Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Dr Rebecca Windemer from Regen , and Professor Patrick Devine-Wright from the University of Exeter , to the House of Commons Committee on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (joint submission) (PIB25)

This response is submitted in relation to clause 22 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It is a joint submission by Dr Rebecca Windemer from Regen and Professor Patrick Devine-Wright from the University of Exeter.

About Regen

Regen provides independent, evidence-led insight and advice in support of our mission to transform the UK’s energy system for a net zero future. We focus on analysing the systemic challenges of decarbonising power, heat and transport. We know that a transformation of this scale will require engaging the whole of society in a just transition.

Regen is a membership organisation with over 200 members who share our mission, including clean energy developers, businesses, local authorities, community energy groups and research organisations across the energy sector. We manage the Electricity Storage Network (ESN) – the industry group and voice of the grid-scale electricity storage industry in GB.

About Professor Patrick Devine-Wright

Patrick Devine-Wright is an environmental social scientist with a primary interest in sustainable energy transitions, specifically social acceptance of low-carbon technologies, community engagement and people-place relations. He is the director of the £6.25m ESRC-funded ACCESS (Advancing Capacity for Climate and Environment Social Science) leadership team that aims to increase the visibility and impact of social science contributions to tackling environmental problems. With expertise spanning human geography and environmental psychology, he was cited in the top 1% of social science scholars globally by Web of Science in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. He is an Adjunct Professor in Geography at Trinity College, Dublin; Honorary Lecturer at the University of Liverpool; and received a Distinguished Visiting Scientist award from CSIRO, Australia. He has considerable experience advising policy and practice across scales, including as Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a member of the DECC-Defra Social Science Expert Group, and Chair of the Devon Net Zero Task Force.

As of our research to create a sustainable, healthy and socially just future

Executive summary

We do not support the design of the proposed energy bill discount scheme for those living within 500 m of transmission infrastructure. Using a set distance to determine community benefits is unequitable and risks increasing conflict, causing delays and failing to deliver value for bill payers’ money.

Instead, we recommend that energy bill discounts form one of the options offered to communities through the wider community benefits package. This should be formed through dialogue with host communities, taking visual impact and distance as a starting point, not a pre-determining qualifier.

Response to c lause 22 : ‘ Benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects ’

· We do not support the suggested provision for a financial benefit scheme based on individuals living within a fixed distance (500 m) of transmission infrastructure. We believe there is a significant risk that this measure could cause unintended conflict within communities and between communities and grid operators, reducing community acceptance of new transmission infrastructure.

· The use of a fixed distance as a qualifying criterion is a poor proxy for actual impact and fails to consider local topography. For example, a household situated behind a hill, with no visual or perceptible exposure to the infrastructure, might still qualify for compensation purely based on proximity, whereas a home with high visual impact, a short distance beyond 500 m, would not. For this reason, such a mechanism does not ensure fairness and will also not provide value for money to the bill payers who are ultimately paying for this.

· Research conducted by the University of Exeter on behalf of the Irish grid operator EirGrid, which examined community benefit schemes, found that relying on ‘objective’ distance thresholds often led to unintended and inequitable consequences. [1] In one case, an entire settlement was split arbitrarily due to a proximity measure, with households on one side of a street qualifying for community benefits while neighbours just metres away on the other side of the street did not. A system in which a home situated 501 m from a line is treated differently from one 499 m away highlights the inherent unfairness of rigid spatial cut-offs.

· Evidence from peer-reviewed social science research suggests that fair outcomes in the context of electricity transmission infrastructure are not achieved through predefined, distance-based criteria. [2] Uniform treatment based on objective space does not equate to equity. In fact, such an approach may foster greater resentment, reduce community consent and contribute to delays – precisely the opposite of its intended effect.

· Instead, we argue that the definition of spatial boundaries for community fund provision should be rooted in dialogue with host communities, not pre-determined by government or grid operators. Energy bill discounts could form part of the community benefit options offered to communities. However, distance and visual impact should be a starting point – not the determining factor – for discussions with residents and stakeholders about what the most appropriate forms of recognition and benefit are and who and where should be eligible to receive them.

April 2025