Agenda item

Motions received under Standing Order 8

Meeting of South Holland District Council, Wednesday, 2nd October, 2024 6.30 pm (Item 48.)

The following motion has been received under Standing Order 8:

Motion: Preservation of Fenland Landscape and Recognition of South Holland as a Critical Food Producing Area

This Council notes:

1) The unique and valuable characteristics of the Fenland landscape within the District of South Holland, which not only provides a distinct natural heritage, but also contributes significantly to local biodiversity and the identity of our area.

2) The critical role that South Holland plays as a key food-producing area, supporting both local and national food security, and contributing significantly to the agricultural economy.

3) The potential impacts of national significant infrastructure projects planned for our area, specifically those related to energy generation and distribution at significant scale, which threaten to disrupt and alter our valuable landscape.

This Council believes:

1) That it is essential to preserve the Fenland landscape to maintain its ecological balance, scenic beauty, and historical significance.

2) That protecting our agricultural lands is vital for the continued prosperity of local farmers and the broader agricultural industry, ensuring ongoing food production capacity and the nationally significant role that our area plays in feeding the country.

3) That any development or infrastructure project within our district must be carefully planned and executed to minimize adverse impacts on our landscape and agricultural productivity.

This Council:

1) Urges the relevant national authorities and infrastructure project planners to recognize the importance of the Fenland landscape and South Holland’s role as a food-producing area.

2) Advocates for the implementation of mitigation strategies to minimize the visual and ecological impact of infrastructure developments, including the consideration of alternative technologies and routing options.

3) Encourages local stakeholders and residents, to engage in consultation processes to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns addressed in the planning and development processes.

4) Recognises initiatives that promote the sustainable development of energy infrastructure while balancing the need to preserve our natural and agricultural heritage.

5) Supports collaboration with other local authorities, including our partners within the South and East Lincolnshire Council’s Partnership, to present a united front in the protection of our landscapes and agricultural interests.

By passing this motion, we reaffirm our commitment to safeguarding the Fenland landscape and ensuring the sustainability and productivity of South Holland as a vital food-producing area for the benefit of current and future generations.

Proposer: Councillor Laura Eldridge

Minutes:

In accordance with the Constitution the following motion was received under Standing Order 8:

Motion: Preservation of Fenland Landscape and Recognition of South Holland as a Critical Food Producing Area

This Council notes:

2) The critical role that South Holland plays as a key food-producing area, supporting both local and national food security, and contributing significantly to the agricultural economy.

This Council believes:

1) That it is essential to preserve the Fenland landscape to maintain its ecological balance, scenic beauty, and historical significance.

3) That any development or infrastructure project within our district must be carefully planned and executed to minimize adverse impacts on our landscape and agricultural productivity.

This Council:

1) Urges the relevant national authorities and infrastructure project planners to recognize the importance of the Fenland landscape and South Holland’s role as a food-producing area.

3) Encourages local stakeholders and residents, to engage in consultation processes to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns addressed in the planning and development processes.

4) Recognises initiatives that promote the sustainable development of energy infrastructure while balancing the need to preserve our natural and agricultural heritage.

The Chairman invited Councillor Eldridge, as author of the motion to address the Council. Councillor Eldridge spoke as follows:

South Holland was currently faced with the threat of multiple National Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), which, if granted, would remove colossal swathes of land from crop production. Whilst these projects are described as being temporary in nature, their 40-year presence is a significant part of anyone’s lifetime. Pylons have a lifespan of approximately 80 years, but their presence is likely to be indefinite along with that of the associated sub-stations.

Land in South Holland is classified as the Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land in the country, something that should not be understated. Whilst delivering clean energy is crucial to supporting the UK’s net zero target, there is a very real threat to the future of our farms and homegrown produce.

This concerns me greatly, as it does many residents who have contacted me expressing their concerns.

Yesterday, we celebrated Lincolnshire day, a day in which we celebrate our unique county. Our flag itself depicts St George’s cross bordered in gold, representing the crops grown in the county, the blue of the sky and the sea, and the green of the fields.

