As the news hits home that Rishi Sunak and his faithful government will further invest into new gas-fired power stations, we read with interest a more attractive alternative which would allow us to in fact save the nation over £10 billion per year on energy bills, without spending a penny of public money.
The conservative government’s decision this week goes against their supposed commitment of reaching zero carbon electricity by 2035. In reality, their choice secures another 10 years at least of sky-high energy costs and takes away the investment potential of reducing energy prices long-term, by building the infrastructure needed to support renewable power generation.
The Only Way To Reduce Energy Prices Long-Term….
Research has shown that solar power is now the cheapest form of generating electricity, with renewables offering the only way in which we can ensure energy security is achieved long-term. Moreover, as the world economy is forecast to treble by 2050, we are being placed in an irretrievable position, where the task of building firm foundations for generating carbon-free energy will become almost impossible the longer we leave it.
At the very least, why are we not making the equivalent investment simultaneously into clean renewable power? Thus supporting a transition towards reducing our cost of living and improving the damaging effects that fossil fuels are imposing on the sustainability of our planet.
So, as the spring budget is revealed in advance of announcing a general election – a Green Budget is launched by Green Industrialist, Dale Vince – including a six step process of ‘cost-free measures that would save the nation over £10 billion per year on energy bills, helping tackle the cost-of-living crisis.‘
Green Budget Headlines – How To Reduce Costs
1. Lift the ban on onshore wind – saving £16.3 billion over next ten years on the nation’s energy bills.
2. Reinstate the zero carbon standard for new home building – saving £9 billion over the next ten years on the nation’s energy bills, just from new homes.
3. Cap the price of North Sea gas – as we have with retail energy bills, this would save consumers £60 billion over the next ten years.
4. Break the link between gas prices and electricity – saving £50 billion over the next ten years.
5. Launch a national program for Energy Independent homes – which will produce 25% of the green energy we need to reach 100% targets (with no grid delays) + lower home energy bills by £1500 per year.
6. We can fund the energy independence national programme – by transitioning subsidies away from fossil fuels (currently £16 billion per year) to this program over a 5 year period.
Quite simply – to reduce energy costs, improve energy security and achieve zero-carbon targets, investment must be made NOW to develop renewables and grid capacity. Instead, renewable projects have been left waiting or are constantly being rejected, because the infrastructure required does not currently exist.
Sadly, as often is the case, the responses we received from our MP Kevin Hollinrake regarding the government’s flawed renewable energy strategy – were less than adequate. Their failure to support renewables is not only negatively impacting both land occupier and solar developer – it is also forcing a continued dependence on expensive, finite energy resources, such as gas and oil.
Despite their need to reinstate a sense of trust with the British public, the lack of ability to give a straight answer to a simple question, seems to be commonplace for the conservative party. Whilst the Sturdy family are fighting for survival on their family farm, the government’s track record for meeting next year’s target for 20GW of solar energy production is shameful, forcing large scale proposals at the expense of our prime agricultural land; and making it near enough impossible for solar developers to do what’s needed.
With only 5GW out of the current 14GW of capacity coming from rooftops – you would wonder why there isn’t more encouragement for installations on buildings – or indeed brownfield sites, rather than using productive farmland? Sadly it all comes down to the inadequate grid infrastructure and government investment, which is forcing proposals like this.
With the next target being to produce 70GW of solar power by 2035 – a 5 fold increase to be achieved in just 12 years – the pressure has never been greater to put in place improved measures.
What was therefore most alarming from Kevin’s reply, was the continuous use of either future or conditional tense, so stating things that ‘will’ take place or ‘could’ make a difference. Despite woeful progress over the past 10 years, there is STILL no confirmed commitment being offered for how this failing trend will be reversed – or how farmer and solar developer will be able to co-exist in harmony, sustaining a greener future alongside the need for local, high quality food production.
