Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Gregory Barker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Barron: No, I will not, because I have only 10 minutes. I might give way later, if I get the chance.

On onshore wind farms, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, it is not marginal seats in which there are such developments; potentially, seats that people do not think are marginal have them, too. On 30 January, my local newspaper in Rotherham, The Star, ran a story about wind farms. It stated:

The article also referred to discussions between the company and Rotherham metropolitan borough council's planning authority about the building of only three turbines. I discovered later that that proposal was put forward by npower, which took over from Yorkshire Electricity as a distributor and energy provider.

In August, npower sent out letters to local residents and to me, outlining its proposal to site three turbines at Loscar common, near the village of Harthill in my constituency. In response, I wrote to npower, highlighting concerns that I wanted it to address. One was the potential problem of noise. Had there been noise factor tests on the turbines that it intended to use and, if so, what were the results? The other concern was the possible TV interference. At the Millhouse Green wind farm on Royd moor in the Barnsley area, I understand that a new relay station eventually had to be installed so that local people could get their television reception back.

The other issue that I raised with npower was the effect on property values. In January this year, a district judge was reported in The Times as stating that

He went on to say that

If that description is true, npower will have to deal with the issue when it is looking into building anything that is close not just to isolated farm houses, but to dozens—and in some instances hundreds—of properties in conservation areas.

I received a reply on 2 September saying that the person dealing with the matter in npower would be away until 13 September and that on his return I would be sent "a formal proper response"—npower's words, not mine.

Having not as of today received a response, I asked my office to make contact. It was told that the answers to my questions were specific to the site, or something to
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1233
 
that effect, and a meeting to discuss my concerns was suggested. Having been promised a letter on the three issues that have been in the public domain for many months—the judgment was in January—the developer has still not written to me with answers to my fundamental questions.

I spoke to the planning department of my local council today to find out whether it has received a planning application for the npower site. It has, but it is invalid owing to the lack of detail. I am confused about who has made the application, because it could be the farmer rather than npower, but I fear that such planning applications will not diminish my constituents' worries, but make them grow. The developers need to be more professional.

Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater) (Con): Two or three times in Somerset, companies have looked for sites and done so very publicly so that people thought that they were putting in an application. They then got an idea of public opinion.

Mr. Barron: I suspect that that is true.

Five parish councils have joined together because they are worried about the applications. Companies are looking around and I think that a game of poker is being played, which is not good. Although I had no local authority experience before coming into the House, it is clear from my case load that plenty of games of poker have been played with planning applications for the past 21 years. It is a major issue that has not been handled professionally. However, I have given a date when I will meet npower. It has asked to meet some of the local authorities, but not the planning authority, and they are not too happy about it.

United Utilities has not publicly discussed its 16-turbine plan. That raises many questions about how the planning applications will make progress, if they are to make progress, and what the implications are for the Government's planning policy statement 22, published earlier this year. The Guardian reported in August that it was a way of getting wind farms built with no or little opposition from local communities.

I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about a number of things. One relates to the key principles. PPS22 states:

It goes on to say:

What does that mean in the context of local authorities presumably having the right to give their opinion?

The key principles also state:

One of the developers—npower—has attempted to do that, but no one else has. There is a plan for 16 turbines, stretching for one and a half miles, but no attempt has been made to engage in public consultation. Under those circumstances, we need to tell local authorities and
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1234
 
communities exactly what we mean by the planning policy statement. I know that a booklet is to be issued on that, but how should we interpret it now?

The section on landscape and visual effects states:

I accept that entirely, but what do we do when an application for three turbines is followed by an application for another 16? Should my local authority say that that is, in fact, a planning application for 19 wind turbines in urban Rotherham, because the companies have been chased out of rural areas and the Peak district?

Those big issues must be addressed. Interpretation of the Government's planning policy statement is crucial if we are to achieve steady growth in renewable energy.

8.45 pm

Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey) (Con): I applaud the way in which the motion sets the debate about wind farms in the context of the much wider debate about climate change. I am sorry that the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats did not appear to notice that.

I am an agnostic on wind farms. I like the look of them, especially when they are abroad, but I am not sure that I should like to see them on a planner's map that affected my constituency. Therein lies the problem. The issue is compounded by the fact that, to achieve 5 per cent. of our energy needs from wind power, we shall have to build 6,000 of the things. Where are they to go?

The Government know that they have a problem, which is precisely why they changed the planning guidance. In doing so, they have set themselves on a possible collision course with public opinion, and that concerns me. Measures designed to improve the quality of the environment must be aligned with public opinion, not opposed to it. I appreciate that the Government have a difficult job, but they must be careful not to go looking for a fight.

The motion castigates the Government's performance, as Opposition motions do, but I am sorry that so much of this debate has been characterised by cross-party political bickering. There is a real need for political consensus on these issues if we are to avoid the disaster that threatens. The Government have undertaken some positive measures and set some useful targets. The fact that they are missing their targets and are likely to carry on doing so illustrates that their efforts are not yet sufficiently joined up or consistent.

The Government need to be much more imaginative in their use of fiscal instruments. They must use carrots as well as sticks to alter behaviour. Many of the measures introduced so far are peripheral, small fry and very small scale; for example, the Budget measure this year to reduce VAT on ground source heat pumps resulted, if it resulted in anything, in a chorus of "What is a ground source heat pump?". Such measures are useful and worthy, but will not make the difference between success and failure.

There are glaring inconsistencies. If the aim of increasing wind farm capacity is to cut CO 2 emissions, why on earth are the Government simultaneously
 
25 Oct 2004 : Column 1235
 
proposing a trebling in aviation capacity, whose effect will be to negate any benefit from covering the entire country in controversial wind turbines? The Government need to be coherent if they are to be believed. They must send out clear, unequivocal messages if they expect people to go along with them.

We need an urgent step change in investment in renewable energy for three reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has already touched on them. The first is that our increasing dependence on overseas oil and gas poses a long-term threat to security of supply. It makes good economic sense to become less dependent on others for our electricity needs.

Secondly, the declining role for nuclear power envisaged in current Government policy will leave a 25 per cent. gap in our energy supply in about 20 years' time. Some people say that we should start building new nuclear capacity. I am not convinced that that is politically or economically attractive, or even viable. The nuclear industry has betrayed too many promises in the past for us to be able to rely on it now. It is massively expensive and dependent on the taxpayer and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the issues about waste are far from being resolved. The Minister may want to know that, in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, Professor Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, said that his attitude to reinvesting in nuclear energy had been affected by the events of 9/11. There are genuine security concerns.


Next Section IndexHome Page