HUNDREDS of Islanders have signed a paper petition calling for the States Assembly to agree that ground-mounted solar developments on agricultural land should be banned in the next Island Plan.
And St Brelade Deputy Montfort Tadier, who has been approached by the petition’s organisers with a view to taking it forward as a proposition, said he was “generally sympathetic” to the group’s point of view – and that the Island “should not be taking up potentially arable land for PV panels that could easily go elsewhere”.
His comments come just days after Jersey Electricity announced that it had pulled the plug on its plans for a solar farm at Belle Fontaine in St Martin.
The utility company had previously stated that the ground-mounted development at the site, which is on Crown land, would generate enough electricity to power over 40% of the parish’s homes.
But in an update last week, it revealed that it had “taken the decision not to progress a solar development at the Belle Fontaine site”, citing further research, consideration of stakeholder feedback and “consultation with the Crown”.
However, the statement added that “Jersey Electricity remains fully committed to supporting the Island’s transition to cleaner, sustainable energy” through the company’s Solar 5000 initiative, “including the continued development of rooftop solar and the identification of locations where renewable generation and agricultural activity can successfully coexist”.
A paper petition, so far signed by more than 700 people, is calling for the States Assembly to agree that the prohibition of ground-mounted solar developments on agricultural land should be included within the next Island Plan.
One of the petition’s organisers, William Layzell, noted that the Island already had a “consistent source” of green energy imported via a long-term contract with Électricité de France.
He explained that the group did not believe growing the number of solar farms was a “worthwhile scheme for Jersey”, arguing it would not necessarily serve as a greener or cheaper alternative.
“We started the whole process thinking, perhaps it is good for the Island, perhaps this is the way to implement renewable energy within the Island.
“Then as we got into the figures, we asked the question – do we actually need it? And I think the answer is, we don’t, because we have a very good supply from France.”
Mr Layzell contended that, while solar developments were “politically a very attractive thing to be a part of”, there was “a big difference between that and then is it actually what the Island needs”, adding that it was also “destroying fields in the process”.
“Is it worth it? We’ve all come to the conclusion that, no [it isn’t].”
Deputy Tadier said he was “generally sympathetic to the point of view of the petitioners”.
“I personally want to see solar and PV being used much more, but government needs to lead by example and start putting it on all suitable public buildings, where efficient and cost effective,” he continued.
“I also have concerns about food security and want to see Jersey growing more, not less. We should not be taking up potentially arable land for PV panels that could easily go elsewhere.”
Related