Comparison of Barrier Analysis

All four case studies contained at least one barrier to construction that could be deemed as very high attention, either due to the frequency of representation, the severity of the topic or both.

The two offshore projects as mentioned previously gained fewer representations than the onshore projects, and subsequently both of the projects each contained just one very high attention barrier. Whereas, the onshore projects contained six and four very high attention barriers respectively.

The very high attention barriers across all cases were deemed to be in the following areas;

·

Business

o

Fishing Activities Disrupted – fisherman felt that their livelihoods would be affected by the development

o

Closure of site needed for fishing – concerns regarding existing fishing sites being closed for use

o

Tourism important to the Area – concerns surrounding tourism in the area, many fearing that tourists would be put off visiting the area

·

Construction

o

Construction Traffic Hazardous – safety fears for construction traffic on unsuitable roads

·

Hydrology

o

Private Water Supplies Disrupted – concerns surrounding the disruption or pollution of private water supplies required in rural locations

o

Increased Flood Risk – concerns over the increased risk of run off or flooding in the area due to the construction of wind farms.

·

Noise

o

Unable to live at property – fears that the noise from either construction or the wind turbines would be so that they would be unable to live at the property in the future.

189 | P a g e

o

Wind Turbines catching fire in forest environment – some mentioned

news reports of a wind turbine catching fire, and this lead to fears of the safety surrounding wind turbines in a forest.

Following these very high attention barriers, were the high attention barriers, which were found in the following areas across all cases;

·

Business

o

Cable Routes Unfishable – fears that cable routes would disrupt fishing activities and habitats, deeming them unsuitable for such activities in future

·

Construction Phase

o

Extra Traffic – concerns over the additional traffic volume using small country roads.

o

Decommissioning plans – concerns over the decommissioning of the site once the wind farm lifetime is over, residents unsure of what will remain and the after effects of such.

o

New Access track not needed – many see a new access track at a particular wind farm to be unnecessary due to the proximity to an existing wind farm and access track.

·

Site Choice

o

Navigational Risk – concerns that the turbines will become a risk to planes flying in the area, or boats sailing within the area.

o

Collision Risk – concerns surrounding the risk of collision with the wind turbine, whether that be vehicular or by wildlife.

o

Not Remote, Amongst Villages – some argue that the location is amongst villages and not in the remote location suggested by the developers

·

Noise

o

General Noise – concerns raised regarding the noise during construction and during operation of the wind turbines.

·

Visual

o

Views disrupted / ruined – concerns over the aesthetic quality of the land being ruined.

·

Leisure

o

Walking & Cycling Routes Affected – concerns over the locations and the recreational activities that may suffer as a result.

190 | P a g e

·

Economical

o

Home Devalued – economical concerns over the value of properties located near a wind farm

·

Flora & Fauna

o

Trees Felled – concerns over the number of trees that would be removed during the construction of the wind farm.

o

Wildlife Disrupted – concerns that the wildlife in the area may suffer as a results of this development.

·

Pylons & Distribution

o

Visual Impact – concerns surrounding the over ground cables and the effect they will have on the landscape

·

Cumulative Effect

o

Landscape Dominated – concerns surrounding the number of wind farms in the area, with the fear that they will dominate the landscape. Many additional concerns relating to the wind farm developments were addressed, and considered to be medium to low attention barriers, due to the less severe nature of the topic or a lower frequency of representations on the topic, or both. These are show in yellow (medium) and green (low) on the individual barrier analysis found in sections 5.3.1 – 5.3.4.

5.5.1 Summary of Barriers

The barrier analysis allowed for a comparison across all four case studies whilst considering the main hypothesis and sub-hypothesis 3 (as found below, and in section 3.3.3);

Main Hypothesis: There are significant barriers to overcome during the planning process of nationally significant wind farm projects in England and Wales.

Sub-Hypothesis 1 Adequate numbers of wind farm applications are made for planning approval in order to meet future renewable energy targets

Sub-Hypothesis 2 Significant time reductions in the planning process have been achieved since 2009 planning reform in England and Wales Sub-Hypothesis 3 Current Perception of Wind Farms is a significant barrier to

development

Sub-Hypothesis 4 The current planning process structure is the overriding factor in the delays in reaching renewable energy targets

Sub-Hypothesis 5 The planning process for nationally significant projects in England and Wales can be shortened without facing significant problems Table 5.24 – Hypothesis and Sub Hypothesis

191 | P a g e Due to the frequency and/or the severity of the subjects in the high and very high attention barrier categories, the items listed in these categories have been found to be the main barriers to construction across the 4 cases considered (as discussed in section 5.4). However despite these barriers being perceived in the risk assessment as very high risk barriers, all four cases gained planning permission. So whilst the perception of the problem and subsequent frequency of representations and severity factor deemed these to be significant barriers, none were found to be barriers to the development of the wind farms considered, this would therefore appear to suggest that sub-hypothesis 3 is untrue from these findings.

5.6

Summary

To summarise this section of the report drew cross case conclusions from the multiple case study. It looked at the timescales in the planning process across the cases and compared then to timescales before the planning reform to look for evidence of improvement. An average of 7.75 months improvement on pre 2008 reform timescales was recorded across all cases. Whilst all cases adhered to the statutory timescales within the reformed planning process, room for improvement can be seen in the pre-examination section of the planning process. This is the only stage of the process which does not have a statutory time limit set, moreover a suggested time frame of 3 months. All cases studied took longer than this 3 month suggestion, so this is an area where improvement could potentially be made.

This section additionally carrier out a barrier analysis surrounding the representations made during the planning process of the cases studied. Various very high attention topics were found (based on the severity and number of representations), these include:

·

Business

o

Cable Routes Unfishable

·

Construction Phase

o

Extra Traffic

o

Decommissioning plans

o

New Access track not needed

·

Site Choice

192 | P a g e

o

Collision Risk

o

Not Remote, Amongst Villages

·

Noise

o

General Noise

·

Visual

o

Views disrupted / ruined

·

Leisure

o

Walking & Cycling Routes Affected

·

Economical

o

Home Devalued

·

Flora & Fauna

o

Trees Felled

o

Wildlife Disrupted

·

Pylons & Distribution

o

Visual Impact

·

Cumulative Effect

o

Landscape Dominated

However despite the severity and number of representations making these topics very high risk barriers, all 4 projects studied gained planning approval therefore questioning whether current perception of wind turbines are a significant barrier to development.

To summarise this section compared and contrasted the findings from the individual case studies and brought them together to form cross case conclusions.

193 | P a g e

In document Barriers in the planning structure to wind energy in the UK (Page 188-193)