Brechfa West Wind Farm

Debate between Lord Barker of Battle and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on securing this debate. I know he has taken a strong and long-standing interest in the topic, which is important for his constituents. Over the past three years—his anniversary is coming up—he has been diligent in asking written and oral questions in the House.

I am sorry to start my response to this interesting debate by making what might seem to be an unhelpful statement, but the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that the Department is currently considering the application for development consent from RWE npower renewables on the proposed Brechfa Forest West wind farm. Given my quasi-judicial role in approving the application, I regret that I am unable to comment on the merits of the arguments for and against the proposal made both this morning and during the Planning Inspectorate’s lengthy examination of the application.

I am also unable to respond to the pithy interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), but I acknowledge their points. I assure them that I have listened carefully to the discussions this morning. I cannot prejudge the outcome, but I will consider whether any of the points raised are material to the deliberations on the consent. There will be a revised submission in light of this debate, and my officials and I will read it carefully before coming to our considered decision.

My deliberations will also have to include the other relevant matters that have been drawn to my attention, including the representations delivered to the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and several of his constituents last week, and the report from the Planning Inspectorate dated 12 December 2012, which drew together the various issues that were considered during the examination of the Brechfa application.

The hon. Gentleman expressed his frustration that I had not been able to visit the site. I can assure him that that is nothing peculiar to his constituency, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it is in Wales. It is not usual for a Planning Minister to visit individual sites, because that might jeopardise, counteract or duplicate the professional site visits that the Planning Inspectorate undertakes. It is my job to bring together all those detailed observations and the representations made locally, and to consider them. I could carry out that consideration in Whitehall or Kathmandu, but I have to look at the evidence impartially and reach a decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no reluctance on my part to visit such a beautiful part of the country, and I am sure that were Otto given a say in the matter, he would be all in favour of a site visit.

For the sake of clarity, it might be worth setting out briefly the process by which the Brechfa application and other infrastructure projects classified as nationally significant—in the case of onshore wind farms, those with a generating capacity of more than 50 MW—are considered and determined. One of the key planks of the Planning Act 2008 process for such projects is the role of the Planning Inspectorate. Until its report and recommendation are submitted to the Secretary of State, the inspectorate leads on various aspects of the process. It is, therefore, the inspectorate that engages in discussions with applicants before an application for development consent is submitted; it is the inspectorate that considers whether an application should be accepted for examination; and it is the inspectorate that will conduct the examination of that application. As part of the examination, the inspectorate’s examining authority—either an individual or a panel of three of five members that is hearing the case—visits the sites of proposed developments. That is as it should be. The inspectorate’s officers have the expertise to assess the issues on the ground and weigh up the benefits, or otherwise, of the proposed development package. It is not Ministers’ place to engage in that aspect of the process.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I accept the points that the Minister makes, but that means that we must essentially accept on blind faith the advice of the inspectorate. My constituents have expressed to me their concern that such work was not carried out properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Barker]

In considering all the evidence, I will have the opportunity to weigh against the professional submissions that I receive additional submissions from local people, not least the information that the hon. Gentleman has so assiduously brought to my attention. He brought it to my Department last week, and I can assure him that it will be weighed in the balance as a decision is reached.

As indicated earlier, it is only at the end of the process that the Secretary of State can consider the information that has been provided by the applicant and any interested parties, and the way in which the Planning Inspectorate’s examiner has considered those matters. Finally, the Planning Act process is precise about the timetable for decision making. Decisions must be made within three months of the submission of the Planning Inspectorate’s report and recommendation. I am sure we all agree that it is in nobody’s interest for such decisions to be spun out, leaving local communities and businesses hanging, waiting for Government decisions. If that timetable cannot be met, the responsible Minister must make a statement to Parliament and to interested parties indicating why not. In the case of the Brechfa application, a decision must be reached by 12 March 2013, so we are close now.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I know that the Minister wants to make progress, and I am listening intently to what he is saying. One of the arguments against the development is that it will not be possible to use the existing electricity connection grids to transmit the energy to the main line in south Wales, which runs from Alltwalis to Carmarthen. New infrastructure will be required, and the UK Government’s planning guidance clearly states that such projects should be considered in tandem.

[Gregory Barker]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises the question of grid connection for the Brechfa project. Although I cannot go into detail and comment on the specifics of that case, for obvious reasons, it might be worth outlining the process that is set out in the overarching national policy statement for energy, which is known as EN-1, for considering grid connection issues. EN-1 sets out that, wherever possible, applications for new generating stations and related infrastructure should be contained in a single application to the Planning Inspectorate or in separate applications submitted in tandem that have been prepared in an integrated way.

Energy Powers (Wales)

Debate between Lord Barker of Battle and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on securing this important debate. I think I am going to disappoint him to a certain degree in not being able to agree with him on several matters of substance, but I am glad that we were able to start on a strong degree of consensus, by agreeing that scrapping the Infrastructure Planning Commission is important—not least to help him to deliver on his own manifesto commitments. He raised important issues to do with how major energy infrastructure projects in Wales should be determined in future. I congratulate him on the cogent and articulate way in which he did so.

I have 10 minutes to reply. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to make clearer any points that I am unable to cover in detail. He raised the Localism Bill, the abolition of the IPC, the referendum in May, inconsistencies between devolution settlements in Scotland and Wales, applications for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, and recent discussions on devolution of major energy infrastructure. He also raised cross-party agreement in the National Assembly about devolution in Wales, several issues to do with technical advice note 8 strategic search areas, the impact on wind farm developments, particularly in his constituency and the wider area, and the different bodies making decisions on energy developments of different sizes in the same area; I agree that that can seem confusing, but we think that it has some strong underlying logic.

