Business

For many people thinking about trying LED light therapy, the biggest question is simple: what actually happens during a session?

Knowing what to expect ahead of time can make the experience feel much more comfortable, reduce any uncertainty, and help you set realistic expectations for your results.

Starting With a Consultation

Most LED light therapy treatments begin with a brief consultation. During this first step, the practitioner will talk with you about your goals and what you hope to improve. They may ask about your medical history, current medications, and any existing skincare concerns. This conversation helps ensure the treatment is appropriate for you and allows the provider to recommend the best approach based on your needs.

Preparing for the Session

Once your consultation is complete, the treatment itself is very simple. The practitioner will guide you to a comfortable treatment area where you can lie back and relax. The LED device is then positioned over the area being treated. This might include the face, neck, chest, or another targeted area depending on your concerns and goals.

In most cases, no complicated preparation is required. The focus is on comfort, relaxation, and making sure the device is properly aligned so the light reaches the treatment area evenly.

During the Treatment

Once the LED device is in place, the session begins. Most clients spend around 20 to 30 minutes resting while the light is delivered. Many people describe the experience as calm and soothing. There is no pressure, pulling, or discomfort involved, which is why LED light therapy is often viewed as a gentle option compared to more intensive treatments.

Clients typically spend the session simply relaxing. Some people listen to music, meditate, or just enjoy a quiet moment while the treatment runs.

Recommended Treatment Schedule

For the best results, LED light therapy is usually done as a series rather than a one-time appointment. Most people begin with weekly sessions for a period of time. After that, clients often move into a maintenance schedule with sessions every few weeks to help support ongoing results.

This gradual schedule is common because LED therapy works over time. Consistency plays an important role in helping clients get the most benefit from their sessions.

After the Session

One of the biggest advantages of LED light therapy is how easy it is to fit into a normal routine. There is typically no downtime, and most clients can return to their daily activities immediately after the session. Unlike more aggressive skincare procedures, LED light therapy does not usually require recovery time or special aftercare.

Because the treatment is gentle and non-invasive, many people choose it specifically for its convenience and comfort.

Conclusion

LED light therapy treatment sessions are straightforward, relaxing, and easy to schedule into everyday life. With a simple consultation, a comfortable 20 to 30 minute session, and a consistent treatment plan, clients can feel confident knowing the process is designed to be convenient and stress-free.

Read more:
What to Expect From LED Light Therapy Treatment Sessions

Mark Stephen McCollum is a respected name in the automotive world, with over 35 years of hands-on experience. Born and raised in Conroe, Texas, he grew up in a close family and learned early the value of hard work.

He studied business finance at Lon Morris College and Texas A&M University, building a foundation that would carry him through a long and successful career.

Mark worked his way up from the ground floor, starting in dealership operations before taking on senior leadership roles. He served as General Manager at Sonic Automotive and later became Market President at AutoNation, the largest automotive retailer in the United States. There, he oversaw 22 franchises across 18 rooftops, managing over $1.5 billion in revenue.

His approach to leadership is straightforward—prioritise people, stay close to the work, and make decisions based on real-world experience. Mark believes that trust and culture drive performance more than numbers alone.

More recently, he founded Automotive IntelliQence, a software company helping dealers use data to make smarter decisions without losing the human touch. He remains active in mentoring others and giving back to his community, supporting the Centre for Child Protection in Austin.

Whether leading large teams or building new tools for the industry, Mark Stephen McCollum stands out as a thoughtful, steady leader who knows the business inside and out.

Mark, take us back to the beginning—how did you first get started in automotive retail?

I started in dealerships not long after finishing at Texas A&M and Lon Morris College, where I studied business finance. I grew up in Conroe, Texas, in a working family where getting stuck in and figuring things out for yourself was the norm. I didn’t have a big plan, but I was drawn to the energy of retail. Once I got inside a dealership and saw how everything worked—from sales to service—I was hooked.

Back then, I was the guy who showed up early, stayed late, and asked questions. I wanted to understand every part of the business, not just my lane. That helped me move up quickly.

What were some early lessons you learned on the ground?

Don’t assume you know more than the people doing the work. I remember early on, I tried to change a service process without speaking to the technicians. It backfired. They knew the process better than I did. From then on, I always walked the floor, asked questions, and listened before making decisions. That approach served me well throughout my career.

You eventually became Market President at AutoNation. What was that like?

