Derbyshire County Council has voted to oppose large-scale solar farms and battery storage on greenfield sites, citing countryside protection and food security.
The council is led by Reform UK, with the national party vowing to scrap the transition to a net zero economy as part of its appeal to voters. It has previously stated that the cost of net zero is too expensive for the UK’s economy, but now it’s taking a different approach – noting that it’s a blight on the landscape and could risk food shortages.
The motion, tabled by Council Leader Alan Graves, passed by a majority in Derbyshire County Council despite arguments that solar and battery energy storage systems cut emissions, improve energy security and support economic growth. That’s largely due to the fact that Reform UK holds a sizeable majority on the council – holding 42 out of the 64 seats up for grabs – while the motion also received backing from the Conservatives.
Speaking after the vote, Graves noted, “We are clear as a council that rural Derbyshire will not stand idly by whilst good, usable agricultural land is sacrificed at the altar of Net Zero and turned into a Chinese manufactured eco desert.
“These plans are going to tear up the landscape of Derbyshire and change its very character. We are extremely worried that the views of residents and parish councils are being totally disregarded in favour of advancing the ruinous Net Zero agenda.”
Implications of Derbyshire County Council’s vote
Readers of Electrical Review may be curious as to what the implications are given the strong views of Derbyshire County Council. Well, thankfully for the energy transition, the vote was largely symbolic. That’s because the county council currently holds no planning power, so there’s no real threat to development within the county from being struck down anytime soon.
Granted, as a statutory consultee, we can expect Derbyshire County Council to begin recommending planning applications for refusal, but the ultimate planning decision lies with local district councils. That means they can choose to ignore the county council’s recommendation if they choose to.
However, it should also be noted that the vote by Derbyshire County Council was designed as a message for those district councils and the national government. It’s also likely to be used as a tool in any future election to stake a clear dividing line between those allowing these types of developments through and the county council which is in clear opposition. That means we could see other councils led by Reform UK make similar moves in the future.
So, what then? Or even what if district councils with planning authority decide to also oppose solar and energy storage projects on greenfield land, what does that mean for the UK’s energy transition? Well, again, probably not much – although it does risk inward investment in areas that have blanket opposition, and could also cause significant delays as developers take local councils to court over the matter.
Given the UK Government’s strong support for solar and energy storage projects, it’s likely that any council that implements a blanket ban on those projects will find they’ll still be built despite their opposition. That’s because any rejection will simply find itself in front of the planning inspectorate on appeal, with local councils, which are already cash strapped, forced to pay the developer’s appeal cost after they have their planning rejection overturned.
Editor’s view
As there’s no real implications from the symbolic vote from Derbyshire County Council, and even if other councils followed suit, there still doesn’t seem to be a reality where projects face a future where they find it impossible to build on greenfield sites – you might be wondering, what’s the point? Well, so are we here at Electrical Review – but I guess it’s pretty clear, this is Reform UK trying to score political points.
By creating a clear dividing line between the national Government and Reform UK when it comes to building solar and energy storage projects on greenfield sites, Derbyshire County Council is hoping to win the approval of the electorate. It’s doing so by playing on fears around China, the destruction of the countryside, and food security. So, let’s analyse that for a second.
Currently, if we add together all UK solar farms, they take up less than 0.1% of land area. Even if we decided to expand to the highest solar targets currently available, we’re looking at around 0.3% of land being dedicated to solar – still far less than the 0.54% of land taken up by golf courses. Meanwhile, agriculture takes up around 70% of the UK’s land area, which means that expanding solar farms and energy storage facilities is unlikely to make a real dent in food security – and that’s without considering that most sites that are constructed avoid the best and most versatile agricultural land anyway.
What could make a dent in food security then? Well, climate change, of course. Higher temperatures, water stress, flooding, soil degradation – all symptoms of the climate changing in the UK, and all likely to have a far greater impact on food security than installing solar farms and energy storage facilities on low-grade agricultural land. Those who have watched Clarkson’s Farm will see the actual impact of climate change on farming – and it’s not solar farms.
If we want the UK to prosper, then we should welcome investment in the clean energy sector, not try to score political points by playing on people’s fears.
