|
The British Wind Energy Association
(BWEA) response to PPS22
|
| CONSULTATION PAPER
ON A DRAFT NEW PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT 22 (PPS22)
- RENEWABLE ENERGY |
A BWEA Response
for the Wind Industry
(This submission needs to be read alongside PPS22)
|
Who is BWEA?
|
The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) welcomes the opportunity
to respond to PPS22 and provides this submission on
behalf of the UK wind energy industry.
BWEA was established
in 1978 and is the representative body for companies
active in the UK wind energy market. Its membership
has grown rapidly over recent years and now stands at
over 300 companies, representing 98.8% of all installed
grid-connected wind energy and every company with a
lease to develop offshore (see our online Company Directory
at: www.bwea.com/members/CompanyDirectory.asp). BWEA
also has a place in the broader construct of energy
efficiency (EE) and other RE technologies which are
covered by PPS22.
Wind energy is widely recognised as
an abundant energy resource indigenous to the UK and
has long been identified, most recently in Government’s
Energy White Paper published in February, as the largest
contributor to the renewables generation mix in 2010
and therefore the target of 10% of electricity supply
from renewables, and again for the aspiration that 20%
of the UK’s electricity supply be met by renewables
by 2020.
In representing the wind industry, BWEA is
therefore in a unique position to comment on the circumstances
which affect the future growth and development of the
sector. BWEA would be pleased to clarify any issues
raised in this submission and offer any further information
which may be required.
BWEA warmly welcome the publication of PPS22:
Renewable Energy (Consultation Draft) and broadly support
its content.
The change in emphasis
in Government commitment and policy towards renewable
energy, culminating in the publication of the Energy
White Paper last year, stipulates a growing need to
bring associated planning policy up to date with renewable
energy goals, across the entire spectrum of the planning
system. BWEA envisage PPS22 as an important starting
block in achieving this.
While the wind industry applauds
the general thrust of the key principles and specific
policies, BWEA have drafted a formal response to the
document which sets out comments point by point to reflect
the paragraph and policy order in PPS22.
We hope you
will consider these points carefully in moving towards
adopting a final draft of PPS22. The national policy
statement is critical to the future of renewable energy
development and deployment in England for the years
ahead and will set the bedrock upon which regional,
county and local plans will be formulated.
Introduction
More clarity is required to highlight that the status
of PPS22 will outweigh those existing policies in Development
Plans (DP’s) based on PPG22 as realistically, it could
be some years before PPS22 policies and principles find
their way into all DP’s. Unlike the case with e.g. retail
or housing, PPS22 reflects a Government policy so different
in emphasis from that of 1993 that considerable weight
ought to be given to the draft PPS even though still
in draft.
BWEA would like to take this opportunity to
stress the urgency of adopting PPS22. The Government
has set a target for 10% of our energy needs to be supplied
by renewable energy sources by 2010. The achievement
of this target will inevitably be taken as a real test
of the Government’s seriousness in tackling climate
change. Government targets and objectives for renewable
energy (RE) have been set out in the Energy White Paper
and the Government has recently extended the Renewables
Obligation to 15% by 2015. The RO and additional government
policy objectives associated with RE should be highlighted
in the introduction to the PPS to serve as context for
planning authorities, and to stress the paramount importance
of a supportive and consistent planning framework in
achieving the overarching aim of meeting RE targets.
Part 2, Para 3: Onshore has a principle role to play
in targets and the technologies. While PPS22 will have
no direct application to offshore renewables below mean
water level there is no equivalent document for the
offshore environment. PPS22 will therefore become a
reference point in the context of offshore applications,
and it might be sensible if a paragraph within the document
acknowledged this default position. A suitable insertion
would be, ‘Whilst not the primary policy tool for
offshore decision making, PPS22 will be an important
material consideration in assessing such development,
particularly with regard to associated onshore infrastructure’.
