As someone who sits on the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) Planning Committee, I have voted to approve and refuse renewable energy applications based on their merits. But what we are seeing now with Central Government consistently over-ruling the Council at appeal is very disturbing.Renewable Energy – Some New Thinking Required
As yet another windfarm application (Sixpennywood near Howden) goes to the Government to decide on appeal, renewable energy is again high on the agenda as one of the most emotive subjects faced by rural communities, with many residents feeling they have little say in the location of windfarms or biomass power stations. The perception is that the siting is very much at the behest of speculative developers who appear to submit planning applications at will, with little consultation, little regard for local feeling, or impact on the landscape or roads.
The East Riding of Yorkshire Council Planning Committee has a good record of supporting renewable energy applications in appropriate locations, a significant number of which are now either up and running, under construction, or awaiting commencement.
Conversely a number of applications at inappropriate locations such as Routh, Withernwick, and Tansterne have been refused. Unfortunately Secretary of State Hazel Blears has seized the decision-making from the Council by upholding developer appeals at these sites, allowing them to go ahead.
The message from Central Government is becoming very clear – the opinions and decisions taken by locally elected Councillors count for very little and our voices are worthless, something that’s clearly wrong and very worrying.
A Change of Driver
At present speculative developers are the driving force in the siting of renewable energy facilities. This is not acceptable and a way must be found to give greater power to Local Authorities in site selection. The ERYC has endeavoured to offer guidance to developers in the recent Interim Planning Document on Renewable Energy, but I fear this will not stand up to the will of the Government.
There needs to be some new thinking on site selection from developers, the Local Authority and central Government. To consider the East Riding as a whole is essential, there are areas of natural value that should be avoided, but others that are appropriate. Wide-ranging consultation should be carried out, not only with developers, but communities, stakeholders, radar installations, airports, highway authorities and English Nature to determine suitable sites, and facility size/type able to be accommodated. These can then be prioritised and put out to developers for tender. The money raised could supplement existing off-site contributions provided by developers to deliver meaningful community or infrastructural projects.
Addressing Local Opposition Through Community Ownership
Many have commented on the size of the larger generation turbines that make up the Lisset windfarm, and how these turbines can be seen for many miles in all directions. There are obvious benefits of scale for a developer to have a larger more profitable turbines and maximum turbine numbers on any site, but this must be balanced against the environmental and visual impact.
In communities where a windfarm is planned there is invariably a significant minority of residents who are unsupportive and even hostile to windfarms; this can then spread to the normally ambivalent majority. Then there are pro-renewable energy groups, whose supporters can come from further a field and tend to misrepresent local opinion.
Experience shows renewable energy developers only play lip service to consultation, and this is where further new thinking is needed. Developing community ownership of windfarms would be a way forward, as presently there are few perceived benefits, and disproportionately small financial grants from developers for community projects. The value of these grants must be increased.
Prior to an application, developers could conduct full and meaningful consultation with communities neighbouring a site, setting up liaison groups to allow residents to be part of the decision making process, for funding community projects and infrastructure. This could be expanded to include constructing an ‘extra turbine’, which in theory would be owned by the communities, with the net profits providing low cost green energy to residents within say 5km radius. This would create a viable partnership, with those living in the shadow of a windfarm benefiting financially, plus having a ‘unique selling point’ for their houses.
Waste heat produced by straw burning/biomass power stations should be used to heat homes or industrial buildings, with facilities located close to communities or industrial premises, and good road links for the transportation of the raw materials. A good example being the heat and power facility at Goole’s Capital Park Industrial Estate, next to a motorway junction, which satisfies both criteria. Unfortunately the Tansterne application satisfies neither.
The transportation of large wind turbine components also attracts controversy; with increased vehicle movements, and long lorries causing damage to roundabouts and junctions. The developer must be made responsible for this and be required to foot the bill accordingly.
Finally, let’s not forget the East Riding has the River Humber and Ouse running along the Southern edge and the North Sea to the East – are these not untapped opportunities for the development of tidal and wave power installations? After all the tide comes in and out, the rivers continually flow – but the wind doesn’t always blow!
As yet another windfarm application (Sixpennywood near Howden) goes to the Government to decide on appeal, renewable energy is again high on the agenda as one of the most emotive subjects faced by rural communities, with many residents feeling they have little say in the location of windfarms or biomass power stations. The perception is that the siting is very much at the behest of speculative developers who appear to submit planning applications at will, with little consultation, little regard for local feeling, or impact on the landscape or roads.
The East Riding of Yorkshire Council Planning Committee has a good record of supporting renewable energy applications in appropriate locations, a significant number of which are now either up and running, under construction, or awaiting commencement.
