LOOKING BACK Thomas Hardy’s novels often come with a map of the writer’s Wessex, complete with all his renamed towns and villages. Far less well-known – but vastly more interesting to me at least – is the rough-and-ready sketch map of ‘Tess’s Country’ that Hardy drew as he was preparing to write Tess of the d’Urbervilles.
It was published in Harper’s magazine in 1925, three years before Hardy died. Dorset’s most famous literary son knew North Dorset well, of course, not least because he lived at Riverside, Sturminster Newton, for two years, and wrote The Return of the Native during that period.
The first thing that jumps out at me from the map is the oval-shaped dotted line surrounding the words ‘Vale of Blackmoor’. Most people today, of course – including the editor of this magazine – spell it ‘Blackmore’, but it’s interesting that Hardy was originally thinking of this alternative version.
By the time Tess was published in 1891, he had adopted the third option, and hedged his bets, writing in the opening sentences of both chapters one and two of the ‘Vale of Blakemore or Blackmoor’. This suggests that in Hardy’s time or earlier, some people might have pronounced it ‘Blakemore’.
The only Blackmore Vale town or village that appears on the map is Marlott, but unlike most of the other locations further afield, Hardy doesn’t bother to add its real name, Marnhull. Marlott also appears in the novel’s opening sentence as Hardy describes John Durbeyfield’s walk to his home in the village following his weekly visit to the market at Shaston (Shaftesbury), which also appears on the map. Semley Station on the South Western Railway, which served Shaftesbury and appears in Jude the Obscure, is one of two stations on the map, the other being London Waterloo. It’s during his journey home from Shaston that Durbeyfield meets the antiquary Parson Tringham, who sows misplaced ideas of grandeur in his head by calling him ‘Sir John’ and alleging his descent from Sir Pagan d’Urberville, who came over with William the Conqueror. The suggestion sets in motion a tragic train of events that culminates in the ill-fated Tess Durbeyfield’s execution at Wintoncester (Winchester). As elsewhere, Hardy used real buildings in his descriptions of Marlott, including Durbeyfield’s local, Rolliver’s (thought to be based on the Blackmore Vale Inn) and the Pure Drop (the Crown), which according to John offered a ‘very pretty brew’. Identification of the Durbeyfields’ cottage is more challenging.
In Thomas Hardy’s Wessex, published in 1913, Herman Lea said the ‘the old cottage in which Tess was imagined to have been born appeared to have been swept away. In the introduction, Lea thanked Hardy for correcting a few place identifications. This is contradicted by later sources, which claim that Hardy identified ‘Tess’s Cottage’ during a visit to Marnhull in later life.
Other places on Hardy’s map include Emminster (Beaminster), the home town of Tess’s husband, Angel Clare; Flintcomb-Ash (Plush), which he calls a ‘farm near Nettlecombe Tout’; Shottsford (Blandford); Trantridge (Pentridge), home of the Stoke d’Urbervilles and Tess’s seducer and rapist Alec d’Urberville; nearby Chaseborough (Cranborne), where Tess waits for her friends at the Fleur-deLuce, which in real life has happily regained its traditional name the Fleur de Lys; and Melchester (Salisbury), where Angel and the fugitive Tess pass over ‘town bridge’, based on St Nicholas Bridge, built in 1245
To the south of Dorset, Hardy creates a smaller dotted shape enclosing the words ‘Valley of the Frome (Froom)’, which he also calls the ‘Valley of the Great Dairies’, in contrast to the Vale of Blackmoor, which is the ‘Vale of Little Dairies’. Close to the River Frome are Wellbridge (Woolbridge Manor), which once belonged to the d’Urbervilles and where Tess and Angel stay after their marriage, and the ‘half-dead townlet of Kingsbere’ (Bere Regis), where the similarly named Turbervilles were lords of the manor for 500 years. Casterbridge (Dorchester) and Budmouth (Weymouth), which commonly feature in Hardy’s work, are also shown, as is Sandbourne (Bournemouth), which in Hardy’s lifetime had grown at a breakneck pace to become a ‘fashionable watering place’. It’s at Sandbourne that Tess effectively seals her fate by murdering Alec d’Urberville with a carving knife following the unexpected return of her beloved Angel Clare.
Dorset Archives Trust (DAT) Dorset History Centre (Archives) – Dorset Councilis leading a fundraising effort to unlock the internationally significant, UNESCO-listed archive of author Thomas Hardy.
At present, the collection (which consists of more than 150 boxes of material including diaries, photographs, letters, books, architectural plans and poetry), is almost invisible to the wider world. The archive contains such items as the manuscript of The Mayor of Casterbridge, correspondence to Hardy from TE Lawrence and Siegfried Sassoon, and the plans for Max Gate. Dorset History Centre is keen to unlock this fantastic resource by creating a free online catalogue for all to access. DHC estimates that it will take around 18 months to complete the task. Once done, Hardy’s archives – the bedrock of any research into the author, his life and work – will be permanently discoverable online. Anyone can then come to the History Centre to view the physical collection. The archive is a true jewel in Dorset’s heritage crown and deserves to be recognised and celebrated as such. The project will require £60,000, and DAT has started a crowdfunding campaign in support of this. Anyone wishing to contribute can do so by going to:
Our new research on food security finds that almost 14,500 hectares of England’s best agricultural land have been lost to development since 2010 – that’senough land to grow 250,000 tonnes of vegetables a year! We’re calling on the government to introduce a land use strategy that protects prime farmland and safeguards our food security – read on to find out more and watch our video. This year, National Hedgerow Week takes place 17-25 September. The theme is raising awareness of the benefits of hedgerows, and hopefully like us, you’ll be able to name a few! Not only do hedgerows provide vital habitats for an array of wildlife, but they improve soil quality and capture carbon from the atmosphere. But nearly 50% of our hedgerows have been lost since the end of the Second World War. That’s why we’re calling on the government to increase the hedgerow network by 40% by 2050. Read on to find out how you can continue to support our campaign ahead of National Hedgerow Week.As we approach the end of summer, we hope you can find time to explore and enjoy the countryside – whether near to you or further afield. You might notice different shades of heather, as well as blackberries and brambles – read on for what to look out for on a walk in August!
Building on our food security
Our new report, ‘Building on our food security reveals that there has been a hundred-fold increase in our best agricultural land lost to development. A staggering 60% of this prime farmland is also within areas at the highest risk of flooding. We’re demanding that the government safeguards England’s future food security with an effective land use strategy and new planning rules. Find out more Help us reach 40,000 signatures for National Hedgerow Week
To mark National Hedgerow Week which takes place 17-25 September, we’ll be handing in our #40by50 hedgerow petition, which we know many of you have signed already – thank you. But it’s not too late if you haven’t yet! You can help us reach 40,000 signatures in time for the hand-in by signing and sharing the petition with your family and friends. A new deadline set for the Cumbrian coal mine
The government recently announced that it will make a final decision on the Cumbrian coal mine by 17 August. With the new deadline looming, this is a critical window of time for our countryside, communities and climate. We’ll be standing by to take imminent action as soon as a decision has been made and will update you as soon as we can. A countryside walk in August
This month, why not go for a walk or two and take in the gentle rhythm of August? Now is an ideal time to enjoy walking through long grasses and tufty heather. You could also take part in some bramble or blackberry foraging as a way of embracing nature before the autumn arrives!
Becoming a CPRE member is the best way to support a beautiful, thriving countryside for all. Not only will you be doing your part for one of the UK’s most influential environmental charities you’ll also receive some great perks! We put your money to good use, collaborating with communities and holding government to account for positive change and sustainable countryside. Choose from an individual membership or one for the whole family with a household membership.
Best wishes, Cat Cat Rowland Digital Engagement Officer
CPRE is funded by donations from people like you. Together, we can help our beautiful countryside thrive, for everyone’s benefit – now and for generations to come. Donate now
That this House has considered planning for solar farms and battery storage solutions.
May I say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley? This is the first time it has happened to me, and it may well be a less pleasant experience than I am anticipating, but let us hope it all goes according to plan.
Let me divert any suggestion that may arise during the debate that I am somehow anti-solar, anti-renewable or anti-environmentalist. On the contrary, I suspect that everyone in the Chamber is a passionate environmentalist. I went to the first COP, in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, as a special adviser, and I have been on the Environmental Audit Committee ever since. I am passionate about the north and south poles, which I have visited often, and where we can see the effect of climate change, and in every way I would consider myself to be an environmentalist. I would not want my credentials to be lessened by my remarks this afternoon, and I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members around the room feel the same.
I am proud of the fact that we have a proud environmental record in Wiltshire. We declared a climate change emergency in February 2019, and we plan to make the county carbon-neutral by 2030. Renewables play an extremely important part in that, and I am proud of the contribution that we have already made with regards to solar. For example, at the former RAF Lyneham in my constituency, we have a 250 acre solar farm with 269,000 solar panels, providing 69.8 MW —enough energy to power 10,000 homes as well as the base itself. That is not a bad way to do it, but the point is that it is entirely invisible. It is on the base, it is on former Army land, it is within the wire and it is entirely invisible to anybody nearby. Equally, RAF Wroughton, which is nearby, has 150,000 solar panels on 170 acres. A number of similar ex-military sites are invisible to the passer-by and are making a huge contribution to renewable energy. By contrast, at Minety in my constituency, planners recently agreed to a solar farm with 166,000 panels on 271 acres of agricultural land despite massive local opposition, which seems to go against what is said in the national planning policy framework. I will come back to that in a second.
What seems to be happening in Wiltshire, Dorset and one or two counties in the west country is that the grid is full in Devon and Cornwall. It is no longer possible to get a link from a solar farm to the grid in Devon and Cornwall, and developers have moved north. I am told that the connections to the grid in Wiltshire are nearly full, but that gives me little satisfaction, because the technology is moving so fast that the situation may well change in time. Secondly, even if Wiltshire became exempt, as it were, from further solar farms, all we would then do is move the blister further north or east, and many Members present would find that their constituents were being targeted just as much as mine are.
Right now, we have a gigantic number of applications in my constituency for solar farms—I know of at least four. Many of them would feature battery storage units, which are horrible, industrialised containers that often take up an entire field. There are some safety risks attached to them, as they burst into flames from time to
My hon. Friend has mentioned the NPPF, which I understand is meant to be updated in July this year. Does he agree that there should be rigorous rules around planning permission for solar panels and that we should use commercial units for them first, instead of using agricultural land?
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I will come back to in one second. The NPPF is central to this, and when the Government come out with their update to it, it must include strict rules on solar farms.
We in Wiltshire are being targeted. I have huge sites at Derry Hill and at Leigh Delamere, and many sites have huge battery storage facilities attached to them. Something like 25 battery sites are currently being considered by Wiltshire Council. There is a proposal for a huge battery farm at Lea near Malmesbury. It is perfect, first-class agricultural land. I went to a public meeting in Lea the other day on the subject, and 250 people turned up in that tiny village—that must be more than the entire population of the village. That shows the strength of local feeling, but none the less the battery farm may go ahead—we will have to see.
I testify to my hon. Friend’s environmental credentials. He wrote the excellent book “Poles Apart”, which I have read, about the Arctic circle—in fact, I visited the North Pole with him some years ago. I completely agree that we need solar farms and sustainable energy and that we need to diversify our energy sources, but I also agree that we need to ensure that planning does not override the current use of agricultural land, nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest, which often happens with solar farms. I therefore agree that any review of the planning guidance needs to ensure that those other factors are fully taken into account, rather than being overridden by solar farms on their own.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for the plug. The book is only £10 and it is available in decent bookshops near you, or I could perhaps arrange for it to be sent directly. He is absolutely right: we must not allow the planning system to override good environmental and nature principles because of some need to have renewables.
This is not just happening in the west country; we are getting it in Hertfordshire. We have a number of applications for quite substantial areas of productive farmland. We are talking about 150 or 200 acres, and quite a few of these pieces of land are all in one area, which is causing a lot of concern. It is probably right, when we look at revising the planning framework, that we look at the balance between productive agricultural land and sustainable energy, because both are important. I will just mention Protect the Pelhams and the Bygrave Action Group, which asked me to make that point.
Before I come back to the national planning policy framework, which must be central to this afternoon’s debate, I will touch briefly on battery storage solutions, which are springing up all over the place. They are absolutely hideous. There is a fire risk attached to them, and they do not make a single contribution towards renewables. All they do is store electricity that has been produced at a cheap time, when there is low demand overnight, instead of at an expensive time, such as during the day. In other words, they increase the electricity producer’s profits but do not reduce the amount of electricity used, even slightly. They do not increase the amount of renewable energy produced; they are merely a convenience for the developers. They are a hideous new development. Technology will soon overtake them, and we will be left with hundreds of acres of countryside with these vast industrial sites on them. They will then be redundant and the planners will turn around and say, “They are brownfield sites. Let’s put houses or factories on them”—on what was, until recently, farmland.
The hon. Gentleman is raising an important issue. In my constituency, one farmer diversified by putting in a solar farm—one that is acceptable because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is not obtrusive and it is not seen. After substantial consultation, the local community agreed with it as well. As we look ahead to the need for green energy, and as we look to the war in Ukraine, it is clear that the demands on highly productive land will be greater than ever. Does there come a time when solar farms and battery installations have to take a backseat to food production?
