East Park Energy: North Bedfordshire

Debate between Blake Stephenson and Richard Fuller

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I start by thanking you and, through you, Mr Speaker for permitting me to speak on this important constituency matter. I also welcome the Minister. For the benefit of those who may be not familiar with the process, the Minister will probably be very limited in what he can say specifically about the topic I am raising today. The topic is a proposal by East Park Energy for a large-scale, ground-mounted solar plant and battery energy storage system spanning North Bedfordshire and also the constituency of Huntingdon. This proposal is currently under consideration as part of the nationally significant infrastructure project process.

East Park Energy spans 1,900 acres of land—to give some perspective, that is larger than Gatwick airport—on what is currently open countryside. It engulfs the rural parishes of Pertenhall and Swineshead, Bolnhurst, Keysoe, Little Staughton, Staploe and Dean and Shelton in my constituency, as well as the parishes of Hail Weston and Great Staughton in the constituency of Huntingdon. Some 74% of the land is classified as best and most versatile agricultural land, and East Park is one of six nationally significant infrastructure projects impacting North Bedfordshire.

I have called this debate to discuss with the Minister the impact that East Park Energy could have on North Bedfordshire’s local residents and on its landscape and rural character, and to raise with him points specific to the proposal that, in my opinion, warrant serious consideration for its rejection. East Park Energy would permanently and fundamentally change the area’s rural aspect and character and transform open countryside into industrial land. It is important that we stop referring to these installations by the rather cute term of “solar farm”, because the truth is that they are industrialised complexes. This one is made up of 700,000 solar panels, each up to 3 metres high, along with fencing, lighting, CCTV, inverter stations, transformer units, battery storage infrastructure and cabling. That sounds a long way from what we understand a farm to be.

Proposed mitigations to plant trees in order to screen the development are usually insufficient. Even if planting to screen the panels is successful, it would take years for the trees to mature, and even at full maturity, large parts of the site would still be visible because of its topography. The site will be a huge, permanent, unmissable and miles-long change to the local environment of that part of England. It will not blend in with the existing environment; it will crush it.

It is important to say that we in Bedfordshire are not against solar farms in general. In fact, we have 44 solar farms that are already operational or proposed in both Bedford borough and Central Bedfordshire, which are the two local authorities that traverse my constituency. However, this specific proposal is different.

Given my interest in financial matters, I hope that I have the House’s discretion to make a couple of general points about the finance of solar farms, of which I know the Minister will be aware. First, it is important to note that, with large solar plants, we are paying the cost of capacity, not of output. Capital costs are excessive because of the inherent process inefficiencies in solar farms. That is fine as long as it does not end up on the public purse, but ultimately investors look for a return, so it does indirectly end up on us.

Secondly, we are paying for the cost of variability of output from solar plants—the hidden costs of changing the national network to cope with that new factor of energy production. Thirdly, it is important to note that we are paying the cost of buying the energy produced, even when it is not necessarily needed or used—paying essentially for wasted energy.

In addition to those points, which the Minister is aware of and which have already been factored in, the combination of solar-generated energy and energy price arbitrage via battery energy storage systems fundamentally changes the economic case for solar—certainly from a public benefit point of view. Returns to investors will already be supercharged by the addition of new capacity in the form of battery storage—a very significant additional investment. However, that additional investment makes financial sense only when the purpose is to arbitrage energy costs—producing energy at low price points to sell at high price points—but that is not really the intention of trying to get low-cost energy.

As a business person, I say that the overall structure of the contracts, which the Minister inherited from previous Administrations, directly encourages maximum financial leverage—taking on as much debt as possible in order to maximise returns to investors. We have seen in other areas of public infrastructure—particularly with Thames Water—the problems that arise when so much leverage can be put up. Essentially, the returns are privatised and the losses socialised. I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s observations on that.

Will the Minister advise on whether the Government have put in place, or have plans to put in place, a limit on the debt ratios that large-scale solar plant operators can carry? I did a quick check but could not see that such a limit was in place at the moment. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that. Tied to that point—again, from a financial point of view—is my own understanding about corporate and political risk. In the case of East Park solar, I am concerned about the corporate history and financial viability. I mean no disrespect to the business, but it has no prior experience in developing or operating such large-scale solar projects. There are substantial issues of project failure or poor management, and therefore the risk that the current developer sells the site on to somebody else with a whole new set of investors and objectives.

