Helen Whately MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Dec 2024 · Cleve Hill Solar Park · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of Cleve Hill Solar Park on communities in Faversham and Mid Kent constituency. For centuries, the view from Graveney church tower has been spectacular, looking across miles of marshland to the Swale beyond. In the summer, there are wide-open blue skies and sheep grazing in the sunshine among the rushes going down to the sparkling water of the estuary. In the winter, still beautiful if bleak, there are clouds scudding across a grey horizon, down to the froth of white horses on galloping waves, accompanied by the cries of seabirds, calling as they circle overhead, buffeted by wind and rain. This epic landscape inspired great British writers such as Charles Dickens and Daniel Defoe. Since then, it has continued to inspire countless visitors and locals alike—the backdrop for walkers travelling the ancient Saxon Shore way, a haven for birdwatchers and the seabirds they have travelled to see, or just a place to find peace and tranquillity in our otherwise busy lives. But no more. In 2020, planning permission was granted to build Cleve Hill solar park. In 2021, the park was acquired by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a US investment fund based in Texas. In 2023, construction began. Now, as we near the end of 2024, the work is nearly done. Soon, the village of Graveney in my constituency will host the UK’s largest solar power plant, generating 373 MW of electricity. Alongside the solar array, the developers have permission for a large-scale battery installation, with up to 700 MWh of capacity. The concrete base for the batteries is being constructed, and the batteries themselves are now in the country, soon to be installed. The plant is set to become operational early next year. As I speak about this huge solar installation in my constituency, hon. Members should make no mistake: I recognise climate change as one of the greatest threats to our planet and way of life. I want us to continue our shift to renewable energy, reduce our carbon footprint and improve our energy security, and that includes solar. I welcome solar on factory and warehouse roofs, housing developments, brownfield sites and even out-of-the-way pockets of poor-quality land. But Cleve Hill is altogether different. When complete, the solar park will cover more than 700 acres—an area larger than the town of Faversham itself. It will have not far off 1 million solar panels, each the height of a double-decker bus. No amount of natural screening can prevent this huge installation from dominating the landscape. It is not just about the views. The marshes were home to rare species, including Brent geese, golden plover, marsh harriers and the red-listed lapwing. The humble dormouse and water voles also thrived in the dykes and field margins. Before the Cleve Hill solar team arrived, there was a totally different vision for this spot. The Environment Agency planned to restore the marshes to a wetland, which would have provided a haven for the wildlife, sequestered carbon and acted as a natural flood defence. As someone who has stood knee-high in flood water in my own home, I do not take the risk of flooding lightly. As many as 17,000 homes are at risk from rising sea levels along the north Kent coast. Unfortunately, the planning inspector considered the solar development only against the agriculture land use at the time. Instead of Graveney’s marshland being transformed into a haven for nature and a release for rising sea water, it has been transformed into an industrial zone. Over the years since the solar scheme was announced, I have received hundreds of letters and emails from people asking me to stop it. I have worked with Graveney’s excellent parish council, the Save Graveney Marshes campaign group and the GREAT campaign. All have worked hard to give the community a voice in the planning system, but to no avail. As a nationally significant infrastructure project, the final decision was taken away from local residents and our local council. I am told that when planning inspectors recommended that the development go ahead, there was little room for the Secretary of State to go against their recommendation, even though only 15 out of 867 public representations supported the project. Like many people, I was gutted when it was approved but we are where we are. Since then, my focus, like the campaign groups, has switched to trying to reduce the harm and risks to the local community, and trying to claw back some benefit. That is why I have secured this debate. I am here to raise the three main areas of concern expressed by my constituents: safety, disruption and damage, and compensation for the community, who now have an industrial site on their rural doorstep. This is important to my constituents, but important to communities around the country facing large-scale solar developments; they, too, will want to hear what reassurances the Minister can offer.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Unfortunately, the hon. Member is simply wrong in some of the statements she makes. I am not ideological about this—I know that there is a place for the public sector and a place for the private sector. In our reforms, we proposed a closer working together of track and train through Great British Railways, much of which this Government are planning to bring forward. However, there have also been benefits to this country from privatisation, including a significant growth in passenger numbers, which has not been seen in many other countries. That is one reason why several European countries are planning to follow our model and increase competition in their rail services, in order to drive up passenger numbers and provide greater efficiencies. As I said a moment ago, amendment 18 would require the Government to set out what impact they believe the Bill will have. For instance, what impact will getting rid of private sector train companies—the good performers as well as the weaker ones—have on passengers, fares, reliability and the cost of the railway to taxpayers? The amendment proposes that the Government should set that information out clearly in a report within the next six months. I am sure that hon. Members do not consider that to be unreasonable; surely, it is the least that any of us would want to see, since we all represent both rail users and taxpayers. It would mean that we would all know what difference the Government expect the legislation to make. I would hope that the report would be set out in a way that stands up to scrutiny, that it draws on evidence and that it has a suitable level of rigour for something so significant. It would also give us all something to hold the Government to account against, as well as the managers who take over responsibility for train operators.