The hon. Member makes a good point. Of course, food security will be central to our considerations as we go forward. He made an interesting point: he said the solar farm in his constituency was built with the enthusiasm of local people. That is, of course, how it should be. There will be places where local people say, “I am committed to environmentalism and renewables. I want to see a renewable farm near my village or in my town. I want to see it behind a high hedge,” and they will lay down certain conditions under which it can be put in. That is great. By contrast, when local people—such as the people of Lea, in the public meeting I mentioned a moment ago—are absolutely unanimous in their determination not to have one, they must be listened to. That becomes an important part of the consideration.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this important debate. Is there not a danger that we swap the drive towards energy security for food security? Should we not set a balancing target for food security in this country from the current 60% to, say, 75%, where it used to be? That would prevent planning consent being given for sites such as the one near Old Malton, in my constituency, which is 70% best and most versatile land. Does he agree that giving consent for such land is absolutely inappropriate, and that councils should take food security into account in their decisions?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the great considerations that we are currently battling with is the question of food security. Post-Ukraine, or during Ukraine, we are facing a real crisis in food
production in this country. Why we are taking perfectly usable agricultural land and covering it with vanity mirrors and industrial battery storage units, I simply cannot imagine. It is extraordinary.
Just yesterday, we had a debate in this Chamber on a similar subject—the question of housing in planning—and, to some extent, we are discussing the same thing. Developers should, of course, be encouraged to reuse brownfield sites in town centres, but, given the choice between a brownfield site in a town centre or a greenfield site in the countryside, they are going to go for the greenfield site. We therefore have to change the planning system to focus house building on previously used land. A little off the subject, Mr Paisley—thank you for not picking me up on that.
The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating speech. Does he feel that there is a need to prioritise brownfield land and particularly to look at brownfield in urban areas, as well as in rural areas?
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. We have car parks that are good places to put overhead solar farms, as they do in many other parts of the world. Every factory that is built should have solar panels on the roof. Massive areas in town centres should have solar panels attached. However, those solutions cost developers quite a lot more money, and they are not going to do that if they can just buy a nice greenfield site and stick the solar farm out there. It is much easier for them to do that. That is why the planning system has to constrain what they do, so that they are forced to come back into our town centres and use the kind of solutions he describes.
We ought to move on to the central question, which is about planning. Wiltshire Council is being particularly targeted at the moment because it is being a little too cautious. The council is very concerned that, if it turns applications down, unless it can demonstrate that the application absolutely did not fall within the current planning guidance, the inspector will overturn that decision at appeal, and the council will then be faced with substantial barristers’ costs.
Wiltshire Council is saying, perfectly reasonably, “We need to be guaranteed that we are within planning law when turning down these applications.” That is why the detailed definition of planning law and the NPPF is incredibly important in order to give some comfort to councils such as Wiltshire Council when they say, “This is going to be turned down. Here’s why.” The wording of the NPPF should therefore be clear. I have been saying to my council that, at the moment, it is clear. Paragraph 155a of the NPPF says that local plans should provide a
“strategy for energy…while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed…including cumulative landscape and visual impacts.”
The guidance says:
“It is for each local authority to determine a planning application to include the consideration of intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, as well as whether the best quality land is being used for agricultural purposes. Large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes.”
There is not one inch of Wiltshire that is not undulating, so, if that were to be applied in detail, there would be no solar farms in the county of Wiltshire.
As has been said, guidance also states very clearly that solar farms should be focused on
“previously developed and non agricultural land…that is not of high environmental value”.
The guidance actually says that at the moment, leaving aside the upcoming review.
On 9 March, in this Chamber, the Science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), confirmed that interpretation of the NPPF. He said:
“In 2021, the Government set up a national infrastructure planning reform programme,”
which will be reviewed
“later this year”.
We would be interested to hear when that happens; we want to know the outcome. He continued:
“As part of that, the Government are reviewing the national policy statements for energy.”
Importantly, speaking as a Minister from the Dispatch Box, he said:
“It seems to me that”
we need
“a clearer national policy statement…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…It requires developers to justify using any such land and to design their projects to avoid, mitigate and, where necessary, compensate for impacts”—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 127-8WH.]
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The comments that we heard earlier from colleagues about the use of agricultural land is a particular concern in my constituency as we have a proposed large solar farm that is nationally significant infrastructure because of its size. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is it important for local communities to be at the heart of that decision-making and be consulted properly, so that they can ensure that these solar farms—which we are not opposed to in principle, but they must be in the right places—do not take away from things that we want to preserve?
My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful for his intervention. It must be done with local consent and enthusiasm. The notion that solar farms can be good for biodiversity is, of course, complete nonsense. No shepherd worth his salt would graze his sheep on a solar farm. The grass is low quality. I do not think there is one single solar farm in the west of England currently being grazed, and the notion that they could be is nonsensical. Equally, the notion that, somehow, wildflowers thrive on solar farms is simple nonsense; it is simply not true. There is not a single wildflower that I have ever seen on any of the solar farms that I have ever visited. Therefore, the notion, which the developers put forward, that solar farms are somehow biodiversity-friendly is absolute nonsense.
The heart of the problem is that Wiltshire Council, and probably many other councils too, interprets the nation policy framework very conservatively. For example,
the NPPF seems to indicate that it thinks that grade 3a land should not have a solar farm on it, but that grade 3b land could do. It is not absolutely clear, but it seems to be moving in that direction. Anybody who knows anything about a farm will know that some of it will be grade 3a and some will be 3b; it is extremely hard to make out which is which. One field may be half 3a and half 3b. Therefore, what we should be saying is that all viable agricultural land should not be used for solar farms—full stop. Never mind grade 3a, 3b, 2 or 1: all agricultural land should be exempt, under planning law, from solar farms.
Equally, we ought to be making much more use of carve-outs for protected designations such as national parks and areas of outstanding national beauty. Most of my constituency is an AONB, and if AONBs were exempted, there would be no solar farms. We must take account of a landscape’s special characteristics, which we are not doing under the NPPF.
Councils also ought to be more ready to make the argument about the cumulative impact of solar farms. The NPPF seems to intimate that cumulative impact is allowable, but the planning inspector is unclear about that. We must be certain that the more solar farms there are in a particular place, the less likely it is that planning permission will be granted.
We must also develop arguments about food production as a legitimate economic consideration. Under the NPPF, if there is a legitimate economic consideration connected to a planning application, it will not go ahead. It is currently unclear whether food production is a legitimate economic consideration. Officers—and indeed, I think, officials in the Department—have said that it is quite hard to know whether or not agriculture could be classed as a legitimate economic consideration. I think that it definitely should be.
Let me give the Minister a list of things that I would like him to consider. He will not be able to answer them this afternoon, I am sure, but I have taken the opportunity of sending the list to the Department, so that he can consider it at his leisure if he wants to. I and—it seems—many of my colleagues in the Chamber this afternoon have a wish-list. There should be changes to national planning policy, allowing local authorities more scope to object to applications so that they can object on a much wider scale. Perhaps we should make the process similar to that for wind turbines. At the moment, it is much easier to turn down a wind turbine plant than a solar farm, but I think that solar farms and wind turbines should be treated in the same way in planning applications.
As I have said, there should be a prohibition on using grade 3 land, whether it is 3a or 3b, and we must not allow battery storage solutions to take land out of food production for use for solar. There should be much more of an imperative towards smaller installations on barns, factories, warehouse roofs and all the kinds of places that the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) mentioned a moment ago, instead of huge installations on greenfield sites and farmland.
An interesting point is that the prescribed limit on the distances involved must be shorter. We cannot have these solar farms 10 miles away from grid connection; the distance to grid connection must be shorter, so that we have solar farms where there is a grid connection. At the moment, partly by using battery storage solutions,
developers are coming up with sites that are miles and miles away from the connection to the grid, which of course produces even further damage to the countryside.
Visibility is an important point. In my opinion, no solar farm should be generally visible within one mile of listed buildings or protected landscapes; I think the Minister would probably agree with that. That limit should also be extended to cover views, which planning law does not currently cover. Under planning law, people have no right to a view and a view cannot be considered under planning law. In the case of solar farms, a view is terribly important and therefore we should allow people to object to a solar farm because it damages their view. The views in the countryside are incredibly important. Such a change would demand a change to the NPPF, but only a very small one, and I think that allowing local people to object to a solar farm because it would destroy the view is perfectly legitimate.
In general, the point I am making is that at the moment local authorities are scared. They are scared that if they do not interpret the NPPF correctly—if they get one word wrong—the inspectors at appeal will, perfectly correctly, overturn their decision. What our local authorities need is absolute clarity. At a time like this—post-Ukraine—we value our agricultural land and we do not want to see our countryside being covered in solar farms and battery storage solutions. We think that producing food is important; indeed, food security is an incredibly important issue for the future.
We must provide local authorities with clarity of language in the revised NPPF, so that they can say straightforwardly, “No, you will not have that solar farm on this particular piece of agricultural land”, with the confidence that the inspector will agree with them rather than overturning their decision, which is what seems to be happening more or less automatically at the moment. We need to give local authorities that strength, that clarity and that power. If we do so, and if the developers, who are watching this debate today, know that they will not get permission for a development, they will not put in the application and will go somewhere else.
I just want that clarity. When the NPPF review comes out—I hope that will be shortly and certainly this year: the Minister may be able to update us on that soon—let us see some of these things written into it, to give local authorities that clarity and that strength when they come to turn down some of these ghastly applications.
I will see who else is bobbing and feels worthy to follow Mr James Gray today, after his Sermon on the Mount. Members themselves can see who is bobbing. I want to call the Opposition spokesman at around 5.10 pm, so we are talking about four to five minutes each for each contribution; I do not want to set a formal time limit.
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Paisley, and it is a pleasure to serve under you as Chairman.
I thank the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) for securing this debate and I obviously thank Mr Speaker for granting it. It is very timely, certainly for me and for my constituency, because we, too, have an application for a battery energy storage system in an
area called the Duckery—hon. Members can imagine what it is like—in Chapel Lane. It is a beautiful part of Walsall South and has a large amount of green belt around it, with St Margaret’s Church, Great Barr, very nearby. Anesco Ltd put in a planning application on 6 December 2021: I always worry about applications that go in just before Christmas, which makes it really difficult for local residents to be consulted.
The hon. Member is absolutely right—he does have green credentials. I have served on the Environmental Audit Committee with him. In fact, I seem to remember he was arranging an expedition to the south pole. Sadly, I will not be able to take part because I am not on the Committee anymore, but I might join him anyway. Maybe another book will come out of that.
I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman focused on the national planning policy framework, because that is key, as it says the green belt should be protected. That is why it is concerning that this battery energy storage system is going to be placed on green-belt land. The Black Country core strategy says that green-belt land should be protected, and the Walsall site allocation document reaffirms that. In the main Chamber at the moment, they are discussing the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Notes on the Bill state that green-belt land will be made greener. We might think that means it will be protected, but we cannot be sure that will happen, which is why it is important the Minister gives us confirmation that green-belt land will be protected.
The area of Walsall South, near the Duckery, is grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land. Previously, rapeseed oil was grown there. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the Ukrainian war means we are short of sunflower oil and are looking to alternatives, which is why it is important that the area should be protected and not built on.
On 26 May, Anesco Ltd put in further documents looking at alternative sites. Let us look at those alternative sites. The planning officer from nearby Sandwell has said that the applicant should demonstrate why this development is necessary at the sensitive location of the Duckery on Chapel Lane, and why this proposal could not be adjacent to a substation power line on nearby land. There is a place called the Oldbury national grid substation, which could be used. It is near the national grid and that is where this facility should be placed.
My concern is that councils do not always take into account what is said and so I want a commitment from the Minister. A planning officer can make a recommendation in a report, and then the application goes through the cabinet or the planning committee, and they do not take local residents into account. I have suffered such a case for a site in my constituency, where 2,000 residents were against a particular site called Narrow Lane. We want a commitment from the Government and the Minister that they are committed to protecting the green belt. I ask the Minister to confirm that commitment, which is set out in the national planning policy framework, the Black Country core strategy and the site allocation document.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire also mentioned that there have been fires in battery energy storage systems in Australia and California. Has an assessment been done on the safety of these sites?
The bottom line is that my constituents do not want green-belt land to be built on. They want it preserved. The pandemic has shown, like never before, how they need green-belt land and that such areas need to be protected.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) for securing this important debate, which gives me the opportunity to speak about solar. I, too, would like to stress that I am not anti-solar or anti-renewables and I am not anti the environment. I have the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for a beautiful rural constituency. The subject of planning for solar farms is incredibly important to rural communities.
As the MP for Ynys Môn, the island of Anglesey, I represent communities particularly concerned about the threat of mega solar farms on our landscape, our culture and our heritage, in particular a proposal by Lightsource BP for a 1,200-acre solar farm on Anglesey. Yes, that is correct—1,200 acres. To put that huge amount of land into some perspective, it is equivalent to around 900 football pitches. It is the largest project in Lightsource BP’s development portfolio.
Our island community, like other rural communities, is under threat from a slew of solar proposals. Smaller applications are managed by the Isle of Anglesey County Council, with local councillors representing the views of the community. It has rejected some previous applications, including one for a 200-acre site near Cemaes. However, larger applications are considered by the Welsh Government, who are six hours away in Cardiff, and local communities are concerned that that will take large-scale development decisions away from them.
In 2019, 27% of energy in Wales came from renewables, of which solar formed a very small proportion. In recent months we have all felt the problems caused by being dependent on other countries for our energy. Like the Welsh Government, we are fully behind the move to net zero, and we recognise that renewables must form part of our future energy strategy.
We must implement solar with extreme caution. For developers, it is an attractive solution, as land is relatively cheap, solar panels can be imported at low cost, and there is minimal upkeep and maintenance, which means that little local employment is generated. That must be balanced against the energy generation capacity. The huge 1,200 acre solar farm proposed by Lightsource bp for Anglesey would generate enough energy for 133,000 homes. A new nuclear plant such as Hinkley C in Bridgwater has a small fraction of that footprint, but with the potential to generate energy for 6 million homes.
