Bishop Hill All change
Jun 6, 2013 Energy: wind The government has announced that it is going to change the planning rules for onshore windfarm developments. Local communities are going to be given more say in where windfarms are sited, and they will get much larger bribes from developers too - five times larger in fact.
It's hard to tell at this stage how important this is. The new planning rules are to be outlined in a forthcoming document from the relevant government department (DCLG). Only once we have these will we be able to assess them impact.
Watch this space.
The text of the press release is as follows:
ONSHORE WIND: COMMUNITIES TO HAVE A GREATER SAY AND INCREASED BENEFITS
- Local communities to have earlier and better involvement
- Five-fold increase in benefits paid by developers to communities
- Stable investment framework maintained
Communities will have a greater say over the siting of onshore wind farms, and reap increased benefits from hosting developments that do proceed, as a result of changes announced today.
The package of measures will include a five-fold increase in the value of community benefits paid for by developers, and proposals that will require communities to be consulted earlier in the application process.
Current planning decisions on onshore wind are not always reflecting a locally-led planning system. New planning guidance supporting the planning framework from DCLG will make clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. It will give greater weight to landscape and visual impact concerns.
As part of the measures, the Government will make pre-application consultation with local communities compulsory for the more significant onshore wind applications (this is already the case for national infrastructure applications). This will ensure that community engagement takes place at an earlier stage in more cases and may assist in improving the quality of proposed onshore wind development.
Ministers will be writing to the Planning Inspectorate and councils immediately to flag up that new guidance will become available shortly.
Best practice guidance from DECC to onshore wind developers will lay down the higher standards expected in relation to their engagement with communities, and a new register will monitor best-practice.
Government will also assist local people to gain the skills they need to enable them to engage more confidently with developers.
The Government will be expecting the industry to revise its Community Benefit Protocol by the end of the year, to include an increase in the recommended community benefit package in England from £1,000/MW of installed capacity per year, to £5,000/MW/year for the lifetime of the windfarm.
Communities agreeing a medium-sized 20MW wind farm could therefore receive a package of benefits worth £100,000 per year, or up to £400 a year off each household’s annual bill.
Communities and developers work together to decide how the money should be used – for example, to provide households with money off their energy bills, to pay for energy efficiency initiatives, establish local training projects or fund other community initiatives.
At a scheme run by RES at their Meikle Carewe windfarm near Aberdeen, local residents will receive £122 off their annual electricity bills.
A new Community Energy Strategy, published this autumn, will set out how Government can encourage community ownership and investment in wind projects. A Call for Evidence on this strategy has been published by DECC today.
As well as this, a joint DECC/ Defra Rural Community Energy Fund will provide £15 million in loans and grants to rural communities.
Based on the latest costs evidence, financial support for onshore wind – which was cut by 10% from April 2013 – will be held at the same rate, in line with the stable framework for investment in UK onshore wind.
On Thursday, Eric Pickles will announce that new DCLG planning practice guidance will become available on onshore wind to ensure more local decision-making and greater consideration for local environmental issues like landscape, heritage and local amenity. There will also be greater community consultation ahead of planning applications being submitted.
Secretary of State Edward Davey said:
“It is important that onshore wind is developed in a way that is truly sustainable – economically, environmentally and socially, and today’s announcement will ensure that communities see the windfall from hosting developments near to them, not just the wind farm”.
“We remain committed to the deployment of appropriately sited onshore wind, as a key part of a diverse, low-carbon and secure energy mix and committed to an evidence-based approach to supporting low carbon power.
“This is an important sector that is driving economic growth, supporting thousands of new jobs and providing a significant share of our electricity and I’m determined that local communities should share in these benefits.”
Energy Minister, Michael Fallon said:
“Today, we are putting local people at the heart of decision making on onshore wind.
“We are changing the balance to ensure that they are consulted earlier and have more say against poorly sited or inadequately justified turbines.
“When new turbines are agreed, we will ensure that they are developed in a way that benefits the local community, such as through cheaper energy bills.”
Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said:
"We want to give local communities a greater say on planning, to give greater weight to the protection of landscape, heritage and local amenity."
Government will deliver these changes in collaboration with industry and communities over the next 12 months.
Reader Comments (43)
Weasel words as ever.
" It will give greater weight to landscape and visual impact concerns."
Whilst there are serious problems with moving objects being visually highly noticeable to some people, notice no mention of anything else such as vibration.
In a way this is understandable, accepting vibration as a problem screws railways, air traffic, governmental and industrial all of which get away with a lot by exemption. (road is less of a problem and is largely regulated anyway)
The bribery is as useless as before, the people get no real say. It's probably a con-trick, extract money for work government would otherwise have to fund. No gain at all.
Note "five-fold increase in the value" which is not money.
" will make pre-application consultation with local communities compulsory for the more significant onshore wind applications "
Which means no consultation, is qualified with "significant", just deem not significant.
What the heck is this when decoded "Government will also assist local people to gain the skills they need to enable them to engage more confidently with developers."?
"Communities agreeing a medium-sized 20MW wind farm could therefore receive a package of benefits worth £100,000 per year, or up to £400 a year off each household’s annual bill."
Note the "could" which means an absolute freak maximum but precious little normally. Note too this is "benefits" unspecified but switched to calling it hard money which it is not.
I'll stop there. Whole thing is salesman bull.
They still think the people can be bought.
They are spending fast to lock it down before it's too late. They know they're running out of time and just want to get it all in place - then you'll get the "Well, it's there now and will be too expensive to take down, might as well leave it there," excuse.
Also watch for: "We gave you a stack of cash! What are you complaining about?" I can see it coming.
I'm sure we will be testing this out at a public inquiry next month. We need more details first though.
The danger with these bribes is that the part of the community least affected by wind turbines will be tempted by the bribe and the part of the community most affected by the wind turbines will be utterly opposed, as the value of their houses will fall by much more than the value of the bribe. Communities will be divided, and that is not good for anybody.
Here in Scotland, communities already get substantial 'bribes' from larger wind farms. e.g. SSE Griffin windfarm in Highland Perthshire (68 turbines, c. 160MW capacity, and last year only 15% load factor despite categoric assurances at the public inquiry that 30% would be the norm) has to fork out £300,000 p.a. to community based projects in the surrounding 5 community council areas (total pop. about 6,000). However, SSE are now suggesting that with new schemes the community 'sweetener' should be spread across the entire local authority area (Perth & Kinross) - about £120,000 people, which will mean the community which suffers most from disruption, and visual impact, threat to local tourist industry etc, will get virtually nothing as the money will be spread far too wide and thinly. But this way SSE can sweeten all the councillors and planners in Perth & Kinross with the possibility of cash for their community projects.
Re: Tim Channon
It means they will give local green groups funding for meetings, pamphlets, adverts etc to convince the local people that it is "a good thing". That way, when it comes time to engage with the developers they can confidently say "yes" and skilfully repeat the propaganda fed to them.
One fundamental issue here is, 'who pays the incentive given to local communities to sweeten their objection and give in to the construction of the windfarm'?
One has to bear in mind that companies never pay anything (not even their tax). Every expense that a company incurs is paid for by its customers. That means that the energy bills of all customers will rise so as to cover the cost that the energy firm has incurred in paying the incentive to local communities.
The head of Scotish & Southern Energy was recently interviewed on HardTalk (this site carried a link to the interview and it is worth watching). He clearly stated that the cost of electrical supply accounted for only half the bill. Half of 'your' electrical bill goes to cover costs and subsidiences incidental to renewable energy and government schemes for providing subsidized home insulation, double glazing, boiler replacements and assistance to those in fuel poverty.
If the average annual electricity bill is say £600pa, 'you' are already paying £300 for matters incidental to the green agenda. This part of your bill will increase. One of the increases will now be paying the incentives (or 'bribe') given to local communities so that a windfarm can be erected.
