I will call Helen Whately to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention with these 30-minute wonders.
That this House has considered the impact of Cleve Hill Solar Park on communities in Faversham and Mid Kent constituency.
For centuries, the view from Graveney church tower has been spectacular, looking across miles of marshland to the Swale beyond. In the summer, there are wide-open blue skies and sheep grazing in the sunshine among the rushes going down to the sparkling water of the estuary. In the winter, still beautiful if bleak, there are clouds scudding across a grey horizon, down to the froth of white horses on galloping waves, accompanied by the cries of seabirds, calling as they circle overhead, buffeted by wind and rain.
This epic landscape inspired great British writers such as Charles Dickens and Daniel Defoe. Since then, it has continued to inspire countless visitors and locals alike—the backdrop for walkers travelling the ancient Saxon Shore way, a haven for birdwatchers and the seabirds they have travelled to see, or just a place to find peace and tranquillity in our otherwise busy lives. But no more.
In 2020, planning permission was granted to build Cleve Hill solar park. In 2021, the park was acquired by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a US investment fund based in Texas. In 2023, construction began. Now, as we near the end of 2024, the work is nearly done. Soon, the village of Graveney in my constituency will host the UK’s largest solar power plant, generating 373 MW of electricity. Alongside the solar array, the developers have permission for a large-scale battery installation, with up to 700 MWh of capacity. The concrete base for the batteries is being constructed, and the batteries themselves are now in the country, soon to be installed. The plant is set to become operational early next year.
As I speak about this huge solar installation in my constituency, hon. Members should make no mistake: I recognise climate change as one of the greatest threats to our planet and way of life. I want us to continue our shift to renewable energy, reduce our carbon footprint and improve our energy security, and that includes solar. I welcome solar on factory and warehouse roofs, housing developments, brownfield sites and even out-of-the-way pockets of poor-quality land. But Cleve Hill is altogether different. When complete, the solar park will cover more than 700 acres—an area larger than the town of Faversham itself. It will have not far off 1 million solar panels, each the height of a double-decker bus. No amount of natural screening can prevent this huge installation from dominating the landscape.
It is not just about the views. The marshes were home to rare species, including Brent geese, golden plover, marsh harriers and the red-listed lapwing. The humble dormouse and water voles also thrived in the dykes and field margins. Before the Cleve Hill solar team arrived, there was a totally different vision for this spot. The Environment Agency planned to restore the marshes to a wetland, which would have provided a haven for the wildlife, sequestered carbon and acted as a natural flood defence.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. The issue of disruption is incredibly important. I have a number of quarries in my constituency, and I know only too well the damage and enhanced wear and tear that such sites can cause on smaller countryside roads—I do not know the hon. Lady’s constituency, but I presume that that issue will affect it as well. Does she agree that the road safety implications of heavy goods vehicle traffic using these roads over a number of years must be a priority for the construction company? The only way to address that is to have open communication with the local community and a point person to deal with issues as they arise. Has the hon. Lady been able to persuade the construction company to do that?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I will address in a moment. First, I want to talk about safety, because the safety of the large-scale battery installation is the biggest worry for my community.
To give a sense of the scale, Cleve Hill’s battery capacity will be equivalent to half the output of a small gas-fired power station. Large-scale battery storage systems carry risks including overheating and fire, which can produce toxic fumes and water contamination. To date, more than 65 fires and explosions have been reported in similar battery storage systems across the world.
In March, I hosted a public meeting about battery safety, which was attended by Matthew Deadman, an assistant director at Kent Fire and Rescue Service and the National Fire Chiefs Council lead officer for alternative fuel and energy systems. Almost 50 Graveney residents attended the meeting, which demonstrates the considerable local concern. Matthew Deadman provided some reassurance by outlining the steps that the developer is taking to put in place the safety features set out in the project’s battery safety management plan, but that has not allayed residents’ fears.
Battery fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish, and people at the meeting found it hard to believe that the fire and rescue team at Faversham fire station—fabulous though they are—or even teams across east Kent more widely, would have the specialist equipment required. There is also the question of the contamination of land and water in the event of a fire.
Another outstanding concern was the lack of an evacuation plan in the event of a fire. The rationale we heard was that no evacuation would be needed, because toxic fumes and smoke would dissipate and it would be sufficient to close windows. However, residents and parents whose children attend the local school remain unconvinced.
My neighbouring constituency of Ashford has a big solar farm planned for it. I have recently listened to experts who have highlighted the risk of fire and toxic fumes from large batteries. Some of these farms are planned for rural areas that fire engines may not be able to access. These are genuine concerns. Does the hon. Lady agree that local concerns need to be addressed before planning permission is approved?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The issue is clearly of great concern to my constituents in the village of Graveney and the nearby town of Faversham, who are living close to the solar plant and the battery installation. We need to get it right in Graveney, and then we can use the same approach to get it right in other places, because this is not the one and only large-scale battery installation we expect to see. As I have said, these installations are likely to be part of our future energy infrastructure, so we must get it right in Graveney and across the country.