Furthermore, planning authorities should be advised
of the equal importance of offshore projects and must
be encouraged to display a positive policy approach
to onshore related infrastructure to prevent the derailment
of such schemes.
The Government Objectives
This section
of the document, while accurate in itself, makes too
much reference to the Energy White Paper (EWP). It is
unrealistic to expect planning officers to read the
EWP and therefore, the PPS22 introduction needs to be
more explicit and expanded to provide more detailed
context for the planning profession. Specific points
from the EWP introduction should be included at the
outset to illustrate progress or otherwise on the issue
of climate change and the step change required in planning
attitudes in order to make real inroads.
Planners need
to be informed first hand of where the UK currently
stands in relation to the RE targets (as in NPPG6) to
emphasise the current 3% RE contribution to power generation
and the significant void left to fill by 2010. References
to targets should also account for the extension of
the RO to 15% by 2015 announced in December 2003.
The wording of the first sentence of the second paragraph
needs to be stronger to read ‘Renewable Energy will
need to make a significant contribution to…’ or ‘It
is necessary that renewable energy makes a significant
contribution to…’. There is little flexibility in this
matter and the greater emphasis put on the need for
RE the better.
There is a range of RE technologies and each should
do the maximum they can. However, it is not for Regional,
County or Local Planning Authorities (PA’s) to decide
as the market will dictate those technologies that can
deliver. PA’s should have in mind the level of commercialisation
of these technologies in order to provide realistic
targets.
This section should therefore highlight the
Government expectation that the vast majority of the
RE target is expected to come from wind and that 50%
of this (approximately 4GW) is likely to be sourced
from onshore wind developments. Only such a specific
explanation will allow planning authorities to understand
why the bulk of RE projects received are for wind farm
developments and therefore ensure their policies and
targets are suitably prepared.
In bullet point 4, the
last sentence should not only take account of diversification
of rural economies, but also recognise that RE related
economies already exist, and that RE projects have the
potential to preserve and enhance these economies by
protecting and maintaining the viability of them.
1) Key Principles:
i) RE developments are capable of being accommodated
and therefore the sentence should read, ‘RE developments
should be accommodated…’.
ii) BWEA
support this as it stands because it places the responsibility
on developers and other RE experts to assess which technologies
are appropriate for what locations. It actively encourages
LPA’s to provide the policy framework required to meet
Government targets and sends a proactive message for
LPA’s to work with developers in achieving this.
iii) 2nd sentence: ‘Planning policies that rule
out or place constraints [on renewable energy developments]
should not be included in RPG or development plans except
in exceptional circumstances’. Retaining the term ‘without
reasoned justification’ gives PA’s the opportunity
to include a whole range of clauses where RE development
would be ruled out, such as in National Parks or AONB’s,
whereas that is not in the spirit of the PPS objectives.
To enforce this point the 3rd sentence should read ‘The
Government will intervene in the plan making process…’.
iv) BWEA welcome and applaud this key principle. Taking
into account wider environmental and economic benefits
is consistent with at least two elements of the Government’s
Sustainable Development Strategy.
v) BWEA would like to see a more explicit statement
to read, ‘Regional PA’s and LPA’s should not make
assumptions or form judgements about the technical or
commercial feasibility of RE projects. There are
many complexities with siting renewable energy projects
and only the experts/developers are in a position to
assess these sites.
In reference to the ‘generalised locations’
quoted, communities will not ‘buy in’ to a zoning strategy,
whereas local communities do get actively involved in
the development process for individual proposals. The
role of PA’s is therefore to provide suitable criteria
upon which individual RE projects can be weighed, and
not to attempt to carry out assessments which can only
be accurately undertaken by wind energy experts.
vi)
BWEA firmly agree that there needs to be greater public
awareness of the need for RE, and the industry recognises
its role in promoting this awareness and involving local
communities in wind farm proposals.
vii) Paragraph 1(vii)
suggests that where proposals require an EIA, Local
Authorities and developers should discuss whether the
consideration of alternative sites is necessary. Paragraph
2 of Schedule 4 to the Town & Country Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999
require an Environmental Statement to include an outline
of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and
an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking
into account the environmental effects. The Regulations
do not therefore require an applicant to consider alternative
sites. However, if an applicant does so, it must provide
the information set out in Paragraph 2.