We have asked for clarity from Kevin on his responses:
Q1 to Kevin) How can you genuinely oppose a solar proposal such as the one at Old Malton, when this is the outcome of your government’s failure to legislate and incentivise solar installations in the right places?
Kevin Responded: “I have been consistent in what I have said on this issue. We need to protect the best and most versatile land for agricultural purposes; this is to ensure that farmers are not driven off of their farms. I support solar farms where it is appropriate to do so, such as on brownfield sites. I do not believe the site at Old Malton is a suitable place for a solar farm, as I have previously expressed.“
Clarification Needed:
You encouraged Harmony Energy to take this route of solar farm development, so if Old Malton isn’t suitable, where is? You support brownfield sites, but are there any viable brownfield sites in Ryedale due to the limitations of the poor grid infrastructure. Could you therefore confirm:
If you are saying Old Malton is not suitable, where would be a suitable alternative site, which would generate the same quantity of solar energy and service the same number of homes in the Ryedale district?
Which solar applications have you supported in our area and how much solar power do they generate?
Where are the available brownfield sites you refer to as being appropriate?
Q2 to Kevin) Bearing in mind the conservative government is spending circa £100 billion on HS2, please let us know how much and when will the government be investing in the national grid infrastructure, to ensure that future solar targets can be met without further jeopardising the British farming industry?
Kevin Responded:“This will come from the Future System Operator, which will look at the Great Britain’s energy system as a whole, integrating existing networks with emerging technologies. The Future System Operator will be a new public body that will absorb the existing capabilities of the Electricity System Operator, and, where appropriate, National Grid Gas.… It will also provide strategic oversight of the UK gas system by taking on longer-term planning in respect of gas.“
Clarification Needed:
The question hasn’t been answered – in terms of what budget has been assigned to improving the grid infrastructure? Or when will this work be started, completed and what are the quantifiable commitments in terms of upgrading existing grid capacity?
You say the FSO “will” be a new public body – when will this come in to force – and what are their targets?
In particular, what improvements are planned for the grid in the Malton and Thirsk constituency / North Yorkshire?
Q3) In light of their torment, please confirm when will you propose a revised policy for implementing a realistic and truly beneficial solar energy plan – one which clearly outlines the parameters for viable applications, and rewards solar proposals in the right places – such as the untouched rooftops of our commercial properties and new homes, or low-grade land & brownfield sites available in the UK?
Kevin Responded:“…As part of the new Energy Security Strategy, ministers are looking to increase the UK’s current 14GW of solar capacity, which could grow up to five times by 2035. To support solar deployment, the Government is consulting on the rules for solar projects. …The Government also plans to review permitted development rights to make it easier for rooftop solar to be deployed on households, as well as public and commercial buildings.… The Government is also extending the VAT relief available for the installation of energy saving materials. This relief is being increased further by introducing a time-limited zero rate for the installation of these materials. More specifically, the Government supported over 830,000 small solar projects through the Feed-in Tariff between 2010 and 2019.”
Clarification Needed:
Can you confirm the existing parameters set out by the government for solar farm development and how these prevent applications / protect prime agricultural land and farmers?
When/How will the government incentivise and legislate for solar installations to take place on the rooftops of suitable buildings – domestic / commercial warehouses / schools / hospitals etc ?
The other things you mention are not relevant to the Sturdy’s situation, many are vague as to when they will offer a tangible benefit – please confirm:
You say UK’s current 14GW of solar capacity “could” grow up to five times by 2035. This offers no commitment – how will the current government increase solar PV capacity to 70GW by 2035 – that is +56GW in 12 years?
When will the time-limited zero rate for the installation of energy saving materials start/finish? Who is eligible to claim this?
When will the consultations on the rules for solar proposals take place and what changes do you expect to see?
When are you planning to have the review of permitted development rights completed so solar installations are passed more quickly and how will it make the process easier?
You say the government supported 830,000 homes between 2010-2019 with small solar projects – how many homes have they helped in the most recent 4 years and what is the target for/ how will they help homes in the coming 5+ years? The climate crisis is not over, in fact it has barely begun.
