Developers of a proposed solar farm totalling the equivalent size of 55 football pitches near villages in East Devon are gearing up to outline their plans to residents.

Becca Gliddon eastdevonnews.co.uk 

Ford Oaks Solar and Green Infrastructure says its proposed ‘facility’, near the hamlet of Westcott and Marsh Green village, made up of 45 hectares of ‘green infrastructure improvements’, could power up to 18,500 homes across East Devon and Exeter.

The area outlined in red shows where the proposed solar ‘facility’ will be built.

The project manager of charity Devon Communities Together, leading the community consultation process which began in autumn 2021, will attend the Aylesbeare Annual Parish Meeting on Wednesday, May 25.

The Taiyo Power and Storage team, promoting the development, will attend the Aylesbeare Parish Council meeting on Wednesday, June 1, to answer questions and outline the plans through an exhibition.

A date with Rockbeare Parish Council is to be confirmed.

Ford Oaks Solar and Green Infrastructure said the site, located next to the A30 close to Exeter Airport, East Devon, is a ‘solar development that would provide renewable energy that will help to deliver East Devon District Council’s target for being net zero by 2040 and meet Devon County Council’s net zero target for 2050 after having declared a climate emergency in 2019’.

The proposed site would be near Westcott Lane, pictured.

A planning application setting out the details and design has been submitted to East Devon District Council.

If it is approved, it will be the first solar development in the UK to apply for the Building with Nature Accreditation.

A Taiyo Power and Storage spokesperson said: “In practice, this will lead to the delivery of approximately 45 hectares of green infrastructure improvements that would increase wildlife in the valley and reduce existing flooding issues. The plans will result in a biodiversity net gain of 121% across the site.”

The plans include:

• 45 hectares of green infrastructure improvements, in line with the Devon Green Infrastructure Strategy.
• Delivery of 121% biodiversity net gain, achieved through creating grasslands habitats with species-rich seed mixes, Devon traditional meadows, a mosaic of wetland habitats, and beetle and butterfly banks.
• Flood mitigation, with new leaky dams and scrapes designed into the scheme to keep surface waters in the fields to reduce flows both onto local lanes and downstream under the A30.
• 29 hectares of solar arrays designed to permit extensive sheep grazing.

In addition, the proposal states of the intended solar panels:

• The arrays will be a maximum of 3.15m in height and will be mounted on a south facing axis, except in two fields adjacent to identified properties where the orientation has been realigned to the southeast, thus reducing potential glare to a minimum.

The proposed development also requires the following supporting infrastructure:

• Substations and transformers which will be held in containers of 3.5m in height.
• CCTV on poles between 2.5m and 4m high directed away from residential property.
• A 2m deer fence.
• Distribution Network Operator (DNO) and client substation, including internal connective cable routes.
• Internal access tracks.

The plans say: “In addition to the solar arrays, the proposed development will provide an expansive network of ecological and landscape enhancements.” Image of some of the proposed schemes: with permission.

Simon Crowe, Director at Taiyo, said: “Ford Oaks will be a fantastic opportunity for East Devon to progress its ambitious climate strategy.

“At a local level, we are providing a renewable energy source for 18,500 homes for the area. At a national level, we need five times as much renewable energy as we are currently producing if we are to be net zero by 2050.

“Ford Oaks marks an important first step in Taiyo’s journey in supporting the UK’s commitment.”

He added: “If we are to truly make East Devon a greener district, we must go beyond renewable energy provision to also enhance the local area’s biodiversity. That’s why we are excited to make this the UK’s first solar park to apply for the Building with Nature accreditation, with vast amounts of biodiversity and nature improvements to the local area.”

Ford Oaks is a joint venture between Kajima and Low Carbon Alliance Limited in partnership with local landowners, including Devon County Council.

The energy produced will be used to power homes across East Devon and Exeter.

A spokesperson for Tayo Power and Storage said: “By providing a renewable energy source that will export 30MW of power to local electricity circuits and power 18,500 homes, 7,430 tonnes of CO2 emissions will be saved – the equivalent of taking 1,600 petrol cars off Devon’s roads for one year.”

They added: “This will be a secure energy source for residents in the Exeter and East Devon area, while positively contributing towards the climate emergency by aligning with Devon County Green Infrastructure Strategy, the Devon Climate Declaration and government targets to increase solar power capacity to 50GW by 2030.”