PS. If one is not a dual energy consumer and if one is entirely reliant on electricity for cooking and heating then already 'one' is paying about £750 pa on incentals for the green energy policy. Unfortunately, electricity users pay a larger proportion of their bill on such incidentals compared to the proportion paid by gas consumers. Of course, both will be hit by the carbon tax 9floor price £15 per tonne but rapidly escalating. The other day Mark Reckless in the debate on the Bill suggested that it would go as high as £500 per tonne!).
Curiously enough I have just proposed via a 2 page note that UKIP adopts a system where local communities are given much more say in the planning of wind turbines. However, the amounts in the governments proposal are chicken feed. I reckon (and I'd be happy for someone with financial training to correct this, that a £1 million wind turbine will return 6% for 25 years.
(That's assuming payback time 8 yrs, lifetime 25 yrs -- there's an LGA paper that allows me to interpolate to get those figures.)
The proposal is, IIRC, £5000 per GW/yr.
BTW, if you want to coin it and you've got a windy site (not essential but it does provide a figleaf of respectability) and £1 million, then I'd advise a .5 megawatt windmill -- 18 p/kWhr, plus another 4.5p on top of that for every kWhr exported to the grid. Gas is about 5p kWhr.
Nice work if you can get it.
We came back from Brussels yesterday. About half an hour into the journey there was a wind farm which drew an ironic cheer from us all -- not one windmill was turning but, beyond them, a little building with two tall chimneys which looked very much like a small power station was pushing steam into the sunny sky.
Gentlemen, the world has gone mad. We can't go on like this.
lapogus - I'm not surprised P&K want to spread it across the whole local authority area. After all, there are only so many new village halls that can be built in a community, only so many playing fields/play grounds. Small rural communities would be awash with cash they don't know what to do with. I don't agree with P&K, but I can understand their reasoning, but it will only result in a conflict, such as that described by Philip Bratby, but on a larger scale.
Governments love to interfere and come up with "new" ideas. This Government seems to be thinking on the hoof and forgetting about the law of unintended consequences.
Of the subsidies and profits available to wind farmers, which we all pay for, what % does this "five-fold" increase in benefits equate to? Sweet FA. And we're supposed to be grateful.
I may be a paid up member of the Conservative Party, but it doesn't mean I shall be voting Blue or whatever colour Cameron has in mind for the next logo come the general election.
I'll stop before I really get cranked up for a massive rant. Wan***s and To****s the lot of them!
According to the UK renewables trade association, the current average size of a UK onshore wind farm is 15 MW (9-10 turbines). Only a fraction of communities who live near to a wind farm will therefore benefit from the payment.
Assuming that the load factor for UK onshore wind is 30%, and that 3% (!) of UK power consumption is ultimately satisfied by it, there will be one wind farm for every 160 square kilometers of land. In other words, and on the average, everyone would be likely to end up within walking distance of a wind farm, and 97% of our power would still need to be found elsewhere.
Jun 6, 2013 at 7:34 AM | lapogus
Here in Scotland, communities already get substantial 'bribes' from larger wind farms. e.g. SSE Griffin windfarm... has to fork out £300,000 p.a. to community based projects..."
/////////////////////////////
This ties in well with my comment above (08:04am). This £300,000 has been added onto the consumers electrity bill and is part of the 50% of the bill that does not relate to the costs of electricity production and supply.
the schemes that lapogus alludes to are a form of compulsory community charity donation. The government is forcing communities to fund their own community projects by adding a charge to energy bills that everyone has to pay.
I do not think that the average consumer realises precisely how much they are already paying incidental to the green agenda, due to lack of transparency in the bill and because the MSM has not exposed this story.
I do not think that the average consumer realises precisely how much they will be paying incidental to the green agenda, and how their bills will thereby escalate. The governmenet plays down the full impact on bills of their energy policy, which is not an energy policy but rather a green policy.