The second area of concern, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is the impact of construction on local residents and, in my constituency, on the village of Graveney itself. Residents and schools have put up with many months of heavy construction traffic. It is down to the hard work of the community and people such as Mike Newman, the parish council chair, sitting down with the developer, that we now have an effective traffic management plan. That has mitigated the impact, and I recognise that the developer has played its part—for instance, by restricting lorry movements at certain times to accommodate the school—but even when construction ends, residents will be left with the consequences. Some houses have cracks in their walls thanks to the huge lorries thundering past day after day, and the lane through the village will need resurfacing. The community is looking to the developer and hoping that it will stick to its word and make good any damage, but the worry hangs over the village all the same, not least because no such requirement was part of the planning process, and nor is it set out in law.
That brings me to the final outstanding concern. When an unpopular planning decision is made locally, there is at least the silver lining of a section 106, or a community infrastructure levy contribution, which can go towards a new school, a GP surgery or a similar community facility, but not so with a nationally significant infrastructure project. I know that one of our challenges as a country is the time and cost required to build any new infrastructure, and I have no appetite to make that worse, but it is hard to stomach the fact that a small village such as Graveney could find itself hosting a power station, in effect, and have nothing by way of compensation.
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on securing the debate and giving us a chance to discuss an important topic, not just for her constituents. I hope she will understand, however, that due to the quasi-judicial role that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plays in taking decisions on applications for development consent for energy infrastructure proposals, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on matters related to any specific proposals.
Although the development consent order for Cleve Hill solar park was granted by the previous Government in 2020, as she said, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero may still be involved in any proceedings relating to the implementation of that order. As a result, I cannot comment today on the details of that project. The reasons for the decision and details of supporting plans are available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website, as the hon. Lady knows. I am afraid I cannot elaborate or speculate on that published material.
The hon. Member spoke eloquently about the importance of the site to her constituents—the views, the biodiversity and the birds, and the importance of wetlands. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I are working closely on nature-based solutions to climate change, and wetlands play an important role. I am also glad that the hon. Member acknowledged the importance of reaching our net zero objectives, with that mission for clean power, by 2030.
As I said, I cannot speak specifically about Cleve Hill, but I hope I can reassure her by speaking in general terms about Government policy. First, it ensures that all local impacts are considered in the planning process. Secondly, it makes a steadfast commitment that those who host clean-energy infrastructure should benefit from it. In order to achieve our goal of clean power by 2030, we will need to deploy various renewable energy sources. According to the recent National Energy System Operator clean power pathway report, we need to increase solar deployment from 15 GW to 47 GW. Along with onshore wind, solar is the cheapest clean power option available to us right now, making it an essential part of the UK’s energy mix. Without a substantial increase in solar deployment, the clean power mission becomes very difficult.
I come on to the issue of battery safety. I note that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said that members were given some reassurance at the community meeting she held but still have significant concerns about fire safety. As she knows, batteries are regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. The framework requires battery designers, installers and operators to take the necessary measures to ensure health and safety through all stages of the system’s construction, operation and decommissioning.
The Government have updated the planning practice guidance to encourage battery storage developers to engage with local fire and rescue services and for local planning authorities to refer to guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council, which I note the hon. Lady said was represented at the meeting she held. The health and safety framework for batteries is kept under review to respond to changing circumstances. In 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set up an industry-led electricity storage health and safety governance group, whose members include the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Environment Agency and DEFRA. That group is responsible for ensuring that an appropriate, robust and future-proofed health and safety framework is sustained. My Department worked with it to develop and publish health and safety guidance for grid-scale batteries that aims to improve the understanding of existing health and safety standards, which the battery storage industry should apply to its own processes.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent mentioned DEFRA. As I understand, DEFRA is considering further options, including environmental permitting, for managing the environmental and public health risks from fire at grid-scale sites. I am happy to speak to my colleague in DEFRA who is responsible for that and get back to the hon. Lady on her specific question—she will appreciate that I cannot answer on their behalf today. If her constituents require any further reassurances on the safety issue, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) will be happy to follow up on that in writing.
11:29 am
Sitting suspended.
As someone who has stood knee-high in flood water in my own home, I do not take the risk of flooding lightly. As many as 17,000 homes are at risk from rising sea levels along the north Kent coast. Unfortunately, the planning inspector considered the solar development only against the agriculture land use at the time. Instead of Graveney’s marshland being transformed into a haven for nature and a release for rising sea water, it has been transformed into an industrial zone.
