Ed Miliband has triggered fierce political and rural backlash after approving dozens of renewable energy projects that critics say will swallow productive farmland and scar treasured landscapes.
The Energy Secretary has signed off subsidies for 134 solar farms in England and a further 23 across Wales and Scotland, alongside 28 major onshore wind projects, largely on hillsides in Scotland and Wales.
Officials confirmed the new approvals include 4.9 gigawatts of solar capacity, 1.3 gigawatts of onshore wind and four tidal schemes totalling 21 megawatts, following confirmation earlier this month of subsidies for 8.4 gigawatts of offshore wind.
Taken together, campaigners estimate the solar schemes alone could cover more than 40 square miles of largely agricultural land, close to the area of Manchester, roughly 45 square miles. Industry figures dispute that scale, arguing improved panel efficiency will shrink the footprint to about 36 square miles, similar to Stoke on Trent.
Among the most controversial projects is the vast West Burton solar development on prime farmland on the Lincolnshire Nottinghamshire border, and one of Britain’s most northerly solar farms on agricultural land in north Aberdeenshire. Mr Miliband has also approved England’s largest onshore wind project in a decade in a former mining area in Cornwall, the Imerys Wind Farm, which is expected to generate 20 megawatts.
Under the Government’s Contracts for Difference scheme, the projects will receive guaranteed minimum prices for their electricity for 20 years once operational, funded by levies on consumer bills. New solar farms will be paid £68.17 per megawatt hour in today’s prices, while onshore wind will receive £75.50, both above the roughly £60 per megawatt hour that markets currently expect for summer 2028 deliveries.
If that gap persists, households and businesses would make up the difference through higher charges on energy bills. The Office for Budget Responsibility warned last year that such levies are forecast to rise from £2.3 billion in 2024 to 25 to around £5 billion by 2030 to 31.
Opposition politicians seized on that projection. Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said the subsidies would ultimately drive prices up, adding: “The true cost of this power, once you add in network charges and back up, is far higher, so all this will do is make our electricity even more expensive.
“For a stronger economy and better living standards, we need to make electricity cheap.”
Rural and community groups were even more scathing. Rosie Pearson, chair of the Community Planning Alliance, accused ministers of sacrificing food production and landscapes, saying: “This represents further destruction of countryside and best farmland while warehouse roofs, car parks and houses sit empty of solar panels.
“Add that to the pylons that accompany the solar farms and rural areas are being industrialised. We see once again that food security, nature and landscapes do not matter to Miliband.”
In Scotland, similar anger has focused on wind developments. Helen Crawford, from the Highland Community Council Convention on Major Energy Infrastructure, said: “The lack of strategic spatial planning has created a democratic deficit between communities and policy makers. As a country we are simply not keeping pace with the speed of energy development and what’s in the pipeline. This is failing communities.”
Energy companies and renewable lobby groups, however, welcomed the announcement as a breakthrough for clean power. James Robottom of RenewableUK argued the projects would stabilise costs, saying: “These new onshore wind projects will shield consumers from volatile global gas prices. Onshore wind farms generate clean energy at a predictable and stable cost and they’re one of the UK’s cheapest forms of new power.”
Chris Hewett, chief executive of Solar Energy UK, called the approvals “a milestone for the solar sector”, adding: “They are proof positive that it provides the cheapest power available.”
Mr Miliband insisted the programme was essential for Britain’s long term security, declaring: “By backing solar and onshore wind at scale, we’re driving bills down for good and protecting families, businesses, and our country from the fossil fuel roller coaster controlled by petrostates and dictators.”
For critics in the countryside, those assurances cut little ice. With thousands of acres of farmland earmarked for panels and turbines, and billions of pounds in bill levies looming over the next decade, the row over whether green energy is being delivered at too high a price, economically and environmentally, is only intensifying.
