Wind Energy Development Planning Process

Global concerns such as global warming, climate change, and energy supply crisis may seem far removed from everyday life. However, at the local level the impacts of wind farms, international agreements and national policies are felt. One of the main reasons for protests against wind farms is the differentiation between the local and the global (Hogget, 2008). In order overcome these protests and to achieve renewable targets in 1993 the government published a planning framework for renewable energy development. Specifically addressing wind turbines, an advice note expressed that when considering a clean renewable resource we must weight the desire for that against the visual impact on the landscape (Toke, 2005). More recently the Planning Act 2008 has outlined legal framework for decision making on structures that are deemed ‘nationally significant infrastructure projects’, which includes large wind farms. This framework is weighted towards ensuring that, as much as possible the governmental targets for renewable energy capacity are achieved (Woolley, 2010).

However despite this weighting towards renewable energy capacity, around 60% of planning applications for wind power in England and Wales are rejected by local authorities, however in Scotland a planning acceptance rate of 75% has been demonstration (but this number is declining) (Toke et al, 2008). Following this however, half of the appeals made against planning refusal have been successful. As a result the number of appeals increased possible due to a perception of favourable treatment through this process (Toke, 2005).

As many planning permission refusals have been reversed on Appeal, around 55% of all wind power-planning applications has been approved since 1999. However the appeal process is a very expensive process, and if a developer is to have the best chance of winning at a Public Inquiry and expenditure of somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 GBP is required, which is usually not reclaimable. The figures also do not take into account the time of company staff (Toke, 2005).

One long-standing concern, particularly for the Government, has been the time in which it takes a project to secure authorisation. The remedy for this has been the introduction of a separate consent structure for projects deemed as ‘nationally significant infrastructure projects’ as mentioned previously. Projects which fall into this category have a timeframe of 9 months under which the examination and decision making process occurs (unless extended by either the decision maker or the Secretary of State). The primary responsibility for deciding these applications falls to the IPC, which is the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The IPC is independent of the government, however still constrained by

47 | P a g e reference to national policy statements which the Secretary of State development for particular aspects of infrastructure development (Woolley, 2010).

Further to the concerns surrounding delays, the Government claim that public participation is responsible for these delays in the planning process, however this is contested on two grounds. The first one being that it is incorrect to blame the decision-making processes for infrastructure projects on public involvement. Secondly, the time in which it takes to explore any concerns over proposed projects with an aim to reach publicly acceptable outcomes should not be seen as a delay (Woolley, 2010).

Whilst it may not be correct to refer to public involvement as a ‘delay’, public opposition during the siting process is a problem frequently faced by wind power projects (Johansson and Laike, 2007), and high levels of apprehension towards wind turbine schemes by people living in the close vicinity of proposed sites is said to be closely associated with decisions by local planning authorities to refuse planning permission (Toke, 2005). Certainly, it is important to focus on the reasons why specific members of communities oppose to specific developments (Jones and Eiser, 2009), perhaps if this is fully understood, the so called delays will be minimised during the planning process.

Various concerns have been raised around the consultation aspect of the planning act. One concern is that during the consultation the public is invited to comment on proposals that are pre-prepared on judgements already made based on those who were previously involved in the decision making process. Therefore this creates the situation where respondents contest judgments instead of discussing values (Woolley, 2010). Agreeing that it may be a problematic process, research by Haggett (2008) highlighted that the development process and the planning system nature have effect on the decisions that are made, and the opposition to wind energy. In line with this notion Jones and Eiser (2010) discuss that issues of immediate concern, trust and relationships with ‘outsiders’, and subsequent opportunities for discussion are motivators for response to wind power schemes. Notwithstanding however, that understanding of the motivations for objecting to or supporting a wind farm proposal defies simple explanation (Ellis et al, 2007).

Looking specifically at wind energy planning, decisions on smaller schemes under 50MW have become 10% quicker, and approval rates have increased by 15% (RenewableUK, 2012). However for larger schemes (such as nationally significant infrastructure) regardless of the process becoming 19% faster on average due to major planning reforms, the opinion

48 | P a g e still exists that there is work to be done ‘to ensure that the planning system functions in a timely manner to deliver continued capacity and economic growth from projects’ (RenewableUK, 2012). Therefore further highlighting the continued importance and relevance of this project research area to the wind industry.

A study conducted by Prassler and Schachtele (2012) looked into the financial attractiveness of offshore wind farm projects, and discovered that markets in the UK and Germany contain the most profitable offshore wind development areas (for the UK Irish Sea & North Sea). However both countries have less attractive areas, in particular in the UK – round III scenario has suffers from high investment costs influenced by unfavourable geographical parameters and grid connection responsibility. UK – Round III scenario in fact ranks second from bottom in terms of financial attractiveness. Energy policy makers have the opportunity to directly influence the financial attractiveness with support instruments, and through the determination of development areas taking into account the geographical conditions affecting profitability. Therefore national regulations determine the appetite of investors for engagement in offshore wind power (Prässler & Schaechtele, 2012). This shows there is a need to further the understanding of the influence of such policies and how these interact with investors (especially considering round III), to ensure that the wind farm projects in the UK are financially attractive.

Addressing this issue of financial attractiveness further Heptonstall et al (2012) concludes that it is clear costs a significantly higher in offshore projects than policy makers initially expected, however it is their challenge to balance the need for support to continue the growth of the industry with sending a clear message that the costs must fall within this industry. This is expected to be the major challenge for policy makers.

49 | P a g e