The 22 turbine Fullabrook Down wind farm in Devon pays about £250k to the "local" community. Those most affected see little of the money. It is grabbed by communities not directly affected. There is great resentment by the real locals, whose lives have been blighted
Albeit a different theme but not unrelated ethos, climate and the green agenda and the lunacy of birdchoppers.
"Unrealistic wonderland"
You said it right there, building more batchoppers a policy engineered by bats pen pushers and birdbrained ministers.
It's called bribing people with their own money.
And TerryS is right up to a point. The government will try to rig the consultation though it might have a fight on its hands in some areas. Opponents are becoming increasingly well-organised, partly thanks to the efforts of people like Phillip Bratby, and LAs are also starting to realise that these monstrosities are more (political) trouble than they are worth.
It's also worth remembering that local councillors are much more accessible (and susceptible) than MPs. Try chatting to them in the pub as well as making formal objections in writing. Some of them are quite thick — like a lot of the human race — but they understand simple concepts like where the money is coming from to pay these community grants and the fact that wind turbines do not work without wind. Also fuel poverty.
Just avoid esoteric arguments about temperature anomalies and back radiation! :-)
Symptomatic, again, of our political elite hahaaha having no idea how the 'little people' live, unaware that we despise their rotten, shoddy, expensive 'services' which they routinely assert are 'best in the world', and we loathe the fat faced beadles who do so very nicely out of managing them; and no, we won't be ecstatic about being given a bandstand for our common - "so that the people may have some music as they dance around their maypoles on May day and other community occasions" - in return for a thumping great windmill on the hill. Its amazing how these bourgeois placemen can get so far out of touch with those they rule, in their short careers: it took people like the Romanovs or the Bourbons good 2 or 300 years to be so hated that everyone was happy to blow them away
It will be on the phone-in with Nicky "I want to be Paxman" Campbell at 09:00 Radio 5. He just did a discussion with Maf "Renewables" and an anti windfarm campaigner from Scotland - the campaigner did a superb job of dismantling Maf's arguments, well worth a listen if / when it appears on the iplayer.
You call it a bribe, I call it (another) subsidy
A divisive move as Phillip says. Now communities will be even more split, and feelings will run higher. They haven't addressed any of the real concerns, and where is the money coming from anyway. We do not need government lessons in how to consult with developers, the developers should have subsidies removed.
Divide and Conquer. Oh so easy in a gready materialistic society like the UK.
We are all affected by these monsters advancing over our countryside. So we should all receive a bit of the Payola. But what is the point as we also all have to pay? A bribe is a bribe and the government should be called on it.
To be equitable, why do we not compensate people who live near coal or gas fired power stations and especially nuclear power stations where the community may feel they live in a permanent Armageddon? Why do we not compensate people who live in the shadow of industry, or who suffer blight from road, rail and air networks? The list is endless and we are all affected in some way from the effects of modern infrastructures.
The solution is not in giving compensation. The solution is to not build the blighters in the first place.
"Five-fold increase in benefits paid by developers"
And where does that really come from? Oh, silly me...
Great. So the developers pay more to (i.e. “bribe”) the locals. Yay! But then, the developers are getting huge subsidies from… the tax-payers (including the locals). And the tax-payers get the privilege of greatly increased energy costs! How can anyone lose? (Well, except Joe Muggins, the tax-payer, of course, but when has his consideration been of any interest to “the gubmint” and its lackeys?) It isn’t just the turbines that are spinning.
I have no doubt “consultation” will take place, not with the locals, of course, but with “consultants” (at £700++ per day, which is one reason these “procedures” take so long). If the locals then raise objection, they will be ignored, as it is not part of the “consultation”. Which is best for stringing up, high-C or low-C?
Basically this means even higher prices for the consumer.
Brilliant!
to pay for energy efficiency initiatives - Install solar panels. Give some NGO's money to produce pamphlets on how to save electricity.
establish local training projects - Give green groups and NGO's money to brainwash you.
fund other community initiatives - Fund some of the local politicians' pet projects so as to ensure approval.
to provide households with money off their energy bills - Unlikely.