There is another, possibly more important, consideration. Ynys Môn was known historically as Môn Mam Cymru—Anglesey, mother of Wales—because our fertile agricultural land fed the Welsh people in times of need. We need a strong agricultural community, and it is those great swathes of fertile, historical agricultural land that are particularly attractive to solar farm developers. Earlier this year, FarmingUK wrote that the UK is on the verge of food security concerns not seen since world war 2, and in 2020 the UK imported 46% of the food we consume.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the risk that, in the rush to achieve net zero, however laudable, we may sacrifice vast areas of agricultural land, and hence our food security, to solar panels, which do not offer the dependable, large-scale solution we need to the energy crisis.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and the other speakers, who made some very interesting points.
I am very much in favour of a sensible approach to this issue that balances the importance of energy security and tackling the climate emergency with not creating eyesores in the countryside. I am proud of our record in my area of central Berkshire. I represent an urban seat, but we have a strong tradition of solar power from our borough council and neighbouring local authorities, and in land nearby. Much of it is on the roofs of buildings and on brownfield land. I want to get across the positive message about using those types of land. There is a large amount of brownfield land in southern England, although I appreciate the points made by colleagues from slightly further west. There is also the issue of developers looking for land in the south, where sunlight is slightly more plentiful.
I want to say a few words about Reading Borough Council’s excellent work over many years of putting solar panels on the roofs of council houses, schools and other public buildings. Wokingham Borough Council was Conservative-run—I am afraid to say to Government Members that it is now under a different administration—when it planned a large solar farm in its area of Berkshire, which is suburban and semi-rural. The councils there were mindful of the visual impact, and I respect their work on that. I hope we can progress in a sensible, cross-party and consensual way and look at the opportunities.
I want to pay tribute briefly to the private individuals and charitable bodies that have driven alternative energy schemes in our area. I also want to highlight the importance of low-flow hydro. We have a small scheme on the Thames, the Queen has one at Windsor castle, and other landowners along the Thames have such schemes. They use water power, which in the past would have been used to drive mills, to generate electricity. It is a simple, low-tech but very effective form of hydroelectric power at a local level, which has a very limited impact on the environment near the river.
I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, but my experience of solar farms has been somewhat more positive. I draw his attention to the site at Pingewood in Berkshire, which is next to the M4—indeed, he may well drive past it. It is on a former landfill site next to a motorway, and is very close to grid connectivity because of the pylons running through our county. It makes one realise that there are actually sites in locations that already have visual intrusion from infrastructure, which could be used and perhaps should be prioritised. I had the pleasure of visiting there with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who I shadow. We were looking at the scheme on that land, which is supported by one of the energy providers and is used for pension investments. I know that the
hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) is a huge enthusiast for auto-enrolment. Auto-enrolment savings are being used to invest in solar on brownfield sites. Surely that is the sort of model that we want to encourage.
In the south of England, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire rightly said, there are sites that used to be airfields or military installations, as well as transport land, the roofs of car parks and many other things, which should be prioritised. I genuinely hope that we can come to some agreement to do that. In my constituency there are many flat building roofs, whether on garage blocks or large businesses. The tragedy is that there is not enough incentivisation to use the large acreage of land that exists in areas with high amounts of solar radiation where it would be ideal to place solar panels, such as in the south of England and London.
I hope the Minister can address that point about whether it is possible for the Government to look at incentivised development of that type of site, and to support local authorities and community groups more. There is obviously going to be an economy of scale with the very big sites. However, is it somehow possible to encourage development in a sensitive way that makes good use of currently wasted space in areas with high levels of sunlight? When large public buildings are built, such as hospitals, schools and stations, could the default position be that solar is included in the roofs? Will the Minister consider that? As a way of removing pressure from valuable agricultural land, and given that build costs would be lower if solar was installed at the point of construction, is there a way of incentivising that through the planning system? That way, businesses would have a genuine incentive to put solar on new builds, in a way and on a scale that does not currently exist.
I think about that every day when I go to Reading station, which is a wonderful new piece of infrastructure in our area, and one that serves colleagues further west. The trains there are electric, so why on earth does that station not have solar panels all over its roof? It is a huge area of space that could be used for solar without any intrusion into green space, and would actually protect rural areas by giving us more capacity. Can the Minister address those points? It has been a pleasure to speak today and I hope we can agree a consensual way forward.
Thank you, Mr Paisley; I shall be brief. You were very kind to describe the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) as a sermon on the mount, and I am happy to be a disciple on this matter. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue; as ever, I find that when we talk about planning there is the opportunity for Members across this House to come together.
I have four points, which I will make quickly. First, as I heard in yesterday’s debate on neighbourhood planning, the new NPPF policy will come forward in July. It is absolutely essential, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, that we engage with local communities and listen to the voices of both local authorities and residents. We must take that opportunity to do so.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, given the limited time. He is absolutely right that it is vital that local voices are heard when it comes to solar farm planning applications. Will he join me in encouraging all of my residents who may be impacted by the Mallard Pass development to contribute to the consultation? That is a vital part of the process, and their voices can be heard through it.
It should come as no surprise that even in south Devon we have heard about the issues concerning Mallard Pass. I encourage all residents of Grantham and Stamford to take part in that consultation, and to register their voices—as indeed should all our constituents.
Secondly, we have a food security crisis at the moment, but we also have a global supply chain crisis. We must now have a national target that pushes us to produce food. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned 75% as a potential target, and we should look at doing that. Anything that takes out productive agricultural land from farming must be reviewed. Solar panels have got to be in the sights of Government to stop that from happening.
Thirdly—I will make this point in my last 33 seconds—a year ago, the Local Electricity Bill was tabled as a private Member’s Bill. We should look at finding local sources to power the network and feed back into the grid. The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) was bright and clever enough to make an excellent point about his station in Reading: every time I pass through that station, I will think about that proposal, and I would certainly support it. Tidal, wind and solar, in the right places and the right spaces and used in the right way, are absolutely essential.
My last point is about brownfield sites. If I understand correctly, the CPRE report on brownfield sites identifies 21,000 sites across the country totalling 26,000 hectares, equating to what would be 1.3 million houses. Let us use those brownfield sites and commercial spaces, and make sure we keep our countryside as beautiful as possible.
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Paisley. Naturally, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) on securing this important debate and acknowledge his track record on environmentalism, which was stated clearly at the beginning of the debate and throughout.
Many Members have today taken the opportunity to talk about developments in their constituency, with a common focus on what is termed brown-belt and former industrial sites first, such as the roofs of car parks, warehouses, schools and housing developments—I think even trains were suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda). That was acknowledged and concurred with by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and others. A significant number of interventions were made by Members who are no longer present.
I have a sizable farming community in my Weaver Vale constituency. At a recent meeting of the National Farmers Union at Warburtons Farms in Frodsham, the consensus was that fertile agricultural land should not be used at scale for solar farms, a point that has been eloquently made in today’s debate. Unfortunately, too many farmers feel that they have little choice but to sell land for development, whether that is housing development or solar farms. In part, that is driven by the insecure nature of the financial support in the new subsidy arrangements that farmers now face. They were promised not a penny less, but the reality is somewhat different.
The justified concerns about the local impact of solar farms must be weighed against our inescapable need to build renewable energy, and lots of it, over the coming years in order to meet our net zero target by 2050. Renewable energy, including solar energy, must be built, and it must be built somewhere. It is always easy for someone to say that they are in favour of renewable energy in principle; it is much harder to say that they are in favour of renewable energy in a specific location. Members from across the Chamber have made very considered speeches about the circumstances in which we should build solar farms, and I agree that we need to be clear about the need for a strategic approach, so that we can understand exactly what we need and where it needs to go. However, it certainly needs to go somewhere, and that should be our starting point.
With the costs of fossil fuels soaring, wind and solar power are the keys to bringing down costs for customers, ensuring energy security in the face of the Ukrainian war and fighting climate change, yet the Government are intentionally limiting access to the cheapest, quickest and cleanest forms of new power by stopping the production of enough onshore wind and solar energy to power 3 million homes. Members have today made some great suggestions regarding where that energy capacity should be built. Instead, we have a Chancellor who has just handed a £1.9 billion tax break to producers of oil and gas that could pump nearly 900 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Our climate and our constituents will pay the price for the Government doing the unthinkable and backing the fossil fuel industry, despite claiming to have the admirable target of reaching net zero by 2050. What assurances can the Minister give that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s apparent green light for the fossil fuel industry will be revisited with a sense of urgency and with funding redirected to renewables, developed in the right places? Why not incentivise, as people have said? We simply cannot reach the kinds of targets that we need to be reaching by limiting ourselves to small-scale urban solar farms. That will involve larger-scale projects over the 50 MW rate that at the moment qualifies a proposal as a nationally significant infrastructure project.
Where we have common ground in today’s debate is in our desire on location. The negative impacts should be minimised using sensitive planning that focuses on previously developed and non-agricultural land that is not of high environmental value. Indeed, that is stated in the national planning policy framework. Surely a locally led planning system should shape developments and they should not be dictated—that could be done by the current Secretary of State or, certainly, future ones.
Unfortunately, the centralisation and power grab by the current Secretary of State is given rocket fuel by proposed new subsection (5C) of section 38 of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, in clause 83 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is having its Second Reading today. That subsection states that any conflict between the development plan and a national development management policy
“must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”
I look forward to seeing the amendments, which will inevitably be laid, and attempts to remove that provision in favour of locally led planning systems and arrangements.
Testing has been carried out on the benefits of solar energy, and the overwhelming evidence is that, despite small impacts, the benefits of solar outweigh the costs as long as appropriate land is used. The public support a move to renewables, but they know that we need to build in the right place, using the appropriate land. I ask the Minister—I think the need for this has been reaffirmed today—to look again at some of the clauses in the current Bill that centralise the planning process and override local concerns, but also, very importantly, to incentivise renewables.
The mover of today’s motion is a polar explorer, a writer of books, and a provider of written interventions for colleagues. Minister Hughes, you have a lot to live up to.
It is a true pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. Not only will my performance not live up to that introduction, but sadly I am a very poor substitute for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, who is currently in the main Chamber and preparing to steer the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill through Parliament. I will not be able to answer some of the questions that have been asked, but I will ensure that we get answers from a very learned source to ensure that hon. Members get some response.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) for his fine speech. We have all acknowledged how well informed it was and how intrepid he is, and his environmental credentials are unequalled in the room. I also express thanks for the contributions from other hon. Members. Some of them have already gone, but they were fine contributions none the less.
In our net zero strategy and British energy security strategy, the Government committed to securing and fully decarbonising the UK’s electricity supply. Crucially, we are considering how the planning system can further support our commitment to reaching net zero. The British energy security strategy sets out our plans to consult on some specific changes to the planning system to support delivery of renewable infrastructure, including solar farms. That energy strategy sets a clear ambition for a fivefold increase in deployment of the UK’s solar capacity, up to 70 GW, by 2035. That obviously means shifting up a gear in terms of deployment, but what it categorically does not mean is seizing large swathes of countryside and turning them into industrial solar farms and storage units. Yes, large-scale ground-mounted farms will be needed, but smaller commercial and domestic rooftop projects will be just as essential.
I will respond to some of the points made in the debate. On toughening up planning regulations in the NPPF to make sure that ground-mounted solar panels
are not blighting the countryside, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire that we will consult on amending planning rules in England to strengthen policy in favour of solar development on non-protected land. We intend to do this while making sure that local communities continue to have a real say over applications, with all the existing environmental protections remaining in place, and we will publish the consultation in due course. We are also committed to delivering on the commitments we made in the net zero strategy to review national planning policy, to make sure it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaption as fully as possible.
My hon. Friend referred to a few specific examples of planning applications in his constituency, as did others. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that, given the quasi-judicial role of Ministers within the planning system, I am unable to comment on specifics; however, I can explain the Government’s position on planning policy for the matters raised. Currently, planning applications for projects up to 50 MW capacity in England are determined by local planning authorities. The vast majority of solar projects in England fall into that category, although clearly not the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). Councils will consider a range of factors when assessing applications, including the environmental impact.
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 through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. This allows for rigorous scrutiny of such projects through an impartial examination process run by the Planning Inspectorate. Under the NSIP regime, developers must undertake considerable community engagement as part of the application process. Communities can participate in a formal examination process run by the Planning Inspectorate, which gives residents ample opportunity to make their views on a project known long before any decisions are taken. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will increase opportunities for community involvement even further.
It is probably a good idea for me to move away from my speech and respond to some of the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire mentioned battery facilities being of no use, but my understanding is that where we have battery facilities, we need less solar. The performance of solar obviously depends on the sun shining, whereas a battery facility allows us to capture the energy created while the sun is shining. We therefore do not need quite so many solar panels, because the scheme operates on a more efficient basis.
Regarding brownfield versus greenfield, the Government have a clear preference for brownfield development in many of our planning areas, and that also applies here. An excellent scheme in Wolverhampton has taken a landfill site and built a considerable solar facility that will feed the local hospital. We certainly have a preference for that in the Black Country.
My hon. Friend asked whether it is possible to have grazing continuing in and out of solar facilities. I am sorry to say that there is not a single solar farm in Walsall North, or not many of them, so I do not know
whether grazing will continue. I will take his expertise on board and I will discuss this issue with our right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing when the opportunity arises. Hopefully my hon. Friend will forgive my lack of knowledge in that area.
The question of roof versus field was raised by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury). At the moment, my understanding is that there is more or less a 50:50 balance between the production of solar energy in fields and on roofs. The Government intend to maintain that balance and we have some interesting things happening—for example, a part L uplift in the building regs, which is coming into force this month. When we change the building regs, we create notional buildings that show how we can achieve the new standard. The notional building for the part L uplift includes solar panels, so we expect that, from now on, further building regs will see more buildings—houses and commercial—built with solar panels in place.
