Restriction on solar ground mounts on agricultural land – Petition (P.53/2026): amendment

RESTRICTION ON SOLAR GROUND MOUNTS ON AGRICULTURAL

LAND - PETITION (P.53/2026): AMENDMENT

____________

1  PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH (a) –

Substitute the words "prohibition on" with the words "presumption against".

After the words "agricultural land" delete the word ", and", designate the words after  "agricultural  land"  as  paragraph  (b)  and  redesignate  the  subsequent paragraph accordingly.

Substitute  the  words  "include  such  prohibition"  with  the  words  "consider strengthening  protections  for  the  loss  of  agricultural  land  to  solar  ground mounts".

DEPUTY M. TADIER OF ST. BRELADE

Note:  After this amendment, the proposition would read as follows –

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

1. that there should be a presumption against solar ground mounts on agricultural land;
2. to request the Minister for the Environment to consider strengthening protections for the loss of agricultural land to solar ground mounts in the next Island Plan; and
3. to  request  the  Minister  for  Infrastructure,  in  consultation  with  the Minister for the Environment, to bring forward a policy framework to promote the installation of solar panels on all suitable States of Jersey owned buildings.

REPORT

I bring this amendment further to feedback received from some States Members and the petitioners themselves who attended the States Members' presentation on 18th March 2026, and also in relation to some of the Ministerial arguments, which I have taken on board.

Part (a)

Whilst there is significant support for my unamended proposition, I know that there are Members who support the general spirit of the petition (i.e. they don't want to see fields which could be used for growing increasingly being used for solar panels), but they recognise there might be some exceptional circumstances where their installation may be  justifiable.  The  general  feedback  from  Members,  that  there  should  be  greater controls, and more – independent assessment – of what constitutes poor quality vs good quality' agricultural land.

The Minister states in his comments paper that –

"In  respect  of  part  (a)  of  the  proposition,  []  the  appropriate  mechanisms  for determining future land use- policy and assessing development proposals already exist within Jersey's established democratic and statutory frameworks."

The framework he is referring to here is the Bridging Island Plan (the Plan). However, there is a degree of tension between these various policies in this area, particularly in relation to the installation of large-scale photovoltaic installations not seriously harming landscape  and  seascape  character  (p.233),  namely,  Policy  ERE1  –  Protection  of agricultural land (p.177) and Policy ME6 - Larger-scale terrestrial renewable energy developments (p.233)

Furthermore, the Plan's spatial strategy seeks to achieve development that is sustainably accommodated in the island "safeguarding productive agricultural land, in order to increase the security of local food supplies, whilst supporting the long-term maintenance of the agricultural industry, and diversification of the rural economy." (p.39). The Plan states that agricultural land will be protected from loss and alternative uses will only be appropriate on lower-quality agricultural land (p.77). Additionally, support will be given to proposals that seek the reuse or redevelopment of already developed land and/or buildings in the countryside (p.77).

There is a general concern that current safeguards are not sufficient; that more and more arable land will be given over to solar panels, perhaps unnecessarily.

Whilst there is a strong focus in the Bridging Island Plan on protecting high-value agricultural land (p.177, 233), the reality of who judges what land is considered as good arable land, is not clear.

On the matter of solar panels more generally, the Plan also cites –

"opportunities to address climate change that are particularly relevant to the town environment. These include the chances to deploy solar PV technology on larger office and residential buildings in Town" (p.67).

Page - 3

P.53/2026 Amd.

Part (b)

This part of the amendment takes note of comments in the Ministerial paper which said –

The process for reviewing and adopting the Island Plan is established in law and provides a transparent, democratic and evidence-based mechanism for determining land-use policy. Any attempt to pre-determine the content of a future plan in advance of this process risks undermining the integrity of the statutory system and cannot bind a future Minister or Assembly.'

I do have some sympathy for this position, but I would say that there is a balance to be struck between tying the hand of a future assembly, and suggesting a direction of travel. The intention of this part of the amendment is to move us more to the latter position.

Part (c)

This part remains unchanged. Like the petitioners, I consider that focusing on the built environment and the potential to place extensive solar arrays on buildings should be the first option, as opposed to placing these arrays on any type of agricultural land.

Financial and staffing implications

There are no financial or staffing implications arising from this amendment.

Children's Rights Impact Assessment

I consider that this amendment has no direct or indirect impact on children and that the duty to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not arise. Accordingly, a Children's Rights Impact Assessment is not required under the Children (Convention Rights) (Jersey) Law 2022.