That role was intense—in a good way. I was responsible for 22 franchises across 18 rooftops, managing more than $1.5 billion in annual revenue. Every day was different. You’d be talking strategy one minute and solving a customer issue the next. But at that scale, the challenge is consistency. You need systems, yes, but you also need strong local leadership and a clear culture.

I made it a point to spend time in the stores, not just behind reports. When you’re dealing with thousands of employees and customers, the only way to keep things on track is to stay connected to the people. It’s not glamorous, but it’s effective.

After decades in operations, you moved into tech. What led to the founding of Automotive IntelliQence?

Over the years, I kept seeing the same issue: dealers had tons of data, but they weren’t using it in a way that helped their people make better decisions. I wasn’t looking to build the next shiny dashboard—I wanted to build tools that worked in the real world.

Automotive IntelliQence came from that. It’s about giving frontline teams the insights they need without adding friction. The aim wasn’t to replace people—it was to support them. I believe tech should fit into the flow of work, not disrupt it.

What changes in the auto industry have surprised you most?

Honestly, I’m surprised by how quickly digital retail has been embraced on the surface—and how slowly it’s being implemented underneath. There’s a difference between offering online car sales and actually integrating digital into how your team works.

There’s also a growing gap between customer expectations and dealership processes. People want transparency and speed, but many systems are still clunky. That’s where smart tools, better training, and leadership make the difference.

What was one of the hardest leadership challenges you’ve faced?

Hiring the wrong leadership team in a new market. They looked great on paper—impressive backgrounds, polished resumes. But culturally, it was a mismatch. Morale dipped, and turnover followed. I had to step back in, reset expectations, and rebuild the team from scratch.

That experience taught me that values alignment matters more than experience. You can train skills, but you can’t train character. Since then, I’ve always hired with that in mind.

How do you define success at this point in your career?

It’s changed a lot. In the beginning, success meant numbers—hitting goals, earning promotions, growing revenue. These days, I think about legacy. Did I help someone grow in their role? Did I build something that lasts? That’s success to me now.

Also, balance matters. I used to run myself into the ground. Now, I make time for golf, family, and quiet mornings. You can’t lead others if you’re running on empty.

What advice would you give to someone starting their career in this industry?

Start by listening. Spend time learning how the business really works—on the ground, not just in reports. Show up early, stay curious, and help solve problems. And when you make a mistake—and you will—own it. That’s how you earn trust.

Also, don’t chase titles. Chase value. If you consistently create value for others, the titles and promotions will follow.

Looking ahead, what do you think the future of auto retail looks like?

I think we’ll see a mix of high-tech and high-touch. Customers want efficiency, but they still want trust. The dealerships that succeed will be the ones that blend the two well—using tech to remove friction, and people to build relationships.

And leadership will matter more than ever. You can’t automate culture. That still comes down to who’s in the room and how they lead.

Final thoughts?

Show up. Stay grounded. Don’t stop learning. That’s what’s worked for me—and it still does.

Read more:
What Mark Stephen McCollum Has Learned from 35 Years in Automotive

PDF conversion often looks like a technical step that happens at the end of a task. In practice, it shapes how documents get read, shared and reused.

A poorly converted PDF creates friction long after the file leaves the editor. Layout breaks, missing text and compatibility issues usually trace back to small oversights made during conversion. Knowing where these mistakes appear helps keep documents clear, stable and professional.

1. Unclear Purpose for the Converted File

Problems appear when the role of the PDF remains undefined. Some documents require ongoing edits, while others serve as a fixed version for distribution or submission. Treating both cases the same introduces unnecessary rework and delays.

When a file reaches its finished state, it makes sense to convert to PDF once content and structure are complete. Keeping an editable original alongside the published version preserves flexibility without affecting stability.

2. Poor Source File Preparation

Many conversion issues originate in the source file rather than the PDF itself. Inconsistent fonts, manual spacing and mixed formatting styles pass directly into the converted document. Since conversion tools preserve the existing structure, these issues remain visible instead of resolving automatically.

Basic preparation improves outcomes significantly. Standardised styles, consistent spacing and clearly defined sections create a predictable layout before conversion begins. This foundation reduces layout shifts, prevents formatting drift and produces a PDF that reflects the document’s intended structure.

3. Mismatch Between Content and Page Layout

Different file types behave unpredictably once placed into a fixed page format. Long tables, wide spreadsheets and multi-column layouts often exceed page limits, which causes content to compress, break or shift in unintended ways.

