This blog is an unedited piece, written by George Dunn, TFA Chief Executive, for the countryside charity: CPRE, on 26 March 2025.

The Tenant Farmers Association fully acknowledges the policy of Government which is seeking to wean us off energy derived from fossil fuels and towards a greener mix of energy coming from technologies such as wind, wave, solar and biomass. However, it is essential that we do not pursue energy security in isolation to other legitimate public interests including environmental security and food security.  In addition, the rush to cover large areas of farmland with solar panels is as a consequence of an outdated framework of grid connections which needs to be fully overhauled. We could be much more efficient by both generating and using electricity locally, particularly on roof tops, rather than transporting it over vast areas through cables which lose power over every metre of their length.

The TFA is also hugely concerned about the interaction of renewable energy schemes with tenant farms. To that end, we would wholeheartedly endorse what our current Prime Minister, said as leader of the opposition in February 2023:

“Tenant farmers need a fair deal. They need to know their futures are secure. I want to see more solar farms across the countryside. We’ve got high hopes for solar energy in our green prosperity plan. There’ll be opportunities for farmers, opportunities for rural growth, cheaper bills, and in the long-term, real energy independence. But we can’t do it by taking advantage of tenant farmers, farmers producing good British food on carefully maintained, fertile land. They can’t plan properly if the soil beneath their feet isn’t secure. It’s a huge barrier to planning sustainable food production, so we’ve got to give them a fair deal, and we’ve got to use our land well”.

Planning case law chimes with these words from the Prime Minister. Lord Scarman in giving judgement in the House of Lords case of Great Portland Estates v the Mayor and City of Westminster in 1984 said this:

“Personal circumstances of an occupier, personal hardship, the difficulties of businesses which are of value to the character of a community are not to be ignored in the administration of planning control. It would be inhumane pedantry to exclude from the control of our environment the human factor. The human factor is always present, of course, indirectly as the background to the consideration of the character of land use. It can, however, and sometimes should, be given direct effect as an exceptional or special circumstance. But such circumstances, when they arise, fall to be considered not as a general rule but as exceptions to a general rule to be met in special cases. If a planning authority is to give effect to them, a specific case has to be made and the planning authority must give reasons for accepting it”.

Against this precedent, the Hon Mr Justice Richards in giving judgement in the case of R v Vale of Glamorgan District Council in 2000 under which he quashed a planning consent for the change of use to agricultural buildings subject to an agricultural tenancy said:

“The members [of the planning committee] were advised that the position of the tenant, though a material consideration, was ‘not in the absence of any other objection, sufficient ground to sustain a refusal of the application’. The members were effectively being told that the tenant’s position and the loss of the buildings to agricultural use could not amount to a freestanding planning consideration capable of justifying the refusal of permission; that there had to be some additional ground of objection such as the highways objection that had been the basis of the original recommendation of refusal. In my judgement that was an erroneous approach. It adopted too narrow a view of the relevant policy framework”.

The public policy and the case law therefore do seem to be perfectly aligned. However, that was until we received the decision of Planning Inspector Matthew Shrigley backed by Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook MP, to allow a planning appeal that will see a solar farm that will take out nearly half of the land farmed by Old Malton tenant farmers Rob and Emma Sturdy in North Yorkshire.

The joint decision of the Planning Inspector and Government Minister is all the more galling when, in the detail of the Planning Inspector’s report, the full negative impact of the development on the Sturdys’ business is laid bare. The report states that the development will result in irreversible detriment to the Sturdys’ farm business and further describes that impact as “exceptional”. The inspector is clear that the Sturdys loss is irremediable.

The TFA is pressing Minister Pennycook to provide an explanation for his actions in light of the commitment provided by the Prime Minister. If this case didn’t meet the threshold to enable the Government to step into refuse consent, it is difficult to understand when that threshold would be met.

The drive towards net zero cannot be the only consideration when deliberating over solar farms. Food security, local community impact, landscape impact, heritage impact and the impact on tenant farmers all must be taken into consideration. We live on a small, densely populated island with many competing demands for land and, in all things, balance is necessary.

The Government has been keen to stress that food security is national security, but it does seem like almost every decision it has made since it came into power in July of last year has been to undermine the ability for UK farmers and growers to contribute to food security and that must change. We have an opportunity through the consultation on the Land Use Framework to raise our concerns again.

It is clear that the Government’s current approach to solar energy development is not aligned with the interests and rights of tenant farmers. The Sturdy family’s case highlights the critical need for clearer policies and stronger protections for farming communities facing similar threats and the TFA will be working to achieve those ends.