Q4 to Kevin) In support of the rooftop solar campaign, I ask, why businesses (like my own) which are willing to help you achieve the solar targets you have set, are not incentivised, supported or rewarded financially for doing so?
Kevin Responded: “The Government is committed to widespread deployment of rooftop solar and will be setting up a taskforce to help deliver this ambition. We have introduced a permitted development right in 2015 to encourage the take-up of solar panels on non-domestic buildings. Compared to previous rights, this provides for a 20-fold increase in the amount of solar technology that can go onto the roofs of commercial buildings without the need to submit a full planning application.”
Clarification Needed:
Why does your government penalise businesses by increasing business rates for organisations who have personally invested in placing solar panels on their rooftops and are helping to achieve essential climate goals?
Why are all new commercial properties not required and incentivised financially to install solar panels on their rooftops, thus reducing the amount of land that will be used? Will this ever be something that the government will introduce, if so by when?
Can you confirm when the taskforce will be set up and what tangible results it will achieve?
If the permitted development right was introduced in 2015 to encourage solar installations on non-domestic buildings, why is only 5GW of solar energy produced from rooftops in the UK? How can this be enough. Compared with other European countries this statistic is embarrassing.
Q5 for Kevin) My final question is on behalf of local businesses. When are you going to regulate the energy market so that prices are capped and incentives exist for businesses to invest in solar panels – allowing them to reduce their energy bills, whilst also working towards the climate goals that your government has promised?
Kevin Responded:“Insofar as incentivising businesses to place solar panels on their property, I believe the business case for a reduction in energy bills provides that incentive.”
Clarification Needed:
Again the question has not been answered – businesses need to know:
When will the energy market be regulated so that prices are capped and businesses can expect fair and predictable costs? This was highlighted on the BBC news only this week.
A solar installation requires a large capital outlay before seeing any benefits from costs in energy reduction – why do you not offer businesses financial support to assist with this expense?
We look forward to getting the answers we need and understanding exactly how the government is working to support net zero targets through renewable development, without jeopardising Britain’s agricultural heritage.
In follow up to the response I’ve seen to the Rooftop Solar petition being led by the CPRE – some people in support and others opposing the campaign – there is one common theme; each response is questioning your government’s policy and direction for implementing a viable solar strategy, and so I would like to put forward some of the questions that your constituents need answering.
To provide some context, having seen the data reported by the CPRE on solar, the current outlook for meeting the target set by your party ten years ago, which is to produce 20GW of solar energy (by next year), is looking dismal to say the least. The review states the UK’s current solar PV capacity is around 14GW, of which just 5GW is produced through solar installations on rooftops; and you’re working towards a further target for producing 70GW of solar power by 2035 – a 5-fold increase to be achieved in just 12 years’ time.
Evidence from this independent report also shows how underutilised rooftop capacity is, with commercial buildings and new homes providing the opportunity to meet a large proportion of your target, without the need to further decimate our farming industry; or intensify the food security crisis we’re facing as a nation.
We’re All In This Together
Looking at this debate from two very contrasting perspectives, the current approach to implementing a solar strategy isn’t working for either end of the spectrum.
To explain what I mean by this, I’ve had an interesting conversation with Alex Thornton of Harmony Energy this week who informs me that you personally advised him to take the direction of pursuing solar and battery projects – such as the one on Old Malton’s farmland – despite the opposition you are now declaring to the proposal they have made at this site.
On this matter we ask, how can you genuinely oppose a solar proposal such as the one at Old Malton, when this is the outcome of your government’s failure to legislate and incentivise solar installations in the right places?