Small layout adjustments improve conversion results. Margin settings, page orientation and column width benefit from review before conversion begins. Content designed for scrolling or flexible screens rarely transfers cleanly to a static page without these changes, which makes early layout planning essential.

4. Text Loss in Scanned Documents

Scanned files often appear complete but lack selectable text. Without text recognition, PDFs become image files that limit search, editing and copying. Applying OCR during conversion restores usability. This step turns visual documents into functional ones without altering appearance.

5. Disappearing Interactive Elements

Forms, hyperlinks and annotations may vanish during conversion if settings do not account for them. A document that once collected input can become static. When interactivity matters, conversion options should preserve these elements. Rebuilding forms afterwards wastes time and increases the risk of errors.

6. Excessive File Size

Large PDFs introduce friction during sharing and long-term storage. Oversized images, embedded media and unused elements increase loading time and often exceed email or platform limits, which delays distribution and access.

Careful optimisation improves usability. Adjusted image resolution, compressed assets and removal of unnecessary components reduce file weight while preserving readability. A balanced file size supports faster delivery and smoother use across everyday workflows.

7. Inconsistent Behaviour Across Devices

A PDF that appears correct on one screen may behave differently elsewhere. Fonts, spacing and page flow can shift between desktop and mobile views. Testing on multiple devices confirms consistency. This step matters when documents reach external recipients with varied setups.

8. Overreliance on Default Conversion Settings

Default settings favour speed over accuracy and rarely reflect the needs of complex documents. Important details such as layout behaviour or font handling may not receive proper attention.

Adjusting options to match content type improves results. Text-heavy reports, forms and image-based files benefit from settings chosen with their purpose in mind.

9. Missing Security Controls

Sensitive information often passes through conversion without protection, which allows files to circulate beyond their intended audience. Permissions and access limits define how a document can be viewed, edited or shared. Applying these controls during conversion reduces risk and supports secure document handling.

10. No Final Review Before Sharing

Files often get shared as soon as conversion finishes, even though small issues remain easy to miss at that stage. A brief final check helps confirm layout accuracy, text clarity and element placement before the document reaches recipients, which prevents avoidable confusion and follow-up corrections.

A Simple Way to Reduce Most Conversion Errors

Many mistakes stem from the same habit: rushing conversion as a background task. A short checklist helps avoid this:

Review and clean the source file.
Confirm the document’s purpose.
Adjust conversion settings for content type.
Check the PDF on more than one device.

This approach shifts conversion from an automatic step to a controlled decision point. When each check aligns with the document’s role, errors surface early and files reach recipients in a usable, consistent state.

When Conversion Supports the Workflow

Treating conversion as a deliberate stage in document handling improves reliability. Most issues stem from unclear intent, weak preparation or skipped checks rather than the format itself.

With the right approach, files remain stable, readable and consistent across devices and use cases. When conversion supports workflow goals instead of interrupting them, documents keep their value long after they leave the editor.

Read more:
Top 10 PDF Conversion Mistakes (And How to Fix Them)

Children are routinely exposed to adverts for weight-loss injections, diet products and cosmetic procedures online, according to a new report by Dame Rachel de Souza, who has called for tougher regulation of social media platforms.

The report, based on a survey of 2,000 children aged 13 to 17 alongside focus groups, found that young people were being “bombarded” with content promoting body transformation, despite restrictions on certain types of advertising.

Respondents reported seeing ads for weight-loss drugs and diet products, as well as skin-lightening treatments, some of which are illegal to sell in the UK. Others described beauty and cosmetic content, including promotions for lip fillers and aesthetic procedures, as “unavoidable” across major social media platforms.

Dame Rachel said the content was “immensely damaging” to young people’s self-esteem and urged ministers to consider a ban on targeted social media advertising to children.

“We cannot continue to accept an online world that profits from children’s insecurities and constantly tells them they need to change,” she said. “Urgent action is needed to create an online environment that is truly safer by design.”

The findings come amid the rollout of the Online Safety Act, which aims to make the internet safer for users, particularly children, by placing duties on platforms to remove harmful material quickly.

Dame Rachel’s report suggests amending the Act to introduce a clearer “duty of care” obliging platforms to prevent children from being shown body-image related advertising in the first place. She also recommended changes to Ofcom’s Children’s Code of Practice to explicitly protect young users from “body stigma” content.

