here - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
1667 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy) 6 JUNE 2013 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy) 1668 which local authorities currently can have regard, and to which the best local authorities will already have regard? Mr Prisk: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that the policy has not changed. The frustration that many Members have experienced is about the way in which it has been applied at a local level. He is right to say that we are now making sure that these matters are dealt with in the appropriate fashion at the local level. These will now be material considerations, which is an important aspect. The policy has been clear. The sad part, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, is that the application has been inconsistent. That problem will now be solved. Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Is the Minister aware that the beautiful county of Northumberland has a large number of wind farm applications, and that there will be a welcome for this coalition Government’s recognition that visual and cumulative impact should be more effectively recognised in the system and that communities where appropriately sited wind farms are built should get a greater benefit from that? Mr Prisk: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; I have often felt that issues of amenity and landscape are things that people do care about in terms of their environmental considerations. This guidance will help to ensure that the balance is right now. Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): The Minister has not made it clear whether this will apply in Wales and England. Irrespective of that, will he confirm that it will mean more wind farms in urban areas and fewer in rural areas, and that more electricity will therefore be generated in Labour constituencies for Conservative constituencies, with the Liberals blowing in the wind, as normal? Mr Prisk: No, it does not apply to Wales and no, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): The borough of Kettering is enthusiastic about its successful and expanding wind farm at Burton Wold, but we do not want wind turbines all over the countryside. Can the Minister assure my constituents that they can use the very good example of that wind farm to protect against the spread of wind turbines everywhere else? Mr Prisk: That is the thing that people feel; the cumulative issue is often the concern that local communities have. That is why this guidance will strengthen the arm to make sure that it is a genuine material consideration. People will now feel that they are to contribute to the planning process, and that is good for the process itself. John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op): So there is still no veto? Mr Prisk: There seems to be a lack of understanding among Labour Members. This is not about vetoes; it is about making sure, in a legal system, that we have appropriate and due consideration of the material issues— topography, amenity and heritage. On this idea that we have a blanket veto here at the Dispatch Box, I know that that is how they liked to do it in the Labour party in the past, but we let local people decide. Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): While I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, as I am sure most of my colleagues do, may I just point out to him that it contains no reference to general aviation and the Ministry of Defence, both of which have enormous concerns about the impact of wind farms? May I give just one example? As one of the few currently licensed aviators in this House, I was flying on Monday past Popham, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), where there is a huge concern about 22 wind turbines, each the height of the London Eye, and the massive impact they can have on general aviation. May I ask the Minister to take into account those concerns, which are certainly shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Winchester (Steve Brine)? Mr Prisk: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and we do need to consider that issue, although of course what he is referring to is strictly outside the nature of this statement. Perhaps I, or indeed the Secretary of State, might like to take a flight with him to see this directly. Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Coop): I realise that the announcement on the planning changes refers to England, but given that the Government appear to have had time to brief the media, did they also have time to discuss any of this with the Scottish Government, as there will be concerns that it will perhaps be tougher to obtain planning permission in England and that that will have knock-on consequences in Scotland? Mr Prisk: Clearly this is a devolved matter, but if the hon. Lady is directly concerned, she needs to talk to the Scottish Government, as we are already doing. Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con): I have tried to push the Minister on this important issue, but will he just clarify whether the current applications at judicial review are included in the change in guidance? Mr Prisk: The key point is that if a determination has been made, that cannot be undone, whether that is at the local level or at the planning level, and that, I think, incorporates any other aspect where there is a decision about this. Once a decision has been published, that clearly cannot be changed by this guidance. Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab): E.ON wants to build a wind farm consisting of 25 wind turbines in the middle of my constituency, generating 64 MW of electricity, which is therefore over the 50 MW threshold. The final decision will be made by the Secretary of State. Does this announcement today mean that if the local planning authority is opposed and the local community is opposed, the Secretary of State will say no to it? Mr Prisk: It is cute of the hon. Gentleman to try to tempt me into that area. He knows that these are quasi-legal decisions, and I am not going to comment on any individual application. What we have done
Page 1 and 2: Thursday Volume 563 6 June 2013 No.
Page 3 and 4: 1643 6 JUNE 2013 1644 House of Comm
Page 5 and 6: 1647 Oral Answers 6 JUNE 2013 Oral
Page 13: 1663 6 JUNE 2013 Onshore Wind (Plan
Page 17 and 18: 1671 Onshore Wind (Planning Policy)
Page 19 and 20: 1675 6 JUNE 2013 Business of the Ho
Page 21 and 22: 1679 Business of the House 6 JUNE 2
Page 29 and 30: 1695 Mau Mau Claims (Settlement) 6
Page 31 and 32: 1699 Mau Mau Claims (Settlement) 6
Page 33 and 34: 1703 Public Administration Committe
Page 35 and 36: 1707 6 JUNE 2013 Student Visas 1708
Page 37 and 38: 1711 Student Visas 6 JUNE 2013 Stud
Page 55 and 56: 1747 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 J
Page 65 and 66:
1767 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 J
Page 67 and 68:
1771 Pollinators and Pesticides 6 J
Page 69 and 70:
1775 Augmentative and Alternative 6
Page 71:
1779 Augmentative and Alternative 6
Page 74 and 75:
267WH Drugs 6 JUNE 2013 Drugs 268WH
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 89 and 90:
109WS Written Ministerial Statement
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95:
Page 98 and 99:
1223W Written Answers 6 JUNE 2013 W
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137:
Page 140 and 141:
Col. No. EDUCATION.................
Page 142 and 143:
Members who wish to have the Daily
show all

here - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?