I understand that my hon. Friend is not the Minister responsible, but did I understand him correctly to say that he intends to maintain the split between green fields and roofs at 50:50? The whole thrust of the debate this afternoon has been that we do not want that maintained. We want significantly more solar power to be generated on brownfield sites and on buildings, and significantly less on fields. I would like to see it going to 70:30 or 80:20, or, come to that, 100% of solar farms being on reused land.
It was meant to be reassuring. I was just saying that we will maintain the status quo at the very least, and that in terms of that balance it is not our intention to push for dramatically more farmland to be used for solar.
I am terribly sorry and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way away. I do not want to enter into an argument, but that is not in the least bit reassuring. The reason why all these Members are in the Chamber today is because solar farm applications are being made in their constituencies. We do not want them to happen; we want them to stop. We want the land to remain agricultural land that can produce food. Just saying, “Oh, don’t worry, ladies and gentlemen, it will be absolutely fine. It is going to remain as it is now,” is no reassurance at all. We want the situation to change. We want to see fewer solar farms on agricultural land, not more or even the same number.
Given that we need to achieve a fivefold increase in solar generation, we are going to have great difficulty in finding places to put that in a way that does not compromise people’s enjoyment of the countryside, at least in some small way. We need to find a way through this that means we achieve our net zero objective while not upsetting too many Members of this House or the public more generally.
I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. If the Minister is going to run a consultation, that has to be run, completed and responded to before the
NPPF is published in July. We must have a consultation that enables us to introduce legislation to allow us, as Members of Parliament, and local authorities to make decisions. Will the Minister commit to that, or at least commit to asking the Department to make sure that the consultation will be brought forward quickly?
In the absence of the Minister responsible for housing and planning, I undertake to share with him the views that have been raised, although I am sure he is aware of this debate and will read it subsequently.
The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned a current planning application in Walsall. As a planning Minister, I cannot comment on that. I feel a degree of assurance that Walsall Council will be able to handle that application. In relation to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I can assure her that this Government certainly intend to continue to protect the green belt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn raised a scheme that I can only imagine is of national significance and therefore will be determined by the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. That falls outside my purview, but I will make sure that BEIS Ministers are aware of her concern.
I share the ambition of the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) to maximise the use of brownfield sites or put more solar on top of existing buildings, squeezing solar in everywhere that will not impact on the enjoyment of the countryside.
Finally, it is good to see the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) at the Dispatch Box again. The war in Ukraine has told us that we need to maximise our energy security by making sure that we have access to oil, because that is clearly how we generate lots of our electricity, while continuing our commitment to a transition to net zero by doing things such as scaling up our solar power production dramatically.
As I said at the start, Mr Paisley, I am a poor substitute for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing. I will convey the thoughts of Members present to him and I look forward to him responding to Members in due course.
It has been a unanimous debate this afternoon, Mr Paisley. All of us, on all sides of the House, agree that we want to see fewer solar farms and fewer battery storage solutions. We want to see agriculture and food production increased.
It was unanimous until we came to the Minister’s response to the debate, which I have to say was extraordinarily disappointing. I am horrified to hear the Government intend to increase the number of solar farms by 500% and that the Minister thinks that a ratio of 50:50 between fields and roofs, which is where we are at the moment, is reassuring. We want to see far, far fewer solar farms in the countryside.
I am extremely disappointed that the Minister was unable to tell us when the NPPF will be renewed. He was not able to reassure me that somehow or other
That this House has considered planning for solar farms and battery storage solutions.
May I say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley? This is the first time it has happened to me, and it may well be a less pleasant experience than I am anticipating, but let us hope it all goes according to plan.
Let me divert any suggestion that may arise during the debate that I am somehow anti-solar, anti-renewable or anti-environmentalist. On the contrary, I suspect that everyone in the Chamber is a passionate environmentalist. I went to the first COP, in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, as a special adviser, and I have been on the Environmental Audit Committee ever since. I am passionate about the north and south poles, which I have visited often, and where we can see the effect of climate change, and in every way I would consider myself to be an environmentalist. I would not want my credentials to be lessened by my remarks this afternoon, and I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members around the room feel the same.
I am proud of the fact that we have a proud environmental record in Wiltshire. We declared a climate change emergency in February 2019, and we plan to make the county carbon-neutral by 2030. Renewables play an extremely important part in that, and I am proud of the contribution that we have already made with regards to solar. For example, at the former RAF Lyneham in my constituency, we have a 250 acre solar farm with 269,000 solar panels, providing 69.8 MW —enough energy to power 10,000 homes as well as the base itself. That is not a bad way to do it, but the point is that it is entirely invisible. It is on the base, it is on former Army land, it is within the wire and it is entirely invisible to anybody nearby. Equally, RAF Wroughton, which is nearby, has 150,000 solar panels on 170 acres. A number of similar ex-military sites are invisible to the passer-by and are making a huge contribution to renewable energy. By contrast, at Minety in my constituency, planners recently agreed to a solar farm with 166,000 panels on 271 acres of agricultural land despite massive local opposition, which seems to go against what is said in the national planning policy framework. I will come back to that in a second.
What seems to be happening in Wiltshire, Dorset and one or two counties in the west country is that the grid is full in Devon and Cornwall. It is no longer possible to get a link from a solar farm to the grid in Devon and Cornwall, and developers have moved north. I am told that the connections to the grid in Wiltshire are nearly full, but that gives me little satisfaction, because the technology is moving so fast that the situation may well change in time. Secondly, even if Wiltshire became exempt, as it were, from further solar farms, all we would then do is move the blister further north or east, and many Members present would find that their constituents were being targeted just as much as mine are.
Right now, we have a gigantic number of applications in my constituency for solar farms—I know of at least four. Many of them would feature battery storage units, which are horrible, industrialised containers that often take up an entire field. There are some safety risks attached to them, as they burst into flames from time to
My hon. Friend has mentioned the NPPF, which I understand is meant to be updated in July this year. Does he agree that there should be rigorous rules around planning permission for solar panels and that we should use commercial units for them first, instead of using agricultural land?
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I will come back to in one second. The NPPF is central to this, and when the Government come out with their update to it, it must include strict rules on solar farms.
We in Wiltshire are being targeted. I have huge sites at Derry Hill and at Leigh Delamere, and many sites have huge battery storage facilities attached to them. Something like 25 battery sites are currently being considered by Wiltshire Council. There is a proposal for a huge battery farm at Lea near Malmesbury. It is perfect, first-class agricultural land. I went to a public meeting in Lea the other day on the subject, and 250 people turned up in that tiny village—that must be more than the entire population of the village. That shows the strength of local feeling, but none the less the battery farm may go ahead—we will have to see.
I testify to my hon. Friend’s environmental credentials. He wrote the excellent book “Poles Apart”, which I have read, about the Arctic circle—in fact, I visited the North Pole with him some years ago. I completely agree that we need solar farms and sustainable energy and that we need to diversify our energy sources, but I also agree that we need to ensure that planning does not override the current use of agricultural land, nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest, which often happens with solar farms. I therefore agree that any review of the planning guidance needs to ensure that those other factors are fully taken into account, rather than being overridden by solar farms on their own.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful to him for the plug. The book is only £10 and it is available in decent bookshops near you, or I could perhaps arrange for it to be sent directly. He is absolutely right: we must not allow the planning system to override good environmental and nature principles because of some need to have renewables.
This is not just happening in the west country; we are getting it in Hertfordshire. We have a number of applications for quite substantial areas of productive farmland. We are talking about 150 or 200 acres, and quite a few of these pieces of land are all in one area, which is causing a lot of concern. It is probably right, when we look at revising the planning framework, that we look at the balance between productive agricultural land and sustainable energy, because both are important. I will just mention Protect the Pelhams and the Bygrave Action Group, which asked me to make that point.
Before I come back to the national planning policy framework, which must be central to this afternoon’s debate, I will touch briefly on battery storage solutions, which are springing up all over the place. They are absolutely hideous. There is a fire risk attached to them, and they do not make a single contribution towards renewables. All they do is store electricity that has been produced at a cheap time, when there is low demand overnight, instead of at an expensive time, such as during the day. In other words, they increase the electricity producer’s profits but do not reduce the amount of electricity used, even slightly. They do not increase the amount of renewable energy produced; they are merely a convenience for the developers. They are a hideous new development. Technology will soon overtake them, and we will be left with hundreds of acres of countryside with these vast industrial sites on them. They will then be redundant and the planners will turn around and say, “They are brownfield sites. Let’s put houses or factories on them”—on what was, until recently, farmland.
The hon. Gentleman is raising an important issue. In my constituency, one farmer diversified by putting in a solar farm—one that is acceptable because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is not obtrusive and it is not seen. After substantial consultation, the local community agreed with it as well. As we look ahead to the need for green energy, and as we look to the war in Ukraine, it is clear that the demands on highly productive land will be greater than ever. Does there come a time when solar farms and battery installations have to take a backseat to food production?
The hon. Member makes a good point. Of course, food security will be central to our considerations as we go forward. He made an interesting point: he said the solar farm in his constituency was built with the enthusiasm of local people. That is, of course, how it should be. There will be places where local people say, “I am committed to environmentalism and renewables. I want to see a renewable farm near my village or in my town. I want to see it behind a high hedge,” and they will lay down certain conditions under which it can be put in. That is great. By contrast, when local people—such as the people of Lea, in the public meeting I mentioned a moment ago—are absolutely unanimous in their determination not to have one, they must be listened to. That becomes an important part of the consideration.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this important debate. Is there not a danger that we swap the drive towards energy security for food security? Should we not set a balancing target for food security in this country from the current 60% to, say, 75%, where it used to be? That would prevent planning consent being given for sites such as the one near Old Malton, in my constituency, which is 70% best and most versatile land. Does he agree that giving consent for such land is absolutely inappropriate, and that councils should take food security into account in their decisions?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the great considerations that we are currently battling with is the question of food security. Post-Ukraine, or during Ukraine, we are facing a real crisis in food
production in this country. Why we are taking perfectly usable agricultural land and covering it with vanity mirrors and industrial battery storage units, I simply cannot imagine. It is extraordinary.
Just yesterday, we had a debate in this Chamber on a similar subject—the question of housing in planning—and, to some extent, we are discussing the same thing. Developers should, of course, be encouraged to reuse brownfield sites in town centres, but, given the choice between a brownfield site in a town centre or a greenfield site in the countryside, they are going to go for the greenfield site. We therefore have to change the planning system to focus house building on previously used land. A little off the subject, Mr Paisley—thank you for not picking me up on that.
The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating speech. Does he feel that there is a need to prioritise brownfield land and particularly to look at brownfield in urban areas, as well as in rural areas?
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. We have car parks that are good places to put overhead solar farms, as they do in many other parts of the world. Every factory that is built should have solar panels on the roof. Massive areas in town centres should have solar panels attached. However, those solutions cost developers quite a lot more money, and they are not going to do that if they can just buy a nice greenfield site and stick the solar farm out there. It is much easier for them to do that. That is why the planning system has to constrain what they do, so that they are forced to come back into our town centres and use the kind of solutions he describes.
We ought to move on to the central question, which is about planning. Wiltshire Council is being particularly targeted at the moment because it is being a little too cautious. The council is very concerned that, if it turns applications down, unless it can demonstrate that the application absolutely did not fall within the current planning guidance, the inspector will overturn that decision at appeal, and the council will then be faced with substantial barristers’ costs.
Wiltshire Council is saying, perfectly reasonably, “We need to be guaranteed that we are within planning law when turning down these applications.” That is why the detailed definition of planning law and the NPPF is incredibly important in order to give some comfort to councils such as Wiltshire Council when they say, “This is going to be turned down. Here’s why.” The wording of the NPPF should therefore be clear. I have been saying to my council that, at the moment, it is clear. Paragraph 155a of the NPPF says that local plans should provide a
“strategy for energy…while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed…including cumulative landscape and visual impacts.”
The guidance says:
“It is for each local authority to determine a planning application to include the consideration of intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, as well as whether the best quality land is being used for agricultural purposes. Large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes.”
There is not one inch of Wiltshire that is not undulating, so, if that were to be applied in detail, there would be no solar farms in the county of Wiltshire.
As has been said, guidance also states very clearly that solar farms should be focused on
“previously developed and non agricultural land…that is not of high environmental value”.
The guidance actually says that at the moment, leaving aside the upcoming review.
On 9 March, in this Chamber, the Science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), confirmed that interpretation of the NPPF. He said:
“In 2021, the Government set up a national infrastructure planning reform programme,”
which will be reviewed
“later this year”.
We would be interested to hear when that happens; we want to know the outcome. He continued:
“As part of that, the Government are reviewing the national policy statements for energy.”
Importantly, speaking as a Minister from the Dispatch Box, he said:
“It seems to me that”
we need
“a clearer national policy statement…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…It requires developers to justify using any such land and to design their projects to avoid, mitigate and, where necessary, compensate for impacts”—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 127-8WH.]
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. The comments that we heard earlier from colleagues about the use of agricultural land is a particular concern in my constituency as we have a proposed large solar farm that is nationally significant infrastructure because of its size. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is it important for local communities to be at the heart of that decision-making and be consulted properly, so that they can ensure that these solar farms—which we are not opposed to in principle, but they must be in the right places—do not take away from things that we want to preserve?
