Solar Panels on Agricultural Land

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.