Ofcom said such material is already covered under its existing code. “Body stigma content can be incredibly harmful to children, which is why our rules require sites and apps to protect children from encountering it and to act swiftly when they become aware of it,” a spokesperson said. The regulator added it would not tolerate technology firms “prioritising engagement over children’s online safety”.

The commissioner also called for stronger enforcement of rules governing the online sale of age-restricted products and suggested the government consider limiting children’s access to certain social media platforms altogether.

Dr Peter Macaulay, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Derby, said restricting advertising to children was a necessary step but not sufficient on its own. “We also need stronger platform accountability, improved enforcement of age-appropriate design standards and better education to help children critically navigate online pressures,” he said.

A government spokesperson said ministers had always been clear that the Online Safety Act was “not the end of the conversation” and confirmed that a national consultation had been launched on further measures, including the possibility of banning social media use for under-16s.

The debate highlights growing concern among policymakers about the commercial drivers behind youth-facing content, as platforms face mounting pressure to demonstrate that their business models do not undermine children’s mental health.

Read more:
Children ‘bombarded’ with weight-loss drug ads online, commissioner warns

Plant-based drinks maker Oatly has lost a long-running legal fight over its use of the word “milk” in marketing, after the UK Supreme Court ruled that it cannot trademark or use the slogan “post-milk generation” in connection with dairy alternatives.

The case, brought by Dairy UK, centred on whether the term “milk”, which is protected under EU-derived food labelling rules still in force in the UK, can be used in a trade mark for plant-based products.

On Wednesday, the UK Supreme Court upheld an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that “milk” is a reserved term that can only refer to animal-derived products. Judges said the phrase “post-milk generation” could confuse consumers about whether Oatly’s products were entirely milk-free or merely contained reduced levels of dairy.

The decision reinstates the original position of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), which had refused Oatly’s 2021 trade mark application.

Oatly’s UK and Ireland general manager, Bryan Carroll, criticised the outcome, calling it “a way to stifle competition” that creates “an uneven playing field for plant-based products that solely benefits Big Dairy”.

Under the ruling, Oatly must cancel its UK trade mark registration for “POST MILK GENERATION” and cannot use the phrase to market dairy-free alternatives. However, because the regulation applies only to food products, the company is still permitted to sell pre-existing merchandise such as T-shirts bearing the slogan.

The dispute reflects a broader regulatory framework under which certain food designations, including milk, cheese, butter and yoghurt, are legally reserved for animal-derived products. Although the UK has left the EU, the relevant regulation continues to apply as “assimilated law”.

Richard May, partner at law firm Osborne Clarke, said the ruling confirms the UK’s alignment with EU standards. “The key principle is straightforward: if a product is not derived from animal milk, it cannot be marketed using reserved dairy designations such as ‘milk’ or ‘cheese’,” he said.

Laurie Bray, senior associate and trade mark attorney at Withers & Rogers, said the judgment was decisive. “It has taken the highest court in the land to decide once and for all whether a plant-based milk alternative can be branded as ‘milk’. The outcome is not what Oatly was hoping for,” she said.

Bray added that the ruling may prompt Dairy UK or its European counterparts to challenge Oatly’s EU trade mark registrations covering similar wording.

The case comes amid growing debate across Europe over the labelling of plant-based foods. Last year, the European Parliament voted to tighten rules on the use of terms such as “oat milk” and “veggie burger”, although the measures have yet to be formally adopted.

European farming groups argue that such terms mislead consumers and dilute established product definitions. Environmental campaigners and alternative protein producers, by contrast, have warned that overly restrictive labelling harms innovation and sustainability goals.

For UK plant-based brands, the Supreme Court’s decision sends a clear signal. While factual descriptors such as “dairy-free” remain permissible, the use of protected dairy terminology in branding or trade marks is likely to face legal challenge.

The ruling marks the end of a protracted dispute for Oatly, and underscores how regulatory definitions can shape the fast-growing plant-based food and drink market.

Read more:
Oatly loses ‘milk’ branding battle in UK Supreme Court

London-based Mozart AI has raised $6 million in an oversubscribed seed funding round led by Balderton Capital, as the startup looks to reshape how music is created in the age of artificial intelligence.

The fundraise follows a $1.1 million pre-seed round completed last summer, taking Mozart AI’s total funding to more than $7 million. The latest investment coincides with the launch of the company’s long-awaited mobile app and comes amid rapid early traction for its AI-powered “Generative Audio Workstation”.