Harmony Energy is a business that is fully committed to supporting a greener future and so in my opinion, is an organisation that is going to be crucial to you/us reducing the effects of climate change, within the timeframes you have pledged. For the potential they offer, they have my full support. Despite my passion for the environment however, I explained to them my loyalty to the farming community and my reluctance to let renewables take precedence over our country’s agricultural heritage; and in return, they explained to me the challenges they face in helping your government implement its flawed renewable strategy.
We are all in this together; the Conservatives, the Greens, the farmers, the landlords, energy developers and your constituents – the people of Ryedale. The climate crisis affects us all. As Alex Thornton explained, the single most limiting factor his business faces is the capacity of the existing grid infrastructure and lack of commitment from your government to invest in this. I’m told it will simply take ‘decades’ to develop this to a point of you being able to meet solar production targets and so surely, it must be time for this work to begin.
Kevin, bearing in mind the conservative government is spending circa £100 billion on HS2, please let us know how much and when will the government be investing in the national grid infrastructure, to ensure that future solar targets can be met without further jeopardising the British farming industry?
It can’t go unmentioned that the victims here are the Sturdy family. My heart goes out to them, they have farmed the land they are fighting to protect, for several generations. This solar proposal will take away productive land, used to produce high quality food for our country. The prospect of them being targeted and removed in this way, should not be possible.
As Emma Sturdy continues with her campaign, I read with interest some of her frustrations regarding the absence of national policy from your government, which causes developers to ‘chance their luck with solar proposals on whatever land suits them, irrespective of the role it plays.’ Her blatant plea for national and local authorities to urgently regulate solar development, offering clear guidance for what should cause a solar development to be ‘rejected’ or ‘accepted’ is one that needs addressing today for everybody’s benefit.
In light of their torment, please confirm when will you propose a revised policy for implementing a realistic and truly beneficial solar energy plan – one which clearly outlines the parameters for viable applications, and rewards solar proposals in the right places – such as the untouched rooftops of our commercial properties and new homes, or low-grade land & brownfield sites available in the UK?
From my own perspective, as a business owner in Ryedale who has covered the rooftops of two warehouses with solar panels, I have personally experienced the obstacles others will face should they choose to do the same. With no government incentive and zero funding available, I have invested personally in a 171kWp system made up of 424 solar panels, which are forecast to produce 121,890 kWh (kilowatt hours) per year; this is over 200% of my business’ current energy requirements.
For the privilege, I encountered endless obstacles due to the limitations of the grid infrastructure and gaining a connection, leaving our solar panels inoperative for nearly six months. We were then penalised through exorbitant business rates, simply because we were going to use a proportion of the electricity we produce for our own business needs.
Kevin, in support of the rooftop solar campaign, I ask, why businesses (like my own) which are willing to help you achieve the solar targets you have set, are not incentivised, supported or rewarded financially for doing so?
To conclude and in connection with my own solar investment, are the regular concerns I hear from local businesses who are closing their doors across Ryedale, due to the extortionate energy costs they face, which are making it impossible for them to survive the current economic climate.
I know all too well how the energy giants are exploiting the market. My business currently produces green electricity and sells this back to the grid for others to use. The energy suppliers are marking up the price they give us by a shocking 700%.
My final question Kevin is therefore on behalf of local businesses. When are you going to regulate the energy market so that prices are capped and incentives exist for businesses to invest in solar panels – allowing them to reduce their energy bills, whilst also working towards the climate goals that your government has promised?
For those in doubt, I would like to affirm my position on this debate, both as a farmer’s son; a local business owner; and of course the Green Party’s parliamentary candidate for Malton & Thirsk. It is without doubt that I wholeheartedly support all renewables in the right places. It saddens me to observe the current clash taking place between farmer and renewable energy developer in our district. This should not be happening and so as our elected MP, we need clarification from Kevin Hollinrake on where your party stands on the above matters.
For those of us who live here, we know that Ryedale is an area dominated by beautiful countryside, home to farming communities who are reliant on the continued productivity of our agricultural land.
