Solar Panels on Agricultural Land

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of agricultural land for solar panels.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Currently, planning permission is being sought for a large solar panel development in my constituency on 150 acres of grade 1 and 2 agricultural land. It is among the best and most versatile agricultural land, it includes 70 acres of grade 1 farmland and it forms part of an historic rural landscape. The local residents of Tabley and Knutsford are distraught and mystified that, at a time when the importance of food security is being increasingly recognised as a national priority, we should be allowing our highest-quality agricultural land to come out of production.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Lady and I share this concern, among many others. In my Strangford constituency and across Northern Ireland, a great number of solar applications are coming through that would take away prime agricultural land. In Northern Ireland, agriculture is the most important part—the backbone—of the regional economy. Does the right hon. Lady agree that weighted consideration must always be given to brownfield sites and rooftops, to ensure that the valuable land that she talks about is retained for the production of food?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an absolutely correct point, and I will come to that, as will, I know, other Members. Once development of this kind is approved, the land is no longer available for its primary purpose of producing food.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

A clean-air solar farm is proposed near Beverley on some excellent BMV—best and most versatile—agricultural land. Given that such fantastic, high-quality land constitutes only about 40% of farmland, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is insane to allow solar to go on the best land when 60% of land that is widely available could have solar on it? The Minister would be well advised to tighten up the rules, because his solar strategy would then be far more likely to retain public support.

[Esther McVey]

Insanity is the right word, and that point has also been expressed by many of my constituents. At the most recent public meeting arranged by Rayna Jackson and the newly formed community group, Knutsford Solar Action, hundreds of local residents gathered, hoping to get some answers from the developer and the local council as to why the site had been chosen. Sadly, neither Aukera—the developer—nor Cheshire East council bothered to attend, so not even the most basic questions, such as why an environmental impact assessment had not been done for the site, could be answered.

The whole process has shown absolutely no regard for the local rural community. The truth is that the Government’s colossal rush to achieve their net zero targets is coming at the expense of our nation’s food security and destroying the UK’s farming land. Then again, we know what this Government think of farmers and farming—not a lot.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that it cannot be right that farmers in the South Cotswolds, who have had no say in this, now face the compulsory acquisition of rights over their land purely because the developer has chosen to locate a solar farm 13 miles away from the nearest grid connection?

[Esther McVey]

I agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope the Minister is listening to what all right hon. and hon. Members are saying about this issue.

According to the Commons Library, between August 2025 and July 2026 some 733 solar photovoltaic projects received planning permission across the United Kingdom. That shows the pace at which solar developments are reshaping our countryside, with around 188,000 acres approved for grid-scale solar projects across the UK.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

rose—

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Esther McVey]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and then to my constituency neighbour.

[Helen Whately]

My right hon. Friend is being generous in allowing interventions. She talked about the scale and pace of solar developments on agricultural land. In my constituency, we already have a huge development of over 700 acres, and another one on 160 acres near Rodmersham has just been given permission. A huge quantity of important agricultural land is being destroyed by solar developments. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to take that into account in their guidance on planning decisions so that we do not jeopardise our food security?

[Esther McVey]

I do indeed. That is precisely why are having this debate: to impress on the Government what actions they need to take.

[Aphra Brandreth]

My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making an excellent and important speech. Energy security is of course important but, as she has pointed out, we cannot lose sight of the vital importance of food security. Does she agree that we need action, not words? A lot of people have said we should prioritise brownfield sites. It is not enough to say it; we need to make sure that solar panels go on brownfield sites and rooftops instead of building over prime agricultural land.

[Esther McVey]

I do not know how many tens of thousands of people the Government need to hear saying precisely that before action is taken. Ministers repeatedly state that lower-quality land should be used, but in reality that is not the case. There is a growing gap between policy and practice.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

In my constituency, the Secretary of State has just approved the Green hill solar farm, 60% of which will use best and most versatile land. That means that arable land will be lost for 60 years in our area. Local groups are considering a judicial review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the policy says we should not use that land, it does not make sense that the Government approve these farms none the less?

[Esther McVey]

I think that, like with most things, the Government do not know what is going on. They talk the talk but do not put what they say into practice. In 2025, the Campaign to Protect Rural England found that 59% of England’s largest solar farms are located on productive farmland, with almost a third occupying the very best agricultural land. The proposed Tabley Hill solar farm in my constituency is another instance of a large-scale solar development being directed towards some of the country’s best agricultural land.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. Does she agree that, apart from rolling over the wishes of local communities, the ideology driving these solar farms is economically disastrous because we are losing good agricultural land, and environmentally disastrous because much good prime land is being destroyed by machinery, pipelines, concrete bases and so on? It is being lost for a generation because solar farms are not a short-term thing; they will last at least 60 years.