Mozart AI is positioning itself as a creator-first alternative to legacy digital audio workstations, many of which have dominated music production since the 1990s. Its platform is designed to support everyone from professional producers refining chart-ready releases to bedroom musicians creating and sharing their first tracks online.

The company says more than 100,000 users signed up within two months of its beta launch in September, with over one million songs already created. Artists using the platform include producers and collaborators linked to A$AP Rocky, Avicii and Kodak Black, while some tracks created using the software have already surpassed 10 million streams on Spotify.

Alongside Balderton, the seed round attracted participation from Mercuri, EWOR and a group of high-profile angel investors including Eventbrite co-founder Kevin Hartz, Oscar-winning director Charles Ferguson and Frame.io founder Emery Wells.

The funding will be used to expand Mozart AI’s team, further develop its core technology and build on the viral momentum generated by its beta launch, ahead of a full public release.

Built by musicians, the platform combines traditional digital audio workstation functionality with AI-driven tools that assist rather than replace the creative process. Users can create music from scratch with AI support or generate tracks using prompt-driven “agentic” workflows.

Features include context-aware stem generation, real-time suggestions for MIDI progressions and drums, synth and effects creation, and the ability to remix sounds into new styles. Time-consuming production tasks such as quantisation and time stretching are handled automatically, while built-in video tools allow users to create and share music videos directly to social platforms.

Crucially, Mozart AI says artists retain full copyright over their work. The platform is built on commercially cleared third-party generative models, including those from ElevenLabs, which are trained exclusively on licensed material, enabling users to release and monetise their music without legal uncertainty.

Sundar Arvind, chief executive and co-founder of Mozart AI, said the company’s aim was to remove technical barriers without diluting artistic control. “Far from replacing creativity, AI is levelling up the adrenaline-filled process through which musicians compose and discover the right sounds,” he said. “We’re building toward a world where a spark of creativity can be turned into a release-ready, monetisable song in minutes.”

Industry figures echoed that sentiment. Ash Pournori, songwriter and former manager of Avicii, said the most successful AI music platforms would be those that empower rather than threaten artists. Meanwhile Umair Ali, producer for Kodak Black and Lil Baby, described Mozart AI as “an always-on sketchpad” that accelerates ideation without flattening the creative process.

Daniel Waterhouse, general partner at Balderton Capital, said the investment reflected a belief that AI tools must work with musicians, not against them. “Mozart AI enables artists to spend more time experimenting and iterating on ideas, rather than wrestling with clunky legacy software,” he said.

Founded by a team that blends musical and technical expertise, Mozart AI has moved from concept to premium product in less than a year. With fresh funding secured and a growing user base, the company is now betting that its artist-led vision can help define the next generation of music technology.

Read more:
Mozart AI raises $6m to put artists at the heart of AI-powered music creation

Retail spending picked up sharply in January as consumers flocked to post-Christmas sales, offering some relief to a sector hit by a subdued festive period and rising employment costs.

Figures from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) and KPMG showed that retail sales increased by 2.7 per cent year-on-year last month, up from growth of just 1.2 per cent in December.

The improvement suggests that many shoppers delayed spending before Christmas and instead waited for deeper January discounts.

Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the BRC, said: “A drab December gave way to a brighter January as retail sales picked up pace. Many shoppers had held off Christmas spending and waited for the January sales, with the start of the new year showing the strongest growth.”

Linda Ellett, UK head of consumer, retail and leisure at KPMG, said discounting proved decisive. “January sales enticed consumers to spend, with personal electronics, furniture, and children’s clothes and toys among the best-performing categories,” she said.

She added that New Year resolutions had also driven spending in health-related categories, including wellness-focused food and drink.

Food sales rose by 3.8 per cent compared with January last year, up from annual growth of 2.8 per cent previously. Non-food sales increased by 1.7 per cent year-on-year.

However, the data will provide limited comfort to retailers concerned about margins. The reliance on heavy discounting to stimulate demand suggests that underlying consumer confidence remains fragile.

According to the Office for National Statistics, retail sales volumes are still 1.5 per cent below pre-pandemic levels. Official figures showed sales rose by only 0.4 per cent in December.

Consumer spending is a major driver of UK economic growth, and weakness in retail demand has weighed on GDP since the pandemic, as households grappled with rising living costs and higher borrowing rates.

Financial markets expect the Bank of England to cut interest rates two or three times this year, potentially beginning as early as March. Rates were reduced four times in 2025 to 3.75 per cent, their lowest level in three years.

