Selby & Ainsty MP Keir Mather (Lab) met with concerned residents last week to hear their views regarding plans for a huge solar farm to the west of Camblesforth, North Yorkshire. A planning application for the 190 MW ‘Helios’ installation on 476 hectares (1176 acres) of prime farm land was formally accepted by the Planning Inspectorate on 30 July under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning (NSIP) process.
Mather chaired the public meeting on Thursday evening at Camblesforth Methodist Chapel, a more appropriate venue to discuss solar farming being difficult to imagine. Behind him, a stained glass window depicted bright yellow sunbeams bearing down onto Brigg Lane.
He implied the project had both supporters and detractors, although, to me, the eighty or so residents packed into the tiny chapel seemed unanimous in opposition. The MP, elected last month with an increased majority, explained that as an assistant whip he was unable to speak in debates in the House but pledged to write to Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, setting out their concerns.
No one appeared to object to solar panels per se and several people revealed they had some on their own roofs, it was the sheer scale of this project and others that they were most worried about.
The NSIP process
Residents were advised they have three months to submit comments to the inspectorate before the public hearings begin. A six month examination phase will follow after which inspectors will prepare a report for Miliband who will have a further 90 days to make a final decision, probably sometime in mid 2025.
Mather was at pains to assure residents the decision would be ‘evidence based’ and not political, although sceptics might note that Miliband recently approved the 500MW Sunnica solar farm near Newmarket in Cambridgeshire expressly against the inspector’s recommendation, after months of detailed evidence gathering.
Camblesforth solar farm: objections
One lady who was adamant that decisions about Helios should not be taken by “posh southerners” is bound to be disappointed. The planning inspectorate is based in Bristol and NSIP is explicitly designed to remove local decision making. Although Miliband represents a Doncaster constituency, he lives in the London suburb of Dartmouth Park.
Another lady referred to the risk of fires as set out in a 2018 Building Research Establishment (BRE) report which I believe is this one HERE. Others feared that Camblesforth would be enveloped in toxic fumes driven by the prevailing westerlies if some of the 100 or so battery storage and inverter systems spontaneously combusted.
Several people raised the issue of the lifetime carbon footprint of solar panels including the mining of raw materials, the production and transport to site, the operation and use over their lifespan and during the disposal process. One asked if Helios had calculated the point when the solar farm would achieve its own net zero status. Another questioned if the UK had facilities to recycle any photo-voltaic panels at all.
Others were concerned about the negative effect on wild-life and bio-diversity. The projects impact on local house prices was also raised. On the latter point, Councillor Mike Jordan (Reform UK Limited) a planning committee member, pointed out that property values are not a consideration – or to use the jargon, a material consideration – in any planning matter.
What can affect the planning decision?
I fear many of the objections, well meant and rightly concerning for those raising them, are not going to create any headaches for the applicant. Plenty of solar farm projects have already been approved so arguments about fire risk or visual amenity for example have been aired many times and overcome by planning conditions.
To illustrate this point, let me quote Kenneth Stone, a planning inspector, from his 452-page report into a 500MW solar farm at Gate Burton Energy Park in Lincolnshire:
“I consider that, with appropriate mitigation secured through the rDCO [recommended Development Consent Order], the effects on air quality, ecology, major accidents, noise and vibration, other socio-economic effects, traffic and transportation, the water environment and waste and recycling do not affect the overall planning balance.”
In short, you can forget all those things. Planning inspectors try to be consistent and if the effects listed didn’t have any impact on Gate Burton, they almost certainly won’t affect Helios or any other project either.
What objectors really need to consider
Opponents should try to identify issues that are (a) unique to Helios, (b) clearly material considerations and (c) not easily mitigated. It means reading and becoming familiar with planning laws, rules and guidance which are valid and to which the inspector must give ‘weight’ when making a determination. These are the genuine ‘material considerations’.
Planning is all about balance. On one side of the imaginary scales is the urgent need for clean energy to meet the government’s target of ensuring all of the UK’s electricity comes from low carbon sources by 2035, including a five-fold increase in solar power. On the other are the harms that could accrue from the development. Provided the scales can be tilted sufficiently against the project, it won’t proceed.
The two heaviest issues in my opinion are the cumulative impacts and the use of so much BMV (best and most versatile) agricultural land.
Miliband approves three new solar farms
Firstly, it’s helpful to look at the three projects Milliband approved in July, just a week after his appointment, since they give an insight into the Planning Inspectorate’s current thinking. These are:
1. Sunnica 500 MW Solar Farm located north east of Newmarket in Cambridgeshire on a sprawling 1,113 hectare site using mainly agricultural land. It connects to a 400Kv sub-station at Burwell. There is no other energy generating infrastructure as far as I can see. The amount of BMV land is disputed, The original ALC (agricultural land classification) survey put it at just 3.8% but the others claimed it was much more and it is now believed 82% of the site has a 60% chance of being BMV, roughly half.