There is no
requirement in planning law or practice that requires
alternative sites to be considered. Clearly, the existence
of an alternative site may be material in certain specified
cases. However, there is no obligation on the applicant
to demonstrate that the site that they have chosen is
the best of a range of alternatives. Furthermore, an
applicant may have considered a number of sites and
intend to bring forward more than one site as an application
for planning permission. In the circumstances, we believe
that the final sentence in Paragraph 1(vii) of the draft
Statement should be deleted.
Regional Targets:
2. BWEA
support and applaud this paragraph. Regional targets
are fundamental in meeting wider RE targets. A timetable
to see this happen would be useful.
3. BWEA support
the review and revision of minimum targets set against
the context of a moving UK-wide RE target (i.e. 2010,
2015 and 2020). The industry would encourage Government
towards a fairer system to determine regional targets
- moving to targets by consumption rather than generation.
This would enable a more informed public perception
of energy make up. Targets should be expressed in MW
in addition to a percentage. The target is an interim
target and should move forward, while developments remain
subject to the criteria set out in local planning policy.
Progress towards achieving targets should be monitored
by the Regional Government Office and where appropriate
they should make recommendations to facilitate the targets
being met.
Once targets are agreed, PPS22 needs to spell
out to LPA’s that they become a material planning consideration
in decision making. If performance lags behind the target
then the urgency of reaching the target should be emphasised
in a planning context through more weight being given
to the target as a material consideration.
4. BWEA support this line providing targets are not
disaggregated to local level, and this should be spelt
out. The reason being is threefold: there will be significant
resource implications for LPA’s to research and produce
accurate targets; LPA’s are not sufficiently experienced
in RE to assess the available RE resources, or the numerous
and complex practical and feasibility issues for each
technology; cumulatively, there becomes more chance
of failing RE targets throughout the UK. ‘Broad
indications of how different technologies can contribute
towards regional targets’ are acceptable in plans,
so long as any difference between actual developer interest
and these broad indications does not lead to a reason
for refusal.
5. Onshore development has a big role to play
and it is unrealistic to expect relatively untried and
untested offshore technologies to take the burden of
RE needs. Offshore projects will make a significant
contribution to RE targets but they are not covered
by the land use planning system. Therefore, offshore
targets should be determined by national Government
and treated completely separately from regional targets.
Policies in Regional Planning Guidance and Development
Plans
6. Allocating specific sites in local plans is
not considered appropriate for wind farms as there are
too many variables subject to change during the scoping
and EIA processes. MoD constraints, bird data results
and negotiations with landowners and Distribution Network
Operators (DNO’s) may all lead to changes in the viability
of a project. BWEA therefore consider it unnecessary
to allocate sites in development plans, a policy which
has the potential to sterilise sites elsewhere in the
local area due to close proximity to plan identified
sites and issues relating to cumulative effect. From
the vast experience of BWEA member developers, there
is no need for site identification or zoning in plans
when there are clear and positive criteria based policies
in place. BWEA recommend deletion of the first two sentences
of paragraph 6.
7. There is no need for this additional
paragraph and BWEA recommend transferring this to paragraph
6 (P6), using the third sentence of existing P6 as the
introduction to a new P6.
The second sentence of existing
P7 should be deleted. Once again, national policy is
confusing the issues of criteria based policies (CBP)
and areas of search. There is no need for lines on maps
and broad areas of search as they simply slow the plan
making process. Clear, positive CBP is all that is required
to guide developments and selecting areas simply takes
forward the CBP for inclusion on a map. Developers are
perfectly able to interpret CBP in order to identify
suitable sites for development.
