UK news

Protect Farmland, Preserve Food: Why Solar Panels Belong on Rooftops and Brownfield Sites

By |2025-01-07T15:17:26+00:00January 7th, 2025|

Protect Farmland, Preserve Food: Why Solar Panels Belong on Rooftops and Brownfield Sites

The dispute over the deployment of solar panels on valuable agricultural land in the UK is sparking widespread interest. Critics contend that large-scale solar farms on fertile farmland jeopardise food production and detract from the countryside’s natural beauty. They are pushing for alternate solar installation sites such as brownfield sites, car & lorry parks and rooftops. And the facts and figures behind this are persuasive.

Impact on Food Production

The UK government emphasises the importance of protecting ‘Best and Most Versatile’ (BMV) agricultural land, which is classified as Grades 1, 2, and 3a. This land is deemed most suitable for producing food and should be preserved for agricultural use. Guidelines suggest that large solar projects should avoid BMV land and instead utilise brownfield sites, contaminated land, industrial areas, and lower-quality agricultural land to prevent compromising the UK’s food security.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) argues that there is sufficient space for solar panels on rooftops, brownfield sites and car parks to meet the UK’s solar power targets without encroaching on valuable farmland.

Alternative Sites for Solar Installations

Brownfield sites, previously developed lands that may be contaminated or derelict, present viable alternatives for solar farms. These sites are often unsuitable for agriculture or housing but can be repurposed for renewable energy projects. Developing solar farms on brownfield sites can revitalise these areas and contribute to energy production without affecting food supply.

Car parks and rooftops also offer substantial potential for solar energy generation. Installing solar panels on these surfaces can provide clean energy directly to the buildings they serve, reducing transmission losses and enhancing energy efficiency. This approach minimises the need to use agricultural land for energy production.

Government Policy and Public Opinion

The UK government has reiterated its commitment to balancing energy security with food production. In recent statements, officials have emphasised that solar projects should be developed on non-agricultural land to protect food security. This policy direction aligns with public concerns about the use of farmland for non-agricultural purposes.

A recent poll indicates that nearly 90% of voters believe safeguarding UK-produced food is as important as securing domestic energy supplies. This sentiment underscores the public’s desire to prioritise food security alongside renewable energy development.

Conclusion

While the expansion of renewable energy is crucial for meeting climate goals, it is essential to consider the implications of land use decisions. Utilising brownfield sites, car parks, and rooftops for solar installations can achieve energy targets without compromising food production or the beauty of our countryside. This balanced approach ensures that the UK can advance its renewable energy agenda while preserving its agricultural heritage and food security.

Sources:

  • Solar projects must fit in with food security – GOV.UK
    GOV.UK
  • Planning for solar farms – UK Parliament
    Research Briefings
  • Brownfield solar farms – Ethical Power
    Ethical Power
  • Focus on fishing and food security, say voters – The Times
    The Times

Should Thames Water be allowed to fail ?

By |2025-01-02T17:00:14+00:00December 31st, 2024|

Thames Water, the UK’s largest water provider with nearly 16 million users, is currently facing serious financial issues. Should it be allowed to fall into administration?

As of December 2024, the company’s debt exceeded £19 billion, raising questions about its operational viability and the likelihood for government intervention.

It recorded an operational deficit of £189 million in the first half of 2024, attributable to pollution penalties, consultancy payouts, and losses on inter-company loans. The corporation also faced exceptional charges of £465 million, including a £104 million provision for anticipated fines and a £40 million restructuring program.

This significant debt burden has stretched its financial resources, limiting its capacity to invest in critical infrastructure projects. Thomas Water has stated that it may run out of money by March 2025.

A 40% increase in pollution events has resulted in substantial fines, severely stressing the company’s budget. Thames Water was fined £18.2 million by Ofwat in December 2024 for violating dividend regulations on payments made in 2023 and 2024. Ofwat also stated that it will “claw back value” to recover £131 million of the payments.

Should Thames Water be allowed to fail ?

Thames Water is currently seeking permission for a potential £3 billion financial rescue package to address its current financial challenges – but will a new bail-out be merely “kicking the can down the road” ?

As an alternative, going into administration would support a full restructuring of the company’s operations, allowing a greater focus on efficiency and service quality without the immediate strain of debt commitments. This procedure then gets an opportunity to fix the root causes that have hampered the company’s performance over years of managed decline.

Administration allows the opportunity to reorganise or reduce the company’s significant debt, relieving financial pressures and creating a more sustainable economic model, thus increasing the company’s capacity to invest in vital infrastructure and environmental initiative.

A government-appointed administrator would verify that the company’s activities are in the public’s best interests, potentially leading to increased environmental compliance and customer service standards. This oversight has the potential to rebuild public trust while also ensuring regulatory compliance.

The administration of such a large utility may encourage a rethinking of the regulatory and ownership arrangements in the UK’s water industry, potentially leading to broader reforms that benefit both consumers and the environment. This may involve talks on alternative ownership arrangements, such as mutual or cooperative structures.

What are the potential downsides and risks ?

Going into administration, it will be critical to provide service continuity throughout: uninterrupted water supply and wastewater services during the transition period to preserve public health and safety.

The restructuring process will cause job uncertainty for Thames Water’s personnel, needing appropriate communication and support measures to address employee concerns.

To the financial markets, allowing a large utility to fall into administration might have a broader impact on investor confidence in the UK’s regulated industries, potentially influencing future investment and financing in the sector. 

It will be critical to strike a compromise between Thames Water’s immediate requirements and the industry’s overall stability but the question remains: why shouldn’t Thames Water be allowed to fail and give us an opportunity to reset and renew, as a template for the UK water industry going forward, utilising a new mutual or cooperative model ?

Go to Top