It’s for this reason that we are today asking for your support in signing a petition launched by the CPRE (The Countryside Charity) to protect our landscape and farmland from being used for ground-mounted solar developments:
The petition has just passed 16,000 signatures, but with the need for at least 20,000, there is still some way to go….
How Will This Petition Benefit You
Nobody can escape the energy challenges we face as a result of climate change, where an estimated 60% of our top-grade agricultural land is at risk of being lost due to the threat of flooding. The ongoing issues of energy supply also continue to force household bills to rise, making the cost of living an unmanageable prospect for many families in our area.
Despite the need to therefore decarbonise the UK electricity grid and bring some stability to the energy market, the government will not meet their proposed target set almost ten years ago for generating 20GW of solar energy by 2024. Current data shows that despite the urgent need for implementing a robust solar strategy, the UK’s current solar PV capacity is around 14GW, of which just 5GW is produced through solar installations on rooftops.
“Moving forward, the next proposed target is to generate 70GW of solar energy – a 5-fold increase on what is currently being produced – just 12 years from now, by 2035. The pressure the conservative government faces in achieving this goal is however stark, forcing unfavourable proposals for large-scale solar farms on high-grade agricultural land in our area, such as that on the Sturdy’s family farm in Old Malton,” explains Richard McLane, parliamentary candidate for the Green Party in Malton & Thirsk.
“Whilst the environmental need exists for mass-produced solar energy, this approach does not offer a long term or sustainable solution to the environmental emergency we encounter. To offer its true worth, a viable solar energy scheme must also consider the effect it has on the local economy, surrounding communities, wildlife and the landscape itself,” Richard continues.
The Rooftop Revolution petition launched by the CPRE is asking the government to prioritise that clean and affordable solar electricity is generated from the rooftops of new buildings and commercial property wherever possible. With your support, we will ensure the government’s target for solar energy can be realistically achieved, reducing carbon emissions long-term and bringing greater energy security; whilst preserving Ryedale’s landscape and its fertile soil for the cultivation of locally produced, high quality food.
Why Should Rooftop Solar Be Prioritised
Following a recent independent review commissioned by the CPRE, its findings confirm that without any rooftop solar installations and to meet the targets set for 2035 – 180,000 hectares of land would need to be covered with solar panels over the next 12 years – an area larger than the size of Greater London (157,000 hectares). Can we really afford to lose this land space?
In contrast, the report confirmed that that circa 65% of the solar energy that needs to be generated by 2035, can be produced through placing solar panels on the rooftops of commercial buildings and new homes alone. Whilst the use of buildings such as schools, railways, airports and hospitals offer further potential – the UK Warehousing Association reported that half of the UK’s need for solar power by 2030 (15GW) can be met by installing solar panels on just 20% of the currently available warehouse roof space.
Rooftops offer a vast and largely untapped resource for generating energy and resolving both the climate and cost of living crises we face. In fact longer term, the CPRE’s report states that by 2050 there is the potential to generate 117GW of low carbon, solar electricity from rooftop installations – removing any need for ground-mounted solar installations at all. Read the full report here >>
“The bare reality of this debate is that, despite its potential, there is still no support from the present government for solar energy installations. The conservative’s lack of commitment to creating a realistic solar framework is simply not acceptable. We each have a shared plight to combat climate change whilst also sustaining locally produced, high quality food, which in reality should be an achievable vision.”
All credit goes to the CPRE for their efforts in launching this rooftop solar campaign, causing us once again to question why our current government did not legislate years ago and demand that solar panels be installed on rooftops of all new buildings, as a bare minimum.
“Rooftop solar offers huge untapped capacity to meet our climate goals, and taking high-grade farmland out of food production does not offer a long-term sustainable outcome for our country.” concludes Richard.
Still Undecided?
If you are unsure whether this is a petition that you want to put your name to, please ask yourself…
Do you have younger generations within your family who deserve a bright future?
Would you like to see household bills and energy costs become more predictable?
Are you connected with or do you know people who work within the agricultural sector?