There is no need for the last line to allow for more
detail to be contained in Supplementary Planning Guidance
(SPG). This confuses the responsibilities of LPA’s and
the right place for policy, besides SPG is just another
way of saying the same thing. SPG tends to be based
on a single issue, which in turn will confuse the weight
which should be attributed to the full range of issues.
If SPG is produced, it should be in partnership with
developers working in the local area and BWEA suggest
the most useful topic for content should be small systems.
The document could provide a big help in guiding householders
and small industrial users to consider planning issues
for their own wind turbines. The last line of P7 on
SPG would provide more clarity if it read, ‘Supplementary
advice should be of a positive nature rather than being
designed to curtail or constrain developments’.
Locational Considerations
International Designated Sites
8. BWEA recommend a change of wording to read, ‘Developments
within, or which may effect, the interests of a European
Site1, will (separately from EIA) require assessment
(appropriate assessment) under the Habitat Regulations
1994 2 if what is proposed is likely to have significant
effects on the interests of the European Site. PPG9
advises on the circumstances in which planning permission
may be granted for developments which may have such
effects’. This is to address the balance of the
benefits to species diversity and numbers given by reducing
greenhouse gases, against the potential for minor effects
on local wildlife.
1 European Sites are defined in Regulation 10 of the
Habitat Regulations 1994 and include Special Protection
Areas (SPA’s), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC’s)
and candidate SAC’s. Areas qualified for SPA status
should, as a matter of law, be treated as European Sites.
Ramsar Sites (designated under the Ramsar Convention
1971) are treated by the Government as a matter of policy
as European Sites in applying the Habitat Regulations
1994.
2 The Habitat Regulations 1994 (SIXX/94) as amended
by SIXX/00 and SIXX/03.
National Designations
9. BWEA recommend deletion of the word ‘clearly’
before ‘outweighed by the environmental, social and
economic benefits’. The policy objective is designed
to balance two completely different things, and it will
be difficult at best to assess whether the benefits
of a wind farm outweigh any potential adverse effects
on a landscape designation as the effect is subjective
and the benefit is real. More advice will need to be
contained in the Companion Guide to give planners some
basis for making a judgement.
10. BWEA very much welcome the specific address of small
systems. Vital for community awareness and significant
in helping towards meeting Government RE targets, small
systems have a key role to play. The only reservation
BWEA have on policy matters relating to small systems
is that they should not unreasonably restrict this form
of development by requiring an EIA below a certain threshold.
Demands for EIA in connection with small system installations,
even up to 100kW, may render a project uneconomical.
A turbine costing up to £20,000 could not bear even
the most basic professionally produced EIA costing between
£2,000 and 5,000. BWEA suggest the following insertion,
‘LPA’s should be selective in requiring EIA for small
scale projects outside sensitive areas (as defined in
the EIA Regulations). Where EIA is required, a scoping
exercise between the LPA and the developer should
enable the potentially heavy cost of providing environmental
information to be limited to a few key areas’.
Green Belts
11. 12% of land in England is Green Belt.
This land also coincides as being nearest to the demand
for electricity, therefore proving very sustainable
and efficient in terms of transmission losses and infrastructure
needs. BWEA’s key question to ODPM on this matter is
simply, how can it be considered that wind turbines
are detrimental to the purpose of greenbelts? There
is no landscape issue involved and wind turbines could
only serve to strengthen the primary purpose of GB policy,
namely to prevent coalescence of towns and urban sprawl.
Wind energy developments are capable of assisting in
the 5 purposes of GB policy and can also be consistent
with the 6 objectives. Furthermore, and consistent with
PPS7 (consultation draft) wind farm developments provide
a prime opportunity for agricultural diversification
in these areas and could potentially take development
pressure away from more sensitive rural landscapes.