The inspector recommended rejecting the application “principally in terms of landscape and visual amenity, and effects on the setting of heritage assets, the horseracing industry and agriculture. The ExA [Examining Authority] considers that all these adverse impacts clearly outweigh the public benefits that would accrue from the Proposed Development.”
Miliband rejected that conclusion and granted development consent but could still face a judicial review. Opponents have six weeks to begin proceedings with the outcome crucial to Helios and other large scale projects on BMV land.
2. Mallard Pass, a 350MW solar farm about 10km north of Stamford on 852 hectares of farmland. It connects to Ryhall 400Kv sub-station, again with little in the way of other energy infrastructure as far as I can see. About 42% of the site is BMV land.
The inspector recommended approval.
3. Gate Burton is a 500MW solar farm on 652 hectares of agricultural land between Lincoln and Gainsborough. The grid connection is made at the now decommissioned Cottam power station in Nottinghamshire, currently being demolished, so again no other energy infrastructure. Just 11% of the site is BMV land.
There are other solar farms proposed nearby and the inspector recommended approval but added:
“My conclusions have considered the potential cumulative effects, and the recommendation has had regard to the potential effects. These are, however, potential schemes which have not yet obtained consent and the SoS will need to have regard to the position of the schemes at the point of decision on this scheme and whether that affects the weight that would need to be ascribed to them.”
In other words, Gate Burton is the first (and therefore no cumulative issues) of several potential solar farms but at some point the collective impact needs to taken into consideration.
So, what are these so-called ‘cumulative effects’?
Cumulative impacts
At Thursday’s meeting one objector’s heartfelt comment was that Camblesforth had already done its bit in helping to supply the nations power. He received a polite round of applause. This could turn out to be a key consideration for the inspector. It is the essence of these cumulative effects.
The National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3) recognises that larger renewable energy developments will need to find connections to the transmission network where there is “available network capacity and/or supportive infrastructure”.
The authors must have realised this would inevitably lead to projects clustered around certain locations – like Drax – and expressly say the impact of many projects in one location should be considered:
“Where this is the case, applicants should consider the cumulative impacts of situating a solar farm in proximity to other energy generating stations and infrastructure” (my emphasis).
Let’s look at what ‘other energy infrastructure’ is in close proximity, that makes the Helios application unique. Immediately east of Camblesforth is Drax Power Station, operational since 1974. It was once the largest coal-fired plant in Europe, now converted to bio-mass providing 11% of the UK’s renewable energy (2022).
Unlike Cottam, it is not to be decommissioned and is in fact being expanded.
In May 2022, Selby District Council approved a battery storage system on part of an agricultural field to the east side of New Road, behind Drax power station. On this specific decision, Councillor John Mackman (Con), a former deputy leader of Selby District Council and lead executive member for place shaping, who objected to the plan, said at some point the cumulative impact of all these facilities would become an issue as the area does not want to be “swamped”.
Since then, there have been at least seven other projects started, approved or announced involving energy infrastructure centred around Drax Power Station and Camblesforth.
At Camela Lane close to the northern village boundary of Camblesforth, work has started on a 50MW solar farm on 113 hectares, approved in July 2022 by Selby District Council (SDC). In the same month, Boom Power was granted permission for another 50MW solar farm on 77 hectares near Osgodby slightly further north.
In January 2024 a proposal to install two bioenergy with carbon capture and storage systems (BECCS) at a cost of £2bn on land to the north west of Drax power station was approved for construction by NSIP.
To the south of Camblesforth, another 50MW solar array on 166 hectares at Wade House Lane was approved in April 2024 by North Yorkshire Council. Last month YLEM Energy submitted a request for a screening opinion for a battery storage system on two hectares of land in a zone three flood area on the east side of Station Road, Camblesforth
A few days ago, SSEN Transmission announced a multi-billion pound subsea link between England and Peterhead in Aberdeenshire with the final connection running overland from Bridlington and terminating at Drax.
Boom Power have another application currently going through NSIP for the East Yorks solar farm of some 400MW on 1102 hectares of agricultural land (less than 8% BMV) east of Drax on the opposite bank of the River Ouse and linked to Drax via a grid connection corridor running 400m north of Drax village. That application is already in the examination phase and is likely to be determined before Helios.