[Esther McVey]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, as I will call him. The Government have been blinded by their net zero zealotry. They need to open up their eyes and listen to what the public, and we as the public’s representatives, are saying.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I applaud my right hon. Friend for her speech and for securing the debate. I want to say something vital. We finally managed, against Government pressure, to get an amendment into the Great British Energy Act 2025 to stop the Government buying solar arrays made in Xinjiang in China, where slave labour is practised, but we know that they simply do not check enough. We have clear evidence that cheaper solar arrays are still made using slave labour. It is all very well to talk about 300 years ago, but right now we are allowing slave labour to take place. The Minister needs to get to his feet and give us a pledge that he will put in proper checks to stop that filthy trade being part of the disaster that my right hon. Friend is eloquently describing.

[Esther McVey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. He spends a lot of time and energy investigating and pursuing it and I am glad he has brought his expertise to this debate.

The Government have made it clear that solar energy will be central to their clean power mission, with solar capacity expected to increase from 17 GW to between 45 GW and 47 GW by the end of the decade. However, meeting that target should not come at the expense of the country’s agricultural land.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Solar energy must continue to make a huge and growing contribution towards our clean energy future, and that must include far more solar on rooftops and car parks and a considered approach to the use of land for energy generation. There are competing demands in respect of food production, renewable energy generation, nature and rural livelihoods, and I am concerned about the lack of an integrated land use framework and strategic spatial energy plan to guide solar expansion, which is resulting in lots of speculative applications. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we must move towards a co-ordinated spatial strategy that balances energy security, food security and nature recovery, and seeks to enhance all three?

[Esther McVey]

I agree that the Government need to have oversight of what is going on. It seems that our farming land and our food security are currently being put at a lower level of priority than a net zero mission and vision. As we have all agreed, solar panels should be put on appropriate brownfield land, on top of roofs and on industrial land, not on agricultural land.

Does the Minister know how much prime agricultural land the Government are prepared to sacrifice to meet their green targets? Supposedly, Tabley Hill solar farm is a temporary development, yet a scheme expected to remain in place for 40 years is not temporary—and other Members have talked about 60 years. It will determine how the land is used for a generation.

I recognise the financial pressures that many farmers face, particularly under the Government’s savage policies, and why the certainty of a long-term income from solar development may be attractive. The fault does not lie with individual farmers. It lies with a system that can make generating electricity more profitable than producing food on some of the country’s highest-quality agricultural land. There are impacts on tenant farmers, who are threatened with eviction, and there is further pressure on land values, which makes it harder for new entrants to join the sector and begin farming.

Aukera, Tabley Hill’s developer, points to a community fund that it has established—which I think is derisory, at £10,000 a year—as evidence that it is bringing benefit to the local area. Local residents are entitled to ask whether £10,000 a year is proportionate compensation for a development covering 150 acres, occupying green-belt agricultural land and altering the character of the area for decades. I say that it is not. Community benefit funds have their place, but should not be treated as a substitute for meaningful community consent or as a suitable replacement for our food security.

The burden of development will not be confined to the site. Construction traffic is expected for around two years, with every construction vehicle accessing the site via Chester Road. Heavy goods vehicle movements are expected to increase by 60% for up to a year, placing additional pressures on local roads and nearby residents. It is a rural community, and local people are understandably concerned about increased traffic, noise, disruption and the danger of such traffic on rural roads.

Tabley Hill is about more than just one planning application in my constituency; it raises broader questions about how we meet our energy needs without undermining food production, eroding green-belt protections and placing unnecessary pressure on rural communities. There are also questions about whether land used for solar farms will—or ever could—be returned to agricultural use. Many people are questioning that, and they do not have the answers.

I support a balanced energy mix, and I recognise that solar power has a role to play in our energy future. But I do not support the unnecessary loss of some of our highest-quality agricultural land when brownfield sites, commercial rooftops, warehouses and industrial land remain available alternatives, as other Members have said. Productive farmland should be protected wherever possible, and the alternatives should be exhausted before land of such quality is taken out of use for a generation. In my mind, though, it should never be used.

The Minister presumably agrees with me about this issue. Solar planning guidance says that planning authorities should encourage the development of solar farms on non-agricultural land, but that is clearly not strong enough, as it is not working. What does the Minister propose to do to save our vital agricultural land? Stopping his Government’s assault on farmers would be a good start. Will he toughen up official planning policy to protect more agricultural land against solar-farm developments? If not, how much agricultural land is he prepared to see lost from our nation’s ability to provide food for its people?

16:16

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as always, Ms Jardine. I thank all hon. Members for coming to this debate. Obviously, many colleagues from across the House have raised concerns about projects in their constituencies. I understand entirely why, but given that those projects are subject to planning processes, I will say at the outset that I cannot comment on the positives or negatives, or the decisions through the NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—process, in relation to any of those particular applications. Those are rightly matters for the Secretary of State to make decisions on in due course.