 

I was a principal scientist for the oil company Shell, for which I worked for 33 years. I have a degree in aeronautical engineering and a PhD in fluid mechanics.

Grahame Buss www.independent.co.uk

I recently read a letter from the business and energy secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, in which he tries to justify government plans to encourage investment in new North Sea oil and gas. He says it would “protect Britain’s energy security” and smooth the “transition to cheap, clean, home-grown energy”, as well as cutting energy bills.

But expanding North Sea oil will do none of those things, for several reasons.

We don’t own the oil and gas, which we give away to energy companies together with substantial subsidies. They sell the oil and gas to the highest bidder on international markets, keep all the revenue, and are currently making eye-watering profits on which they pay almost no tax. Almost 80 per cent of UK production of crude oil is exported and plays no part in our domestic energy security.

We don’t own the companies that exploit this oil and gas. According to one study, more than a third of the licence blocks in the North Sea now have a private or state-backed controlling interest, with fossil fuel firms from China, Russia and the Middle East playing an increasingly dominant role. As well as being unaccountable to UK shareholders, these businesses have no strategic interest in UK energy security or in keeping bills low for UK households.

We don’t own the refineries. They are owned by private companies like Essar (Indian-owned, and reportedly had links to Russian company Lukoil), Petroineos (Chinese joint venture) and Exxon Mobil.  To make money these refineries must run close to full capacity with specific types of crude oil not found in the UK. Reconfiguring is expensive, so the refineries have a strong interest in tying us into foreign crude imports.

We have no control over the price of oil and gas. Producing our own oil and gas does not guarantee that it is available to UK consumers at a price they can afford, as the recent energy price crunch has demonstrated. We pay the international price of oil no matter where it comes from. Fluctuations in the oil price both up and down are felt directly by us.

We can’t just turn on a tap. Allowing new UK oil and gas production is not a quick fix to plug the small gaps caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The new licences in the North Sea will take years to come on stream – an average of 28 years from the licence being granted to production, says the Climate Change Committee. Even the “easy” stuff can take up to 8 years depending on the geology.

So despite Kwarteng’s plans, the UK public will remain vulnerable to global instability in oil availability and price for the foreseeable future.

As for smoothing “the transition to cheap, clean, home-grown energy”. What kind of clean energy investment signal is the government sending by continuing to subsidise fossil fuels?

By refusing to recognise and incentivise investment in the most cost-effective opportunities to cut carbon – solar and wind energy, insulation and free public transport – it is destroying jobs and ensuring higher and more volatile energy bills are baked in.

The only way to be truly secure is to exit fossil fuels and invest in the alternatives.

Environmental groups have criticised the National Farmers Union for helping hundreds of agricultural businesses to push back against measures designed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to protect vulnerable rivers in the UK.

Wil Crisp www.theguardian.com 

Working with the specialist consultancy Hafren Water, the NFU has helped at least 200 land users in nearly 40 river basins and groundwater catchments to fight against “nitrate vulnerable zone” designations, according to documents made available to the union’s members.

Farmers operating in areas of the UK that are designated as nitrate vulnerable zones are required to comply with restrictions related to the use of fertilisers and the storage of organic manure, designed to reduce the risk of pollution leaching into waterways.

In a video made available to union members, the NFU announced that its legal board had agreed to make special financial support available to agricultural businesses that wanted to appeal against these designations through its legal assistance scheme.

In the video, which was obtained by the investigative journalism organisation Point Source, an in-house solicitor for the NFU said the organisation’s legal assistance scheme would fund the entire cost of preliminary research and consultations before the formal appeals process.

The solicitor also said the scheme would provide subscribers with financial contributions towards costs during the formal appeal proceedings.

The NFU encouraged members to form groups to share costs and work with Hafren Water to challenge designations, saying the consultancy could be trusted and had previously “fought really hard on behalf of members”.

In a document accompanying the video, the NFU said it had “enjoyed a good degree of success” working on nitrate vulnerable zone appeals with Hafren Water in the past.

The NFU declined to tell the Guardian how much money it had already provided to support appeals against designations.

Under the existing system farmers are given an opportunity to appeal against designations every four years.

During the last round of appeals, which started in 2017, 94 of 135 were successful.

The appeals that the NFU and Hafren Water helped farmers to win included removing designations from the River Calder in Lancashire and the River Dove in the Midlands. Together their catchments cover an area of about 1,500 sq km (580 sq miles).

