Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

National Wind Power welcomes the investigation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on environmental planning. This is very timely as there is considerable interest of how the supply and use of energy, in particular of electricity, can be achieved in a sustainable manner. Of course, it is recognised that there is a great variety of issues relevant to the Commission's study, but our energy dependant society demands a planning system that will deliver a programme of renewable electricity that can form the power base of any wider programme of sustainable development. This something the UK does not have at present.

In comparison to other European countries, The UK has a poor record of consenting the development of wind farms and other renewable energy projects. For example, Germany and Denmark currently have over 4500MW and 1500MW of installed wind capacity compared to a small 360MW in the UK.

This is largely a planning matter; in particular there are inconsistencies in the conclusions about the value of renewable energy and with respect to the interpretation of PPG22 which provides planning guidance on renewable energy.

By way of example I quote the cases of two projects; High Moor in County Durham and Kirkheaton in Northumberland.

The High Moor application consisted of 25 turbines. The area is designated an Area of High Landscape Value and the application succeeded through the County Council (as consultees to the District Planning Authority) and through the District Planning Committee. It failed at the Full Committee stage and went to appeal in June 1998. The planning inspector recommended the appeal be refused and the appeal failed. Of particular relevance to this failure was the inspector's conclusion that, in comparison with generation from Drax (the largest coal burning power station in Western Europe), "the individual contribution to energy generation needs from High Moor would be insignificant and unreliable, and that pollution savings would be correspondingly small, and uncertain".

The Kirkheaton application also had to go to appeal, the appeal (by written representations) took place in September 1998. This proposal of three turbines is partly in an Area of High Landscape Value. The inspector allowed the appeal. Of particular note are the contrasting conclusions concerning the value of the output from the wind farm,

"As EIS [working on behalf of the opponents] suggest, it may well be that the installed capacity of the Kirkheaton proposal would represent only a minute proportion of UK electricity consumption, which if used as the sole criterion might well suggest that wind farms are not worthwhile projects.

"I do not accept this proposition. Wind power is an integral element of the Government's Strategy to provide 10% of UK electricity consumption from renewables by 2010 and the incremental accumulation from wind farms as each project comes on stream represents a valuable contribution to this strategy."

These examples are relevant to the RCEP questions;

*     What should be the relationship between international, national, regional and local goals? Should environmental planning take place at the lowest level consistent with the common good (the principle of subsidiarity)? How far do current arrangements depart from that principle?
          Certainly, when trying to reduce the threat of climate change, we are dealing with a global problem. Therefore, international and national goals should be a major aspect of any planning decision. Our experience is that debate at the local planning level concentrates very much on local parochial issues and the influence of vocal objectors (usually expressing a minority view) has an overiding influence on the decision.

*    Does the present form of planning inquiry offer the best way of resolving disputes?
          Consistent conclusions with respect to the value of particular types of development is vital if the environmental planning process is to have any credibility. A balance has to be struck between, for example the reduction in the threat of climate change (as an international and national issue) at all levels from planning inspectors to district council planning committees (who are of course interested in more local issues and are swayed by local arguments - many of which are completely spurious for example incorrect concerns about noise from wind farms). Indeed questions of how we ensure that all levels of decision-making processes are sufficiently open, transparent and accountable and what are the best ways to reflect the range of public opinion whilst maintaining an appropriate procedural timetable, are of great interest to the wind energy sector; not least because the great majority of the public support the development of wind power and other renewable energy, but the planning process is often hijacked by a small, unrepresentative group of wind power opponents.

In conclusion, the establishment of a meaningful programme of consented renewable energy projects is vital if the UK is to realise its aspirations of developing a real programme of sustainable development. A consistent, open and transparent planning process will be required for this to happen. For sustainable development to be successful direction will have to be given at an international and national level - ad hoc programmes will be of little value in developing a truly sustainable society. The programme will of course need to be delivered at a local level and environmental planning will have to be able to overcome the "fear of change" of some (often unrepresentative) pressure groups. Under the present planning regime the UK government will not achieve its existing targets for the development of renewable energy let alone any wider aspirations of sustainable development.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study