Onshore Wind – Winning Hearts and Minds and Securing Planning Permission
of a formal objection from a household counts in the application’s favour or will formal notification of ‘no objection’ be required? Similarly, how will an area from which a ‘majority verdict’ needs to be drawn be defined? Either way, what is clear is that the power of local communities to influence the decision-making process is set to increase significantly and we have already seen schemes in other development sectors refused permission ostensibly because the ‘community doesn’t want it’.
At face value the concept of a fast-track approvals process reinforces the principle of localism and offers a significant ‘carrot’ for those developers that can successfully win the support of local communities and/or neutralise objections.
Community Ownership
The new Government believes that allowing communities to benefit, financially or in other ways, from hosting onshore wind projects is the key to increasing the rate of planning approvals.
Allowing communities to keep business rates from wind farms, discounted energy bills and community ownership models are just some of the ideas the Government has in mind. While nearly all onshore wind farm developers currently offer a community benefit fund package in association with new development proposals, these are often viewed with a degree of skepticism by the local community and the amounts offered are sometimes not enough to win hearts and minds.
Over the coming months and years greatest emphasis is, in my view, likely to be placed on community ownership structures: allowing communities to invest or even being gifted a financial stake in the wind farm project – thereby establishing a more tangible link between the development and the host community. This may be instead of or in
Allowing communities to keep business rates from wind farms, discounted energy bills and community ownership models are just some of the ideas the Government has in mind.
addition to traditional community benefit fund payments. In the circumstances, developers would be well advised to begin thinking about such matters in a creative manner now for those schemes likely to be determined from mid-2011 onwards, and making appropriate provision in financial appraisals.
Rights of Appeal
Fundamental changes to the planning appeals process could also be one of the key areas of governmental reform. While the Government confirmed last month that the introduction of third-party rights of appeal will not form part of the Draft Decentralisation and Localism Bill they have not, in so far as I am aware, ruled it out completely. However, it is unlikely to come forward in the foreseeable future. The
MODERN ENERGY REVIEW – VOLUME 3 ISSUE 1
concept has been around for many years, has never been taken forward and I see no reason for or prospect of a fundamental shift in attitudes in this regard. Its introduction would cause major problems for the whole of the development industry at a particularly sensitive economic time. Any proposed introduction would be fiercely resisted for, among other reasons, the introduction of further risk into the planning system would make securing project finance increasingly difficult.
Fundamental changes to the planning appeals process could also be one of the key areas of governmental reform.
If the Government is serious about its introduction, and there are many in the development industry who wonder whether it was a vote-winning tactic to be sacrificed at the sharp end of bill drafting, there will need to be clear thresholds and criteria put in place to prevent ill-founded and frivolous appeals.
In addition to third-party rights of appeal, the Government has also suggested that an applicant’s right to appeal against refusal of planning permission could be limited to certain instances, namely where there has been a procedural anomaly in assessing the application or the decision is in contravention of the development plan.
Again, any restriction on any applicant’s right to appeal would represent a fundamental change in process and would be resisted by the development industry at large. Again, it is unlikely to be something that is introduced imminently.
Conclusion
This article began with the contention that the planning system is one of the principal barriers to the deployment of onshore wind energy in England. The current proportion of schemes granted planning permission by local councils tends to support this view.
A number of reasons have been outlined, with the role of local communities being the most significant. Local communities are often extremely effective in mobilising objection to onshore wind developments and influencing the decision-making process.
As the new Government reforms the planning system and introduces the concept of localism, local communities are set to be further empowered and gain increased levels of influence over the decision-making process. Therefore, it is essential that the onshore wind industry carefully considers how it engages with local communities. Traditional methods may no longer be appropriate. Communities will need to be engaged much earlier in the process using a much greater range of techniques, including social media. Utilising innovative community ownership structures and allowing the local community to invest in ‘their’ wind farm is also likely to be critical to success. Ultimately, the schemes that succeed in securing planning permission from local councils will be those that win the hearts and minds of the local community from the outset. n
27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108