Over the years since the solar scheme was announced, I have received hundreds of letters and emails from people asking me to stop it. I have worked with Graveney’s excellent parish council, the Save Graveney Marshes campaign group and the GREAT campaign. All have worked hard to give the community a voice in the planning system, but to no avail. As a nationally significant infrastructure project, the final decision was taken away from local residents and our local council. I am told that when planning inspectors recommended that the development go ahead, there was little room for the Secretary of State to go against their recommendation, even though only 15 out of 867 public representations supported the project. Like many people, I was gutted when it was approved but we are where we are.
Since then, my focus, like the campaign groups, has switched to trying to reduce the harm and risks to the local community, and trying to claw back some benefit. That is why I have secured this debate. I am here to raise the three main areas of concern expressed by my constituents: safety, disruption and damage, and compensation for the community, who now have an industrial site on their rural doorstep. This is important to my constituents, but important to communities around the country facing large-scale solar developments; they, too, will want to hear what reassurances the Minister can offer.
Added to that is the potential for a fivefold expansion of the battery proposal found in the site’s battery safety management plan. Although that may or may not happen in practice, physicist and former vice-chair of the Faversham Society, Professor Sir David Melville CBE, warns that the site does not have adequate space for such an increase in battery capacity while maintaining the 6-metre spacing between battery units that is advised by the National Fire Chiefs Council. In fact, the Kent Fire and Rescue Service was only satisfied with the site’s battery safety management plan on the basis of the 6-metre gap being adhered to.
I am not alone in raising these concerns formally. Swale borough council scrutinised and rejected the battery safety management plan earlier this year, but its rejection has been overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, leaving the community with unanswered questions and a feeling that they have no say in the matter.
I am not the first Member to raise these concerns. Just over a year ago, a former Energy Minister said the Government intended to consult on including battery storage systems in the environmental permitting regulations at the earliest opportunity. I take that to be an acknowledgment that the current system is not up to the job. In a written question in September, I asked Ministers for an update on the timetable for the consultation, and I received the following response:
“The Government agrees with the need to have robust measures in place to manage the risks associated with facilities that use large numbers of lithium-ion batteries. Defra is considering further options, including environmental permitting, for managing the environmental and public health risks from fires at BESS sites.”
When she sums up, will the Minister advise me whether the Government will be adding battery storage systems to the environmental permitting regulations? If so, when will the consultation take place? If not, what approach to ensuring the safety of large-scale batteries do the Government intend to take? In the meantime, could the Minister tell me what agency is responsible for ensuring the safety of this development? Who will be inspecting it before it is switched on, and how will she ensure that these batteries are safe? I have been in her shoes, albeit in a different brief, and that is a question I would have been asking myself.
This issue is important not just for Graveney, but for the whole country. Large-scale batteries look likely to be an important part of our future energy infrastructure, which means we need to do this properly. Residents’ concerns cannot be brushed aside as an inconvenience. We need a proper process that takes these worries seriously and ensures that large-scale battery installations are safe.
I am grateful to the developer for indicating that it will make a significant community contribution, and I know there is a discussion about the potential for a longer-lasting approach that could support the community over the lifetime of the project, as an alternative to a one-off. However, that begs the question of why the community is left relying on the good will of the developer. The Minister’s Government intend a big overhaul of the planning process, with the objective, rightly, of ensuring that we get better at building infrastructure. I suggest that one way to do that is to ensure that there is something in it for the local community, especially when, as is the case here, it bears the brunt, with no discernible local benefit.
I will sum up to give the Minister time to reply. With regret, I accept the reality of Cleve Hill solar, the UK’s largest solar installation, and the large-scale battery storage that comes with it. What I do not accept is the failure to address residents’ concerns about safety, the failure to give residents certainty about repairing the damage from construction, and the feeling that the community is on its own, negotiating compensation from the developer for the industrialisation of the marshland it holds so dear.
On all three counts, I seek the Minister’s assurance and action. To be clear, I am not advocating more red tape. This is about doing something better, not making it harder. If we get this right, we can improve how we build energy infrastructure in this country. That is important because we need more renewable energy generation capacity to meet our future energy needs, in a world where economic growth is likely to be dependent on energy-intensive computing power. All our futures depend on that, so let us ensure that we get it right, starting right here, right now, with Cleve Hill solar.
That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relaunched the solar taskforce earlier this year. It is also the reason that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), who has this portfolio, cannot reply to the debate, because he is at a meeting of the solar taskforce. The taskforce brings together the industry and Government to discuss the actions needed to rapidly increase the deployment of solar panels on rooftops and in solar farms, and it will publish its recommendations in a solar road map very soon.