The Minister may not be able to speak about this, but at least one political party in this House has said that it might cancel such projects in the future, raising the risk of stranded assets. The Government should be considering that, not because they agree with it, but because if there is such a change in Government, it is the people of North Bedfordshire in this instance who will be left with those stranded assets—solar panels stretching for three miles one way and three miles the other way, with no economic return and no financial viability to remove them. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe there is a requirement for an escrow fund to be put in place for the removal of plants should a business go bust. Can he say what weight is placed on the historical experience of applicants for large-scale plants in installing and operating such plants in the past? Does that factor at all?

I have reviewed a number of these debates, and in many of them the issue of best and most versatile land has come up. The Minister must accept that East Park Energy’s proposal of 74% of the site being best and most versatile land is a pretty high proportion, well in excess of almost every single plant that has been adopted or accepted to date. It is a generational loss of arable land. I am afraid the proposal from East Park Energy lacks any serious demonstration of seeking lower-grade or brownfield land, and it appears to be at odds with national policy, which is to avoid using best and most versatile land.

I will quote the Minister back to him, because what he said was very sensible. In a debate on 15 May 2025, he said:

“I am not going to put a figure on it right now, but we have clearly said that it is important to find the right balance when it comes to best-use agricultural land.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 573.]

The Minister will not give a figure today, but 74%? Come on now! Can he advise whether the proportion of best and most versatile land at 74% and the scale of East Park Energy will be an issue of weight in the appraisal? I do not expect him to say whether it is right or wrong. However, Ministers have said in previous debates that it is important not to use best and most versatile agricultural land and that food security is important, and then they have gone on to say that solar will only take up 1% of land, which implies both that it matters to avoid using the best and most versatile land and that it does not matter. Which is it? With the proposed figure standing at 74%, this seems to be a central point.

I want to make two final points that are of particular significance, to make the Minister aware of the broader issues. We need to consider the cumulative impacts. I want to put on the record the context of North Bedfordshire and the surrounding area that the East Park Energy proposal will be coming into. The first thing he should be aware of is that, for the past decade or more, Bedfordshire’s housing growth has been between two and three times the national average. If he looks at the 2011 and 2021 censuses, and at the number of households in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), he will see that the level of housing growth is between two and a half and three times the national average. As he will know, that is great for the country, but it puts a strain on the surrounding infrastructure.

Secondly, Bedfordshire has six nationally significant infrastructure projects on the blocks right now. That is a huge amount. Let me enumerate them for the Minister. The first is the Black Cat roundabout on the A428, which is in the direct area of East Park Energy. That is the country’s largest ongoing road project, due for completion in spring 2027 or thereabouts. Secondly, East West Rail is the country’s third largest railway project, proposing to drive a line between Bedford and Cambridge, cutting through my North Bedfordshire constituency. Thirdly, Universal Studios is the country’s most significant inward investment. It started under the previous Government, supported by the then Opposition, and it has been brought home by this Government and is supported by the Opposition today. It will mean 10 million visitors a year, with all the movement of people that that entails, and the ancillary development around it.

Further away, Luton airport is expanding to facilitate that, doubling in size from 18 million to 30 million passengers a year. Very specifically, there is a new settlement in Tempsford. As I have said, Tempsford is currently a village of 400 residents and seven sheep. The Government are highly likely this year to take forward the proposal from the new towns commission that Tempsford should be the site of at least 40,000 new homes, going from 400 residents to over 100,000 on land that encompasses, abuts, and perhaps embraces, land for East Park Energy. On that specific point, it seems that we can have one or the other, but we cannot have both.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. He is making a thoughtful and important speech. He has spoken eloquently about the cumulative development in both our constituencies, which is putting central Bedfordshire and Bedford borough under significant strain from a planning perspective. Does he agree that it is important for the Government to support our local authorities, so that we think holistically about these developments and ensure that our landscapes are protected, our local communities are listened to, and that we secure the agricultural land that we need for future food security? The reason we have so many farmers in Bedfordshire is because we have fantastic agricultural land. Would it not be a waste to build on all that land, and in the case of East Park Energy, to do so on the altar of net zero?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, during world war two, London would have starved without agricultural produce from Bedfordshire. More importantly, the Minister must recognise that we are supportive. We know that the Government have a growth strategy—we may have disagreements on national economic policies, but we want to do our bit. Indeed, the people of Bedfordshire are doing their bit, and a lot more. The Minister will appreciate that, with so many projects happening all at once, at some point those things are going to break, and my hon. Friend makes an important point about that.