Overall, the Government’s policy on the area in question is clear: subject to the Localism Bill receiving Royal Assent, we believe that the right decision maker for major strategic energy infrastructure in England and Wales is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. We believe that a streamlined planning system that minimises delay and unpredictability and, importantly, ensures investor confidence, is best delivered through a unified strategic planning system for major energy projects in England and Wales. Some may argue that it is not appropriate for UK Ministers to make decisions on major infrastructure applications in Wales. We would strongly disagree. UK Ministers are as accountable to Welsh voters as they are to English voters and, in the absence of any compelling evidence to support a change, we vehemently believe that it is appropriate for UK Ministers to take those important decisions on major infrastructure of national significance.

A number of reasons have been set out to show why Welsh Ministers should make major energy infrastructure decisions, and I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman made, but the Government see no evidence for reconsidering our strongly held position. The coalition Government’s policy on the matter is exactly the same as that of the previous Labour Administration. It is important to consider the referendum on further Welsh devolution that was held on 3 March. There was a 63.5% vote in favour of the Assembly being able to legislate in a further 20 areas. I take this opportunity to wish the Assembly every success as it takes on that large tranche of new responsibilities. However, so soon after an important referendum on the scope of the Assembly’s powers, now is not the time to start to unpick things and revisit the question; it is not an appropriate moment to consider substantive changes to the devolution settlement as it affects energy consents. We need to leave the settlement as it is.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that his party fought the recent National Assembly elections, after the referendum, on the basis of increasing the threshold to 100 MW? Is he saying that those manifesto commitments were not worth the paper they were written on?

[Gregory Barker]

No. What I am saying is that the overarching decisions in the area are informed by the coalition agreement of the Government. That is the basis on which we make our important decisions, and we stand by those.

In Wales, the Holtham report suggested that Wales is underfunded, and recommended borrowing powers and devolution of some taxes. The Government have said that they will consider the Holtham report with the Welsh Government and, following the commitment in the coalition agreement, will establish a commission to consider funding and finance for Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales has announced the outline of that, and there will be further announcements to follow.

The Localism Bill is currently going through Parliament. The Bill would amend the Planning Act 2008, abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission and returning decisions to democratically elected and accountable Ministers. The Government believe that the Planning Act regime and the changes proposed in the Localism Bill need time to bed in to ensure that important matter of investor certainty. That is another reason why we do not believe we should take the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions forward. It is important to note that the impact of the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission for Wales is minimal, and no different from the impact for England. The pre-application and examination procedures will remain the same and they will be handled by the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit, the IPC’s successor. However, final decisions will be made by Ministers accountable to Parliament.

It has been pointed out by the hon. Gentleman that the current planning system is confusing, as different authorities determine different-sized energy projects. That was an important part of his argument. We acknowledge that, for example, wind farms of different sizes in the same area are given consent by different bodies in both England and Wales: so a wind farm of 50 MW or less would be given consent by a local authority, while a neighbouring wind farm with a generating capacity over the 50 MW threshold would be determined by the Infrastructure Planning Commission, or, following its abolition, by Ministers at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. We believe that thresholds must be set somewhere, and that on balance those I have outlined are the right ones for the national interest. There is still significant scope for smaller projects to be determined by the local authority. Major energy infrastructure, given its national significance, should be determined at a national level.

On whether there is already enough planned energy infrastructure capacity, it is sometimes argued that there is enough in the pipeline. However, projects under construction or with planning consent would only replace the capacity lost through closures, which is currently expected to be about 22 GW. That does not take account of the need to move to low-carbon sources of generation, or of the need to increase the amount of capacity available to take account of the switching that we will need from fossil fuel to low- carbon electricity in domestic heating and transport. There is no guarantee that any given project will receive consent, or, having received it, will be built. When projects have been registered with the IPC those are not applications for consent; the companies have registered their interest in the application process. Projects in the pre-construction phase are not guaranteed to be built. The Department’s White Paper on market reform shows that up to £110 billion of investment in electricity generation and transmission is likely to be required within the next decade.

We also acknowledge that Welsh issues should be taken into careful consideration for major energy infrastructure applications within the Principality, and, of course, they already are. Currently, IPC commissioners with expertise in Welsh issues are appointed to panels for Welsh applications. It is very important that, following the abolition of the IPC, Welsh issues should continue to be considered in major infrastructure applications.

Options are still being considered for how the new unit will work within the Planning Inspectorate. Welsh Government officials are significantly involved in that integration work. The national planning statements require decision makers to take into account where appropriate the technical advice notes in Wales, which have been mentioned at length in the debate. So Welsh policy issues have significance and will be taken into account when an important planning decision is made. We certainly regard the views of local people as important. All major applications for energy infrastructure in Wales are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, after the views of local people have been taken into account. There are two opportunities for local people to have their say: first, when applications are being prepared for the submission to the IPC, the developer must consult widely with the local community; secondly, during the IPC’s examination of an application, any member of the public can submit evidence to the IPC.

The review of TAN8 is a matter for the Welsh Government. If there is a review, we shall take due account of its progress while considering individual applications in respect of which it is a material consideration, but we would not expect to suspend our consideration of applications while any review of TAN8 is being carried out, unless requested to do so by the developers concerned.

I am sorry that, because of limited time, I have not had the opportunity to reply at length to the questions posed by the hon. Gentleman but, as I said at the outset, I shall be happy to write to him on further specific points.