My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful for his intervention. It must be done with local consent and enthusiasm. The notion that solar farms can be good for biodiversity is, of course, complete nonsense. No shepherd worth his salt would graze his sheep on a solar farm. The grass is low quality. I do not think there is one single solar farm in the west of England currently being grazed, and the notion that they could be is nonsensical. Equally, the notion that, somehow, wildflowers thrive on solar farms is simple nonsense; it is simply not true. There is not a single wildflower that I have ever seen on any of the solar farms that I have ever visited. Therefore, the notion, which the developers put forward, that solar farms are somehow biodiversity-friendly is absolute nonsense.
The heart of the problem is that Wiltshire Council, and probably many other councils too, interprets the nation policy framework very conservatively. For example,
the NPPF seems to indicate that it thinks that grade 3a land should not have a solar farm on it, but that grade 3b land could do. It is not absolutely clear, but it seems to be moving in that direction. Anybody who knows anything about a farm will know that some of it will be grade 3a and some will be 3b; it is extremely hard to make out which is which. One field may be half 3a and half 3b. Therefore, what we should be saying is that all viable agricultural land should not be used for solar farms—full stop. Never mind grade 3a, 3b, 2 or 1: all agricultural land should be exempt, under planning law, from solar farms.
Equally, we ought to be making much more use of carve-outs for protected designations such as national parks and areas of outstanding national beauty. Most of my constituency is an AONB, and if AONBs were exempted, there would be no solar farms. We must take account of a landscape’s special characteristics, which we are not doing under the NPPF.
Councils also ought to be more ready to make the argument about the cumulative impact of solar farms. The NPPF seems to intimate that cumulative impact is allowable, but the planning inspector is unclear about that. We must be certain that the more solar farms there are in a particular place, the less likely it is that planning permission will be granted.
We must also develop arguments about food production as a legitimate economic consideration. Under the NPPF, if there is a legitimate economic consideration connected to a planning application, it will not go ahead. It is currently unclear whether food production is a legitimate economic consideration. Officers—and indeed, I think, officials in the Department—have said that it is quite hard to know whether or not agriculture could be classed as a legitimate economic consideration. I think that it definitely should be.
Let me give the Minister a list of things that I would like him to consider. He will not be able to answer them this afternoon, I am sure, but I have taken the opportunity of sending the list to the Department, so that he can consider it at his leisure if he wants to. I and—it seems—many of my colleagues in the Chamber this afternoon have a wish-list. There should be changes to national planning policy, allowing local authorities more scope to object to applications so that they can object on a much wider scale. Perhaps we should make the process similar to that for wind turbines. At the moment, it is much easier to turn down a wind turbine plant than a solar farm, but I think that solar farms and wind turbines should be treated in the same way in planning applications.
As I have said, there should be a prohibition on using grade 3 land, whether it is 3a or 3b, and we must not allow battery storage solutions to take land out of food production for use for solar. There should be much more of an imperative towards smaller installations on barns, factories, warehouse roofs and all the kinds of places that the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) mentioned a moment ago, instead of huge installations on greenfield sites and farmland.
An interesting point is that the prescribed limit on the distances involved must be shorter. We cannot have these solar farms 10 miles away from grid connection; the distance to grid connection must be shorter, so that we have solar farms where there is a grid connection. At the moment, partly by using battery storage solutions,
developers are coming up with sites that are miles and miles away from the connection to the grid, which of course produces even further damage to the countryside.
Visibility is an important point. In my opinion, no solar farm should be generally visible within one mile of listed buildings or protected landscapes; I think the Minister would probably agree with that. That limit should also be extended to cover views, which planning law does not currently cover. Under planning law, people have no right to a view and a view cannot be considered under planning law. In the case of solar farms, a view is terribly important and therefore we should allow people to object to a solar farm because it damages their view. The views in the countryside are incredibly important. Such a change would demand a change to the NPPF, but only a very small one, and I think that allowing local people to object to a solar farm because it would destroy the view is perfectly legitimate.
In general, the point I am making is that at the moment local authorities are scared. They are scared that if they do not interpret the NPPF correctly—if they get one word wrong—the inspectors at appeal will, perfectly correctly, overturn their decision. What our local authorities need is absolute clarity. At a time like this—post-Ukraine—we value our agricultural land and we do not want to see our countryside being covered in solar farms and battery storage solutions. We think that producing food is important; indeed, food security is an incredibly important issue for the future.
We must provide local authorities with clarity of language in the revised NPPF, so that they can say straightforwardly, “No, you will not have that solar farm on this particular piece of agricultural land”, with the confidence that the inspector will agree with them rather than overturning their decision, which is what seems to be happening more or less automatically at the moment. We need to give local authorities that strength, that clarity and that power. If we do so, and if the developers, who are watching this debate today, know that they will not get permission for a development, they will not put in the application and will go somewhere else.
I just want that clarity. When the NPPF review comes out—I hope that will be shortly and certainly this year: the Minister may be able to update us on that soon—let us see some of these things written into it, to give local authorities that clarity and that strength when they come to turn down some of these ghastly applications.
I will see who else is bobbing and feels worthy to follow Mr James Gray today, after his Sermon on the Mount. Members themselves can see who is bobbing. I want to call the Opposition spokesman at around 5.10 pm, so we are talking about four to five minutes each for each contribution; I do not want to set a formal time limit.
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Paisley, and it is a pleasure to serve under you as Chairman.
I thank the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) for securing this debate and I obviously thank Mr Speaker for granting it. It is very timely, certainly for me and for my constituency, because we, too, have an application for a battery energy storage system in an
area called the Duckery—hon. Members can imagine what it is like—in Chapel Lane. It is a beautiful part of Walsall South and has a large amount of green belt around it, with St Margaret’s Church, Great Barr, very nearby. Anesco Ltd put in a planning application on 6 December 2021: I always worry about applications that go in just before Christmas, which makes it really difficult for local residents to be consulted.
The hon. Member is absolutely right—he does have green credentials. I have served on the Environmental Audit Committee with him. In fact, I seem to remember he was arranging an expedition to the south pole. Sadly, I will not be able to take part because I am not on the Committee anymore, but I might join him anyway. Maybe another book will come out of that.
I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman focused on the national planning policy framework, because that is key, as it says the green belt should be protected. That is why it is concerning that this battery energy storage system is going to be placed on green-belt land. The Black Country core strategy says that green-belt land should be protected, and the Walsall site allocation document reaffirms that. In the main Chamber at the moment, they are discussing the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Notes on the Bill state that green-belt land will be made greener. We might think that means it will be protected, but we cannot be sure that will happen, which is why it is important the Minister gives us confirmation that green-belt land will be protected.
The area of Walsall South, near the Duckery, is grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land. Previously, rapeseed oil was grown there. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the Ukrainian war means we are short of sunflower oil and are looking to alternatives, which is why it is important that the area should be protected and not built on.
On 26 May, Anesco Ltd put in further documents looking at alternative sites. Let us look at those alternative sites. The planning officer from nearby Sandwell has said that the applicant should demonstrate why this development is necessary at the sensitive location of the Duckery on Chapel Lane, and why this proposal could not be adjacent to a substation power line on nearby land. There is a place called the Oldbury national grid substation, which could be used. It is near the national grid and that is where this facility should be placed.
My concern is that councils do not always take into account what is said and so I want a commitment from the Minister. A planning officer can make a recommendation in a report, and then the application goes through the cabinet or the planning committee, and they do not take local residents into account. I have suffered such a case for a site in my constituency, where 2,000 residents were against a particular site called Narrow Lane. We want a commitment from the Government and the Minister that they are committed to protecting the green belt. I ask the Minister to confirm that commitment, which is set out in the national planning policy framework, the Black Country core strategy and the site allocation document.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire also mentioned that there have been fires in battery energy storage systems in Australia and California. Has an assessment been done on the safety of these sites?
The bottom line is that my constituents do not want green-belt land to be built on. They want it preserved. The pandemic has shown, like never before, how they need green-belt land and that such areas need to be protected.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) for securing this important debate, which gives me the opportunity to speak about solar. I, too, would like to stress that I am not anti-solar or anti-renewables and I am not anti the environment. I have the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for a beautiful rural constituency. The subject of planning for solar farms is incredibly important to rural communities.
As the MP for Ynys Môn, the island of Anglesey, I represent communities particularly concerned about the threat of mega solar farms on our landscape, our culture and our heritage, in particular a proposal by Lightsource BP for a 1,200-acre solar farm on Anglesey. Yes, that is correct—1,200 acres. To put that huge amount of land into some perspective, it is equivalent to around 900 football pitches. It is the largest project in Lightsource BP’s development portfolio.
Our island community, like other rural communities, is under threat from a slew of solar proposals. Smaller applications are managed by the Isle of Anglesey County Council, with local councillors representing the views of the community. It has rejected some previous applications, including one for a 200-acre site near Cemaes. However, larger applications are considered by the Welsh Government, who are six hours away in Cardiff, and local communities are concerned that that will take large-scale development decisions away from them.
In 2019, 27% of energy in Wales came from renewables, of which solar formed a very small proportion. In recent months we have all felt the problems caused by being dependent on other countries for our energy. Like the Welsh Government, we are fully behind the move to net zero, and we recognise that renewables must form part of our future energy strategy.
We must implement solar with extreme caution. For developers, it is an attractive solution, as land is relatively cheap, solar panels can be imported at low cost, and there is minimal upkeep and maintenance, which means that little local employment is generated. That must be balanced against the energy generation capacity. The huge 1,200 acre solar farm proposed by Lightsource bp for Anglesey would generate enough energy for 133,000 homes. A new nuclear plant such as Hinkley C in Bridgwater has a small fraction of that footprint, but with the potential to generate energy for 6 million homes.
There is another, possibly more important, consideration. Ynys Môn was known historically as Môn Mam Cymru—Anglesey, mother of Wales—because our fertile agricultural land fed the Welsh people in times of need. We need a strong agricultural community, and it is those great swathes of fertile, historical agricultural land that are particularly attractive to solar farm developers. Earlier this year, FarmingUK wrote that the UK is on the verge of food security concerns not seen since world war 2, and in 2020 the UK imported 46% of the food we consume.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the risk that, in the rush to achieve net zero, however laudable, we may sacrifice vast areas of agricultural land, and hence our food security, to solar panels, which do not offer the dependable, large-scale solution we need to the energy crisis.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and the other speakers, who made some very interesting points.
I am very much in favour of a sensible approach to this issue that balances the importance of energy security and tackling the climate emergency with not creating eyesores in the countryside. I am proud of our record in my area of central Berkshire. I represent an urban seat, but we have a strong tradition of solar power from our borough council and neighbouring local authorities, and in land nearby. Much of it is on the roofs of buildings and on brownfield land. I want to get across the positive message about using those types of land. There is a large amount of brownfield land in southern England, although I appreciate the points made by colleagues from slightly further west. There is also the issue of developers looking for land in the south, where sunlight is slightly more plentiful.
I want to say a few words about Reading Borough Council’s excellent work over many years of putting solar panels on the roofs of council houses, schools and other public buildings. Wokingham Borough Council was Conservative-run—I am afraid to say to Government Members that it is now under a different administration—when it planned a large solar farm in its area of Berkshire, which is suburban and semi-rural. The councils there were mindful of the visual impact, and I respect their work on that. I hope we can progress in a sensible, cross-party and consensual way and look at the opportunities.
I want to pay tribute briefly to the private individuals and charitable bodies that have driven alternative energy schemes in our area. I also want to highlight the importance of low-flow hydro. We have a small scheme on the Thames, the Queen has one at Windsor castle, and other landowners along the Thames have such schemes. They use water power, which in the past would have been used to drive mills, to generate electricity. It is a simple, low-tech but very effective form of hydroelectric power at a local level, which has a very limited impact on the environment near the river.
I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, but my experience of solar farms has been somewhat more positive. I draw his attention to the site at Pingewood in Berkshire, which is next to the M4—indeed, he may well drive past it. It is on a former landfill site next to a motorway, and is very close to grid connectivity because of the pylons running through our county. It makes one realise that there are actually sites in locations that already have visual intrusion from infrastructure, which could be used and perhaps should be prioritised. I had the pleasure of visiting there with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who I shadow. We were looking at the scheme on that land, which is supported by one of the energy providers and is used for pension investments. I know that the
hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) is a huge enthusiast for auto-enrolment. Auto-enrolment savings are being used to invest in solar on brownfield sites. Surely that is the sort of model that we want to encourage.
In the south of England, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire rightly said, there are sites that used to be airfields or military installations, as well as transport land, the roofs of car parks and many other things, which should be prioritised. I genuinely hope that we can come to some agreement to do that. In my constituency there are many flat building roofs, whether on garage blocks or large businesses. The tragedy is that there is not enough incentivisation to use the large acreage of land that exists in areas with high amounts of solar radiation where it would be ideal to place solar panels, such as in the south of England and London.
I hope the Minister can address that point about whether it is possible for the Government to look at incentivised development of that type of site, and to support local authorities and community groups more. There is obviously going to be an economy of scale with the very big sites. However, is it somehow possible to encourage development in a sensitive way that makes good use of currently wasted space in areas with high levels of sunlight? When large public buildings are built, such as hospitals, schools and stations, could the default position be that solar is included in the roofs? Will the Minister consider that? As a way of removing pressure from valuable agricultural land, and given that build costs would be lower if solar was installed at the point of construction, is there a way of incentivising that through the planning system? That way, businesses would have a genuine incentive to put solar on new builds, in a way and on a scale that does not currently exist.
I think about that every day when I go to Reading station, which is a wonderful new piece of infrastructure in our area, and one that serves colleagues further west. The trains there are electric, so why on earth does that station not have solar panels all over its roof? It is a huge area of space that could be used for solar without any intrusion into green space, and would actually protect rural areas by giving us more capacity. Can the Minister address those points? It has been a pleasure to speak today and I hope we can agree a consensual way forward.
