PLANNING ISSUES
FEATURE SPONSOR
RENEWABLES PLANNING POLICY IN A PICKLE
It is often noted that the Coalition Government promised to be the greenest government ever upon taking power. Yet presumably as a result of the budget deficit, the economy and the crosswinds of politics in the last 4 years, the Secretary of State responsible for the delivering of planning through the Communities and Local Government Department, Mr Eric Pickles, has presided over a planning u-turn of some considerable significance.
One of the first things he sought to do was remove a whole tier of the planning system, comprising of the regional plans and strategies. These had been up until then the cornerstone of the system whereby energy targets were set at a regional level to move forward renewable energy deployment.
LOCALISM ACT VERSUS CENTRALISATION
Then we had the Localism Act with its insistence on giving local communities greater say in planning together with the publication of the new national planning framework which again sought to distil a complex suite of well-understood planning guidance into just 60 pages.
Yet in an apparent measure to reassure concerned backbench MP’s that the new simplified guidance did not presume an automatic presumption in favour of sustainable development (did it ever; the appeal statistics don’t indicate so), CLG quickly prepared additional guidance on renewables emphasising the need for a planning balance with local owners being given more weight.
This was followed in the autumn by the recovery of a tranche of appeals for his personal consideration. Arguably, there can be no better example of the centralisation of planning power (as distinct to localism) than the Minister delaying and determining an application in this way. He has given himself until April 2014 to continue this process.
MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS Then there are the latest mandatory requirements to consult on onshore wind schemes which came into force at the end of 2013, again introducing further hurdles to jump over before applications can be validated; but there is no accompanying guidance on best practice on how this is to be achieved.
Collectively, these changes centralising decision making in Whitehall have achieved little other than increased risk and uncertainty for the renewables sector, particularly the wind industry. Similar ministerial recovery has also recently occurred in the solar sector.
CONTRAST WITH HOUSING SECTOR The contrast with the housing development sector could not be starker. Faced with the same principles of localism, no requirements for mandatory pre-application consultation have been introduced. Again, the Minister has sought to call in a considerable number of residential appeals. The difference is that most of these have been approved based on the need for more housing and the lack of a 5 year land supply, despite strong local opposition.
PLANNING STATISTICS
This dichotomy in the operation of the planning system is reflected in an analysis of 2013 planning statistics published in the Planning magazine which considered appeals determined by Mr Pickles. Only 28.6% of renewable energy schemes were approved by Mr Pickles.
Contrast that with an overall average of 56.1% of schemes which were approved across all sectors, and 81.3 % which were approved in respect of housing schemes.
The evidence points to the need for new housing being given significantly greater weight by the Minister compared to the need for additional renewable energy. This interventionist approach to positively encourage housing is presumably a political one and connected to the need to foster growth.
The planning system being applied is therefore uneven, partial and an increasingly centralised one, where decisions are being made for political reasons. Given this trend, it is hard to be optimistic that approval rates for renewable energy schemes will improve on the run up to the next general election, no matter the merits of an individual scheme.
88
www.windenergynetwork.co.uk
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 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116