| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Oct 2004 : Column 135WH—continued
Wind Turbines (Workington)
4 pm
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab): I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. I am proud and privileged to represent what is probably—arguably, certainly—the most beautiful constituency in the country. It has six lakes, including Loweswater, Crummock, Buttermere, Bassenthwaite, Derwentwater and Thirlmere, and some of the highest mountains in England, including Skiddaw and the foothills of Helvellyn. Artists and poets, for example Wordsworth, have spent time waxing lyrical about the beauties of the area.
It is not just the lakes. The Solway coast is also spectacularly beautiful. It has fantastic sunsets. One can stand on the coast and look at the Scottish mountains across the firth and turn round and look at the English mountains on the other side. We have one of the few sites where there are red squirrels and the only two breeding ospreys anywhere in England. There is a world heritage site just to the north at Hadrian's wall. The Lake District national park has also applied for world heritage designation. So I hope that hon. Members realise that we are talking about one of the most beautiful places not only in this country, but in the world.
The coastal scenery that I mentioned also includes nationally designated areas of outstanding natural beauty. There are areas of special scientific interest running along the coast. It is that beauty that brings more than 2.5 million visitors a year to that area alone. Those visitors support about 5,000 jobs and bring about £209 million into the local economy. It is a spectacular area and tourism is being developed not only because of the Lake district, but because of the beauty of the coastal strip.
So people are surprised that, at a time when we are trying to develop tourism—there are brand new big brown signs saying, "Welcome to Cumbria" and so on—there are so many planning applications for wind turbines. Many of the sites are close to the national park, and many others are close to, if not part of, areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is not as though we do not have wind turbines already. In a 3 km radius from my hometown, Workington, there are about 36 wind turbines. That is a fair number in a relatively small area. As I said, constituents find it difficult to match the idea of tourism development and economic regeneration with wind turbines sprouting up along the coastline.
Thus far, the only guidance that we have, or seem to have, is planning policy statement 22, published in August 2004. Taken in isolation, that does not provide the clarity that is required. A policy vacuum exists in which local planners are asked to operate without the tools required to do their job properly. I think that the Department acknowledges that. What we are asking for, and what I hope is being developed for publication soon, is a set of guidelines that sits alongside that policy document.
I have other comments on that issue. PPS22 fails to acknowledge the necessity for buffer zones. If we simply acknowledge that the Lake District national park and areas of outstanding natural beauty need to be protected, we could still end up with a ring of wind
13 Oct 2004 : Column 136WH
turbines around the national park. In those terms, that would be okay, because those turbines would not be in the national park. Is anyone going to tell me that, if they were to walk up Sca Fell or Scafell Pike, or climb Great Gable or Red Pike, seeing wind turbines between them and the sea—or, when on the coast, seeing wind turbines between them and the Lake district—would not have a detrimental effect on the area and on its value as a tourist attraction? I think that about 45 per cent. of all jobs in Cumbria involve the tourist industry and up to 15 million tourists come to that part of the world every year.
There has also been no mention from central Government of area-based targets. I am proud that the UK is leading the world on Kyoto, but why do we not break down the treaty targets for renewable energy production into manageable chunks for different geographical areas? Failure to do so may leave areas such as my constituency, which has an obvious abundance of hills and wind, exposed to the actions of a series of power companies, which will say, "This is a nice area. Let's stick up some wind turbines."
We all recognise that we should encourage renewable energy. This country's chief scientific adviser has said that climate change is probably a greater danger to the planet than terrorism. We must heed that warning and ensure that we continue our policy of developing renewable energy. Having placed my support for renewables clearly on the record, however, I want to draw attention to a number of other issues.
If we get this wrong and start to put up wind turbines in inappropriate places—there are planning applications with Allerdale borough council, which covers my area, for turbines in very unsuitable areas—people will be turned against the concept of renewables and wind turbines in particular. In the rush to get turbines going because we must meet certain targets, if we put them in the wrong place, people will say, "They are horrible, hideous and terrible, and we do not want them at any cost." That would cause great damage to the renewable energy debate and we should avoid it.
That turn-off effect would be most profound in the areas that suffer most greatly from environmental degradation caused by badly planned wind turbine development, such as my constituency. The irony is that in my constituency, which has a proud industrial heritage, construction of wind turbines seems a forward-thinking way of carrying forward that industrial heritage, but as yet, we see no benefit to the area.
I have made clear the grave consequences of badly thought-out development, and I want to return to my earlier theme of the guidance that I want from the Government and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and how badly planned development can be avoided.