I will touch on the general points that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) made. First, we should recognise an area where I think we have common agreement: building infrastructure across our country is necessary but it should be done in sensible locations and take account of local impacts. I have said throughout that I find much of the nimby debate coming up in this a bit redundant, when we are actually trying to bring communities with us. But I have also said clearly that we need to build infrastructure as a country, and it is not possible to just build all of it “somewhere else”. Inevitably, in these debates, we often get back to the argument that people are in favour of the technology, but “just not anywhere near my constituency.” There has to be some common ground in the middle that recognises that we need to build infrastructure somewhere.

Solar is particularly important because it tackles our energy security issues, and is also by far the cheapest electricity generation to deploy in the country at the moment. With affordability at the forefront of all our constituents’ minds, it is right and proper that we try to deploy as much solar as we possibly can.

[Graham Stuart]

Of course, I had the Minister’s role just two and a half years ago. I think I agree with pretty much everything he has said so far, but there is a backlash because we are seeing so much high-quality land lost. We are seeing a cumulative impact, which, again, notionally, the Government say should be looked at, but they never seem to stop a project. There is also the issue of slave-labour supply chains.

I therefore invite the Minister to tighten up the rules on best and most versatile land, given that 60% of the land is not the best and most versatile. I also invite him to tighten up the rules so that there is real protection around cumulative impact, and to tighten up the rules on slave-labour supply chains. I think that he can still fulfil his ambition to see the infrastructure built and make sure that we have a system that is sufficiently rigorous so that communities are quieted. It will not stop every nimby everywhere, but at least it will give reassurance and show that there are real rules providing real protection, because right now that absence is causing scepticism right across this House and across the country.

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to several of those points. The right hon. Gentleman has always been more pragmatic than his party on many of these issues—I hope that does not do him a disservice—and I have always appreciated that. He is right that we want to try to find a place where we can build the infrastructure that we need but bring communities with us and not turn them away from the energy transition. That is really important.

I want to share some statistics, because individual applications often paint a picture of a much greater use of land across the country than is actually the case. At the end of September 2024—the latest set of figures I have—the land devoted to solar farms covered an estimated 21,000 hectares, which is around 0.1% of the UK’s total land. Even in our most ambitious deployment scenarios in the clean power action plan, we expect to get to 0.4% of deployment and 0.6% of agricultural land in the country. I recognise that there are local impacts from all these projects—I speak as a Member of Parliament from an area very close to some of the biggest onshore wind farms built under the previous Government—and that land use is a challenge across communities, but this is nevertheless a very small proportion of land across the country overall.

The right hon. Member’s second point was about supply chains, on which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly challenged us, and I will say two things. First, it was right that we accepted the amendment but also set up Great British Energy to not only be a leader in how we build supply chains, but to try to get a supply chain on solar panels here in the UK again and do due diligence on supply chains coming in from China. There is much more work to do and I do not pretend that the work is complete yet. Some initiatives, such as the solar stewardship initiative, need to go further to ensure that we get into the detail of supply chains.

Secondly, when we left Government in 2010, three companies were building in solar supply chains in the UK and, when we came back, there were none. That comes back to a really important point about re-industrialisation: if we want supply chain security, a line of sight on things such as human rights, and to create good jobs across the country, we need to invest in manufacturing capability. We need to nurture it and not let it go to the wall, which is where we get to particular risks.

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Michael Shanks]

I give way first to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Minister accept that one of the reasons why so many UK firms disappear is that they cannot compete against firms, especially from China, who have cheap labour or labour at no cost at all? That is why it is so important that the Government tighten down on where the supplies of this equipment come from.

[Michael Shanks]

I give way to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The main point I want to make to the Minister is that China thwarts all the rules around commerce. It subsidises all its industries, including the solar industry. It uses slave labour, which we have mentioned. The thing about slave labour is that America does this in a much cleaner way: it assumes that the companies are using slave-made solar panels and leaves it to the company to prove, using serious checks including forensic science, that it is not. The Government should look at and adopt that process; it would kill the supply of slave-made solar panels tomorrow.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman; he made similar points during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill. We continue to look at and review that across Government in relation to procurement and Government investment in these projects. We want to incentivise, as much as possible, supply chains to be here in the UK.

I do not accept the point from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that cost alone is the reason why we do not have supply chains here in the UK. We must use the mechanisms we have to encourage manufacturing in the UK. That is why such things as the clean industry bonus are about saying that, alongside contracts for difference to build renewable energy in the UK, companies can also get investment to make sure that manufacturing is here in the UK, too, and the jobs that go with it. We also need security at a time when supply chains are critical. No doubt this is a challenge and I accept that point, but there is more we can do.