Conversely a number of applications at inappropriate locations such as Routh, Withernwick, and Tansterne have been refused. Unfortunately Secretary of State Hazel Blears has seized the decision-making from the Council by upholding developer appeals at these sites, allowing them to go ahead.
The message from Central Government is becoming very clear – the opinions and decisions taken by locally elected Councillors count for very little and our voices are worthless, something that’s clearly wrong and very worrying.
A Change of Driver
At present speculative developers are the driving force in the siting of renewable energy facilities. This is not acceptable and a way must be found to give greater power to Local Authorities in site selection. The ERYC has endeavoured to offer guidance to developers in the recent Interim Planning Document on Renewable Energy, but I fear this will not stand up to the will of the Government.
There needs to be some new thinking on site selection from developers, the Local Authority and central Government. To consider the East Riding as a whole is essential, there are areas of natural value that should be avoided, but others that are appropriate. Wide-ranging consultation should be carried out, not only with developers, but communities, stakeholders, radar installations, airports, highway authorities and English Nature to determine suitable sites, and facility size/type able to be accommodated. These can then be prioritised and put out to developers for tender. The money raised could supplement existing off-site contributions provided by developers to deliver meaningful community or infrastructural projects.
Addressing Local Opposition Through Community Ownership
Many have commented on the size of the larger generation turbines that make up the Lisset windfarm, and how these turbines can be seen for many miles in all directions. There are obvious benefits of scale for a developer to have a larger more profitable turbines and maximum turbine numbers on any site, but this must be balanced against the environmental and visual impact.
In communities where a windfarm is planned there is invariably a significant minority of residents who are unsupportive and even hostile to windfarms; this can then spread to the normally ambivalent majority. Then there are pro-renewable energy groups, whose supporters can come from further a field and tend to misrepresent local opinion.
Experience shows renewable energy developers only play lip service to consultation, and this is where further new thinking is needed. Developing community ownership of windfarms would be a way forward, as presently there are few perceived benefits, and disproportionately small financial grants from developers for community projects. The value of these grants must be increased.
Prior to an application, developers could conduct full and meaningful consultation with communities neighbouring a site, setting up liaison groups to allow residents to be part of the decision making process, for funding community projects and infrastructure. This could be expanded to include constructing an ‘extra turbine’, which in theory would be owned by the communities, with the net profits providing low cost green energy to residents within say 5km radius. This would create a viable partnership, with those living in the shadow of a windfarm benefiting financially, plus having a ‘unique selling point’ for their houses.
Waste heat produced by straw burning/biomass power stations should be used to heat homes or industrial buildings, with facilities located close to communities or industrial premises, and good road links for the transportation of the raw materials. A good example being the heat and power facility at Goole’s Capital Park Industrial Estate, next to a motorway junction, which satisfies both criteria. Unfortunately the Tansterne application satisfies neither.
The transportation of large wind turbine components also attracts controversy; with increased vehicle movements, and long lorries causing damage to roundabouts and junctions. The developer must be made responsible for this and be required to foot the bill accordingly.
Finally, let’s not forget the East Riding has the River Humber and Ouse running along the Southern edge and the North Sea to the East – are these not untapped opportunities for the development of tidal and wave power installations? After all the tide comes in and out, the rivers continually flow – but the wind doesn’t always blow!
4 comments:
Many decisions that are made by any CC planning department seem (to us that voted for these people)not to be conducive with the 'will of the people' but are made only to serve some 'regeneration plan' or other, or to gain the promise of a 'reward' from either Central Government or the person(s) submitting the plans for consideration.
It would seem (from a voters point of view) that if there is money to be made from something it gets passed whatever the man in the street thinks of the idea, if there isn't or the profits doesn't end up in Council coffers it won't.
Take these inland windfarms for instance...are they worth the costs involved?
Are they producing enough usable energy to warrant their existence?
Are they perhaps springing up because palms are being greased at the highest levels?
Is Central Government right to dictate to the councils that they will allow a wind-farm in this or that area?
I honestly don't know, but taking the view that something gets passed because there is money to be made from it, then I would doubt it.
We all hear the publicity blurbs claiming that..."A modern 2.5MW turbine at a reasonable site will generate 6.5 million units of electricity each year, enough to meet the annual needs of over 1,400 households, make 230 million cups of tea or run a computer for 2,250 years." (according to BWEA website www.bwea.com)
If that is so, then why are we still burning coal/PET coke and oil to produce electricity?
Surely a wind-farm in every town would negate the need of these high emissions entities?
For one glaringly obvious reason ...the wind (as Paul has pointed out) doesn't always blow.
So why ARE we spending such huge amounts of money on a hit or miss venture such as wind-farms?