Greater Lincolnshire is the breadbasket of the country, providing 30% of the nation's vegetables, 20% of sugar beet, 18% of poultry and 12% of all food. According to the United Kingdom Food Security Report 2021; “In 2020, the UK imported 46% of the food it consumed.” If we are forced to import increasing amounts of food and crops to support ourselves as a nation, we risk becoming victims of price dictatorship and increasing supply issues.

Whilst, overall, I support the concept of green energy, this should not be at the cost of our future food security. We have an ever-increasing population, if our farmland stocks are depleted, any green energy savings would be offset by the carbon footprint of importing additional food to provide for our nation, as well as the cost of importing and replacing the solar panels themselves which is required every 15 - 20 years. The recent war in Ukraine has further demonstrated the need for better food security which should be a priority.

I will give a very brief overview of NSIP’s we are currently faced within South Holland.

· Meridian Solar - would cover 1100 hectares or 2700 acres, in solar panels and 57-metre tall pylons, intending to connect to a new sub-station proposed at Weston Marsh, which alone would cover 35 acres.

· The Ossian Wind project, which would be one of the largest floating wind turbine developments globally, located off the East coast of Scotland. This also intends to connect via underground cabling to the proposed new Weston Marsh sub-station.

· The Outer Dowsing offshore wind project - 33 miles off the Lincolnshire coast, connecting via underground cabling to another new 35-acre sub-station at Surfleet Marsh.

· ‘The Great Grid Upgrade’ Grimsby to Walpole, an 87-mile-long pylon network consisting of overhead cabling with 50-metre-tall pylons along the entire route.

· Finally, Eastern Green Link 3 & 4 - offshore cabling from Scotland, coming onshore in North Lincolnshire, connecting to another new substation at Walpole.

The solo impact of any of these projects would be enormous - the cumulative impact, nothing less than catastrophic.

In addition to this, there are several solar developments proposed and several already operational across the district. Applications under the 50MW generation are decided by us as the Local Planning Authority. One application in my ward is 49.9MW, just below the NSIP threshold, but would still cover a huge 140 hectares or 345 acres of our precious BMV land.

This is not about NIMBYism, it’s about the impact it would have on us not only as a district but also a country. Removing huge swathes of our most productive agricultural land and covering them in solar panels, pylons, wind turbines, battery storage and sub-stations at the expense of our nation's food security is in my opinion short-sighted, ruthless, and irresponsible.

We, as a community, are custodians of South Holland, we need to ensure that we do everything within our power to protect and improve our district for our past, present and future residents, and it is the government's responsibility to listen to local communities who know their area and its value, and who are warning Whitehall of the repercussions if these proposals are not taken seriously.

It is crucial that as a local authority, South Holland District Council presents a united front to make our stance on NSIP’s clear to the Labour government, who seem to be holding us hostage on the generation of green energy at, it would seem, any cost, and who appear to be hellbent on destroying;

· our countryside,

· our beautiful, unique Fenland landscape,

· our resident's lifestyle, physical and mental health,

· our infrastructure,

· our wildlife,

· our economy,

· our employment, of which over 50% of jobs in South Holland are directly linked to the Agri-food chain,

· our heritage

· and our nation's food security.

Councillor Eldridge proposed the motion, as detailed in the agenda, and welcomed a seconder.

Councillor Harrison seconded the motion and raised the following points:

· The piecemeal nature of the separate applications gave the impression these proposals were not happening in residents’ own wards;

· The beauty, peace and tranquility of the local fenland landscape, enjoyed by all during the lockdown, following the pandemic;

· The visual impact of pylons, solar panels, sub-stations and battery-storage plants, and the associated noise and pollution issues that would be caused by their installation;

· How ‘green’ the production and transportation of the various elements actually was?;

· The likelihood that any benefit would not be felt in the local area;

· The dependence on food from overseas;

· Alternative locations for solar panels

Members debated the Motion and the following points were raised:

· Councillor Taylor congratulated Councillors Eldridge and Harrison on their impassioned speeches. He reiterated the importance of food production in the area and the potential impacts of national significant infrastructure projects planned for the area. He commented that there were alternative options, such as underground cabling, and also raised the negative health impacts of living close to pylons. It was important to stand together to protect the local area.