The Bank’s latest forecasts indicate inflation is likely to return to its 2 per cent target by the spring. However, the central bank also expects unemployment to rise to 5.3 per cent this year, a post-pandemic high, potentially dampening consumer confidence.

Retailers are also contending with higher operating costs following the Labour government’s £25 billion increase in employer national insurance contributions and further rises in the minimum wage.

With official GDP data for the final quarter of last year due later this week, January’s rebound offers tentative signs of resilience — but the sector’s recovery remains closely tied to interest rates, household incomes and the strength of consumer confidence in the months ahead.

Read more:
Retail spending rebounds in January after weak Christmas

Growing numbers of Scottish spirits producers are showing signs of financial strain as weakening export demand, rising costs and trade barriers squeeze margins across the sector.

Research by restructuring specialist BTG Begbies Traynor found that 69 Scottish distillers were facing “significant” or “critical” financial distress at the end of the year, up from 49 in the previous quarter.

According to the Scotch Whisky Association, Scotland is home to more than 150 whisky distilleries, alongside more than 90 producing gin and a smaller number making vodka, rum and liqueurs.

Thomas McKay, managing partner of BTG in Scotland, said producers were facing a “perfect storm of lowering demand, rising production costs and increased tariffs in key markets”.

Exports to the United States and China, two of Scotch whisky’s most important markets, have been dented by tariffs and duties, while domestic trends have also shifted.

Several UK pub groups have reported that customers are increasingly trading down from spirits to cheaper alternatives such as beer or soft drinks. At the same time, broader societal changes, including declining alcohol consumption among younger consumers, have weighed on volumes.

McKay noted that demand for Scotch whisky and gin peaked during the pandemic in 2020, when lockdown consumption surged both in the UK and internationally.

“When that demand fell away, the resulting oversupply pushed prices down, just as additional export costs to the US began to rise sharply,” he said.

Distillers have also been hit by steep increases in energy and labour costs over the past two years, further eroding profitability.

The challenges have already prompted retrenchment. Last month, craft brewer BrewDog announced plans to close its distillery and spirits arm, underscoring the pressure across the wider drinks sector.

The strain is not confined to Scotland. Export volumes of French wine and spirits fell last year to their lowest level in 25 years.

Industry body FEVS said shipments dropped 3 per cent year-on-year to 168 million cases, the weakest performance since the turn of the century. The value of sales declined 8 per cent to €14.3 billion, the poorest showing on that measure for five years.

Tariffs imposed by the United States under President Trump, as well as duties in China, were cited as key headwinds.

Gabriel Picard, chairman of FEVS, said that new trade agreements between the European Union and India, as well as Mercosur countries in South America, could help support exports in the year ahead. However, he warned that sales of cognac and wine to the US and China could deteriorate further.

For Scotland’s distillers, the coming year is likely to test resilience. With costs elevated, export markets volatile and domestic consumers tightening belts, the industry that has long been one of Britain’s flagship exporters is confronting one of its most challenging trading environments in decades.

Read more:
Tariffs and falling demand leave Scotch distillers under pressure

Ed Miliband has approved a sweeping expansion of renewable energy projects across the UK, backing solar farms that could cover an area of farmland close to the size of Manchester, alongside dozens of new onshore wind developments.

On Tuesday, the energy secretary awarded consumer-funded subsidies to 134 new solar farms across England and a further 23 in Wales and Scotland. He also approved 28 large onshore wind projects, mainly located on hillsides in Scotland and Wales.

Among the schemes given the green light is the vast West Burton solar farm on prime agricultural land on the Lincolnshire–Nottinghamshire border, as well as one of the UK’s most northerly solar developments on farmland in north Aberdeenshire. Miliband has also approved England’s largest onshore wind project in a decade, the 20 megawatt Imerys Wind Farm on a former mining site in Cornwall.

Under the government’s Contracts for Difference (CfD) regime, operators of the new projects will receive a guaranteed minimum price for the electricity they generate for up to 20 years after becoming operational, with the difference funded through levies on consumer energy bills.

The announcement was welcomed by renewable energy developers and industry groups, who argue that large-scale solar and onshore wind are among the cheapest ways to generate new electricity.

However, countryside and community campaigners warned that the decision risks long-term damage to farmland and rural landscapes.