I have already discussed the need for area-based renewable energy targets. I believe that such a system operates successfully in Wales. I argue that that is an example of how devolved government can, first, provide policy solutions better tailored to local needs and, secondly, act as a catalyst for policy improvement elsewhere. I mean quite simply that those in Wales are doing it and it is working for them, so why cannot England have it?
13 Oct 2004 : Column 137WH
In a situation of this complexity, local feeling is running extremely high. A planning application was turned down by Allerdale planning authority last week or the week before. Hundreds of people turned up at the planning meeting. When the industry is inexperienced and seems at times to be champing at the bit to extend production and the Government are rightly eager to maximise renewable energy production, the policy vacuum needs to be filled as soon as possible. Planning decisions are rightly taken by democratically elected local representatives who are in touch with the needs of the locality, but the parameters of action must be decided centrally, and I hope that that will soon be the case for wind turbines.
Housing is a local level policy area and the local authority develops its own plan for where houses should go and so on. Search areas are another aspect that we should look at. I make that remark because a group of people came to see me which, like all such groups, started by saying, "We are not against renewable energy or wind turbines, but . . . " Basically, those people were talking about planners being given the right, duty and obligation to sit down and decide with the local community where the best sites were. There are brownfield sites, industrial sites and other sites that currently exist where local people may give acceptance. There is no problem with those sites, but it is this attitude of "No, no; we can't have search areas or say where companies should come and place wind turbines" that is the problem. We simply allow companies to put in a planning application, and as I said, a couple of developments have damaged the image of wind turbines in a great stretch of my constituency because they are totally inappropriate.
My other fear relates to the inspectorate. I would like to see a great deal more consistency concerning the inspectors. When two applications were made not too long ago, one inspector said, "This area has high ground, it is an area of natural beauty. We don't want wind turbines there." Another inspector came along to a different site and said, "It is on high ground, and it is an area of natural beauty. The wind turbines will enhance the geography of the area." Hang on—we cannot have both views. Such subjective views create the fear that, regardless of what local councils decide, an inspector will come from London, Bristol or somewhere and say, "We've considered the matter, but the Government want as many wind farms as possible, so one will be allowed." We cannot accept that position.
Just to prove that I am in favour of renewables, I point out that I wish that we could develop more offshore wind turbines. One site is being constructed at the moment a few miles away from the coast of my constituency. It has raised some controversy, but I would pose the following questions to you. This particular site, Robin Rigg, is in Scottish waters, but the electricity will come ashore in my constituency at a small village called Flimby. Whose electricity is it? Is it Scottish or English? Who gets the credit for it: Scotland or us?
13 Oct 2004 : Column 138WH
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I think that I am the wrong Chairman to answer that question.
Tony Cunningham : Those questions are an interesting point when we are considering the matter of targets.
I would like to conclude so that the Minister has ample time to answer. I took part in a Radio Cumbria interview last night on the issue of wind turbines in the area. The gentleman interviewing me started by saying, "Mr. Cunningham, all this is really about is common sense, isn't it?" He is right. It is only about common sense, and if we can have a common-sense approach where we designate areas appropriate for wind turbines, we shall have renewable energy, but be able to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty, areas of special scientific interest and areas that are special as far as wildlife and archaeology are concerned. I hope to hear from the Minister that there will be a common-sense approach and that we shall have that balance, so we can make some progress.
4.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) for raising the issue of planning for wind farms in his constituency. I know that it is a matter of considerable interest to his constituents and to people in many parts of the country. He has spoken eloquently this afternoon about the concerns of his constituents and has put his case very powerfully, which is a credit to him in his role as constituency MP.
I would just like to make a point about the area that I am at liberty to cover. We know that wind farms might be located both onshore and offshore, but the planning system deals only with onshore sites. I shall say something later about my hon. Friend's point concerning the offshore site providing electricity that arrives on his shore. The development of wind farms offshore as a technical point is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry rather than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
I would like to stand back from the detail of the specifics of wind farms in my hon. Friend's constituency and paint a broader picture of the policy background to the debate. I was glad to hear him say at the beginning of his contribution that it is important that we do what we can to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and maintain reliable and competitive energy supplies. The development of renewable energy, plus improvement in energy efficiency and the development of combined heat and power, will make a vital contribution to the aims that we both share.
The energy White Paper "Our energy future—creating a low carbon economy" sets a target to generate 10 per cent. of the country's electricity from renewable energy sources by 2010 and to double that figure to 20 per cent. by 2020. It suggests that more renewable energy will be needed beyond that if we are to meet the aim of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050. We have a shared agreement on that ambition because of the importance of climate change and the impact of global warming.