I hope that the communities who accept these pointless developments insist on fully enforceable end of life removal and remediation terms for the projects. Otherwise they will end up with slowly decaying industrial litter in their neighbourhood.
The planning pipeline for on shore wind already has enough plus a bit to cover the planned requirement from on shore , this is a cynical act to make it look like they are listening. The Horse has bolted and is out of sight already.
Will this give power to 'local communities' to order the removal of existing turbines?
At 'our' recent public inquiry, the developer's lawyer made much of the fact that despite all the chattering in the political sphere over the last few months, actual policy and guidance had not changed. This announcement seems to be a repeat of what Fallon almost announced a couple of months ago, but until there is flesh on the bones it carries no weight. Of course, if the chancellor were to remove the huge windfarm subsidies, we could all benefit from lower energy bills and there would be no need to 'protect' local communities since no more of these worthless eyesores would be built.
Alternatively, just scrap PPS 22. Without this policy statement, which overrides many pre-existing development/planning principles, LPA's would be able to resist applications at will. There is a provision for this under Clause 10: Suspension pending review
71. This clause provides that the Secretary of State may suspend the operation of part or all of a national policy statement if she
decides that since the national policy statement was issued or reviewed there has been a significant change in circumstances which was
not anticipated. Suspension by the Secretary of State is possible only where she thinks that if the change had been anticipated any of the
policy included in the statement would have been materially different.
So how about . . .
(a) Changes in technical design of turbines (larger/more efficient at lower wind speed) making them now economically viable in locations that had not previously been envisaged as suitable. In turn, this has led to siting issues evidenced by a significant increase in planning refusals and subsequent appeals.
(b) Recent changes to ROC allocations can be taken as an admission that fundamental flaws in the system have encouraged inappropriate applications.
(c) The ETSU- R-97 regulations and their now almost legendary lack of relevance to modern, monster sized turbines. An increasing number of acousticians say the guidelines are under-researched and out of date.
(d) The lack of adequate resources at LPAs to deal with the both the complexity, and sheer volume of applications some now face due to (a)
(e) The push to reach targets (international agreements) is an artificial deadline which has not allowed sufficient time for LPAs to integrate renewables land provision/allocation into Local plans/frameworks. This has lead to spatial planning by market forces rather than properly considered and publicly consulted development plans.
(f) The knock on effect for (e) being that future local plans will be to large extent, determined by new development in inappropriate locations due to the lack of LPA powers in resisting PPS22.
(g)The national renewable energy requirement and provision thereof, was intended to be served by a mix of technologies. The 'market forces to decide' principle is failing to deliver this mix. Whether this is due to the skewing of the market by lopsided subsidies is almost irrelevant - the sector is failing to deliver an adequate long term solution to reliable (baseload) renewable generation.
Not to mention the lack of warming over the last few years.
NIMBYs v rent seekers.
Can they both please lose?
Carrington is wondering out loud in the Graun about whether the rules will apply to fracking...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jun/06/wind-farms-shale-gas-fracking-energy?CMP=twt_fd
I went to the CAC's anti-fracking demo in London last year (to see it, not to protest). There were no more than 300 people, in a city of 8 million. Carrington overstates the size of the anti-fracking grass roots campaign.
But the green NGOs and their activists are another matter. They're able to commit resources to local campaigns, bus people around, provide legal support, and so on -- things that wind farm campaigns have not had. And of course, The Guardian's disinformation campaign courtesy of Harvey and Carrington will provide additional support in the form of scare stories, recycled mythology, and publicity.
'....for the lifetime of the windfarm.'
How is the 'lifetime' defined..? 25 years - or the ACTUAL 'lifetime' of the turbines, which (according to the Danish experience) tends to be 7-12 years..?
What if the developer goes bust..?
What if (as is now proven) the performance of the turbines declines over time due to 'wind shadow'..?
What a minefield...
Perhaps all new wind turbines erected between now and the next general election should be put up in the constituencies of cabinet members, and also in Brighton to reward, in an appropriate fashion, the people of that town for electing Britain's first Green MP, Caroline Lucas.