Claire Coutinho, Labour’s shadow energy secretary, said the subsidies would ultimately raise household bills. “The true cost of this power, once you add in network charges and back-up, is far higher,” she said. “All this will do is make electricity more expensive, when what we need is cheaper power to support growth and living standards.”

The approvals include 4.9 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity, 1.3GW of onshore wind and four experimental tidal schemes totalling 21 megawatts. They follow confirmation earlier this month of subsidies for 8.4GW of offshore wind capacity.

Campaign groups argue that the land impact of solar is being underestimated. Rosie Pearson, chair of the Community Planning Alliance, said: “This represents further destruction of countryside and best farmland while warehouse roofs, car parks and houses sit empty of solar panels. Add the pylons that accompany these schemes and rural areas are being industrialised.”

Based on previous developments, the solar farms approved could cover more than 40 square miles of mainly agricultural land, close to the size of Manchester, which spans about 45 square miles. The solar industry counters that improved panel efficiency could reduce the final land take to around 36 square miles, roughly equivalent to Stoke-on-Trent.

Concerns were also raised about the pace of onshore wind development in Scotland. Helen Crawford of the Highland Community Council Convention on Major Energy Infrastructure said communities were being left behind by planning decisions. “The lack of strategic spatial planning has created a democratic deficit between communities and policymakers,” she said.

Industry bodies rejected claims that the projects would push up costs. James Robottom of RenewableUK said new onshore wind would protect consumers from volatile gas prices, while Chris Hewett, chief executive of Solar Energy UK, described the approvals as “proof positive” that solar delivers the cheapest available power.

Miliband defended the decision, saying the expansion would strengthen energy security and cut bills over the long term. “By backing solar and onshore wind at scale, we’re driving bills down for good and protecting families and businesses from the fossil-fuel rollercoaster controlled by petrostates and dictators,” he said.

Under the latest CfD terms, new onshore wind farms will receive a minimum price of £75.50 per megawatt hour (MWh) in today’s prices, while solar projects will receive £68.17 per MWh. That compares with market prices of around £60 per MWh for electricity expected to be delivered in summer 2028.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has previously warned that CfD levies on consumer and business energy bills are projected to rise from £2.3 billion in 2024–25 to around £5 billion by 2030–31, intensifying the political debate over who ultimately pays for the UK’s clean energy transition.

Read more:
Miliband backs solar and wind projects covering farmland nearly the size of Manchester

The founder of Starling Bank has reduced her shareholding in the fintech, as new filings reveal that Anne Boden has cut her stake during a secondary share sale that valued the business at up to £4 billion.

Boden, who launched Starling in 2014 after senior roles at Allied Irish Banks and Lloyds, has lowered her holding to around 2.7 per cent from a previous 4.3 per cent, according to the disclosures.

The move follows a secondary share sale launched by Starling last year, aimed at allowing existing shareholders to sell down stakes while creating opportunities for new investors. At the time, the bank was targeting a valuation of between £3.5 billion and £4 billion, according to the Financial Times.

The filings show that Chrysalis Investments, which counts Starling as 53 per cent of its portfolio, retained a stake of more than 10 per cent. The Guernsey-based investment trust has been a long-term backer of Starling, leading a £30 million funding round in 2019 and investing a further £20 million in 2023.

Starling’s largest shareholder remains billionaire Harald McPike, who continues to hold more than 40 per cent of the company through his investment vehicle JTC Holdings.

The secondary sale comes amid a shift in tone from Starling’s leadership on a potential stock market listing. Over the past year, the bank’s senior team has signalled increased openness to a US flotation, marking a departure from earlier commitments to London.

Declan Ferguson, Starling’s chief financial officer, has said the bank has not yet formed a “concrete view” on the most suitable market for a listing, describing the decision as “in flux”. That contrasts with comments made in 2024 by former interim chief executive John Mountain, who said the fintech was “very committed” to a London listing and described the City as its “natural home”.

Mountain succeeded Boden as chief executive in May 2023. Her departure followed reports of tensions with investors after fund manager Jupiter sold its stake in Starling at a price below its previous valuation. Boden later said her decision to step down reflected concerns that her role as chief executive was being unduly influenced by her position as a shareholder.

When asked about her reduced stake, Boden declined to comment.

A spokesperson for Starling said: “During the last year, one of our shareholders agreed to sell some of their shares to another of our shareholders in a private, bilateral transaction. This was done with the company’s full knowledge and support.”

Read more:
Starling founder Anne Boden cuts stake in £4bn fintech