I want to come back to what the right hon. Member for Tatton said about net zero zealotry. I think there is quite a lot of anti-net zero zealotry in this debate. At the end of her speech, she said something that I completely agree with. I hope there is recognition that solar is part of an energy mix, not the entirety of it. We need a mix of technologies, but the quicker we can get off fossil fuels, the better it is for our energy security in a very uncertain world, as we are all experiencing, and in terms of bringing down bills. Solar is a crucial part of that, and although we absolutely want to see solar panels on as many rooftops as possible and to support innovative projects such as floating solar, we also recognise that ground-mounted solar plays a critical role in this.

The right hon. Lady also made a number of points about food security, and of course, I absolutely agree with her. Food security is national security. We need to back British farmers and agriculture is really important in this country. I understand that it is important that we work to preserve the beauty and character of rural areas, but that is precisely what the planning system exists to do. It weighs up different impacts with opportunities, looks through specific projects and takes account of local views, all of which are considered in these processes.

The planning system is also really clear that a number of projects in a particular area will have cumulative impacts on the nationally significant infrastructure project pipeline, and that is taken into account in these processes. Whether it is visual amenity, protected landscapes or the natural environment, all of these things are taken into account. As the right hon. Lady said, the planning system already steers developers to use brownfield sites wherever possible, and the development of agricultural land can take place only where it is absolutely necessary, and even then, lower-grade land should be used first.

[Adrian Ramsay]

rose—

[Esther McVey]

rose—

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way briefly to the right hon. Lady, but I will then have to conclude.

[Esther McVey]

As the Minister has heard today, that is not the case. I was asking what specific steps he is taking to tighten up the planning process, or to have oversight so that what he thinks is happening is actually happening.

[Michael Shanks]

It is not for me to litigate individual planning applications; that is what the planning system exists for. We have given very clear guidance on this, and we keep these things under review. At the moment, we already have a planning system that takes these things into consideration, and I will not open up the debate on individual projects. Indeed, the National Farmers’ Union has said that solar poses no threat to food security.

I must also highlight the most glaring point in all this: clean energy is about us trying to get off fossil fuels, and although part of the reason for doing so is to reduce all our constituents’ exposure to the impacts on bills, the summer we have just lived through was a perfect example of climate change in action. It made the impact of not tackling the climate crisis on food security very clear and present for us. To exclude that from the debate misses the crucial point that climate change is far more likely to impact our food security in Britain than any infrastructure that we are building.

I have already told the right hon. Lady that I agree that we should be building much more rooftop solar, and that is why the future homes standards encourage new houses to be built with solar installed. That is also why I am working to see whether we can get even more solar on warehouses, supermarkets, car parks and everywhere else we possibly can, which I am entirely open to, but ground-mounted solar will nevertheless remain important.

I also want us to look much more at innovation in how we farm alongside solar farms. I have visited a number of solar farms where the two go alongside one another, such as where livestock grazing can go alongside solar deployment. There is also a lot of emerging science in agrivoltaics on developing new ways to make sure that we have arable farming alongside solar.

[Sarah Bool]

In the Green Hill solar farm application, one of the arguments made was that we could also have sheep farming, but the Secretary of State’s decision actually said that this was irrelevant and would not be considered, because they could not guarantee it. Actually, the promise of them sitting side by side is not a guarantee.

[Michael Shanks]

I am not making any guarantees here, and I have not pretended to do so. I am saying that there is much more opportunity to do these things side by side, and I have visited and seen some places where it is working, including places where there is a net gain in biodiversity from the deployment of solar panels.

In this focus group on solar, we will clearly not have support from everyone who has spoken in the debate today, and I entirely understand that. As I have said in a number of debates—I hope fairly—we want to ensure that we bring communities with us on this as much as possible, and the planning system is important. The right hon. Member for Tatton also talked about community benefits, and it is really important that those are meaningful to communities. We will say more soon about our expectations on developers for community benefits. We want those to genuinely invest in the future of communities, rather than be tokenistic. It is important to say that they are not compensation regimes; they are about saying, “You’re hosting infrastructure on behalf of the country, and we thank you for that. Here is a community benefit.”

Contrary to how it seems from my speech, I think there is much that we agree on. We want to preserve the character of the countryside across the country, but I also genuinely believe that we have to rapidly increase the amount of electricity that we can generate from clean sources. We have to ensure that we have renewables alongside nuclear and other technologies, and the planning system exists to balance that with continued food production and protecting communities. I am very open to looking at any further reforms that are necessary, but I think that the balance is understood at the moment. I hope we can continue this conversation in the manner in which we have had the debate today.

Question put and agreed to.