Thank you, Mr Paisley; I shall be brief. You were very kind to describe the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) as a sermon on the mount, and I am happy to be a disciple on this matter. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue; as ever, I find that when we talk about planning there is the opportunity for Members across this House to come together.
I have four points, which I will make quickly. First, as I heard in yesterday’s debate on neighbourhood planning, the new NPPF policy will come forward in July. It is absolutely essential, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, that we engage with local communities and listen to the voices of both local authorities and residents. We must take that opportunity to do so.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, given the limited time. He is absolutely right that it is vital that local voices are heard when it comes to solar farm planning applications. Will he join me in encouraging all of my residents who may be impacted by the Mallard Pass development to contribute to the consultation? That is a vital part of the process, and their voices can be heard through it.
It should come as no surprise that even in south Devon we have heard about the issues concerning Mallard Pass. I encourage all residents of Grantham and Stamford to take part in that consultation, and to register their voices—as indeed should all our constituents.
Secondly, we have a food security crisis at the moment, but we also have a global supply chain crisis. We must now have a national target that pushes us to produce food. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned 75% as a potential target, and we should look at doing that. Anything that takes out productive agricultural land from farming must be reviewed. Solar panels have got to be in the sights of Government to stop that from happening.
Thirdly—I will make this point in my last 33 seconds—a year ago, the Local Electricity Bill was tabled as a private Member’s Bill. We should look at finding local sources to power the network and feed back into the grid. The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) was bright and clever enough to make an excellent point about his station in Reading: every time I pass through that station, I will think about that proposal, and I would certainly support it. Tidal, wind and solar, in the right places and the right spaces and used in the right way, are absolutely essential.
My last point is about brownfield sites. If I understand correctly, the CPRE report on brownfield sites identifies 21,000 sites across the country totalling 26,000 hectares, equating to what would be 1.3 million houses. Let us use those brownfield sites and commercial spaces, and make sure we keep our countryside as beautiful as possible.
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Paisley. Naturally, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) on securing this important debate and acknowledge his track record on environmentalism, which was stated clearly at the beginning of the debate and throughout.
Many Members have today taken the opportunity to talk about developments in their constituency, with a common focus on what is termed brown-belt and former industrial sites first, such as the roofs of car parks, warehouses, schools and housing developments—I think even trains were suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda). That was acknowledged and concurred with by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and others. A significant number of interventions were made by Members who are no longer present.
I have a sizable farming community in my Weaver Vale constituency. At a recent meeting of the National Farmers Union at Warburtons Farms in Frodsham, the consensus was that fertile agricultural land should not be used at scale for solar farms, a point that has been eloquently made in today’s debate. Unfortunately, too many farmers feel that they have little choice but to sell land for development, whether that is housing development or solar farms. In part, that is driven by the insecure nature of the financial support in the new subsidy arrangements that farmers now face. They were promised not a penny less, but the reality is somewhat different.
The justified concerns about the local impact of solar farms must be weighed against our inescapable need to build renewable energy, and lots of it, over the coming years in order to meet our net zero target by 2050. Renewable energy, including solar energy, must be built, and it must be built somewhere. It is always easy for someone to say that they are in favour of renewable energy in principle; it is much harder to say that they are in favour of renewable energy in a specific location. Members from across the Chamber have made very considered speeches about the circumstances in which we should build solar farms, and I agree that we need to be clear about the need for a strategic approach, so that we can understand exactly what we need and where it needs to go. However, it certainly needs to go somewhere, and that should be our starting point.
With the costs of fossil fuels soaring, wind and solar power are the keys to bringing down costs for customers, ensuring energy security in the face of the Ukrainian war and fighting climate change, yet the Government are intentionally limiting access to the cheapest, quickest and cleanest forms of new power by stopping the production of enough onshore wind and solar energy to power 3 million homes. Members have today made some great suggestions regarding where that energy capacity should be built. Instead, we have a Chancellor who has just handed a £1.9 billion tax break to producers of oil and gas that could pump nearly 900 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Our climate and our constituents will pay the price for the Government doing the unthinkable and backing the fossil fuel industry, despite claiming to have the admirable target of reaching net zero by 2050. What assurances can the Minister give that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s apparent green light for the fossil fuel industry will be revisited with a sense of urgency and with funding redirected to renewables, developed in the right places? Why not incentivise, as people have said? We simply cannot reach the kinds of targets that we need to be reaching by limiting ourselves to small-scale urban solar farms. That will involve larger-scale projects over the 50 MW rate that at the moment qualifies a proposal as a nationally significant infrastructure project.
Where we have common ground in today’s debate is in our desire on location. The negative impacts should be minimised using sensitive planning that focuses on previously developed and non-agricultural land that is not of high environmental value. Indeed, that is stated in the national planning policy framework. Surely a locally led planning system should shape developments and they should not be dictated—that could be done by the current Secretary of State or, certainly, future ones.
Unfortunately, the centralisation and power grab by the current Secretary of State is given rocket fuel by proposed new subsection (5C) of section 38 of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, in clause 83 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is having its Second Reading today. That subsection states that any conflict between the development plan and a national development management policy
“must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”
I look forward to seeing the amendments, which will inevitably be laid, and attempts to remove that provision in favour of locally led planning systems and arrangements.
Testing has been carried out on the benefits of solar energy, and the overwhelming evidence is that, despite small impacts, the benefits of solar outweigh the costs as long as appropriate land is used. The public support a move to renewables, but they know that we need to build in the right place, using the appropriate land. I ask the Minister—I think the need for this has been reaffirmed today—to look again at some of the clauses in the current Bill that centralise the planning process and override local concerns, but also, very importantly, to incentivise renewables.
The mover of today’s motion is a polar explorer, a writer of books, and a provider of written interventions for colleagues. Minister Hughes, you have a lot to live up to.
It is a true pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. Not only will my performance not live up to that introduction, but sadly I am a very poor substitute for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, who is currently in the main Chamber and preparing to steer the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill through Parliament. I will not be able to answer some of the questions that have been asked, but I will ensure that we get answers from a very learned source to ensure that hon. Members get some response.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) for his fine speech. We have all acknowledged how well informed it was and how intrepid he is, and his environmental credentials are unequalled in the room. I also express thanks for the contributions from other hon. Members. Some of them have already gone, but they were fine contributions none the less.
In our net zero strategy and British energy security strategy, the Government committed to securing and fully decarbonising the UK’s electricity supply. Crucially, we are considering how the planning system can further support our commitment to reaching net zero. The British energy security strategy sets out our plans to consult on some specific changes to the planning system to support delivery of renewable infrastructure, including solar farms. That energy strategy sets a clear ambition for a fivefold increase in deployment of the UK’s solar capacity, up to 70 GW, by 2035. That obviously means shifting up a gear in terms of deployment, but what it categorically does not mean is seizing large swathes of countryside and turning them into industrial solar farms and storage units. Yes, large-scale ground-mounted farms will be needed, but smaller commercial and domestic rooftop projects will be just as essential.
I will respond to some of the points made in the debate. On toughening up planning regulations in the NPPF to make sure that ground-mounted solar panels
are not blighting the countryside, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire that we will consult on amending planning rules in England to strengthen policy in favour of solar development on non-protected land. We intend to do this while making sure that local communities continue to have a real say over applications, with all the existing environmental protections remaining in place, and we will publish the consultation in due course. We are also committed to delivering on the commitments we made in the net zero strategy to review national planning policy, to make sure it contributes to climate change mitigation and adaption as fully as possible.
My hon. Friend referred to a few specific examples of planning applications in his constituency, as did others. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that, given the quasi-judicial role of Ministers within the planning system, I am unable to comment on specifics; however, I can explain the Government’s position on planning policy for the matters raised. Currently, planning applications for projects up to 50 MW capacity in England are determined by local planning authorities. The vast majority of solar projects in England fall into that category, although clearly not the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). Councils will consider a range of factors when assessing applications, including the environmental impact.
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 through the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. This allows for rigorous scrutiny of such projects through an impartial examination process run by the Planning Inspectorate. Under the NSIP regime, developers must undertake considerable community engagement as part of the application process. Communities can participate in a formal examination process run by the Planning Inspectorate, which gives residents ample opportunity to make their views on a project known long before any decisions are taken. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will increase opportunities for community involvement even further.
It is probably a good idea for me to move away from my speech and respond to some of the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire mentioned battery facilities being of no use, but my understanding is that where we have battery facilities, we need less solar. The performance of solar obviously depends on the sun shining, whereas a battery facility allows us to capture the energy created while the sun is shining. We therefore do not need quite so many solar panels, because the scheme operates on a more efficient basis.
Regarding brownfield versus greenfield, the Government have a clear preference for brownfield development in many of our planning areas, and that also applies here. An excellent scheme in Wolverhampton has taken a landfill site and built a considerable solar facility that will feed the local hospital. We certainly have a preference for that in the Black Country.
My hon. Friend asked whether it is possible to have grazing continuing in and out of solar facilities. I am sorry to say that there is not a single solar farm in Walsall North, or not many of them, so I do not know
whether grazing will continue. I will take his expertise on board and I will discuss this issue with our right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing when the opportunity arises. Hopefully my hon. Friend will forgive my lack of knowledge in that area.
The question of roof versus field was raised by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury). At the moment, my understanding is that there is more or less a 50:50 balance between the production of solar energy in fields and on roofs. The Government intend to maintain that balance and we have some interesting things happening—for example, a part L uplift in the building regs, which is coming into force this month. When we change the building regs, we create notional buildings that show how we can achieve the new standard. The notional building for the part L uplift includes solar panels, so we expect that, from now on, further building regs will see more buildings—houses and commercial—built with solar panels in place.
I understand that my hon. Friend is not the Minister responsible, but did I understand him correctly to say that he intends to maintain the split between green fields and roofs at 50:50? The whole thrust of the debate this afternoon has been that we do not want that maintained. We want significantly more solar power to be generated on brownfield sites and on buildings, and significantly less on fields. I would like to see it going to 70:30 or 80:20, or, come to that, 100% of solar farms being on reused land.
It was meant to be reassuring. I was just saying that we will maintain the status quo at the very least, and that in terms of that balance it is not our intention to push for dramatically more farmland to be used for solar.
I am terribly sorry and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way away. I do not want to enter into an argument, but that is not in the least bit reassuring. The reason why all these Members are in the Chamber today is because solar farm applications are being made in their constituencies. We do not want them to happen; we want them to stop. We want the land to remain agricultural land that can produce food. Just saying, “Oh, don’t worry, ladies and gentlemen, it will be absolutely fine. It is going to remain as it is now,” is no reassurance at all. We want the situation to change. We want to see fewer solar farms on agricultural land, not more or even the same number.
Given that we need to achieve a fivefold increase in solar generation, we are going to have great difficulty in finding places to put that in a way that does not compromise people’s enjoyment of the countryside, at least in some small way. We need to find a way through this that means we achieve our net zero objective while not upsetting too many Members of this House or the public more generally.
I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. If the Minister is going to run a consultation, that has to be run, completed and responded to before the
NPPF is published in July. We must have a consultation that enables us to introduce legislation to allow us, as Members of Parliament, and local authorities to make decisions. Will the Minister commit to that, or at least commit to asking the Department to make sure that the consultation will be brought forward quickly?
In the absence of the Minister responsible for housing and planning, I undertake to share with him the views that have been raised, although I am sure he is aware of this debate and will read it subsequently.
The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned a current planning application in Walsall. As a planning Minister, I cannot comment on that. I feel a degree of assurance that Walsall Council will be able to handle that application. In relation to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, I can assure her that this Government certainly intend to continue to protect the green belt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn raised a scheme that I can only imagine is of national significance and therefore will be determined by the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. That falls outside my purview, but I will make sure that BEIS Ministers are aware of her concern.
I share the ambition of the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) to maximise the use of brownfield sites or put more solar on top of existing buildings, squeezing solar in everywhere that will not impact on the enjoyment of the countryside.
Finally, it is good to see the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) at the Dispatch Box again. The war in Ukraine has told us that we need to maximise our energy security by making sure that we have access to oil, because that is clearly how we generate lots of our electricity, while continuing our commitment to a transition to net zero by doing things such as scaling up our solar power production dramatically.
As I said at the start, Mr Paisley, I am a poor substitute for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing. I will convey the thoughts of Members present to him and I look forward to him responding to Members in due course.
It has been a unanimous debate this afternoon, Mr Paisley. All of us, on all sides of the House, agree that we want to see fewer solar farms and fewer battery storage solutions. We want to see agriculture and food production increased.
It was unanimous until we came to the Minister’s response to the debate, which I have to say was extraordinarily disappointing. I am horrified to hear the Government intend to increase the number of solar farms by 500% and that the Minister thinks that a ratio of 50:50 between fields and roofs, which is where we are at the moment, is reassuring. We want to see far, far fewer solar farms in the countryside.
I am extremely disappointed that the Minister was unable to tell us when the NPPF will be renewed. He was not able to reassure me that somehow or other
Ukraine crisis illustrates why we cannot offshore food production
by Simon Hoare MP for North Dorset – From the New Blackmore Vale Magazine Friday 27th May 2022
This is heaven
As we all walk, cycle, ride and drive around stunning North Dorset and, indeed, the wider county, I fear we become less hit between the eyes by its sheer loveliness. My Spanish sister-in- law has commented to me ‘THIS is Heaven’. She had not been to Dorset before.
We get used to looking at what’s around us without always seeing and, by dint, appreciating. I don’t know if it’s me but our verges and hedgerows have looked particularly seductive this year. Dorset Council’s fewer and later cuts appear to be paying some dividend.
