here - United Kingdom Parliament

1665 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy) 6 JUNE 2013 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy) 1666
Mr Speaker: Order. This policy announcement should
of course first have been made in this Chamber through
an oral statement offered by the Government. Right
hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that it was
precisely because that offer was not made, which it
should have been, that I granted the urgent question
from the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris).
We look forward of course to the Minister’s reply.
Mr Prisk: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The two written
ministerial statements are important, but the Government
will always note what you have to say on these matters.
That is important in this regard.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s wholehearted support
for these important changes. I know that he has been an
ardent campaigner on these matters, and I very much
respect that. It is important that constituency Members
of Parliament should feel able to do that. He asked
which proposals would be affected by the changes. I
must be careful not to mention any specific named
applications, but when something has been determined
at local level, we clearly cannot reopen it. The changes
will not be retrospective. When something is in the
planning application system but no decision has been
made, local planners and the planning inspectors will
now have to give clear consideration—as they would in
any other circumstances—to this guidance. That will
give comfort not only to Members of the House but to
many of the constituents they represent.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I
am grateful to you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. Once
again we have had to learn the details of a Government
policy from the press rather than from a statement to
the House.
We know that planning approvals for wind farms in
England have fallen from about 70% of applications in
2008 to 35% in 2012, which raises the question of why
this guidance is being introduced now. We accept that
there are clearly locations in which it is inappropriate to
put wind turbines, and we welcome the greater incentives
that will be provided to local communities that accept
wind farm developments. Pre-application discussions
with communities are clearly a good thing, and should
be happening in any case, but can the Minister tell us
what the threshold will be for the more significant
applications that will trigger compulsory consultation,
and do the Government intend to make the same changes
for fracking planning applications?
It has been reported that local communities will, in
effect, be given a veto over new wind farm planning
applications. A senior Conservative source is quoted in
the newspapers as saying:
“This is a bomb proof set of safeguards”.
That is not, however, what it says in the written ministerial
statement, and neither did the Minister say that in his
reply. Can he therefore tell us what will in fact be the
case? Will there be a veto: yes or no? If so, how exactly
will this power of veto operate?
Reference has also been made to significant local opposition.
How will this be assessed and who will decide whether it
is significant? Will local authorities still finally determine
the planning applications? What will be the position in
local communities where a local plan has not yet been
drawn up or approved by the Planning Inspectorate?
Do the Government have any plans to change the
process for deciding on planning applications for wind
farms generating more than 50 MW?
As we know, onshore wind is the cheapest form of
renewable energy, so what assessment have the Government
made of the likely impact of these changes on our
carbon budgets and on the cost of electricity for consumers
in general?
Mr Prisk: The hon. Lady raised a number of points,
and she will forgive me if I say that the details on
carbon emissions are not within the bounds of the
planning decision, which is what this urgent question is
about.
Let me deal with two particular issues that the hon.
Lady raised. She rightly raised the question of what a
“more significant” development is. This will depend on
a number of issues. As hon. Members may understand,
it may be about the scale and number of turbines, but it
could also be about the height, size and massing of
them. Clearly, we do not want to ensnare someone who
is thinking of having a small turbine in the back garden.
That is not the purpose of the approach; this will be set
out clearly in the secondary legislation.
The hon. Lady then raised a broader point about
retrospectivity. She did so quite imaginatively, I thought,
in a number of different ways. Perhaps I can reiterate
the point. Where a determination has been made, there
will not be a retrospective change, but where an application
is in the system, we expect the local planning officers
and, if the case is in appeal, the inspectors themselves to
give clear and careful consideration to the issue, in the
knowledge that it has the potential to be a “material
consideration”, which she will obviously understand
has a legal implication as well.
The purpose behind this approach is very clear, but I
am not sure that the hon. Lady was. We believe in
making sure that local communities have a clear voice,
and we want the balance between the global environmental
issues and the local environmental issues to be made
clear. The policy has been clear; sadly, as many hon.
Members have found, it has not been applied appropriately
on the ground. We intend to make sure that planning
inspectors and the planners themselves on the ground
areabletodoso.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): In
congratulating my hon. Friend on this statement, may I
ask whether he will extend the principles he has enunciated
to offshore wind farms, where exactly the same principles
apply, particularly in the case of the much-despised
proposal for an offshore wind farm in Christchurch
bay?
Mr Prisk: My hon. Friend is always adept at tempting
Ministers, but I think I shall keep my feet on dry land.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): May I
return to a point the Minister did not answer a minute
ago? Will he confirm that this change does not give a
veto to local authorities and local communities over all
wind farm applications? Will he confirm that what he
has done is to put into the guidance matters to which
the local authorities will now have to have regard in
considering applications? These are in fact matters to