How and where should renewable energy best be generated in the Staffordshire Moorlands? This is a question that has exercised some of the district’s residents in the last few years but is one that will come into even sharper focus with the advent of a new government determined to meet its legal requirements under the 2008 Climate Act and to decarbonise electricity generation by 2030.
The government has already lifted the de facto ban on wind turbines and has proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework that would give more weight to the benefits of renewable energy applications when they come before a Planning Committee. Each council will also be required for the first time to identify sites they deem suitable for renewable energy.
At Moorlands Climate Action, we clearly welcome this decisive shift away from the uncertainty of the last few years, believing that everyone deserves access to clean, affordable and home-grown energy. We also believe that a council that (under a different administration) freely committed to Net Zero by 2030 and set targets for renewable energy, is honour bound to try and achieve them.
But we also recognise that renewable energy is a complex and emotive subject, one that may involve trade-offs between different ambitions for land, and something on which people may legitimately hold differing views.
Above all, we believe that the debate on this subject should be as informed as possible, that different sections of the community should be able to have their say and, where projects go ahead, benefits should accrue to those closest to them.
With the review of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan starting this year, residents and their representatives will have a chance for the first time to have their say on the subject.
We have already in our small way, attempted to broaden this debate, devising a fun ‘Moorlands Land Use Game’ which we have taken to events across the district (the picture shows Cllr Joe Porter playing it at Leek Show).
We will be returning to the subject of exactly where renewable energy might best fit in the district in later pieces (along with wind power and whether solar targets can be met on rooftops as the Council for the Protection of Rural England argues).
This article aims to outline some of the main issues in the solar energy debate, tries to give a local flavour, and for those interested in going beyond soundbites, provide links to further reading.
Two of the leading arguments advanced against solar projects are that they take up valuable farming land and that they harm biodiversity. First, use of farming land. There are a number of competing figures on land and solar. A recent study conducted by trade body Solar Energy UK estimated that 0.1% of UK land is currently used for solar; the Climate Change Committee estimates that to meet the government targets of 90GW of solar by 2050 would require 0.6% of UK land. CPRE put the figure higher at up to 1.4%.
As a fact checking document produced by Carbon Brief showed, this is a higher proportion of the land than is actually used for agriculture, though still far less than used for golf courses. Furthermore, solar farms are strongly guided by planning regulations to take up less productive land – only around 5% nationally is estimated to rely on what is called Best and Most Versatile land (Grade 1 to 3a). This is a pattern that has been followed in applications in the Moorlands, with BMV land typically forming a very small percentage of applications.
The attitude of the farming community towards solar is mixed; while some understandably see it a threat, it is individual farmers, of course, who are leasing their land to project sponsors, reaching for a diversified income stream. Total farm income dropped 19% in 2023, driven by price volatility and bad weather. Indeed, Defra's 2021 United Kingdom Food Security Report highlighted the reduction in yields and the loss of prime land caused by climate change as ‘the biggest medium- and long-term threat to UK food security’.
The National Farmers Union takes a generally supportive and balanced view on renewable projects, pointing to its role in supporting businesses, but stressing the need to avoid BMV land. The NFU runs its own renewable energy advice scheme for members.
Advocates of renewable energy frequently claim that forms of agriculture can be continued on solar farms; it clearly can be, and is. As a recent article in Farmers Weekly shows, more UK farmers are following examples from the Continent and combining crops or pasture with solar energy. But this sector is in its infancy, likely to be limited in nature and no figures can be found as to how much agrivoltaics actually contributes to UK food production. In the Moorlands, sheep grazing among solar panels seem so far to remain firmly on the page of project sponsors’ brochures.
Likewise, the oft-repeated claim that solar farms are reversible in nature and can be returned unharmed or even enhanced for agricultural purposes (because the land lies fallow or is subject to less intensive grazing and use of chemicals). It is true that planning law deems the structures as temporary, and that the actual structural work associated with the panels is limited to a small proportion of the site. But their 40 years’ permission is more than half of most people’s lifetimes and the solar industry is too recent for there to be much evidence on this score. A study commissioned by the Welsh government on solar and soil quality was inconclusive, saying more research was needed.
On biodiversity, the arguments sound compelling but the lack of a track record also makes definitive conclusions hard to arrive at. Crucially, what may be good for grasses and soils may be bad for birds, or vice versa. What applies in one habitat may not apply in another. A 2017 Natural England evidence review argued that ‘the lack of evidence available relating to the ecological impact of solar farms is concerning. It has led to authoritative organisations making speculative arguments and publishing information that on occasion appears to conflict.’
Despite the growth in the domestic solar industry, research remains patchy and when at large scale often relates to other countries such as the US. What is needed is research that relates to live projects in the UK. There are a few such, including this one underway at Keele University's solar array.
One encouraging study on solar farms on arable or intensive pasture suggested that some sites in the South of England were indeed reacting to good ecological management practices. On that score, it is important to note that solar farms, like all major developments, are now subject to mandatory biodiversity net gain. This requires sponsors of solar farms to deliver at least a 10% ‘uplift’ in biodiversity and a 30-year habitat management plan. While that is certainly a major change for the good (at least one of the Moorlands pre-BNG solar sites does not appear to be managed at all for ecology) and the ecology plans and numbers look impressive on paper, much will depend on how well these plans are monitored and delivered. Early national signs on this are slightly concerning, with most of the ‘gains’ on-site, very much in the hands of the developer, and enforcement options weak.
There is nothing in planning law to stop a developer selling the project on to another with less reputational risk; nor is there much in an application (or in law) that allows for a planning committee to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ developer.
Applications for solar farms in the Staffordshire Moorlands have largely focused on the corridor adjoining the main 400Kv power line from Drakelow to Macclesfield, as well as the associated National Grid Substation at Cellarhead.
Though understandably unwelcome to some (not all) residents, the (much smaller) group of approved projects has paradoxically created an opportunity for monitoring of the long-term relationship between renewable energy and biodiversity – and in our own district. Whether this opportunity is taken up, and by whom, remains to be seen.