts.
I am conscious of the time—I think I have one minute left—but I
want to highlight that in relation to the planning process
colleagues will understand that I cannot comment on the specifics
of this individual case, because I do not want to prejudice it in
any way. However, we anticipate that once an application is
submitted to the planning inspector, it will be 15 to 18 months
before it comes back to the Secretary of State after all the
various consultations. Interestingly, in terms of precedent
—all-important in planning—only one large-scale solar application
has been approved, in Kent. One in Wales, Strawberry
Hill—devolved, of course—was turned down on the agricultural land
use point. I understand that one in Scunthorpe is imminent, and
that Sunnica and one or two others are in the pipeline. The point
about precedent is important: we all know that when a big
decision is made it can trigger a wave of subsequent
applications.
Let me close by congratulating and thanking colleagues for coming
today. They have raised important points that I will undertake to
pass on to Ministers who have responsibility for energy,
planning, farming, tourism and fire safety. Colleagues have made
a very important case for a stronger and clearer national policy
statement, reflecting the situation in Ukraine and the Prime
Minister’s emphasis on food and energy security. I will undertake
to make sure that the points raised today are picked up by all
the relevant Ministers.
3.58pm
I thank everybody for their outstanding contributions—there are
too many to name individually in the time—on energy security, the
move to renewables, our energy mix, protecting our countryside,
our agriculture, where we get our food from and the importance of
solar, while ensuring it is used in the most sensible locations,
including brownfield sites. Once again, I thank the Minister, and
the Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Members for Aberdeen South
() and for Southampton, Test
(Dr Whitehead). And I thank you, Sir Charles, for your excellent
chairmanship.
(in the Chair)
I thank all colleagues for the generous way in which they have
conducted the debate and treated each other. Everyone got in.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered large solar farms.
|