13 Oct 2004 : Column 139WH
Tony Cunningham : I am pleased that the Minister mentioned energy conservation. A constituent of mine said recently that if every household in my constituency were given energy-saving bulbs, more electricity would be conserved than would be generated by hundreds of wind farms. I am not sure of the science, but I hope that point emphasises that energy conservation is as important as creating more electricity.
Phil Hope : I am not able to confirm the details of statistics concerning light bulbs, but it is absolutely right to say that the way we will arrive at a successful, sustainable energy efficiency policy regarding carbon dioxide emissions will be based on a combination of activities, one of which is energy efficiency.
In the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister we have responsibility for the decent homes standard, which is improving the quality of thermal comfort and aiding energy efficiency. I am also the Minister responsible for putting in place building regulations for new build and existing building stock, so we can bear down on building regulations to reduce the carbon output of building. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there is more than one way to do this, but it is the combination of factors that add up to the ambitious target that I was describing earlier.
On renewable energy in particular—I will deal with wind farms in a moment—as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, we made it clear in planning policy statement 22, which we published in August, that increased development of renewable energy resources is a vital part of the target achievement if we are to deliver on the commitment on climate change and renewable energy. Positive planning, as well as common sense, which facilitates renewable energy developments, can contribute to all four elements of our renewable energy strategy.
So that we see this in context, I will outline the four elements to the renewable energy strategy. First is social progress, which my hon. Friend has just described. It means contributing to energy needs, ensuring all homes are adequately and affordably heated and providing new sources of energy in remote areas. Secondly, effective environmental protection is achieved by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and thereby helping to limit the effects of climate change. Third is the prudent use of resources and reducing reliance on diminishing supplies of fossil fuels. Fourthly, economic growth and employment can be delivered through the creation of jobs directly related to specific developments and the development of new technologies. My hon. Friend mentioned that that is one of the benefits of the new technologies, including wind turbines and much else. They are bringing jobs to this country as we invest in the ability of manufacturing to produce new forms of technology.
I also stress that although we are debating wind farms, renewable energy covers other important sources of energy such as water flow, tides, the sun and biomass. Wind energy has a very important contribution to make in meeting the Government's targets, but other renewable energy strategies and technologies have a part to play, too. We believe most strongly that renewable energy developments are capable of being accommodated throughout the country where the technology is viable and where environmental, social
13 Oct 2004 : Column 140WH
and economic impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. The crux is to look at all three of those and see how they work.
As for wind farms, I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the merits of any particular proposal for a wind farm which is the subject of planning applications by Allerdale borough council, or anybody else, because of the quasi-judicial role that we in the ODPM play. However, I am aware of his concerns. If an application is rejected by a local planning authority, it is for the applicants to consider whether to exercise right of appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister, which takes me on to the point about inspectors and how that system works.
My hon. Friend raised a particular concern about consistency. Let me emphasise that, in determining appeals, planning inspectors act in a quasi-judicial role. They do so under delegated powers for the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe that the integrity, impartiality and fairness with which each appeal is handled are widely acknowledged, although I have heard my hon. Friend's points loud and clear. I assure him that the planning inspectorate has a well-developed training programme whereby inspectors are kept fully abreast of national policy development. However, it is of course for individual inspectors to weigh all the evidence presented by the parties in respect of any particular appeal before reaching a decision to allow or dismiss that appeal. Importantly, each case must be determined—that is the legal framework—on its individual merits. However, in doing so, inspectors take into account planning guidance.
PPS22 on renewable energy makes it clear that we want to work with regional and local bodies to deliver the Government's objectives around renewable energy. Therefore, regional and local plans should contain policies designed to promote and encourage, rather than to restrict, the development of renewable energy resources. The current published regional planning guidance—we now call it a regional spatial strategy or an RSS because the jargon changes—is the subject of a partial review. I was not sure whether my hon. Friend was aware of that.
The draft revision has been published by the North West regional assembly for public consultation, and it will be debated at an examination in public in November. The Deputy Prime Minister will consider the proposals contained in that draft in the light of the report on that examination in public and other representations he has received, and he will then publish his decision in due course.
Importantly, the published draft proposes targets for the region and for sub-regional areas. It proposes that Cumbria comprises a sub-region and a target for the county, and it also sets targets for other parts of the region. The critical point is that it sets out a number of criteria-based policies against which proposed wind farm developments might be assessed. This is an important part of the process. My hon. Friend's Adjournment debate is timely: the consultation period on the draft review ended in July so it is too late to make representations on that, but it is open to interested parties—which might include himself or others who have been making representations to him—to submit a short written statement to the panel conducting the examination in public by 1 November on any of the
13 Oct 2004 : Column 141WH
issues that it has been asked to address. That list of issues is being publicised this week and it includes a number of questions about policies relating to renewable energy, so there is an opportunity for my hon. Friend and those whom he is seeking to represent to put their case.
