Onshore Wind and Solar Generation

Ben Obese-Jecty Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for the point, although I am disappointed, because while he normally invites me to visit Cornwall, he did not on this occasion. I will not take it personally. Since he was elected to this place, he has done a fantastic job in delivering jobs in his community on the clean power mission, most recently by looking at some of the raw materials that are so essential. He has made great progress on that, so I pay tribute to him.

My hon. Friend is of course right about the Conservative party’s scepticism of a policy that it used to support so wholeheartedly, and one that has delivered economic growth right across the country. It has now turned its face against that; I am not sure whether that is flat Earth or not. I am sure that the shadow Minister will regale us with his long list of commitments in this space, but it is clear that the drive to net zero is delivering industrial opportunities, jobs, manufacturing and investment in communities that have suffered for so long under economic decline, as well as delivering on our climate ambitions and energy security. That is the right path for us to be on.

I will return to solar for a second. Raising the NSIP threshold to 100 MW for solar will ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning route via local planning authorities. It should incentivise projects that would otherwise have capped their capacity to develop to a more optimal and efficient scale.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

We are talking about increasing the threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the average size of NSIP projects approved by the Government since last July. If so, why has the threshold been kept artificially low at 100 MW and not raised significantly higher? Otherwise, we will see huge numbers of smaller projects coming through and being classified as NSIPs, such as those approved by the Minister so far, rather than larger projects.

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of written questions on this topic to try to get to the heart of the matter, and he is now testing me on the number, which I think we did provide him with in response to one of those written questions. Since it is not on the tip of my tongue, I will write to him with the answer. On the general point, I do accept what he is saying. Part of the reason for the instrument is to try to get to a more rational point where we do not have projects limiting themselves artificially to a level based on a figure.

We settled on 100 MW because we think it strikes the right balance by allowing larger projects that can deliver the outcomes we want in the energy system through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, while limiting the number of projects coming into the national planning process. We think that balance is right, but we will continue to look at it. The hon. Gentleman has raised important points with me in in written questions that I am happy to discuss with him in more detail.

The Government are mindful that mid and large-scale solar and onshore wind projects that may be preparing to enter the planning system might have already invested and undertaken preparatory steps with the expectation of entering a particular planning regime. Therefore, changing the NSIP criteria at short notice could result in projects entering into a different regime from that which they expected, which could increase costs for developers and cause delays. Therefore, the instrument before us also makes transitional provisions for onshore wind and solar projects that are already in the planning process when the order comes into force. The provisions will therefore ensure that projects already progressing under one regime will not be required to move into a different one.

In conclusion, through consultation, we sought views and supporting evidence on reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime. We received a range of responses from different groups of people. Most agreed with our approach and the majority agreed with the 100 MW threshold. Indeed, although we initially consulted on the idea of a higher threshold of 150 MW, based on the analysis of those consultation responses, we concluded that a 100 MW threshold would be more appropriate and would reflect modern technology.

This instrument is another important step forward in delivering our clean power mission, supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It supports all our work as a Government on delivering an effective planning system—one that ensures that applications are processed efficiently through an appropriate regime and that avoids distortionary effects on deployment. The measures ultimately aim to support our future energy security and resilience, alongside our 2030 goals and wider decarbonisation targets. I commend the order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

We are absolutely and critically supportive of a just transition in the North sea, to move off fossil fuels alongside and parallel to our increased use of renewable energy.

It is therefore right to reintroduce onshore wind into the nationally significant investment regime, ensuring that there is a level playing field with other generating technologies such as solar, offshore wind and nuclear, which are already assessed under that regime. The motion also raises the threshold for solar projects deemed nationally significant from 50 MW to 100 MW. In one way, that increased threshold will help to prevent poor land use, given that the previous threshold incentivised developers to put in an artificial cap of 49.9 MW, which led to 40% of proposals coming in at that level. Increasing the threshold in local planning decisions also means that biodiversity net gain will be required of solar farms, ensuring that, where they are approved, they are nature-friendly. It will also give local voices a greater say in determining the location and suitability of large-scale solar projects up to 100 MW—that is important.

However, local decision making about large-scale solar cannot happen in a vacuum. We need a joined-up approach that balances the need for food security, energy infrastructure, new homes and nature recovery. That is why we welcome the Government’s launching of consultations on both the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plans, which together should determine the most strategic energy mix, how much solar we need, at what scale and where best to locate it across the country.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

The hon. Member is, like me, a Cambridgeshire MP. Cambridgeshire has already had Sunnica, one of the largest solar farms in the country at 2,400 acres, approved. We have another 1,900 acre project in my constituency, as she well knows, and others are in the planning process. Does she agree that Cambridgeshire residents should not have to bear the brunt of these projects? I know that she is a staunch advocate for the move towards solar, but would she, like me, stand up for her residents if someone was looking to build a nationally significant infrastructure project of that scale in her constituency?

[Pippa Heylings]

That is exactly the point I am making. I have been talking with my constituents, particularly about the controversial new large-scale Kingsway solar farm in my constituency. We need a land use framework and a strategic spatial energy plan that tells us and informs local planning and decision making about the scale of solar energy that we need across the whole country, where it is best located, where it can fit in and feed in, and the energy mix. We need to consider that mix and the balance of food security, energy infrastructure, homes and nature recovery.

Equally, we need genuinely significant community benefit schemes applied to large-scale generation schemes, similar to the community benefit approach applied in Scotland. We want to ensure that all national infrastructure projects and major energy generation infrastructure—not just transmission—provide minimum levels of community benefit, invested at ward and parish level into community benefit funds and determined by the local communities most affected. We must take communities with us and show that they are part of the energy transition, and that it is done with them, not to them.

We have deep reservations about the Government’s approach overall to nationally significant infrastructure projects in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which appears to be a power-grab, stripping away local voice and letting developers off the hook for their impacts on nature and wildlife. Nature is not a blocker; it is an enabler of good growth and wellbeing, and while we climate-proof our energy system, we must also ensure that nature is part of future-proofing our economy. We will always speak up for a climate and nature combined approach.

Although we are supportive of the motion’s ambition to streamline planning for major projects such as onshore wind, we register our concern about the Government’s broader changes to NSIPs and planning, including the exemption of category 3 persons from compulsory purchase consultations, and the implementation of several Henry VIII clauses that hand sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and undermine local government and local voice. It is entirely possible to accelerate renewable energy deployment and uphold the community voice in planning decisions while protecting nature, and that is what we need to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I reiterate my opposition to the measures that this Government wish to impose. The slew of nationally significant infrastructure projects approved by this Government since July is the vanguard of many more. In Huntington, the proposed East Park solar farm is set to be bigger than Gatwick airport, at 1,900 acres spanning 6 miles. Nearly 75% of the agricultural land involved is graded as our best and most versatile land. Though the Energy Minister has previously stated to me that

“no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented which will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land”,

this Government’s track record and ideological zealotry on this point strongly indicates that there is no upper limit on the quantity of agricultural land they are willing to develop. Last week, during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister said that she would protect our high-quality agricultural land. I would be interested to hear from the Government how exactly they plan to do that, given their track record of building on it.

I regularly speak to constituents who feel voiceless and ignored. The Secretary of State has shown himself to prioritise ideology over listening to valid concerns, let alone pragmatic details. The Government are willing to move the goalposts to reach their aims, and it is my constituents who are paying the price without being heard. They are receiving nothing in the way of direct compensation, and no firm commitment to cheaper energy bills or to ensuring that community benefit funds appropriately compensate local communities.

Clause 5 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill even removes the requirement to consult category 3 people who can make a claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Instead, they will be informed that their land will be taken only at the acceptance stage. My online petition of residents in the villages surrounding the solar farm received more than 1,100 signatures. That was the only time those residents feel they have been able to make their voices heard. I urge the Government to listen to these people and thousands of others like them across our rural heartlands.

The Government take pride in announcing with this statutory instrument that the solar NSIP threshold has been raised from 50 MW to 100 MW. The average megawatt output of a solar farm application in 2010 was 3.8 MW. The average solar NSIP application approved since this Government came to power is 488 MW, to refer to my previous question to the Minister. By keeping the threshold artificially low, the Government open the door to huge numbers of solar farms becoming NSIP by the back door. I would welcome a review on setting that NSIP threshold at a much higher level, given the scale of current nationally significant infrastructure projects.

I have previously asked the Minister about the quality of photovoltaic panels and the fact that they will create more and more energy going forwards. We must also look at where the panels will be sourced. The Energy Minister has previously confirmed to me that the Government are

“determined to eradicate forced labour in global supply chains, including in the manufacture of solar panels”,

yet they whipped Government Members against a Conservative motion that would have prevented Great British Energy from buying solar panels when there is evidence of modern slavery in the supply process. The Government are more interested in scoring political points than in taking the steps to eradicate forced labour.

The Government have repeatedly demonstrated that they are prepared to ride roughshod over local wishes in pursuit of their ideological goals. With their manipulation of the system to force through tens of thousands of acres of solar panels, much of them on our best and most versatile agricultural land, and by making rolling changes to national policy statements while keeping the solar NSIP threshold artificially low, the Government show once again their contempt for our embattled rural communities.

[Kit Malthouse]

As well as the contempt being shown for local communities and consultation, does my hon. Friend lament the lack of imagination? There are plenty of places where many people would welcome solar farms, such as on motorway and railway embankments. They could easily be delineated for such development, and it would not necessarily impact on our landscape. There is also the continuing lack of any compulsion for the inclusion of solar on warehouse roofs. We could probably create exactly the same amount of power as his constituency is likely to create by putting solar panels on the roof of every warehouse in Park Royal to the west of London. Again and again, we look to virgin land first, rather than being imaginative about better solutions.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, with which I wholeheartedly agree. The Government have a target of building 1.5 million—sorry, that was downgraded in the spring statement to 1.3 million—new homes. It would be sensible for them to implement some sort of legislation that would mean that those 1.3 million new homes had solar panels on their roofs. I urge the Minister to ask what assessment has been done on how much energy could be generated were we to do that at full scale instead of building solar farms on our best rural heartlands.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member support the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), aptly named the sunshine Bill, which would make solar panels mandatory on the roof of all new homes?

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I will leave my decision until we have a vote on that Bill, but I will look at it in more detail.