Do you feel that ground-mounted solar installations would impair the beauty of our natural landscape?
Do you enjoy food that is locally and sustainably produced by British farmers?
If you have answered ‘Yes’ to any of the above, then we urge you to offer your signature today.
The outcome of this petition will impact on us all.
As the news comes in that Malton Town Council rejected the planning application which was validated earlier this month, for the solar power farm on prime agricultural land in Old Malton, North Yorkshire – has the time come, as a society, that we must seek clarification on where this is all heading?
Whilst the climate emergency we face is beyond comprehension for most, this prospect is conflicted by the sympathy being expressed for the Sturdy family, who have fallen victim to government policy on renewables and the ongoing lack of support given to the survival of small-scale farms by the Conservative party.
With so many people connected to the debate relating to the Eden Farm Solar Proposal who are now considering whether to oppose the plans and for what reason – the question at the forefront of this campaign is whether this scheme is ‘just another way’ of a landlord making more profit from the land it will occupy, at its tenant’s expense; or whether – given the potential environmental catastrophe we face – using the land as a source of solar energy production should be prioritised over protecting the use of high-grade agricultural land for food production?
As reported this week in the media, research is clearly showing that the world’s environmental target of keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5C is now going to be almost impossible to achieve. Furthermore, the cascading effects that we will face – including shortages of food, water and energy, as well as rising costs and mass migration – will be both irreversible and unmanageable. Quite simply, the only way of minimising the climate disaster which awaits us, is to deal with the source of the problem; and that is to slash carbon emissions now.
Solar and other renewable sources of energy are the only means for decarbonising the planet and without a strategy in place – nobody will escape what is to come. What is most worrying when watching the Eden Farm campaign unfold, is that the viability of this solar farm proposal will be dictated by the level of opposition it receives; rather than by robust legislation set out in government policy, which ensures the long-term environmental gains we require; and encourages the implementation of renewables in future, which are truly beneficial.
Following the campaign closely, is Malton and Thirsk’s parliamentary candidate for the Green Party (pictured above), Richard McLane, who is a passionate supporter of all forms of renewable energy. Combining his upbringing in Ryedale on a small farm in Gilling East with his political ties – leaves him however, in a conflicting position. Richard cannot overlook the dilemma of losing top grade agricultural land to a solar farm, yet is starkly aware of the critical need for producing renewable energy without delay.
“Our current government’s record on implementation of renewables is woeful,” explains Richard McLane. “I see new developments being built up and down the country with not a single solar panel in sight. Considering our reliance on fossil fuels from other countries and the damage they are doing to the planet – this is nothing less than an act of pure negligence from those in power.”
So Where Do We Go From Here?
Improving the grid infrastructure to incentivise proposals on brownfield sites and making use of rooftops belonging to both industrial and agricultural buildings, are the only long-term strategies for implementing solar schemes. Aside from his political interests, Richard is the founder of a local manufacturing business in Helmsley and can confirm first-hand, that despite having financed a solar panel installation for the rooftops of his own industrial units (below), there still remains no clear incentive for businesses to make these investments.
“As well as offering no financial motivation for local businesses to produce solar power, it seems obscene that the government is still not committed to improving the grid infrastructure or mandating by law that new developments include solar panel installation,” continues Richard.
“All of these measures would encourage solar proposals which don’t risk jeopardising high grade agricultural land, thus in effect improving the overall environmental value and impact they will have.”
In this case, the attraction of the site is clear, due to its close proximity to the grid connections, however just a stones throw away, is the newly developed Eden Business Park in Old Malton, which occupies 30 acres of land and contains numerous industrial and office buildings, without a single solar panel installed.
For the Sturdy’s, until our elected government instigates the change required to incentivise proposals for solar energy production in the right places, the continued loss of prime agricultural land remains a genuine and inevitable threat. There can be no better time than now, that we hold the government to account and demand answers which respond to the climate threats we face.