BWEA suggest the following wording be considered:
‘Planning Authorities should give favourable consideration
to proposals for renewable energy in green belts where
the development preserves the openness of the green
belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including
land within it. Where renewable energy development in
a green belt would constitute inappropriate development
(in terms of PPG2) developers will need to demonstrate
very special circumstances that clearly outweigh any
harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm
if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances
will normally include the wider environmental benefits
associated with the increased production of energy from
renewable sources’.
Buffer zones & locational designations
12. BWEA are in full support of this paragraph in that
there is no justification for buffer zones around nationally
designated areas. Boundaries have already been drawn
to reflect the protection of the most sensitive areas
and their setting. PPS7 already addresses the issue
of buffer zones highlighting the need to balance the
benefits of the development against the setting of the
national designation and this is already considered
as a material consideration. It is worth pointing out
to sceptics that all other assessment criteria still
has to be considered for a development, and the omission
of buffer zones does not amount to a carte blanche for
development around National Parks and AONB’s. Development
around NP’s will be recognised within this context,
and scaremongering examples such as the ‘ring of wind
farms around the Lake District’ will be considered against
cumulative assessment criteria. LPA’s on the other hand
will need to take into account the context of modernisation
and landscape change.
BWEA endorse the statement on
local landscape and local nature conservation designations
in that they alone, are not reason enough to refuse
a planning application. Such designations are designed
by LPA’s with their own individual discretion, and are
not necessarily in accordance with wider policy objectives.
Other locations considerations
13. BWEA support the
PPS22 opposition to a sequential approach to RE development,
especially in relation to the specific economic considerations
related to wind farm development, as compared with other
forms of development such as residential, retail and
office which can afford much higher land values. It
is our experience that owners are seeking higher value
investment on brownfield land than wind farms can provide,
and that there is a preference, for sustainability reasons,
for other forms of development to be located there.
There is of course a key issue for wind farm sites which
is the protection of residential amenity. This means
that few brownfield sites are suitable for wind energy
development. While BWEA agree with the last sentence
we remain cautious that this may lead to LPA’s citing
these previously developed sites as priority areas for
RE development while they may still not meet the technological
and feasibility tests required for wind farm development.
14. BWEA fully endorse this statement and would like
to see more emphasis on LPA’s providing detailed policies
for both urban and rural wind farm development. There
needs to be an entirely different set of policies required
to cater for the assessment of small scale urban wind
developments as compared to commercial wind farm developments
more akin to rural areas.
Other considerations
Visual Effects
It must be accepted at the outset, that wind
turbines intrinsically introduce visual change into
the local landscape, and that Government RE policy has
been formulated with this fact in mind.
BWEA once again stress the reversibility of wind turbine
development. Removing redundant machines and making
good the land is a standard condition applied to planning
consents for wind farm development. BWEA would suggest
the specific inclusion of the following paragraph: ‘In
determining planning applications for wind farm developments,
LPA’s should take into account the fact that wind turbines
intrinsically introduce visual change into the landscape,
and Government RE policy has been formulated with this
in mind. It would not normally be appropriate for LPA’s
to refuse consent for such a development in a location
outside national landscape designations simply because
of the visual change introduced into the local landscape’.
The industry would also like to introduce the issue
of a changing landscape upon which new development is
sought. A changing landscape makes for a vibrant working
landscape. The question therefore remains, do we aim
to preserve landscape in aspic or let it evolve appropriately.
Landscape/visual impact forms the most common reason
for wind farm refusals but whether wind farms cause
a negative visual effect is a purely a subjective view
and one shared by only a minority. Studies bear out
the fact that the vast majority support wind energy
and find turbines elegant structures, furthermore one
of the only forms of moving architecture you are likely
to see anywhere in the UK.
15. The term ‘impact’ suggests a negative
which as discussed above is not consistent with majority
thought. BWEA strongly recommend replacing the term
‘visual impact’ with ‘appearance’
throughout the PPS, as this is a more accurate reflection
of what is a subjective issue. The first sentence should
be changed to reflect the fact that wind turbines cannot
disappear and by their very nature, are visible structures.
BWEA suggest ‘Visual appearance will vary on a case
by case basis according to the location or landscape
setting, but the proposed development should ensure
the most sensitive appearance in the context of the
surrounding area through appropriate siting, scale and
design’.
16. The first sentence must be changed again to reflect
the subjective nature of an impact on the landscape.
The following replacement would be more accurate: ‘Unlike
some of the other renewable technologies, wind turbines
will always result in a visual change to the landscape.
Therefore, in assessing planning applications, LPA’s
should recognise that the issue to be considered is
not whether there will be an effect on the landscape,
but whether that effect will be acceptable. This will
vary according to the scale of the development and the
type of landscape involved’. The second sentence
continues to debate assessing schemes in relation to
the impact of the turbines. Once again this is a subjective
claim and planning decisions should not be made in view
of the development looking like a wind farm! It should
also be stressed that the size of turbine does not alter
the visual change to the landscape or the appearance
of the structure. The entire paragraph needs to be more
balanced on the appearance of wind turbines taking evidence
from the numerous studies that have been undertaken
on this issue. Therefore, ‘…LPA’s should recognise
that the appearance of turbines…’.
17. The second sentence needs to reflect up and coming
research being conducted in relation to cumulative effect
modelling and assessment to read, ‘Planning authorities
should also take into account the cumulative effect
of wind generation projects in particular areas. This
effect should be assessed at the planning application
stage using the best available endorsed guidelines on
the issue, and LPA’s should not set arbitrary limits
in development plans on the numbers of turbines that
will be acceptable in particular locations and areas.
Noise
18. There are rarely cases when the turbine machinery
causes noise. It may be more appropriate to include
aerodynamic noise from turbine blades as the example
within brackets. The second sentence should replace
‘minimise’ with ‘a requirement
to achieve safe and acceptable noise levels’. The
wind industry feel very strongly that PPS22 should not
invite distance requirements between wind turbines and
existing developments as the noise level varies according
to a number of elements such as the number of turbines,
topography, vegetation, wind speed and direction. It
should simply reference the ETSU report and for each
case the need for developers to demonstrate to LPA’s
that noise levels at the location of the nearest dwelling(s)
are within the acceptable limits set by the guidelines.
Wind turbines
21. This paragraph should be extended to include settlements
in the exclusion list for policies on separation distances.
This is due to each case being assessed on its merits
and individual characteristics such as the number of
turbines, topography, vegetation, wind speed and direction.
Omissions
Land based elements of offshore projects
BWEA recommend
insertion of a new paragraph 22 highlighting the importance
of offshore schemes to the overall RE target, and to
advise LPA’s to look positively at applications for
land based elements in connection to offshore schemes.
LPA Policies encouraging incorporation
of RE into buildings
BWEA congratulates the Government on its EWP commitment
of "how to bring consideration of the use of renewables
and energy efficiency in developments more within the
scope of the planning system..." The London Borough
of Merton precedent demonstrates that the issue of the
legality of LPA pro renewables policies is now not in
doubt. But many LPA’s still remain uncertain of the
Government's position. Enabling other LPA’s to follow
Merton's lead requires no more than wording along the
following lines in PPS22: ‘LPAs can develop local
pro renewables policies specifying the percentage of
the predicted energy use in new buildings expected to
come from onsite renewable energy sources, subject to
local consultation and consideration of the appropriateness
of such policies taking into account local economic,
social and environmental factors, and the viability
of new developments’. This wording recognises that
in some parts of the country or in individual LPA’s,
pro renewables planning policies may be harder to justify
locally, but it would give the "green light" to the
many LPA’s currently considering whether to adopt such
policies. |
|
|
|