Helios will add another 190MW of solar energy on 476 hectares of land (over 97% BMV) to the west of Camblesforth, effectively surrounding the village with new solar and renewable energy infrastructure projects amounting to over 2,100 hectares (8 square miles), excluding Drax power station itself. The applicant has even submitted a list of 13 schemes which they believe the inspector needs to take into account in the cumulative effect assessment, which must be some sort a record.
It is hard to imagine that the drafters of EN-3 could have had a better example in mind than Helios of an application too far. There is certainly an urgent need for new, clean, renewable sources of energy but the responsibility cannot fall disproportionately on Drax Power station and the residents of Camblesforth to provide it.
Objectors in my opinion have a good case on these grounds. If Helios is approved, one has to question what paragraph 2.10.26 of EN-3 is actually doing. When is enough considered enough?
BMV Land
This is the second strong argument against Helios. The project uses over 97% prime farm land known to be BMV. The planning rules don’t preclude the use of BMV land for any purpose but is usually the absolute last to be considered.
EN-3 on renewable energy says:
“While land type should not be a predominating factor in determining the suitability of the site location applicants should, where possible, utilise suitable previously developed land, brownfield land, contaminated land and industrial land.
Where the proposed use of any agricultural land has been shown to be necessary, poorer quality land should be preferred to higher quality land avoiding the use of ‘Best and Most Versatile’ agricultural land where possible. Best and Most Versatile agricultural land is defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification.”
While EN-1 Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy says:
“The Secretary of State should ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification. Where schemes are to be sited on best and most versatile agricultural land the Secretary of State should take into account the economic and other benefits of that land. Where development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality.”
As far as I have been able to discover, no other large scale solar energy project uses a site which is virtually all BMV land and, particularly coupled with the cumulative impacts, it seems hard to justify for an area which already contributes so much to the UK’s renewable energy needs.
Is it reasonable? I am not sure that it is.
The 40-year lifespan
The 40-year time limit set by the applicant is voluntary. EN-3 says: “An upper limit of 40 years is typical, although applicants may seek consent without a time period or for differing time-periods for operation.”
The Mallard Pass application was originally open-ended but eventually set at 60-years. When the consent expires, operators are in any case free to apply to extend the planning permission or decommission the solar panels and return the site it to agricultural use.
One lady at last week’s meeting pointed out, not unreasonably, that many solar farms with the same 40-year time limit will be approved between now and 2030 and asked what happens in the mid 2060s when they all start approaching the end of their life? Do the lights go out?
I would say no. Who is going to voluntarily give up a guaranteed income, abandon a cash generating machine with negligible operating costs and return to the hard graft of running an arable farm, assuming the then very wealthy landowners actually want to do so?
Cllr Jordan also reminded the room that when the Selby coal field developments went through planning 40 years ago, sites like Wistow, Stillingfleet, Gascoigne Wood and others were approved with planning conditions attached that required the developments be returned to agricultural use when they were no longer needed.
All mining in Selby ceased in 2004 but the sites are now being redeveloped for other industrial purposes. None have been returned to agricultural use. I wouldn’t give any credence to suggestions the Helios site will ever see another harvest if the project is given the go ahead.
The applicant
No one at Thursday’s meeting mentioned the applicant. It may come as a surprise to some that the developer is not an energy provider like EDF for example, but a rapacious venture capitalist based in Sydney, Australia.
Enso Energy is just the front for a complex web of companies ultimately controlled by The Macquarie Group which owned troubled Thames Water between 2006 and 2017 leaving it currently staggering under a £15bn debt mountain and at risk of financial collapse.
Meanwhile, Macquarie’s chief executive Shemara Wikramanayake is the highest paid CEO in Australia earning £16mn (A$32.8mn) a year and even he isn’t the highest paid employee. That title goes to the head of Macquarie’s commodities and global markets division, Nick O’Kane, who took home £28.8mn (A$57.6mn) in the last financial year.
Macquarie is known as the ‘vampire kangaroo’ and not without good reason. The group specialises in investing in and mismanaging utility infrastructure while maximising dividends, often through debt. It is currently wringing Southern Water dry and recently acquired the final few percent of the UK’s National Gas grid.
Few companies can claim to have been accused by a crown court judge of “inadequate investment, diabolical maintenance and poor management”. Macquarie is one of them. You would have to look hard to find anyone less qualified to run any part of Britain’s energy network. I should add that this is not a material consideration, although perhaps it should be.
For those interested, the NSIP website containing details of the Helios Renewable Energy Project can be found HERE and the applicants own website can be seen HERE.
To make representations on the applications you need to register. The Planning Inspectorate website gives details how to do that HERE. Registration will be open for at least 30 days during the pre-examination phase.
More from Yorkshire Bylines
