INDUSTRY ARTICLE
POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN PLANNING GATHERS MOMENTUM
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, continues his highly interventionist approach towards the planning system in order to send ‘signals’ over how he wishes to see planning policy and guidance applied in key sectors, one of which is renewables and onshore wind in particular.
GREATER SCOPE
Having enabled powers to give him greater scope to ‘call in’ or ‘recover’ renewable energy schemes in the planning system, it will come of no surprise to learn that Mr Pickles has so far recovered 36 onshore wind planning applications over the past year. It will also perhaps come of no surprise to learn that of the 13 applications so far determined by the Secretary of State, 11 have been dismissed whilst only 2 have been allowed.
APPALLING SUCCESS RATE That appalling success rate of only 15% is much worse than the average for all forms of development considered at appeal. Latest PINS statistics for 2012/13 indicate that overall, the success rate at appeal across England stood at over twice that being achieved by Mr Pickles for renewable schemes (at 35%), and if only public inquiries are considered, then the success rate for all appeals doubles again to a staggering 62%. The contrast between success at appeal for all forms of development, and the dismal rate being allowed by Mr Pickles in his decision making on onshore wind recovered appeals could hardly be starker.
INTERVENTIONIST STANCE OVERRIDING THE DYNAMICS OF LOCALISM
It is also interesting to see the Secretary of State’s interventionist stance playing out and overriding the dynamics of localism. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the intervention of the Secretary of State calling – in a planning application which has had the support of the Local Planning Authority and who are minded to approve a scheme if Localism is to mean anything positive. Yet that is what happened in Peterborough, where four wind turbines were called in by Eric Pickles earlier this month. And that happened in Cumbria in March, where a three turbine scheme was called-in after it too had received a favourable determination at the local level.
This centralising interventionist approach undermines the whole purpose of introducing the localism agenda into the planning system, and its supposedly proactive and positive approach whereby local communities have been empowered to take difficult decisions about accommodating new development and be locally accountable.
6
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