As a Conservative, it is one of my core beliefs that we leave behind a better environmental inheritance for future generations. As such, I am increasingly worried by the hugely negative impact Labour’s renewables infrastructure rollout (supported by the Green Party) is having on our environment – on our farmland, our beautiful and historic landscapes, our peatlands, woodlands and moorlands. We seem to be destroying nature in order to save it as we carpet the land with industrial solar farms and scar it with giant metal windmills.
So, I do share the genuine concerns many people have about the impact large-scale solar and wind farms can have on our rural environment here in the UK. Around the country, communities are seeing large areas of the countryside being handed over to developers, displacing local farmers and making the UK more reliant on imports from major polluters such as China for our energy infrastructure.
Every year, tens of thousands of acres of essential agricultural land are being lost to vast arrays of solar panel installations in open countryside. This represents a significant economic cost, particularly for local rural communities and a broader impact on the national economy I believe the Government can no longer justify.
This conversion of farmland and countryside into industrial renewables ‘farms’ is devastating for tourism and the visual character of rural Britain, while also raising serious concerns for food security. Farmers and rural businesses depend on access to productive land, and its loss directly undermines both local livelihoods and the long-term sustainability of UK food production.
With regard to the location of solar farms, it is imperative the best and most versatile agricultural land is protected. I believe it is crucial local planning authorities should focus on using previously developed land and non-agricultural land for large-scale solar farm development, so long as the land is not of high environmental value. Food security is an essential part of our national security and while solar and farming can be complementary, developers should have serious consideration for ongoing food production.
I supported the previous Conservative Government's decision to update national planning policy to make clear that the availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered when deciding what sites are most appropriate for development. The purpose of this was to ensure the availability of land for food production is adequately weighted in the planning process. I was therefore concerned the Labour Government pressed ahead with removing this from national planning policy.
It is also really important to address the cumulative impact of large-scale solar farms, given that we are increasingly seeing geographical clustering of proposed solar developments in some areas which is having devastating effects on local communities as well as local landscapes.
I am aware that recent modelling highlights the inefficiency of large-scale solar in the UK climate. 'Capacity factors', which measure the ratio of actual energy output to maximum possible output, are as low as 9.5 per cent to 11 per cent across an average year. Performance drops further in winter months, when daylight is limited and energy demand is at its peak. This level of inefficiency means that vast areas of land are being used to generate relatively little electricity, raising valid questions about the long-term viability of open-field solar as a cornerstone of Britain's energy system. This is why, in large part, I believe we must pivot towards nuclear power; because nuclear is the most pro-nature energy source in existence, using a thousand times less land than wind or solar as well as being a zero-emission clean energy source.
Redirecting solar to rooftops and brownfield sites, introducing a 100-acre cap, and removing subsidies for ground-mounted solar would protect farmland, support rural economies, and maintain food production. Alongside this, the Government should prioritise investment in small modular nuclear reactors as they provide a reliable, efficient, and land-conserving energy solution, ensuring Britain can meet its energy needs while safeguarding the countryside for future generations.
As many of my constituents are aware, the Government has now legislated to put onshore wind projects above 100MW in England into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime. In doing so, it seeks to impose huge wind turbines with blade heights of 180 metres to 200 metres on rural communities, destroying swathes of England’s green and beautiful land and riding roughshod over the clear wishes of local people. On 8 July 2025, the Government announced that it had removed parts of the National Planning Policy Framework which require developers to demonstrate that onshore wind projects have community support and that the planning impacts identified by the affected local community have been appropriately addressed.
As a Sussex MP, a county blessed with some of the most quintessentially British scenery, I feel very strongly our planning system should protect our natural landscapes and heritage assets. I believe the people in those communities affected deserve a genuine say over what happens in their local area and to the environment, and I will always stand up to make sure their voices are heard.
The Minister has told us repeatedly onshore renewable infrastructure can unlock lower bills and it is the cheapest energy source, but that is, sadly, proving not to be the case. Onshore wind and solar panels need a hugely expensive expansion of our infrastructure due to their dispersed locations, costing billpayers money. This is not cheap, and it will not bring bills down. Research by the Renewable Energy Foundation found that the equivalent of 40 per cent of the cost of producing electricity in Britain, £22 billion a year, is paying for the costs of renewables and net zero, including backup for when renewables cannot generate power, paying wind farms to switch off when it's too windy, and the cost of building the pylons required to connect renewables to the grid. All of these costs are recovered through your energy bills.
While I do believe the UK is generally more suited to wind than solar power, wind power clearly presents us with many of the same problems with intermittency, land use, and reliance on foreign imports as solar does. Wind farms are equally susceptible to long periods of generating no power and need equally large amounts of land to be set aside for electricity generation. The closure of the largest manufacturer of fibreglass used in wind turbines in the UK because of cheap Chinese imports also clearly demonstrates wind power requires a serious and risky reliance on foreign imports, weakening our energy security and therefore our national security.
In fact, our entire renewables energy strategy is heavily reliant on foreign imports. As my colleague Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP in the energy debate on the 26th of March 2026 said,
‘We are increasingly dependent on China because of decisions taken by this Government. The pursuit of renewables-based future energy infrastructure is increasingly dependent on countries that are adversarial to us and pose a risk to our long-term energy security’
There is also credible evidence that components used in many solar panels and wind turbines imported to the UK, most notably polysilicon from Xinjiang, are linked to the exploitation of Uighur Muslims by the Chinese Communist Party. You can read more on this topic here:
Mims Davies MP Statement on the Chinese State (CCP) | Mims Davies
My colleagues and I do believe ensuring the UK has a cheap, abundant and reliable supply of energy should be the top priority of our energy policy and key to unlocking economic growth and renewing our prosperity. However, the Labour Government still appears determined to force higher energy prices onto British families and businesses, recently agreeing to extend new subsidies for wind and solar farms for 20 years in the most recent allocation round 7 for contracts for difference and unrealistic net zero ambitions which the National Energy System Operator has predicted could cost £350 billion or an extra £500 per household per year
The Government could choose to reduce energy bills by 20 per cent for families by adopting the Opposition's Cheap Power Plan to scrap the carbon tax on electricity generation, end subsidies for wind and solar, and stop the latest allocation round for renewable energy. I shall continue urging Ministers to drop their self-imposed clean energy targets and back the Opposition's plan for cheap power from North Sea oil and gas and nuclear energy.
You may also be interested in reading:
