Solar farm plans refused at highest rate for five years in Great Britain

[AE-NMidlands]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... at-britain

Exclusive: Projects which would have cut annual electricity bills by £100m turned down
Solar farms are being refused planning permission in Great Britain at the highest rate in five years, analysis has found, with projects which would have cut £100m off annual electricity bills turned down in the past 18 months.

Planning permission for 23 solar farms was refused across England, Wales and Scotland between January 2021 and July 2022, which could have produced enough renewable energy to power an estimated 147,000 homes annually, according to analysis of government figures by the planning and development consultancy Turley.

The refusals have jumped significantly since the start of 2021 – the research found only four projects were refused planning permission during 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 combined.
/snip/
There are fears such refusals could increase further as the Tory leadership contenders, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, have made disparaging comments about solar farms.
South-west and eastern England had the highest number of refusals in the last 18 months, with four projects turned down in each region. Wales, the West Midlands and Scotland each had three refusals, while the east Midlands, north-east and south-east of England each had two planning applications turned down...
If Truss proceeds with her plans to crack down on solar farms she would be going against the government’s energy security strategy published this spring.

Depressing. On what planet (and in which century) do these people live?

[Moxi]

But its ok because they can afford to pay their bills and they don't care about us just as long as theirs enough income to tax going in to their coffers then we can fend for ourselves.........

Moxi

[Pat]

..enough renewable energy to power an estimated 147,000 homes annually...

How can supposedly intelligent people make up these scientifically meaningless 'facts'?

[AGT]

Lots of infrastructure can’t cope with the generation load

[Oldgreybeard]

Lots of infrastructure can’t cope with the generation load

That can be solved though, and isn't related to planning consent.

The planners can (and do) approve things that cannot ever be built. Years ago we nearly bought a plot of land with planning consent for a house, found part way through the legal stuff that half of the land didn't belong to the person selling it and the planning consent wasn't worth anything, as the house couldn't be built.

Those that invest in solar farms have to pay for the reinforcement work to the grid, just like all developers have to, and anyone that puts in a planning application will have factored that in beforehand, as if the sums don't add up it wouldn't be worth putting in an application.

[AGT]

I do agree with you, just that what’s the point in going to planning and then told the grid won’t be reinforced for 5 years…

[Oldgreybeard]

I do agree with you, just that what’s the point in going to planning and then told the grid won’t be reinforced for 5 years…

The point is that no solar farm developer will get as far as the initial consultation, let alone consider submitting a planning application, without having got all their ducks in a row with regard to the grid connection. costs and timescales For a time I was part of a local renewable energy coop looking to get two solar farms plus a small hydro system installed near the village. We spent months sorting out the costs and the timescale for the grid connections, long before starting the planning process. The planning was the last stage, after working out all the costs, getting leases for the land, consulting with the locals, etc.

These cases in the first post all relate to planning consent having been refused, so all the hurdles for getting a grid connection etc would have already been dealt with.

[Mr Gus]

Shame there was not a list of reasons for refusal, likely we'd have some perspective, ..how many were for taking good grazing / growing land out of service? (for instance) compared to sympathetic dual use solar "farm" projects !?

[Oldgreybeard]

It's interesting to look at land use efficiency in energy terms. The very worst energy efficiency is grazing, the conversion ratio is very, very low, around 1% or so. High yield crops are a great deal better, typically around 3% to 4% for grain, maybe 5% for crops like rape. Using land for biomass can be a little better, some fast growing crops, like miscanthus, can yield as much as 7% or so. All these pale into insignificance when compared to solar panels though, where getting around 15% usable energy efficiency per unit area is easy.

Combining solar panels with low yield grazing with sheep or goats gives the best of both worlds, as although there is a slight reduction in meat yield per unit area, there is also a reduction in maintenance cost which balances that out to some extent.

[Mr Gus]

I understand OGB, but public perception is likely a governing factor of "losing the countryside to industrialisation" ( possibly metal panel fencing popping up around the perimeter too, which Looks bloody awful on a couple of drives past them round here)

The other fear may be procurement of land by big investment groups who then flog the land as housing, crushing water pressure, sewage plant services, roads, doctors, school capacity et c to build more shonkily built squeezed in plasterboard mansions.

Our local council are trying to flog productive crop land on a flood plain for housing.. which it climate change is to be believed & mapping for flood projections taken seriously will be under water (they'd already approved it for housing)energy

Which is why rather than simply headline reportage there needs to be contextual reasons printed for refusal, tallied & printed (lazy
journalism otherwise)

We need to look at land potential & use thereafter, the ideal (fluffy ones maybe) is returned to previous state, but likely not, & whether land is sold or rented is never clear, ..if sold that's a whole new level of potential for An investment company portfolio who only give a damp about the bottom line & likely have naff all green credentials past, this makes money now, ideals.

So refusals may be on a variety of nuclear grounds beyond nimbyism.
Change is inevitable, where once ponies grazed & centuries old hedgerows grew is now concrete, a morrisons, a costas, a "mcsh1te" burger shack st al, on the edge of town .. countryside no more.

Without explanation is only speculation, & the crops + solar farming is about where the prius was in 2006, hardly known about lest utilised by more than a smidgen of society.