In East Park Energy’s documentation, it chose not to be comprehensive in the scope of its evaluations, and was insufficient in the depth of its analysis. For example, it completely omitted any reference to Luton airport expansion, the Universal theme park, and any potential new town at Tempsford. It dismissed the need for an assessment of Black Cat roundabout on the assumption that construction would be finished before East Park Energy starts, but there will be consequential effects, including further construction from the change at Black Cat roundabout. It dismissed the need for an assessment of East West Rail on an assumption, but it is highly likely that there will be an overlapping construction period should East West Rail go ahead. It lacked any assessment of medium or long-term effects such as permanent land use change and increased perception of the urbanisation of the area. It provided no consideration of the over-concentration of solar development in North Bedfordshire—my constituency is part of the 1% club, which is constituencies where over 1% of the land area will be covered by solar panels—and it ignored the impact of overlapping construction periods that it would be adding to for two and a half years, or 30 months.

Just imagine all the traffic from building Universal Studios, getting in construction because we want shovels in the ground to start building at Tempsford if the Government decide to go ahead with that, and trying to build East West Rail. East Park Energy completely ignored that, so from the point of view of understanding the impact of what it is going into, the proposal that was presented fell significantly short.

Finally, before I yield to the Minister, I know that he is limited in what he can say about specific projects and that, given his role, the Secretary of State would not be able to comment at all. As I mentioned briefly to the Minister earlier, I am in a small minority of Conservative Members who agree with some of the Secretary of State’s criticisms about past energy policy, even though I may not agree with all of his proposed remedies, so I hope that the Minister understands that my observations come from a positive place.

The role of a Secretary of State or his designated Minister in making a decision is a crucial step in an evaluation process, which the public must trust. They must assess each proposal individually on its merits, not just on overarching goals. There have been 12 solar panel development consent orders for evaluation since July 2024, each of which has been approved. Some of us may be old enough—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but certainly me—to remember the musical “Oklahoma!”, in which there is a song, “I Cain’t Say No”. That is a very old reference, but I am very old. I encourage the Secretary of State to avoid any caricature that he “cain’t say no”, because in the case of East Park Energy, my personal view is that there are considerable and specific reasons why he can say no.

Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Debate between Blake Stephenson and Richard Fuller

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate. Many today may claim the same, but my constituency sits right at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. We are home to Cranfield University, world renowned for cutting-edge research and technology and some of the most innovative companies in Britain, growing our economy and delivering high-value jobs for our communities. Subject to planning approval—I do not seek to influence the Minister’s decision in any way—we will soon be home to the Universal UK theme park. Universal will welcome more than 8 million visitors to our part of Bedfordshire every year, bringing in £50 billion to the UK economy.

Mid Bedfordshire is a constituency full of potential. That includes potential to contribute to the Government’s growth agenda, and potential to connect the growth corridor through East West Rail, which will run along the Marston Vale line and the midland main line, providing easy connectivity to the soon-to-be-expanded Luton airport, to London and right across the region. Our local economy already benefits from easy access to the M1, with major multinationals such as Amazon calling Mid Bedfordshire home. The Millbrook Proving Ground in my constituency is one of the largest vehicle testing centres in Europe, and we are a hotspot for defence technology, with the Lockheed Martin site at Ampthill delivering the next generation of equipment to keep Britain secure.

To fulfil our potential, we need the Government to support Mid Bedfordshire’s role in the growth corridor. Junction 13 of the M1 desperately needs to be upgraded. It is a key point of access for Cranfield University, Millbrook Proving Ground, Amazon, the future Marston Valley development and so many other local employment centres, but without an upgrade, we risk the only sustained growth in Mid Bedfordshire unfortunately being the time stuck in traffic jams. To ensure that our rural lanes are not overwhelmed by traffic as our areas grow, we need Government assistance to unlock the long-promised M1 to A6 link road. That project will alleviate the growing problem of HGVs using rural lanes as a cut-through, and support the delivery of central Bedfordshire’s local plan. At this point, I declare an interest as a councillor on Central Bedfordshire council.

My communities are desperate for new infrastructure to ensure that housing growth does not mean growing waiting lists for local services. That particularly includes a GP surgery for the new town of Wixams, for which I have campaigned since I was elected to Parliament.

[Richard Fuller]

On the point of cross-Bedfordshire roads, we will have potentially Tempsford new town in my constituency and an entirely new railway being drawn across the area, in addition to Universal Studios and the expansion of Luton airport. Over time, that will all create enormous internal pressure. To amplify the point about co-ordination, does my hon. Friend agree that local councils will be overwhelmed without clear support from the Government?

[Blake Stephenson]

That was a very helpful intervention. Local councillors in our area are crying out for Government support to deliver the growth that the Government want in our area. It would be very useful if the Minister could respond to that.

To take the most advantage from Universal, our county needs to join the majority of others in establishing a local visitor economy partnership. Without an LVEP, we risk missing out on the level of local expertise needed to direct growth and reap the rewards that the significant new tourism will attract. It cannot be right for one of the largest tourist attractions in Europe to be opened in one of the only places without a tourism strategy. We also have the opportunity to deliver another fantastic local tourist attraction—the Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway park—but we need Government investment to unlock it. I know that Members representing Milton Keynes and Bedford might comment on that.

Finally, my communities need to be assured that rail infrastructure on East West Rail and the midlands main line is fit for the needs of a growing economy—the heart of our growth corridor. That means delivering step-free access at Flitwick and Harlington stations and on the Marston Vale East West Rail line in time for Universal to open. I would welcome an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss how we can work together on a cohesive plan that delivers for my constituents and the Government.

Planning and Development: Bedfordshire

Debate between Blake Stephenson and Richard Fuller

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

Again, I must declare my interest as a Central Bedfordshire councillor. I learned recently of the sums that are held at Central Beds from section 106 contributions. The council is very good at collecting the sums but not necessarily at spending them, particularly in the right places and on the right things. Residents would be keener on development in their local communities if they knew that section 106 contributions would be spent there, not in some other part of the large unitary authority area. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and thank him for it.

Worse still, these developers often put in planning applications for big developments, have those fights with the local community, make promises about local infrastructure, secure their planning permission, and then nothing happens. The community sits and waits while more and more other developments get planning permission around them, but the developers do not get on and build the things they have got permission for. Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that 1.1 million homes that were given planning permission between 2010 and 2020 were not built by 2024. That is 1.1 million homes that defied the Government’s blockers and got through the planning system but did not get built. So far, this Government seem to have failed to grasp that problem—there is nothing in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that even acknowledges it. If the Government are determined to block the blockers and back the builders, perhaps they should take some action to stop the blocker builders that are failing to build out planning permissions that they have received, because they are having a real impact.

In Central Bedfordshire, planning inspectors have twice concluded that we cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply in recent months. That means that our countryside now stands virtually unprotected against speculative development, yet our communities have taken more than 20,000 new homes in the past 10 years. The Central Bedfordshire local plan sets out locations for thousands more, but despite its passage four years ago, key strategic sites in that plan sit without a single shovel having been put in the ground. This Government must hold the builders to account to get on and build things, and not put the blame for our broken planning system on my constituents’ desire to avoid flooded homes or see a GP.

Looking ahead, this Government are asking our communities in Bedfordshire to take tens of thousands of additional new homes. That future housing pressure will put our communities under huge additional strain. We need the Government to work with us to do more to ensure that developers deliver what they promise—and deliver it at the right point in development.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. He has rightly pointed to the fact that Bedfordshire has been doing more than its fair share of growth for two decades. We are growing at two and a half times the national average, which has put pressure on public services, particularly GP services. Biggleswade in my constituency has been waiting years for a health hub to deal with the growing population. Does my hon. Friend, like me, want to hear a bit more clarity from the Minister today about new towns? The potential for new towns comes on top of the pressure we have from organic growth. Tempsford in my constituency has been highlighted for one of those new towns. We do not know whether the Government plan for that to be a community of 15,000 or 30,000; there are some reports of 250,000. We have no clue whether this Government are committed to infrastructure first, either. What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on what the Government should be saying now about new towns such as the potential one in Tempsford?

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. Friend—

[Richard Fuller]

Honourable.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I forget which positions people have had over the years. I absolutely agree. I will discuss new towns later in my speech; it is important that the Government provide clarity, and clarity soon, on where those new towns will be built. In my constituency too, people want the infrastructure to be built at the right time—before people move into houses, not afterwards. Those promises need to be fulfilled much earlier in the development cycle. I mentioned some of those points just now.

I would like to see the Government either commit to requiring developers to deliver new infrastructure right at the start of development, or consider a programme of investment whereby the Government provide capital funding up front for councils to deliver the promised infrastructure, which they could then claim back directly from developers’ section 106 contributions.

I would like to see the Government go further on flooding, and commit to a ban in all circumstances on development on functional floodplains. New homes mean nothing if they flood. Rivers and valleys have been here longer than we have, and the water that flows through them will not simply get out of the way because of the size of the Government’s mandate. We must ensure that our housing policy keeps houses out of the way and restricts floodplain to amenity and recreational land as part of proper local placemaking strategies.

We must also ensure that the sustainable drainage infrastructure that gets installed with housing is effective and properly maintained. Too often, we see and hear of sustainable drainage systems that are nothing more than overgrown and sometimes blocked ditches, which offer no protection when the rain starts falling. We need a proper strategy to manage them, for example with ownership devolved to properly funded internal drainage boards that can provide expert maintenance. We need to embrace nature-based solutions to flooding—an opportunity presented by the Government’s proposed environmental delivery plans if they are strengthened to include a duty to consider such solutions.

I would like to see the Government commit to properly funding and empowering planners in urban areas with high housing targets to identify and release appropriate sites for urban densification—a point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). For too long, urban authorities have been able to restrict land supply and the duty to co-operate to foist urban sprawl on neighbouring rural communities. Development that builds dormitories on our countryside rather than densification in our towns and cities is development that fails us all.

We must end the easy fixes and see a focused strategy to densify our urban areas. In rural Bedfordshire, without such a fix we face a real and significant risk that our villages will be forced under the duty to co-operate to take thousands more homes for Luton in addition to the thousands of homes we took last time. Sticking-plaster planning politics where housing targets mean nothing because they are consistently and repeatedly delivered elsewhere does nothing to resolve the housing crisis and nothing to appease the Government’s blockers, who rightly wonder how it can be fair that they must continue to pay the price for failures in urban areas to deliver targets.

Flooding: Bedfordshire

Debate between Blake Stephenson and Richard Fuller

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson]

So many people across so many organisations, including fire and rescue, worked tirelessly to protect our communities. I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s comments about the support provided by our local police and fire and rescue services.

Mid Bedfordshire is not an area at obvious risk of extreme flooding—unlike other parts of the county, we lack major rivers beyond the River Flit—but our soil types range from the thin sandy soils of the Greensand ridge to poorly draining clay soil, each of which presents its own flooding challenges. Our winters are getting wetter, and I know that many families will, like mine, look at the damage done by those floods and worry that such flooding will become the norm.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is important for residents of Bedfordshire. He talks about not having rivers in his constituency, but in North Bedfordshire we are blessed with two. Although this flooding was an extreme event, flooding issues have been persistent in places such as Harrold, Clapham and Great Barford, and, most recently and quite devastatingly, in Tempsford and Wyboston in my constituency. Does he welcome the initiative taken up by the Mayor of Bedford, Tom Wootton, to get a comprehensive approach from all the different agencies that can help residents with their flood response, and does he agree that that is a model for assessing flood risk in Bedfordshire?

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree. I would love to join any of those meetings with Mayor Tom to support those efforts in my wards of Wixams and Wootton.