Are the wind industry parasites going to be given MORE public money to pay for the increased bribes to the local communities, or does the extra cash come out of the largesse they already receive? If the latter, won't the necessity to increase the bribe make the prospect of building a new subsidy farm less attractive to them?
The problem for me with these bribes (we have many windfarms in Mid Wales) is that the wind developers are giving us nothing - just returning part of the subsidy (that we all pay and which is embedded in our domestic fuel bills) to the "community" (read council politicians). The only ones who are getting something for nothing are the developers' and politicians at local and national level.
Anything "done badly" increases the risk of harm. The answer is not to prevent it happening but to make every effort to ensure that such risks as there are are minimised. This does not include demanding the implementation of techniques (CCS ) that do not exist.
'I went to the CAC's anti-fracking demo in London last year (to see it, not to protest). There were no more than 300 people, in a city of 8 million.' - Ben Pile.
I wonder how many of the 300 went to the demo to see it?
Roy – that is a great idea! I saw Caroline Lucas on Question Time (another prog that is not what it once was) when she announced the “green” energy industry as “jobs-rich”. Unless my understanding of English has gone terribly awry, this means that more people will be employed to create less energy; somehow (in her twisted logic) this will make the energy cheaper. Let her constituents have her half-baked ideas, then see how long she remains an MP.
Good point, Arthur P!
(Somewhat o/t, but oh, woe! Rather than giving me the satisfaction of being banned from his site, one AGWist blogger, James Hrynyshyn, is just ignoring my post: “Your comment is awaiting moderation” (since 4th May). A very devious way of censoring – you may submit comments, but no-one else can read them.
Curses! He obviously became aware of my cunning plan by reading this site.)
Lateintheday
An interesting idea. Should the same regulations apply when planning applications come in for shale gas drilling?
Entropic Man - hello.
I'm not sure which regs you're referring to but I do think there should be strong environmental conditions applied and some common sense safeguarding mechanism for shale gas extraction. However, there is a significant difference between wind and gas. PPS22 talks about 'where the resource exists'. Clearly, wind exists just about everywhere whereas shale gas is found in discrete locations. Also, as I understand it, shale gas could contribute significantly towards baseload generation and could actually turn out to be be useful.
As far as I am aware PPS22, along with all other PPSs, has been torn up and thrown away and we now have to rely on the National Planning Policy Framework and any other Local Plan. However, I assume that there are many public inquiries that are on-going and applications were submitted prior to the introduction of the NPPF and perhaps some weight may be accorded to PPSs.
Mike Jackson - Jun 6, 2013 at 8:36 AM | Mike Jackson - Naturally, I would not want to classify myself in the 'thick' councillor category. Indeed, one of the reasons I became a councillor, having been involved in a fight against some wind turbines within another local authority area, was to try to protect my own area from the wretched things. I am sure I shall be called a NIMBY, but I would say that if I don't protect my Back Yard, who will?
PPS22 and all the other PPSs were revoked when the NPPF came in and so have no vailidity. Only guidance notes, such as that to PPS 22, are still extant.
lateintheday: "Clearly, wind exists just about everywhere whereas shale gas is found in discrete locations."
Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy of the wind to electricity. There is huge geographical variation in wind regimes and, in the context of electrical generation potential, it is far from true that "wind exists just about everywhere".
http://www.rensmart.com/Weather/BERR
Grumpy and Phillip - I'm clearly out of date. Shows how long I've been fighting against our local windfarm application! By the looks of it I've got some more reading to catch up on.
not banned yet - yes, some places are windier than others. Thanks for that remarkable observation. The question is, how much does it actually matter when the subsidies are so generous? In my neck of the woods (North Lincs), RWE have argued at appeal, the suitability of the proposed site which is on top of the Lincolnshire Wolds - the highest spot in North Lincolnshire. Now, RES have produced a scoping report for an even larger development (150m turbines) in the valley below. Put another way, how little wind is required for windfarms to turn a profit?