No English rivers have good chemical status and only 14% have good ecological status, according to the most recent Environment Agency figures published under obligations originally established by the EU water framework directive.

Environmental organisations were highly critical of the NFU’s efforts to push back against designations intended to reduce pollution in waterways.

Runoff from agriculture is the biggest single polluter of English rivers, responsible for 40% of damage to waterways.

The chief executive of Salmon & Trout Conservation, Nick Measham, said: “The NFU’s efforts to reduce the number of designated nitrate vulnerable zones in the UK is part of a broader push to deregulate farming.

“The organisation is pushing to remove designations even if it is clear that their removal will result in worsening ecological conditions for already degraded waterways.

“What the NFU should be doing is using its resources to make members true stewards of the countryside instead of seeking to game regulations so that farmers can increase their profits at the expense of the environment.”

The head of science and policy at the Rivers Trust, Rob Collins, said: “Nitrate vulnerable zones are designed to prevent excessive levels of nitrate from polluting surface and groundwaters, causing eutrophication and requiring costly water treatment.

“Rather than challenging designations, funds would be better spent supporting farmers to optimise fertiliser application through nutrient management plans and improving slurry management.”

During the latest round of appeals the Environment Agency has received 55 applications across nine river basin districts, according to information obtained by Point Source using freedom of information legislation.

Defra said Hafren Water was named as the representative acting on behalf of owners or occupiers for 14 appeals.

None of the appeals have been heard yet in the current round, which is the first since Britain left the EU.

David Baldock, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based Institute for European Environmental Policy, said organisations that opposed restrictions on fertiliser use could achieve significant change during the forthcoming appeal hearings.

“The NFU has always had its sights set on trying to push back against these nitrate regulations,” he said. “Previously Defra was under pressure from the European Commission to report back and demonstrate that they were complying with the EU nitrate directive, but now that Britain has left the EU this is no longer necessary.

“Defra’s reaction to these appeals is going to be one of the tests of its resolve to maintain standards of environmental legislation after Brexit.”

Nitrate vulnerable zones covered about 69% of England in 2009. Over the past decade, this figure has been eroded and during the last round of appeals it was reduced from about 58% to 55% of the country.

In a statement the NFU said: “Farmers are perfectly entitled to follow that appeals process to ensure that the designation is correct and has been applied fairly. NFU members are able to seek guidance and support from our legal assistance scheme to help with the appeals process.”

Hafren Water said: “The decision as to whether an area should be designated as a nitrate vulnerable zone is entirely objective and determined using catchment-specific data and Defra-derived methodology.”

A Defra spokesperson said: “We are committed to working with farmers to improve water quality through advice, incentives and effective regulation. Our goal in the agricultural transition plan is for a modern approach where farmers and regulators work together to improve standards, underpinned by credible deterrents for severe or serial harm.”

Government ministers will no longer be expected automatically to resign or be sacked if they breach their code of conduct, under changes announced by Boris Johnson.

Ministers to escape sack for ethics breaches, as Boris Johnson accused of ‘rigging’ rules

Andrew Woodcock www.independent.co.uk

An update to the code published today states that it is “disproportionate” to expect heads to roll for every breach of the code no matter how minor, and says ministers could instead be punished by “some form of public apology, remedial action or removal of ministerial salary for a period”.

The chair of the House of Commons standards committee said the change took the UK into “banana republic territory”, while Labour accused the prime minister of “watering down the rules to save his own skin”.

It comes ahead of an inquiry by the Commons privileges committee into whether Mr Johnson lied to parliament over lockdown-breaching parties at 10 Downing Street.

However, it is unlikely to provide the PM with a get-out if the cross-party panel finds against him, as the new code continues to state that “ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the prime minister”.

The former chair of the committee on standards in public life, Sir Alistair Graham, told The Independent that it was “very unfortunate timing that Johnson is seeking to weaken the ministerial code after receipt of the damaging Sue Gray report” into Partygate.

“It will reinforce the cynical view that politicians do not care about standards,” said Sir Alistair.

The announcement came just hours after the first resignation from Mr Johnson’s government since Wednesday’s publication of the full Gray report, with Eastleigh MP Paul Holmes quitting his role as a Home Office aide in protest at “the toxic culture that seems to have permeated No 10”.