Livestock and dairy – mainstays
Our topography and pepper-potted villages and towns help sculpt our environs but it is our farmers who make the difference. Livestock farming and dairy are our mainstays, with arable strong, too. These custodians of our landscape do it with love. They, like us all, only have a leasehold interest on our planet.
Food security
Those who know me know I try to be a realistic optimist, preferring to see my glass half-full. I try to see a silver lining in every cloud. Even, I believe, the horror of Ukraine can have a silver lining in that it has enlivened the debate about UK food production and the desirability of food security. Pray God we never see the days of convoys being sunk and rationing again but the situation in Ukraine will clearly add to UK food bills as trade is disrupted as their growing schedules have been interrupted.
We need our farms to produce food
The folly of those, usually Trustifarians for whom ‘farming’ is a hobby, who have been advocating recently for a beaver in every stream and rewilding all over the place, and that we can meet our food needs from overseas, has been thrown into sharp light. Environmental enhancements and biodiversity increases are not alien to productive farming and vice-versa. They are two sides of the same coin. We need our farms to produce our food. The quality is high. The regulations robust. Animal welfare is an imperative.
We cannot and must not offshore our food production. Consumers would be short-changed and Dorset changed beyond recognition.
Simon Hoare MP
Kwasi Kwarteng MP, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, when asked today (BBC ‘Sunday Morning’) about the Government’s proposals to address the current fuel crisis, said: “Offshore wind can be rolled out quickly”.
Wind – energy at the lowest carbon cost
When it comes to reducing global warming, wind is the big winner. The Carbon Intensity of wind generation (at 21 CO2-eq kg/MW·he) is over five times lower than PV solar panels (at 106 CO2-eq kg/MW·he). And, as noted previously, wind has a Carbon footprint some eleven times lower than PV solar panels – which are mainly sourced from China and destined for landfill!
The Government was committed to producing enough energy to supply every home in the country with offshore wind by 2030. The Ministerial Statement effectively brings that date forward two years by increasing the offshore output from 40 to 50 GW. – at much lower carbon cost than solar – and with the capacity and load factor to enable storage and Hydrogen production.
While solar benefits the few – offshore wind benefits the many!
“We cannot and must not offshore our food production. Consumers would be short-changed and Dorset changed beyond recognition.” But offshoring wind energy makes real carbon-saving sense.
Dorset Council’s Senior Landscape Officer concludes that she is unable to support the North Dairy Farm Solar Planning Application.
Despite the developer proposing significant additions and revisions to the 2020 plans, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Council’s landscape professional experts have said they are unable to support the plans.
Summary At 77ha the proposed development would be one of the largest solar PV developments in the southwest. The site is located in a landscape that is highly sensitive to large scale solar PV development, and although the proposals now include further mitigation measures, I still do not consider that these measures would satisfactorily offset the significant adverse landscape and visual effects that would occur. This would result in a significant change in character of the local landscape and would also adversely affect the setting of the AONB, most particularly given the interrelationship between clay/rolling vale character of the local landscape that the site is located in, and the chalk escarpment landscape of the AONB.
There would also be significant adverse effects on views from Rights of Way to the east of the site, most especially where these extend across the site to Dungeon Hill Scheduled Ancient Monument/the AONB to the west.
For these reasons, I am still not able to support the application as the proposals in their current form do not comply with the requirements of paragraph 154 or paragraph 170 of the NPPF or Policies 3 and 4 of the North Dorset Local Plan.
In addition to this, no restoration scheme has been provided so the proposal does not fully comply with the requirements of Policy 22 of the North Dorset Local Plan.
The AONB Unit notes that the landscape that the site sits within ‘possesses a relatively strong visual and perceptual relationship with the designated area, would experience a number of adverse effects due to the proposed development’.
The semi-natural landscape of the site and its setting contains few detracting elements. (NB I disagree with the statement under para 142 of the LVIA that there is a ‘utilitarian aspect to the local landscape’.
Solar panels are also engineered products that have an industrial appearance. They are not, inherently, products that fit into a countryside environment. 35 years is also a long period of time in planning terms, and in the Tithe Barn Lane Appeal the inspector gave little weight to the reversibility the scheme which in that case was to be removed after 25 years (APP/D2320/A/14/2222025 Land at Tithe Barn Lane, Heapey, Chorley, Lancashire).
As a result, I stand by the conclusion that I came to in my previous comments (04 June 2021) that the susceptibility, value and therefore sensitivity of the landscape that the site sits within is high. The significant adverse impacts on landscape character that I identified remain the same because the scale and extent of the proposals in this highly sensitive landscape has not substantially altered. The improvements to the management and structure of the landscape of the site will be outweighed by the harm to the character, tranquillity and naturalness of the site, its immediate context, and the wider verdant and intensely pastoral setting of the Blackmore Vale and the setting of the AONB.
Kwasi Kwarteng MP, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, when asked today (BBC ‘Sunday Morning’) about the Government’s proposals to address the current fuel crisis, said: “Offshore wind can be rolled out quickly”.
When it comes to reducing global warming, wind is the big winner. The Carbon Intensity of wind generation (at 21 CO2-eq kg/MW·he) is over five times lower than PV solar panels (at 106 CO2-eq kg/MW·he). And, as noted previously, wind has a Carbon footprint some eleven times lower than PV solar panels.
The Government was committed to producing enough energy to supply every home in the country from offshore wind by 2030. Last weeks Ministerial Statement effectively brings that date forward two years by increasing the offshore output from 40 to 50 GW. – at much lower carbon cost than solar – and with the capacity and load factor to enable storage and Hydrogen production.
While solar benefits the few – offshore wind benefits the many!
It is nearly impossible to produce, transport, or consume energy without significant environmental impact. However, wind energy could have the least amount of contribution to climate change, compared to other electricity generators.
‘LOSS OF FARMLAND’
Solar power carries an upfront cost to the environment via production, but, like wind, offers clean energy throughout the lifespan of the solar cell. But, as demonstrated by the NDFS proposal, large scale electricity generation using photovoltaic power requires a large amount of productive land, due to the low power density of photovoltaic power, although land use can be reduced by installing panels along motorways, on buildings and other built-up areas.
‘BEST OFFSHORE’
There are studies suggesting that large scale wind farms could increase local temperatures if built on land, while reducing local temperature if built on water. Using wind turbines to meet 10 percent of global energy demand in 2100 could cause local temperatures to rise by one degree Celsius in the regions on land where the wind farms are installed, while DECREASING it by one degree Celsius in regions where wind farms are installed over water.
‘WIND WINS’
But when it comes to reducing global warming, wind is the big winner. The Carbon Intensity of wind generation at 21 CO2-eq kg/MW·he) is over five times lower than PV at 106 CO2-eq kg/MW·he. And, as noted previously, wind has Carbon footprint some eleven times lower than PV solar.
‘PICKING UP THEIR SHARE!’
The greatest domestic demand for energy is from urban areas. One of our regular Facebook contributors suggested that every community should ‘pick up their share’ of production. It might make sense to reduce transmission costs and cover the towns with solar panels – maybe even a few wind turbines!
Government response to and Consultation on the Glover Review of Landscapes – Overview and National Perspective
Dorset CPRE welcomes the opportunity to input to the Government’s consultation on its response to the Glover Review of Landscapes.
The Government consultation seeks views on how designated landscapes (National Parks and AONBs) can do even more to bring people closer to nature, enhance the environment and boost biodiversity, improve mental and physical wellbeing and support local communities and economies. We welcome these aims and the proposals to place greater emphasis on nature recovery and to require more action by all public bodies to enhance our National Parks and AONBs.
We want to see this new emphasis extended to the whole countryside including our Green Belts, which are under threat, and our historic market towns and smaller settlements which, like our countryside, are central to Dorset’s natural and cultural heritage and “sense of place” but are at risk from inappropriate planning policies and development. We therefore urge the Government to develop a new approach to rural strategy, an approach which is coherent, sustainable and appropriate, and which reflects the key strengths, priorities and potential of particular areas, like Dorset, where the environment and heritage are also great economic assets and central to a thriving future.
We welcome the Government’s proposal to establish a National Landscapes Partnership to work with designated landscapes and other partners to promote, support and monitor their work. We would want the proposed NLP to promote the interests of the wider countryside, to bring the benefits and opportunities that designated landscapes offer to the countryside and communities across England, and we would wish to see CPRE (the Countryside Charity,) and representatives of the farming community included in the Partnership.
We regret that the Government response to the Landscape Review does not go far enough to address the challenges facing our communities, including the climate and nature emergencies. Now is surely the time for strategic thinking and appropriate resources to support our countryside and communities. The farmers and land managers that are so important to shaping the natural and cultural environment of our National Parks, AONBs and wider countryside also need Government support to deliver high nature, low carbon, productive, beautiful and accessible landscapes. We are concerned that some important recommendations of the Glover Review have not been addressed, including Glover’s recommendation that a Dorset National Park be seriously evaluated by Natural England and the Government. The deterioration of Dorset’s landscapes and biodiversity needs to be arrested and reversed. Our countryside is of vital importance for people, nature and our local economy, and offers great potential to help address the nature and climate emergencies as well as improve health and well-being for residents and visitors. Dorset CPRE would be pleased to contribute to new thinking about a joined-up approach – coherent, sustainable and appropriate – to rural strategy and planning, an approach that recognises the value and potential of all our countryside. Dorset’s countryside is very important to local people and visitors.
Dorset’s environment, wildlife and heritage – throughout rural Dorset – are of local, national and international importance. They are also Dorset’s greatest economic asset, as independent studies have shown, worth £billions to the local and national economy. In response to surveys, over 95% of Dorset residents say they attach great importance to the countryside and the natural environment, and they want to see wildlife thrive throughout the countryside, not just in nature reserves or gardens.
During the pandemic, public appreciation of the countryside and nature has grown, along with public understanding of their vital contribution to mental and physical health. The climate and ecological emergencies, declared by the government nationally and by Dorset’s two unitary councils, rural and urban, are a wake-up call. Dorset’s countryside has a unique contribution to make in helping us to address effectively the serious challenges we face together. With appropriate policies and support, the countryside can play a key role in addressing climate change, restoring nature, and enhancing community health and wellbeing. Our countryside should also continue to provide healthy Dorset food and drink.
The Government consultation seeks views on how designated landscapes (National Parks and AONBs) can do even more to bring people closer to nature, enhance the environment and boost biodiversity, improve mental and physical wellbeing and support local communities and economies. We welcome these aims and the proposals for new legal protections that place greater emphasis on nature recovery and require greater action by all public bodies to enhance our National Parks and AONBs. A focus on our designated landscapes alone, however, is insufficient. We want to see new thinking extended to the whole countryside including our green belts, which are under threat, and our historic market towns and villages which, with our countryside, are central to Dorset’s natural and cultural heritage and “sense of place” but are at risk from inappropriate planning policies and development. We therefore want to see the Government develop a new approach to rural strategy, an approach which is coherent, sustainable and appropriate, and which reflects the key strengths, priorities and potential of particular areas, like Dorset, where the environment and heritage are great economic assets and central to a thriving future for nature and our local communities.
Dorset’s countryside remains at risk. Dorset’s environment is exceptional. It deserves the highest recognition and protection. Dorset has the highest number of species anywhere in the UK. Some 52% of rural Dorset is designated as AONBs, while Green Belt represents about 9.6% of the Dorset Council area. But in reality, only around 8% has statutory protection for nature. Dorset’s designated areas, along with the wider countryside, have suffered and remain under serious threats and pressures from excessive and inappropriate development for housing and infrastructure including large solar power installations on good farmland. The largest housing development in any AONB, some 800 houses, has been approved in the Dorset AONB, along with a further development of 5-600 houses and other developments. Moreover, grave and transformational loss of our Green Belt is threatened if the draft Local Plan proposed by the Dorset Council were to go ahead. Over 70% of respondents to Dorset Council’s consultation on the Local Plan opposed its proposed strategy to build high housing numbers – considered inappropriate and unrealistically high – in line with central targets. Dorset CPRE welcomes recent proposals by both the Dorset Council and BCP Council that they be allowed to prepare Local Plans appropriate to their communities and wider environment, as local people clearly wish.
Despite the international importance and outstanding quality of Dorset’s landscapes and wildlife, existing designations such as AONB, Green Belt, SSSI etc, have proved insufficient to prevent the degradation of our environment and loss of species. The quality of Dorset’s water catchments, rivers and harbours, including Poole Harbour, the second largest natural harbour in the world and a vital habitat for thousands of migratory birds and other species, has deteriorated over a long period and requires urgent attention, as reports by the Environment Agency show. An independent scientific report by Bournemouth University showed all of Dorset’s vital ecosystem services to be in continuing decline (“Tipping points in lowland agricultural landscapes”, Bournemouth University, 2019).
Dorset CPRE works with and supports our AONBs and notes the government’s readiness to consider some enhancement in their statutory role (recognising AONBs’ de facto involvement in, for example, nature recovery, health and wellbeing) and in planning matters. Though we welcome the recent modest increase in AONB resources, we note, however, that AONBs’ work and influence would, in practice, continue to be constrained by their governance and limited resources. Without adequate resources, expectations could be raised that cannot be delivered. For example, how would AONBs be able to deliver any enhanced responsibilities and a greater role in local planning if they did not have significantly more resources?
A National Park for Dorset A Dorset National Park can work in partnership with all stakeholders to help reverse Dorset’s ecological decline, and promote a thriving, prosperous, greener future for our communities, economy and countryside. A Dorset National Park would be a partner in a coherent, sustainable new strategy for rural Dorset at the heart of southern England. We are therefore disappointed that the Government has not responded to the Glover recommendation that Dorset, the Chilterns and the Cotswolds, be seriously considered for National Park designation.
