Solar Panels on Agricultural Land

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. He spends a lot of time and energy investigating and pursuing it and I am glad he has brought his expertise to this debate.

The Government have made it clear that solar energy will be central to their clean power mission, with solar capacity expected to increase from 17 GW to between 45 GW and 47 GW by the end of the decade. However, meeting that target should not come at the expense of the country’s agricultural land.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Solar energy must continue to make a huge and growing contribution towards our clean energy future, and that must include far more solar on rooftops and car parks and a considered approach to the use of land for energy generation. There are competing demands in respect of food production, renewable energy generation, nature and rural livelihoods, and I am concerned about the lack of an integrated land use framework and strategic spatial energy plan to guide solar expansion, which is resulting in lots of speculative applications. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we must move towards a co-ordinated spatial strategy that balances energy security, food security and nature recovery, and seeks to enhance all three?

[Esther McVey]

I agree that the Government need to have oversight of what is going on. It seems that our farming land and our food security are currently being put at a lower level of priority than a net zero mission and vision. As we have all agreed, solar panels should be put on appropriate brownfield land, on top of roofs and on industrial land, not on agricultural land.

Does the Minister know how much prime agricultural land the Government are prepared to sacrifice to meet their green targets? Supposedly, Tabley Hill solar farm is a temporary development, yet a scheme expected to remain in place for 40 years is not temporary—and other Members have talked about 60 years. It will determine how the land is used for a generation.

I recognise the financial pressures that many farmers face, particularly under the Government’s savage policies, and why the certainty of a long-term income from solar development may be attractive. The fault does not lie with individual farmers. It lies with a system that can make generating electricity more profitable than producing food on some of the country’s highest-quality agricultural land. There are impacts on tenant farmers, who are threatened with eviction, and there is further pressure on land values, which makes it harder for new entrants to join the sector and begin farming.

Aukera, Tabley Hill’s developer, points to a community fund that it has established—which I think is derisory, at £10,000 a year—as evidence that it is bringing benefit to the local area. Local residents are entitled to ask whether £10,000 a year is proportionate compensation for a development covering 150 acres, occupying green-belt agricultural land and altering the character of the area for decades. I say that it is not. Community benefit funds have their place, but should not be treated as a substitute for meaningful community consent or as a suitable replacement for our food security.

The burden of development will not be confined to the site. Construction traffic is expected for around two years, with every construction vehicle accessing the site via Chester Road. Heavy goods vehicle movements are expected to increase by 60% for up to a year, placing additional pressures on local roads and nearby residents. It is a rural community, and local people are understandably concerned about increased traffic, noise, disruption and the danger of such traffic on rural roads.

Tabley Hill is about more than just one planning application in my constituency; it raises broader questions about how we meet our energy needs without undermining food production, eroding green-belt protections and placing unnecessary pressure on rural communities. There are also questions about whether land used for solar farms will—or ever could—be returned to agricultural use. Many people are questioning that, and they do not have the answers.

I support a balanced energy mix, and I recognise that solar power has a role to play in our energy future. But I do not support the unnecessary loss of some of our highest-quality agricultural land when brownfield sites, commercial rooftops, warehouses and industrial land remain available alternatives, as other Members have said. Productive farmland should be protected wherever possible, and the alternatives should be exhausted before land of such quality is taken out of use for a generation. In my mind, though, it should never be used.

The Minister presumably agrees with me about this issue. Solar planning guidance says that planning authorities should encourage the development of solar farms on non-agricultural land, but that is clearly not strong enough, as it is not working. What does the Minister propose to do to save our vital agricultural land? Stopping his Government’s assault on farmers would be a good start. Will he toughen up official planning policy to protect more agricultural land against solar-farm developments? If not, how much agricultural land is he prepared to see lost from our nation’s ability to provide food for its people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman; he made similar points during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill. We continue to look at and review that across Government in relation to procurement and Government investment in these projects. We want to incentivise, as much as possible, supply chains to be here in the UK.

I do not accept the point from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that cost alone is the reason why we do not have supply chains here in the UK. We must use the mechanisms we have to encourage manufacturing in the UK. That is why such things as the clean industry bonus are about saying that, alongside contracts for difference to build renewable energy in the UK, companies can also get investment to make sure that manufacturing is here in the UK, too, and the jobs that go with it. We also need security at a time when supply chains are critical. No doubt this is a challenge and I accept that point, but there is more we can do.

I want to come back to what the right hon. Member for Tatton said about net zero zealotry. I think there is quite a lot of anti-net zero zealotry in this debate. At the end of her speech, she said something that I completely agree with. I hope there is recognition that solar is part of an energy mix, not the entirety of it. We need a mix of technologies, but the quicker we can get off fossil fuels, the better it is for our energy security in a very uncertain world, as we are all experiencing, and in terms of bringing down bills. Solar is a crucial part of that, and although we absolutely want to see solar panels on as many rooftops as possible and to support innovative projects such as floating solar, we also recognise that ground-mounted solar plays a critical role in this.

The right hon. Lady also made a number of points about food security, and of course, I absolutely agree with her. Food security is national security. We need to back British farmers and agriculture is really important in this country. I understand that it is important that we work to preserve the beauty and character of rural areas, but that is precisely what the planning system exists to do. It weighs up different impacts with opportunities, looks through specific projects and takes account of local views, all of which are considered in these processes.

The planning system is also really clear that a number of projects in a particular area will have cumulative impacts on the nationally significant infrastructure project pipeline, and that is taken into account in these processes. Whether it is visual amenity, protected landscapes or the natural environment, all of these things are taken into account. As the right hon. Lady said, the planning system already steers developers to use brownfield sites wherever possible, and the development of agricultural land can take place only where it is absolutely necessary, and even then, lower-grade land should be used first.

[Adrian Ramsay]

rose—

[Esther McVey]

rose—