Why do so many of these 'reasonable sites' boast windmills that are more often than not stood idle? Answer = Onshore or offshore, wind cannot be relied upon...tidal power though is always on tap as long as the moon exerts the gravitational pull on the earth's seas so it will always be.
I'm sure no CC in the country would object to tidal power farms springing up on their regions' tidal waterways...OR WOULD THEY?
I am presently conducting a study to assess the viability of a microgeneration wind turbine on my barn. I have a small weather station monitoring windspeeds and so far (two months measurements) it looks as though the average windspeed is going to fall in the 7 to 10 mph bracket. This is significantly less than the publicity sheets from most manufacturers quote turbine output figures for and may result in a never payback situation for a micro-turbine installation. In this area even the two large turbines at Loftsome Bridge seem to be stationary from time to time.
Its also worth mentioning that big turbines operate as synchronous generators and will rotate at the same speed regardless of wind velocity. The only variable is the actual quantity of power being sent into the grid. Thus seeing them turning is no measure of their effectiveness. Maybe YW could be persuaded to report units generated or exported to the grid each week to the local press?
Mr Robinson I would like to question your stance on this subject:
"Conversely a number of applications at inappropriate locations such as Routh, Withernwick, and Tansterne have been refused. Unfortunately Secretary of State Hazel Blears has seized the decision-making from the Council by upholding developer appeals at these sites, allowing them to go ahead."
As you probably know I am the developer of the Tansterne Straw Fired plant. Following a robust local campaign against the proposal but with no technical consultee objections ERYC planning officers gave a strong recommendation for approval.
I am not here to comment on other applications but I must take issue with the conclusions you draw from the decision first made by planning officers then endorsed by a planning inspector and finally passed by the SOS.
You also go to some length about the use of waste heat, I spent a lot of time and effort evaluating a District Heating (DH) system for Aldbrough and I'm on record as being willing to supply heat to the village of Aldbrough, which being an off gas grid settlement zoned for expansion would suit a DH system very well, basically the offer was rejected out of hand, I believe to the detriment of the village!
I cannot speak for other developers but I have pursued my cause because I believe in what I propose, further as a country we must move to harness renewables at a smaller local level.
I started on my path because I wished to create a renewable installation using rural resources to produce a clean energy from a marginalised commodity, in doing so it may add value to rural incomes which have been much ravaged by a populace hell bent on cheap food at any price!
For my part I found it obscene that for a spell a premium rural product such as wheat grain was worth more to burn for energy than it was to feed someone, we live in a world of unbelievable values.
There are difficult decisions to be made in energy production; one thing is for certain all parties agree we have a huge problem in this country. I for one remain committed to try and work with local communities to deliver my proposal.
I am in this for the long term and hope to bring European ways to this area to benefit all who will engage, something which is proving more costly both in time and financially as a result of a politically motivated decision which officers told you would be difficult and costly to defend on the day you made your decision.
Richard Caley
Mr Robinson I would like to question your stance on this subject:
"Conversely a number of applications at inappropriate locations such as Routh, Withernwick, and Tansterne have been refused. Unfortunately Secretary of State Hazel Blears has seized the decision-making from the Council by upholding developer appeals at these sites, allowing them to go ahead."
As you probably know I am the developer of the Tansterne Straw Fired plant. Following a robust local campaign against the proposal but with no technical consultee objections ERYC planning officers gave a strong recommendation for approval.
I am not here to comment on other applications but I must take issue with the conclusions you draw from the decision first made by planning officers then endorsed by a planning inspector and finally passed by the SOS.
You also go to some length about the use of waste heat, I spent a lot of time and effort evaluating a District Heating (DH) system for Aldbrough and I'm on record as being willing to supply heat to the village of Aldbrough, which being an off gas grid settlement zoned for expansion would suit a DH system very well, basically the offer was rejected out of hand, I believe to the detriment of the village!
I cannot speak for other developers but I have pursued my cause because I believe in what I propose, further as a country we must move to harness renewables at a smaller local level.
I started on my path because I wished to create a renewable installation using rural resources to produce a clean energy from a marginalised commodity, in doing so it may add value to rural incomes which have been much ravaged by a populace hell bent on cheap food at any price!
For my part I found it obscene that for a spell a premium rural product such as wheat grain was worth more to burn for energy than it was to feed someone, we live in a world of unbelievable values.
There are difficult decisions to be made in energy production; one thing is for certain all parties agree we have a huge problem in this country. I for one remain committed to try and work with local communities to deliver my proposal.
I am in this for the long term and hope to bring European ways to this area to benefit all who will engage, something which is proving more costly both in time and financially as a result of a politically motivated decision which officers told you would be difficult and costly to defend on the day you made your decision.
Richard Caley
Post a Comment