A Dorset National Park was, as DEFRA and Natural England will be aware, recommended in John Dower’s 1945 official report on National Parks for England, and was then on the shortlist of areas with which the Hobhouse Committee began work to establish England’s first generation of National Parks. The Dorset CPRE joins with many communities and local councils, societies, groups and individuals across Dorset and beyond, who support a Dorset National Park and wish to see the benefits and opportunities which this would bring for people and nature – our exceptional environment, wildlife and heritage, and our communities, businesses, farmers and visitors.
The proposed National Park for rural Dorset would make a significant contribution to the government’s objective that 30% of the countryside be protected for nature by 2030 (“30 by30”), enhance landscapes, biodiversity, recreational and economic opportunity, and increase nature connectivity and resilience. It would work in close and supportive partnership with councils, communities, land managers and other stakeholders across Dorset, including both Dorset Council and the adjacent Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole (BCP) conurbation.
Dorset CPRE considers that rural areas like Dorset have the potential to make a unique contribution to addressing the climate and ecological challenges. A Dorset National Park would work in close partnership with communities, councils, businesses, land managers and other stakeholders to help address these challenges and develop and deliver sustainable policies, eg for transport, tourism and energy. In this context, we welcome the proposal to enhance National Parks’ ability to help manage tourism pressures, working in partnership with councils, communities, farmers and others.
A Dorset National Park would work with farmers and landowners for a successful and sustainable economic future, including the production of quality Dorset food and drink; effective carbon capture in soils, hedges and woodland; health and wellbeing for local people and visitors; and opportunities for renewable energy, including in partnership with communities. A National Park would also help develop a successful green/blue economy, improve skills and life chances, and respond to local housing needs including for affordable homes, to the benefit of all Dorset communities including young people and families.
Dorset CPRE therefore wishes to see Natural England and the Government deliver Dorset’s long overdue, well-deserved and much-needed National Park to include as much as possible of rural Dorset, to the benefit of our countryside, wildlife, communities and economy. The Government’s response to Glover welcomes NE’s designation programme and notes that this will enable a more collaborative approach to designating new National Parks and AONBs. We welcome this new approach and would wish to contribute evidence to such a process. An independent report by a respected Dorset planner sets out the strong case for the exceptional quality of rural Dorset’s environment, wildlife, cultural heritage and recreational opportunities and potential:
How is it possible for an experienced developer to choose an area of farmland that is so unsuitable for an industrial solar plant? Well, it seems their own site selection process and expert advisors may be partly to blame.
An economically attractive view south to the AONB High escarpments from the boundary of the protected Hazelbury Bryan Conservation Area – across the proposed Site. The developer claims that this landscape is “degraded” by existing “energy infrastructure”. That’s pylons to you and me! – but proposes to cover 190 acres of green with an industrial development!
An economically attractive view!
The ‘Head of Energy’ for ‘British Solar Renewables’ explained the reasons for developing an industrial solar power station at North Dairy Farm in the heart of the Blackmore Vale (Hardy’s Vale) when he spoke at a disorganised, and sparsely attended, online community consultation event in October 20201., He said: “the grid connection is the key reason for picking the farm site” as it already has 132 000 Kva power lines running above the fields.
Forget the spin “we are doing this for Dorset Council” – the Rate of Return of 10 to 20% is the real reason for wanting to develop the 190 acres of productive farmland – remember the Spetisbury energy output that bypassed the local community and went straight to ‘the City’!
A few million!
Maybe it was the lure of ‘relatively’ low grid connection costs (in the low millions!) that blinded BSR to the many other serious problems that developing the site would pose. But, as well as attractive connection costs, the two-hour presentation in 2020 contained other very strong hints that might explain how BSR were drawn into making such a bad choice of site. It seems their landscape and flood experts led them to believe, and their ‘Head of Energy’ to actually say:
“On this particular site we are not impacting on any protected landscape, heritage or ecological designations” and are “not too impacted by flooding or visual impact.”
This mistaken belief may explain why the developer failed, during the pre-application stage, to seek the recommended expert planning guidance and advice from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Planning Team. This omission may also have been partly to blame for what subsequently happened!
Even before the Application was submitted,
The Council Planning Officers made it clear in writing to the developer, that the proposed site is in a ‘highly valued landscape’, in the setting of the AONB (the highest level of legal protection in England), within the impact zones of the Blackmoor Vale Commons and Moors Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the Rooksmoor Copse Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and the Alner Gorse Butterfly Reserve. They also highlighted that the Site impacts the settings of two protected Conservation Areas, many listed buildings and heritage assets. It is also in an area that the Council had identified as very highly sensitive to large scale development, and which is being considered as a National Park.
Much has changed
After claiming: “On this particular site we are not impacting on any protected landscape, heritage or ecological designations” and “not too impacted by flooding or visual impact.” late last year, after a very detailed examination of the Applicant’s proposals by Council’s specialist Planning Officers, qualified and independent Landscape and Visual Impact, Heritage and Hydrology experts, it became very clear that the NDF Site did indeed have flood and serious drainage issues, and was in an area and landscape specifically identified by the Council as unsuitable for Major Development.
What a Surprise!
So, the Applicant engaged a new landscape expert to assess the issues and areas the Planning Officers identified had been missed by the Applicant’s first consultant. A second consultant was asked to re-assess the impacts the generating plant would have on the countryside around it, in particular the highly protected areas within the Dorset AONB that had not been fully considered in the first assessment. Sure enough (surprise, surprise!) the second expert found that all the impacts examined caused effects that are “adverse “.
The SHV expert Landscape Assessment
The SHV independent Landscape Assessment had also identified that: “The Applicant’s (first) Environmental Statement generally underestimated the Site’s visibility in the wider landscape, and failed to record a fair and representative assessment of views in accordance with the professional Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA), including important views to and from the Dorset AONB.” BSR made it clear, during their 2020 ‘virtual’ local consultation, that the site would be very visible from important public footpaths and viewpoints on the high ground around Hazelbury Bryan – and from the well-used public footpaths that surround and transverse the site.
The public view from Wonston.
Advice from Flood Experts retained by BSR
If the unsuitability of the landscape for solar was underestimated, then it was the advice from Flood Experts retained by BSR that almost certainly contributed to the other seriously mistaken “belief”, that the proposed site was: “not too impacted by flooding”. BSR’s initial Flood Risk Assessment also proved to be inadequate, and it is now established that the local area, and parts of the Site, are significantly affected by very high rainfall and unpredictable flash floods which, in places, pose a threat to life.
The Environment Agency flood maps predict that this area floods! (Image, October 2021)
The’ lake’, shown in the image above, is the site selected by the developer to be their ‘Temporary Maintenance Compound’ during the months of construction. Unpredictable flash flooding is already identified as a “threat to life”
“Not too impacted by flooding,” said the Applicant!
By the end of last year, it became clear that the Applicant’s original Flood Risk Assessment overlooked some very serious matters. So, the SHV Group commissioned a qualified hydrologist to review the Food Risk Assessment. That report established that the Assessment: “lacks necessary detail and presents no results of site investigations. The background information is limited, with no predicted flood levels identified, and the assessment of risk from the development is based solely on the Cook and McCuen findings, which are not appropriate for the local conditions at the site. Estimates of greenfield surface runoff in the ‘Flood Risk Assessment’ are based on an outdated method that is conceptually and mathematically wrong. The results of drainage design software are not properly discussed and remain highly questionable.”
Drainage that cannot drain!
The ‘misunderstandings’ about the nature and extent of flooding may also have led the developer to wrongly suggest that sustainable drainage for the site would not be needed to prevent surface runoff causing additional downstream flooding. But, by September 2021 that position became completely untenable, and the developer belatedly proposed an infiltration-based drainage system, including grassed swales. However, BSR appears to have again overlooked the serious, and explicit warning, contained in their own Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) that: “The reported hydrological characteristics of the Site suggest that infiltration may not be feasible”. The expected low infiltration rate indicated that the proposed swale drainage would not work, and therefore, surface runoff and downstream flooding could increase.
A garden – close downstream of the proposed development site! (October 2021)
A third attempt!
The Applicant’s soil survey had established that ground on the site is saturated for over 199 days a year, something that would significantly increase the speed of the surface rain runoff. So, we now wait again! Having gone from “no drainage needed” to infiltration-based swales that won’t work. We wait! This time for new drainage proposals, possibly involving a storage and controlled surface water discharge system, in a ‘last-ditch’ attempt to reduce the risk of increased peak surface runoff and downstream flooding.
The impact that the impermeable PV panels have, on surface runoff rates and times to peak flow is considered in our previous comments and Letters of Representation.
The ‘coverup’
In the light of the long list of harms the second expert identified, a host of additional “mitigation” planting proposals have been put forward in an attempt to cover up, or hide, 190 acres of incongruous industrial power plant; something even the Applicants acknowledge will be impossible – as large sections of the industrial site can be ‘looked into’ from the high ground that surrounds it to the south-east, south and south-west, which include public viewpoints within the highly protected AONB and the Hazelbury Bryan Conservation Areas. The Applicant concludes in the latest Environmental Assessment (revised Chapter 6.) that, as the planting matures (15 years onwards) there: “would not be any significant adverse or visual effects in the longer term” caused by the proposed development.
“The (Applicants) conclusions are not based on evidence sufficient to clearly justify these conclusions.” and are therefore unjustified.”
“Frustrated of Dorset”
Way back in 2020 the ‘Head of Energy’ also let the attendees at the online consultation event know that the founding director of BSR had set up the company because he was: “frustrated by the planning process”. What has happened since 2020 with this proposed development must have only added to the director’s frustration. The developer seems to have been drawn into attempting to develop a Site because it offered a ‘relatively’ easy connection to the existing grid. But their Landscape and Flood Risk desktop assessments have let them down, by failing to point out the serious faults in the proposal. Now, after a second Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – and with possibly a second Flood Risk Assessment on the way, the ‘planning system’ may be getting just as ‘frustrated’ as the ‘founding director!’
A past Secretary of State said: ‘Meeting our energy goals should not be used to justify the wrong development in the wrong location and this includes the use of high-quality land. Protecting the global environment is not an excuse to trash the local environment.
We believe it is unreasonable to suggest that the “energy infrastructure” shown in Viewpoint 1, (Image above) from Footpath N49/11 (below) contributes to a significant utilitarian element in the wider landscape. However, and ironically, the development application proposes all of these features in vastly increased quantities over 77 Ha of the receiving landscape.
The last (ironic) words from the BSR 2020 online community presentation go to the leader of the BSR support team, who said about the Site selection and planning law: “Policy is supportive in principle – but requires that it is equally clear that such sites need to be located in areas that are suitable – and fits well in the local community and environment.”
The ‘expert’ view
The expert view is that the North Dairy Farm Site is unsuitable for a major 190-acre infrastructure development, and it certainly does not “fit well in the local community”, which the Applicant knows is overwhelmingly (97%) opposed to industrial development, and which, Dorset Council considers, is an area highly sensitive to a major solar plant, and where frequent flash flooding is already a “risk to life”- and increased downstream flooding is a realistic probability.
The revised and augmented report has now been submitted to the Council, and is available to download from the SHV Webpage, or from the Council Planning Portal, Remember to click the small ‘Accept’ conditions button at the bottom of the Council’s page, and then select ‘Documents’.
Uniquely Rapid discharge and unpredictable flash flooding
Environment Agency Upper Lydden River catchment area (a sub area of the Stour Catchment) and the Wonston Brook Catchment Area is approximately 40 km2. All the exceptionally high annual rainfall runoff ‘meets’ around the proposed solar site.
Both catchment areas focus their flows around the site
The heavy blue dashed line to the south represents the high rainfall areas of the Downs and High Escarpments (1000 – 1400 mm a year – with 50% runoff) The light dashed arrows indicate that both the Upper Lydden (yellow) and the Wonston Brook (to the right) focus their catchment flows, and runoff, around the proposed North Dairy Farm site.
EA Upper Lydden River catchment area. (This is a sub area of the Stour Catchment)
All the Save Hardy’s Vale letters to Dorset Council are available here.
HAZELBURY PARISH COUNCIL WILL ONLY BACK THE SOLAR DEVELOPMENT IF IT IS REDUCED BY HALF
The Parish Council decided that they will only support the 190-acre industrial development at North Dairy Farm if it is reduced in size by half. The developers have previously said that any significant reduction would make the proposal completely uneconomic.
Here is the Parish’s letter to Dorset Council:
“It was agreed to re-affirm our comments of May 2021 and to support the proposed development provided that the scale and size could be reduced, perhaps by as much as 50%. The parish council would also expect full compliance with the bio-diversity measures, including planting and maintenance of hedgerows etc, for the life of the scheme and for Dorset Council to have the power and will to take effective enforcement action if necessary.
Clerk to Hazelbury Bryan Parish Council “
The community view
The image shows a view westwards from ‘The Orchard’ at the Hazelbury Bryan Conservation Area boundary, and towards the AONB. The proposed solar plant would be clearly visible across the middle ground of the photograph. The view of Hazelbury residents, from their protected Conservation Area, is towards the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – the most highly protected landscapes in England, and which Councillors have a legal duty to “protect and enhance.”
In a sense the community had already voted! In section 3.2. of the Hazelbury Plan it states that the “features particularly valued by the community include the: “narrow country roads and lanes and with open fields between them; the many rights of way and opportunities to enjoy the surrounding countryside, the general peace and quiet” and “the surrounding hills and views out across the rolling countryside of Thomas Hardy’s Wessex.”
Save Hardy's Vale 