😤 Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire

• Greg Smith’s Concerns: Greg Smith, MP for Mid Buckinghamshire, expressed strong opposition to the proposed energy infrastructure projects, including solar farms and battery energy storage systems (BESS), in his constituency. He highlighted the negative impact on rural life, agriculture, and the local environment.

• Impact on Agriculture: Smith emphasized that the conversion of farmland for energy projects, such as the Rosefield solar farm, threatens food security and the livelihoods of farmers who are often displaced with inadequate compensation.

• Criticism of Energy Projects: He criticized the inefficiency of solar power, noting the significant land use required compared to the energy output. Smith also raised concerns about the environmental impact and safety risks associated with BESS, including fire hazards and flooding exacerbation.

• Support for Nuclear Energy: Smith advocated for nuclear energy as a more efficient and sustainable alternative, suggesting that small modular reactors could produce significant power on a much smaller land footprint.

• Cumulative Impact: He pointed out the cumulative strain on Mid Buckinghamshire from multiple major projects, including HS2 and East West Rail, alongside the new energy developments, which he feels overwhelms local communities and infrastructure.

• Lack of Local Consent: Smith and fellow MP Joy Morrissey criticized the lack of local consent and understanding of rural life in the planning of these projects, which are often driven by developers rather than community needs.

• Government Response: Michael Shanks, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, responded by acknowledging the need for infrastructure but stressed that it requires a balanced approach. He highlighted the importance of renewable energy alongside nuclear for energy security and mentioned ongoing reforms to manage grid connection queues.

• Rooftop Solar and Land Use: Shanks supported the idea of expanding rooftop solar on buildings and warehouses, and clarified that the government’s land use framework aims to balance various uses, including agriculture and environmental sustainability, not just energy projects.

• Community Engagement: The Minister emphasized the government’s commitment to involving and benefiting local communities that host infrastructure developments, while also recognizing the need to address the cumulative impact of such projects.

• Food Security and Environmental Considerations: The government views food security as a national security issue and aims to ensure that renewable energy development does not significantly hinder agricultural land use, promising a balanced approach to land use and energy needs.

The disagreement in the parliamentary session is high, warranting a rating of 4 out of 5. The session primarily features Greg Smith expressing strong opposition to energy infrastructure projects in his constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, with Michael Shanks responding on behalf of the government. The key disagreements are over the types of energy infrastructure, their location, and the broader policy approach to energy and land use.

1. Energy Infrastructure and Location: Greg Smith vehemently opposes the placement of energy infrastructure, such as solar farms and battery storage sites, in rural areas, arguing that they unfairly burden his constituency and threaten food security. He cites specific projects like Rosefield and multiple BESS applications, criticizing their scale and impact. In contrast, Michael Shanks defends the necessity of building such infrastructure nationwide, stating that some areas will need to host these projects for the greater good of energy security.

   • Example: Greg Smith states, “Energy infrastructure does not belong on farmland. It does not belong in Mid Buckinghamshire,” while Michael Shanks counters with, “We need to build infrastructure in this country… some constituencies will have to host important infrastructure on behalf of the country.”

2. Type of Energy Source: There’s a stark disagreement on the preferred energy sources. Greg Smith advocates strongly for nuclear power, particularly small modular reactors (SMRs), over renewables like solar and batteries. Michael Shanks, however, argues for a balanced approach that includes both nuclear and renewable sources, suggesting that the government’s plan already includes a significant role for nuclear while emphasizing the need for renewables due to their cost-effectiveness and contribution to home-grown energy security.

   • Example: Greg Smith asserts, “Let us drop this nonsense and go for nuclear instead,” whereas Michael Shanks responds, “We see nuclear as playing a critical role in our energy system in the future, but we also understand that building out a clean power system requires building renewables.”

3. Cumulative Impact and Planning: Greg Smith criticizes the lack of consideration for the cumulative impact of multiple infrastructure projects on his constituency, mentioning the absence of mechanisms within the planning system to address this. Michael Shanks acknowledges this concern and mentions the government’s efforts to manage cumulative impacts through strategic spatial energy planning and a land use framework, though he argues that the previous government did not do enough in this area.

   • Example: Greg Smith notes, “There is no mechanism within the planning system that allows the cumulative impact of multiple major infrastructure projects in the same area to be accounted for.” Michael Shanks counters, “The Government have tried to wrestle with the cumulative impact of infrastructure… That is partly why we launched the strategic spatial energy plan.”

4. Community and Local Consent: Greg Smith stresses the lack of local consent and the frustration of communities when they feel projects are imposed without their input. Michael Shanks asserts that the planning process should be more efficient but still allow communities to have a voice, reiterating that the government does not directly initiate these projects.

   • Example: Greg Smith argues, “Far too often, the desktop exercise that is done… is done largely by those who have little or no understanding of rural life.” Michael Shanks responds, “We want communities to have a voice in the process, but we do not want them to be hanging around for years until decisions are made.”

The session reflects a deep disagreement on both policy and specific projects, with strong, emotive language used by Greg Smith to express his discontent, while Michael Shanks defends the government’s broader strategy while acknowledging some of the issues raised. This level of disagreement results in a high rating.