Central government has articulated a national policy on windfarms, but a small number of local authorities have decided not to toe the line and are introducing measures to reject all new windfarm proposals they consider too close to housing.
The policies introduced by Wiltshire Council, Milton Keynes Council and Lincolnshire County Council run contrary to the government’s recently introduced national planning guidelines and set them on a collision course. The upcoming planning battles will be watched closely by other local authorities under pressure from their communities to take a similar stance.
With the exception of noise pollution guidance, which suggests turbines should be located at least 350m from housing, no minimum separation distances exist in England at present. Scottish guidance suggests that a 2km radius be maintained and Welsh guidance advises 500m.
A current private members’ bill, sponsored by Lord Raey, proposes that minimum distances should be based on the turbine height, measured from the base of the column to the highest tip of the blades. Those measuring between 25m and 50m would be subject to a 1km limit, increasing to 2km and 3km for 100m and 150m turbines.
The government has steered clear of introducing regulations, mindful of binding renewable energy generation targets, inward investment priorities and concerns that a one-size-fits-all approach is impractical. In June, the undersecretary of state at the Department for Communities and Local Government, Baroness Hanham, told the Lords: “Planning policy does not include an exclusion zone between wind turbines and dwellings. Rather, impacts should be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account the context, such as the local topography.”
Introduced earlier this year to simplify the planning system in England and Wales, one of the key precepts of the government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidance is that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development – unless any adverse development impacts are demonstrated that “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits.
Those in favour of local supplementary policies designed to limit the building of windfarms contend that the national planning guidelines are too broad and do not pay sufficient attention to the wishes of local communities.
In early July, Wiltshire Council voted through measures intended to prevent the spread of wind turbines in the county. A unitary authority which succeeded the former county council in 2009, it has direct jurisdiction over windfarm planning applications. The core policy amendment introduced replicates the proximities proposed in Lord Raey’s private members’ bill.
There are no wind turbines higher than 50m in Wiltshire, but should the council get its way, many future windfarm applications would be refused on the grounds that the turbines were not far enough away from housing.
The Planning Inspectorate has intervened to insist that Wiltshire Council put its planning proposal out to public consultation before implementing it. Should it be ratified after a public consultation and used to reject a future wind turbine planning application, it is almost certain that a committee refusal would trigger a legal challenge from a developer.
A similar policy has been introduced by Milton Keynes Council. Under a proposal agreed by councillors, wind turbines more than 25m high should be located at least 350m away from housing and 100m-high turbines at least 1km away from housing.
The move has infuriated RWE Npower, which has submitted plans to locate 17 turbines on two sites on the outskirts of the town. In July, the company wrote to the council stating that the policy was unlawful and contrary to national planning guidelines. The letter stated that the policy should be “accorded no weight” by those considering the turbine applications. The company has threatened to take legal action if the council pursues the policy.
Lincolnshire County Council voted unanimously in June to introduce guidance that presumes against development of new windfarms unless turbines are located a minimum of 2km from housing, historical sites or beauty spots and as far as 10km from local communities that have ten households or more with a view of new turbines.
Unlike Wiltshire and Milton Keynes, Lincolnshire County Council is an upper tier authority that does not consider wind turbine planning proposals itself. Instead it acts as a discretionary consultee to the seven district authorities within Lincolnshire that do consider windfarm applications as well as acting as a statutory consultee to the Planning Inspectorate for larger windfarm proposals exceeding 50MW capacity.
Nevertheless, council leader Martin Hill told local media that he expected the district councils and the government to “take into account” the view of the elected county councillors, pointing out that there are 74 working turbines across the county as well as “several hundred in the pipeline”.
One of the district councils, East Lindsey, responded by declaring that it would not take a “predetermined view to object to all windfarm developments”. East Lindsey said it had a legal duty to consider all planning applications in line with established planning policy, unlike the county council, which it said can take any view on an application “without consequence”.
The chairman of East Lindsey’s planning committee, councillor Craig Leyland, explains: “It would be inappropriate and irresponsible if we were to take a blanket view to object to all windfarm developments on principle. Applicants would portray us as being unreasonable, which would dilute any objections and would potentially result in more windfarm developments in our area.”
That view is supported by Antony Harding, a senior planner at Turley Associates, a national planning consultancy involved with a number of onshore windfarm schemes. He says: “Overtly restrictive councils are forcing planning by appeal, avoiding having to make a balanced decision to appease councillors’ and residents’ often unwarranted concerns. This may come at a cost, because there is a risk that such restrictive policy approaches will be found unreasonable at appeal, thereby increasing the risk of cost claims to be sought against local authorities.”
Richard Bowen is a freelance journalist
This article first appeared in Utility Week’s print edition of 26th October 2012.
Get Utility Week’s expert news and comment – unique and indispensible – direct to your desk. Sign up for a trial subscription here: http://bit.ly/zzxQxx