My hon. Friend eloquently described the beauty of his consistency. I know it well; I have walked those hills and dales on many occasions. He is lucky, but other MPs might want to challenge his assertion that it is the most beautiful constituency in the country. I would not make that claim for Corby, but other constituencies might want to vie for that title. However, he is right to say that many parts of his constituency are subject to being nationally and internationally designated areas: they include the Solway firth area of natural beauty, the Hadrian's wall military zone world heritage site and the Lake District national park, which is also proposed as a world heritage site.
The Government's advice on the handling of planning applications where the development proposed might affect internationally or nationally designated sites is clearly set out in PPS22. Generally speaking, proposals for renewable energy development need to be considered carefully in such areas of national or international importance for landscape and for nature conservation and wildlife, and they should be granted planning permission only where the criteria set out in PPS22 and other guidance and legislation are met.
My hon. Friend mentioned red squirrels and other forms of wildlife that are almost exclusive to his constituency. In assessing any proposals put to councils that might affect a designated site, local planning authorities should have regard to the more detailed guidance in respect of European nature conservation sites currently set out in planning policy guidance 9 on nature conservation. That provides guidance on how the Government's policies for the conservation of our natural heritage are to be reflected in planning.
For internationally designated sites, planning permission for renewable energy developments likely to have an adverse impact on the site should be granted only once an assessment has shown that the integrity of the site would not be adversely affected. If the development would have an adverse impact, it should be allowed only very exceptionally. Similar considerations apply to nationally designated sites, so the key issue is to seek to ensure that the qualities for which an area has been designated will not be compromised.
Tony Cunningham : The point that I was trying to make—I touched on it when I mentioned buffer zones—is that we can protect the site, but if we put wind turbines all around it, the effect is that the area is blighted, regardless of the fact that the wind turbines are not on it. On PPS22, I think I am accurate in saying that, strictly speaking, the policy protects the green belt around certain areas in a more stringent way than it does areas of outstanding natural beauty. Surely that is wrong.
Phil Hope : I was coming specifically to that point. With regard to land adjacent to the boundaries of particular designated sites, I regret to have to tell my hon. Friend that it is our view that local authorities should not seek to introduce buffer zones. We do not want lines on maps showing, for example, that no wind farms would be permitted within 10 km or 20 km, or some other distance, of the boundary of a national park. However, that does not leave things in the situation that he described. Instead of taking the approach that he is promoting, we believe that it is for the local planning authorities to introduce, through their local development plan—this is the critical point in the planning process—appropriate criteria-based policies against which they and prospective developers making planning applications might assess the suitability or otherwise of specific sites.
Around and indeed within nationally designated sites, some areas of land will of course be more sensitive than others to change that might impact on the designated area, so the development plan should provide the tools to help to identify those areas. The local authorities for those areas can address the type of concern that my hon. Friend puts forward through the local development plan and the criteria-based policies within it.
Let me stress that PPS22 sets out firm policies to ensure that our most valued landscapes, such as national parks, and our most environmentally sensitive areas are protected from large-scale renewable energy developments that have detrimental impacts. It has been said, and we must recognise, that some smaller-scale renewable energy developments can be accommodated in such areas without serious environmental detriment to those areas, but again we look to the local planning authorities, through their local development plan, to ensure that the right criteria-based policies are put in place to secure the right results.
I want to mention the companion guide to which my hon. Friend referred. PPS22 moves on from the old PPG system. It is designed to be a short and succinct statement of the Government's policies on renewable energy. It is not a catalogue of policies and guidance. Instead, we are producing in addition a companion guide to PPS22 that will provide more detailed descriptions of different technologies, as well as examples of good practice in development plans and developments. That has been produced through consultation. It will be published in the very near future, and I believe that it will provide the kind of help and support that my hon. Friend sought in his contribution. It will be a valuable tool.
To sum up, we are firmly of the view that the development of renewable energy, including the harnessing of wind energy, has an important part to play in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We believe it right to support and encourage the development of wind farms, but we must do so in a way that is subject to the environmental, social and economic impacts being addressed satisfactorily. I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the issue to the attention of the Chamber today, and I urge him and his colleagues to consider the examination in public of the regional spatial strategy as a further approach that he might take in pursuing his aims.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |