Solar Farms and Battery Storage

Debate between Ian Paisley and James Gray

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[James Gray]

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.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

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.

Mental Health (Veterans)

Debate between Ian Paisley and James Gray

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I, too, add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) on securing this important debate today. Raising the profile of the matter will in itself do much to enhance public recognition of the issue, and she spoke passionately and poignantly about the need to achieve that.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) made an excellent point in his comments, which is that we must cast the net a lot wider than the immediate conflicts that we are aware of in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not be unusual for Members to hear me speak about what has happened in Northern Ireland. We have a walking community of forgotten heroes who have served the nation well and with gallantry, from the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Irish Regiment, the British regular Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Only today, as the situation has normalised, has there been a true opening and unfolding of the trauma and devastation in the lives of individuals who gave service to this nation, and the effect that the conflict had on their families. Families lived with service personnel who not only served our country but lived within the community that they were serving—it was a double impact. It is only now, in this new Northern Ireland, in a more peaceful society, that that is starting to unravel and unfold. We must ensure, as we have started to peel back the issue and look at what could be an appalling vista, that we as a country recognise that we have a responsibility to address the concerns that we are starting to discover.

Several former soldiers, from the Ulster Defence Regiment in particular, visited me in my constituency office. They had stopped serving in the late ’80s and early ’90s, and yet they were still talking about things that they saw that are impacting their lives now. They look back and recognise that the awful pictures that flash in their memory have had an impact on how they have lived their lives in the past 20 years, and on members of their community and family.

[Mr Gray]

What the hon. Gentleman is saying with great passion brings to mind an episode yesterday. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was entertaining on the Terrace of the House of Commons one of the widows from the outrage of Ballykelly all those years ago, when 20-odd souls were killed in a pub. My hon. Friend was reminiscing about how he cradled his lance corporal in his arms. His lance corporal had lost all four limbs before he died. What sort of effect does that have, not on my hon. Friend—I am glad to say—who is remarkably well-balanced, but on any less well-balanced soldier? What possible effect will that have on the rest of their lives?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I also had a constituent who visited me about this problem. He was a big, strong, tough frame of a man, but he was like a quivering autumn leaf when he started to tell me about what he had seen and what he remembered. Indeed, his constant memory was the sound of the scrape, scrape, scrape of the shovel that he had used to put his comrades and colleagues into a waste disposal bag after an outrage by the Provisional IRA. It is a burning memory that he will never forget and that woke him in the dead of night, leaving him soaked in sweat and crying out in fear, and yet it is a memory that he has had to bottle up and carry with him.

As a nation, we must take responsibility and recognise that there are things that can be done for these people we are talking about. They are not hopeless people; they are people whom we can actually give hope to, if, as the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles said, we first help to remove the stigma, and help people to recognise that there is help available and that they will not be stigmatised by going for that help. In fact, that help will only be of benefit to this community, this nation and indeed the NHS, which will have fewer problems to deal with as the years go on.

I hope that the passionate words that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles put to this House this morning will be recognised and that we also recognise that post-traumatic stress disorder is not only about the immediate battles that we are aware of today but about the long-term problems that our country faces. More than 100,000 gallant soldiers from our nation passed through Northern Ireland in service and we are just starting to scrape the surface of this issue when we recognise that, 20 or 30 years after the conflict ends, there could be people who will come forward to say, “I have a problem because of what I saw, because of what I witnessed and because of what I went through as a serving personnel officer in Northern Ireland.” We must ensure that that issue is properly recognised.

The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles spoke about the capacity to take on board the cases that will come forward. I want to see that capacity extended, to ensure that the needs of Northern Ireland and of the soldiers there are also taken on board. The Big Lottery Fund money—the £35 million—that has been brought to our attention today will be a welcome spend and of course it must include spending on people who served in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner, to ensure that their issues are properly addressed.

I want to make a final point about the issue of stigma. We need a public champion who can be identified with this issue and whose association with it will give a boost and encouragement to those soldiers who are sitting at home, and perhaps staring into an empty glass, contemplating self-harm or having a fight with their children or other family members. That public champion will give those soldiers the ability to say, “There is someone who can help me; there is an organisation addressing what has affected me, and I can now see that I have someone to shoulder this burden and someone who can be a help or a crutch”, at the most important time—when they are at their most vulnerable. I hope that that public champion can be identified.

In addition, I love the idea of a GI Bill or something similar for the UK. There would be so much opportunity with such a Bill that we could build on, and I think that we could do things even better than they have been done in the US because this is a nation of people who come up with even better ideas than people in other nations do. We could learn from what has been done in the United States and come up with something really tremendous. I hope that this debate itself acts as a springboard and is a very hopeful and positive start to something that we can take great pride in.