We should never lose sight of the core motivation behind our clean energy mission. Clean power generated here in Britain will reduce our dependence on volatile imported fossil fuels. It will provide lower bills in the long term and create thousands of highly skilled future-proofed jobs across the country. Delivering those benefits for the British people requires the development of new infrastructure. We accept that a top priority should be the deployment of solar on rooftops. That is why we are bringing forward new standards to ensure that all newly built houses and commercial buildings are fit for a net zero future. We will encourage the installation of solar panels on those buildings where appropriate.
But we know that our mission will require more ground-mounted solar too, and decisive reform to the planning system is urgently needed to support that. As the Prime Minister said last week, we will streamline the approval process in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill. As part of the new plan for change, in which the Prime Minister set out the milestones in how the Government will deliver on our national missions, we will work towards the new target of 150 major infrastructure projects, including energy projects. That will mean tripling the number of decisions on national infrastructure, compared with the previous Parliament. We recognise the impact that such new energy projects can have on local communities and the environment. The Government are committed to striking the right balance between those considerations when delivering the clean power mission.
All proposed solar projects are subject to a robust planning process. Most projects are assessed by local planning authorities themselves, and those assessments are governed by the national planning policy framework, which encourages developers to engage with local communities before submitting an application. Local planning authorities will continue to seek representations from local communities and will continue to weigh local considerations against the need for renewable energy.
As the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said, larger projects such as the Cleve Hill solar park are decided centrally through the nationally significant infrastructure regime. That is a rigorous process. Developers whose projects qualify for the assessment must complete considerable community engagement before any decision is taken, and decision makers take into account its level and quality.
We recognise that new infrastructure can have an impact on the local community, and the planning system is designed to take account of the social, cultural, economic and environmental effects. Indeed, all large-scale solar developers are legally obliged to complete an environmental statement as part of any application for development consent. The hon. Members for Faversham and Mid Kent and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised disruption, which will be considered as part of the environmental statement.
The statement requires the developer to consider the potential environmental impact of a project, not just during the construction phase but during its life. It spans pre-development, construction and operation, all the way to decommissioning. The statement is a helpful tool that allows planning authorities to review any significant effects on biodiversity or the environment. I know the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent is committed to improving the natural environment, and she spoke eloquently about her vision for that part of her constituency. There is some evidence to suggest that solar can improve biodiversity when installed and managed appropriately. The environmental management plan for Cleve Hill includes commitments to build a habitat management area of 56 hectares, which is predicted to increase on-site biodiversity by 65%.
I want to touch briefly on the use of agricultural land for solar. I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Government recognise that food security is linked to national security, and that we will always back British farming. In previous years, we worked together on the all-party parliamentary group for fruit and vegetable farmers, which she chaired, so I gained some knowledge of the importance she attaches to standing up for farmers in her constituency.
Planning guidance makes it clear that developers should situate their projects on brownfield or industrial sites whenever possible. Where the development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, developers are steered away from using the best and most versatile land, and we have no plans to change that. We do not believe, however, that the accelerated deployment of solar power poses a threat to food security. The total area of land devoted to solar farms nationally is very small. Even in the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. My colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are developing a land use framework, which will consider issues such as food security and how we can expand nature-rich habitats. The framework will work hand in hand with the strategic spatial energy plan.
May I just ask, Dr Huq, will the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent be given a minute to respond?
In the few minutes I have left, I turn to community benefits. We absolutely understand that we need to fully engage with communities and bring them along with us on our clean power mission, which includes public engagement and consultation. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent asked specifically about community benefits. We know that communities are providing a service to the country as a whole when they host clean energy infrastructure, so there need to be benefits for them. Sometimes there is a direct benefit where the infrastructure is owned by the community—the benefit goes straight back into the community, whether it is through solar panels on a village hall or one of many other examples—but we are considering how best to deliver those community benefits to host communities. That includes looking at existing examples in Europe and further afield to see what has worked well.
A wide variety of community benefits can be delivered, including funding for local projects, investment in the local area, direct benefits to individuals and, as I said, opportunities for community ownership. Great British Energy will build on existing community energy schemes, helping communities to unlock opportunities through the local power plan. In the hon. Lady’s constituency, up to 1,400 homes are powered by Orchard Community Energy, which is a community-owned solar farm near Sittingbourne that provides power to Swale and Medway. That puts communities at the heart of the energy transition and gives them a stake in the transition to net zero as owners and partners in clean energy projects.
As I said, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North, is today at the meeting of the solar taskforce, which brings together industry and Government. It is considering the question of how a community can benefit from the infrastructure that is hosted on their patch, and its recommendations will be published in the solar road map.
To conclude, the Government are committed to considering the interests of local communities affected by proposed energy infrastructure. I thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent for securing the debate and for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government’s vision. We will work to balance the local impact of new projects with the delivery of our clean power mission. The renewable energy transition will always be done through co-operation rather than coercion, ensuring that all parties benefit on our journey to net zero.