· Councillor Barnes supported the Motion. It was important to not lose sight of residents and the effect that the proposals may have on them going forward. The Council needed to be there for its residents to provide support and encouragement in opposing the plans.

· Councillor Redgate referred to the UK Fresh Produce event that he had attended with the Leader on Monday- it was clear that businesses were keen to come to the area but that the proposals could affect this. In addition, water management/drainage could be seriously affected as a result of the installation of foundations etc that would be required for many of the proposals, making an existing problem worse. It was important to acknowledge climate concerns however, alternative options should be considered in order to balance land usage whilst satisfying the need for renewable energy. Clear new planning policies were required to set out and achieve this.

· Councillor Beal commented that the impact of pylons in the area would be devastating and supported the Motion.

· Councillor M LeSage supported the Motion. He had attended a consultation event in Moulton regarding the solar farm and commented that he had not received any direct answers to the questions he had raised. He was also concerned at the apathy of some individuals – it was important to stand together with residents and other local authorities to oppose the proposals and protect the Fenland landscape.

· Councillor Spencer commented that while fully supporting the need for green energy, he agreed that these were indeed applications by stealth. It was good to see the Council standing together on this issue.

· Councillor Bingham acknowledged the need for green energy but highlighted the huge size of one of the applications. It was a sacrifice for the area to benefit other areas of the country.

· Councillor Alcock wished to seek clarification for those members that sat on the Planning Committee – how did association with the motion affect them with regard to the appearance of pre-determination of Planning applications that may come forward for consideration?

The Monitoring Officer commented that the Motion under consideration did not refer to any particular Planning application and nor did it produce any new planning policy. Planning applications would continue to be determined against existing planning policies. He confirmed that the item could be considered and debated by members, even if they sat on the Planning Committee.

· Councillor E Sneath stated that it had been stated that one particular application would be screened off by the planting of trees however, this was not natural to the area encouraging birds that could devastate crops.

· Councillor Worth fully supported the Motion, which was also strongly supported by many residents. It was important to not lose land to development, and to grow more food rather than import it. To use the best land in the country for these developments, and to also get no benefit from it was disgraceful. Food production and its associated industries was vitally important to the area.

· Councillor Gibson felt that the Motion should go further, demanding answers from the companies regarding the costs of proposed pylons versus offshore. The western sub station was the main reason for the proposals coming forward in the area and it this that should be opposed

· Councillor Hutchinson fully supported the Motion however she questioned what it hoped to achieve. Without a change to national or local planning policy, there would be no change to decision making. The Motion could not be purely symbolic. We were a local Planning authority which set a Local Plan, and the Landscape Character Assessment only addressed concerns around turbines – the Authority could be doing more by ensuring there was a correct evidence base to support such motions, support decisions of the Planning authority and national infrastructure projects in order to uphold all the important areas laid out by other members.

· Councillor Woolf agreed that the public did not appear to be aware of these proposals. It was important to get the message out to ensure that the public, along with the other authorities, could be involved in the fight to oppose the proposals.

DECISION:

That the Council agree the following motion:

Motion: Preservation of Fenland Landscape and Recognition of South Holland as a Critical Food Producing Area

This Council notes:

2) The critical role that South Holland plays as a key food-producing area, supporting both local and national food security, and contributing significantly to the agricultural economy.

This Council believes:

1) That it is essential to preserve the Fenland landscape to maintain its ecological balance, scenic beauty, and historical significance.

3) That any development or infrastructure project within our district must be carefully planned and executed to minimize adverse impacts on our landscape and agricultural productivity.

This Council:

1) Urges the relevant national authorities and infrastructure project planners to recognize the importance of the Fenland landscape and South Holland’s role as a food-producing area.

3) Encourages local stakeholders and residents, to engage in consultation processes to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns addressed in the planning and development processes.

4) Recognises initiatives that promote the sustainable development of energy infrastructure while balancing the need to preserve our natural and agricultural heritage.