“It is clear to me that a deep mistrust in both the government and the Conservative Party has been created by these events, something that pains me personally as someone who always tries to represent Eastleigh and its people with integrity,” he said.

And former minister Sir Bob Neill became the 12th Tory MP to announce he has written a letter of no confidence in Mr Johnson, declaring: “To rebuild trust and move on, a change in leadership is required.” Another MP Alicia Kearns, who represents Melton and “was rumoured to be a key part of the “pork pie” plot against the prime minister earlier this year, also said she did not have confidence in him.

Meanwhile, the prime minister has rejected a demand from his independent ethics adviser Christopher Geidt for powers to launch his own investigations into ministerial misconduct without seeking permission from Downing Street.

Instead, the new rules say Lord Geidt must “consult” the PM on any inquiries – but grant him the right to go public if Mr Johnson refuses to allow them to go ahead. Even this new right is qualified by a provision allowing the PM to overrule him on publicity.

The review was demanded by Lord Geidt in the wake of the row over the refurbishment of Mr Johnson’s flat at 11 Downing Street. The decision to release the long-delayed outcome on a Friday afternoon during parliamentary recess was viewed by many at Westminster as a bid to avoid scrutiny.

A new foreword to the code, penned by the prime minister, has removed previous references to the principles of “integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership” which should guide ministers’ conduct.

In their place, the PM said ministers’ duty was to be “innovating, challenging assumptions and striving always to mobilise the power of the state for the benefit of the public”.

Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner accused Mr Johnson of “downgrading and debasing the principles of public life before our very eyes”.

“In a week when Boris Johnson’s lies to parliament about industrial rule-breaking at the heart of government were finally exposed, he should be tendering his resignation but is instead watering down the rules to save his own skin,” said Ms Rayner.

“Once again, Boris Johnson has demonstrated he is not serious about his pledge to address the scandal and sleaze engulfing his government or the frequent and flagrant breaches of standards and rule-breaking that have taken place on his watch.”

And standards committee chair Chris Bryant told The Independent: “The new ministerial code is a disgrace. The code is already so threadbare when it comes to ministerial accountability that it barely covers their dignity. And now they want to strip away what’s left.

“I despair. The government motto seems to be ‘If you break the rules, change the rule book’. This is banana republic territory.”

Liberal Democrat chief whip Wendy Chamberlain described the code rewrite as “an appalling attempt by Boris Johnson to rig the rules to get himself off the hook”.

“The prime minister shouldn’t be allowed to decide on his own punishment, with zero accountability,” said Ms Chamberlain. “This is making him judge and jury in his own case.

“If the privileges committee finds Boris Johnson lied to parliament, surely Conservative MPs will have no choice but to sack him.”

Since the code’s introduction by John Major in 1992 and its formalisation by Tony Blair in 1997, there has always been an expectation that ministers found to have transgressed will resign or be dismissed.

But Institute for Government expert Tim Durrant said that the option of a more lenient penalty has always been available to prime ministers, at the cost of public controversy. He pointed to David Cameron’s decision to allow Baroness Warsi to get away with an apology for a minor breach in 2012.

“There has been a public expectation that a breach always results in resignation,” he told The Independent. “But the code itself has only ever explicitly included that sanction for ministers who have knowingly misled parliament. This update makes explicit that there are other sanctions available for different breaches, which was not previously stated.

“At the end of the day, it is always going to be the prime minister who decides who is in his or her government.”

Until this year, the ethical adviser could only launch an investigation if ordered to by the prime minister, but following the “Wallpapergate” controversy over the Downing Street flat, Lord Geidt won the right to propose an inquiry.

The new changes go further, allowing him to initiate an investigation of an alleged breach of the code. But the adviser is still required to consult the PM, who the code states “will normally give his consent”.

It adds: “Where there are public interest reasons for doing so, the prime minister may raise concerns about a proposed investigation such that the independent adviser does not proceed.

“In such an event, the independent adviser may still require that the reasons for an investigation not proceeding be made public unless this would undermine the grounds that have led to the investigation not proceeding.”

The new code makes clear that the PM retains the final decision on whether and how a minister should be punished for breaches.

But a new paragraph makes it explicit that he has the leeway – after taking “confidential advice” from his adviser – to be lenient.

It states: “Where the prime minister retains his confidence in the minister, available sanctions include requiring some form of public apology, remedial action, or removal of ministerial salary for a period.”