Renewable Energy Development (Beccles)

Debate between Albert Owen and Peter Aldous

Wednesday 3rd September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

We move on to the second debate of this morning, on Government actions and planning applications for renewable energy development in the Beccles area—I hope I pronounced that correctly. I call Mr Peter Aldous.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

You have indeed pronounced that correctly, Mr Owen. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and I am pleased to have secured this debate.

Over the past three years, the Government have made a variety of changes to the planning system and the framework within which planning applications for onshore renewable energy projects are determined. Many of those applications are controversial and it was right that the Government responded to public concern.

The purpose of this debate is to draw attention to two planning applications in the vicinity of Beccles in my constituency. Both have been subject to appeals and raise concerns as to whether the Government’s reforms are working. The first application at Ellough, to the east of the town, is for a 46-hectare solar farm that the Secretary of State recovered for his own decision. He reversed the planning inspector’s decision to approve the scheme and his own decision was overturned in the High Court in June. The second application is to the west, at Barsham, where the Secretary of State declined to recover the appeal which the inspector had approved. That case is now in the High Court.

What causes me particular concern is that the Secretary of State recovered the Ellough case when I had personally received only one representation against the development, but he declined to do so at Barsham when most of the local community was up in arms against it.

In the foreword to the “National Planning Policy Framework”, which underpins much of the new planning regime, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is now the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities but was at the time the Minister responsible for planning, commented that the framework’s purpose was to allow

“people and communities back into planning.”

From the experiences in the Beccles area, it is clear that that objective has not yet been achieved. The system is not working as it should be, and it is important to learn lessons so that it can be improved.

I should point out, Mr Owen, that I have interests in family farms in Suffolk, where a renewable energy project has taken place and where another is being pursued. I am a supporter of renewable energy, which provides an opportunity for the UK to update its ageing energy infrastructure, to produce clean electricity and to move towards a more secure means of supply, which will lead to greater price stability. There is also the opportunity, if properly handled, to create new jobs. That is important in the Waveney area, where offshore wind in particular has the potential to revitalise the local economy.

That said, it is important that developments are carried out in the right places and not imposed on local communities, that applications are determined in a reasonable time scale, that local people have every opportunity to have their say and that applicants know where they stand so that they can build their businesses in a sustainable way with a degree of certainty.

I shall briefly outline the framework that the Government have laid down within which renewable energy applications of less than 50 MW are determined. That is set out in a variety of documents and statements: the “National Planning Policy Framework”, the “UK Renewable Energy Roadmap”, the “Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy” dated July 2013 and the Secretary of State’s written statements of 10 October 2013 and 9 April 2014, which set out the criteria that will be considered in deciding whether to recover appeals.

I shall highlight five particular points in relation to the framework: first, the primary importance of the local planning authority’s development plan and its policies in determining planning applications, which to me is the most important issue; secondly, the duty on local communities to adopt green energy schemes, but with the understanding that they should not automatically override environmental protections and their planning concerns; thirdly, the need for special consideration to be given to the environment and the landscape of national parks—the Barsham site lies in close proximity to the Norfolk and Suffolk broads; fourthly, the requirement to consider whether unacceptable development can be made acceptable through planning obligations and conditions; and, finally, the extension of the Secretary of State’s ability to recover appeals, so that local communities can have confidence in the appeals process and that their concerns will not be ignored by the “man from the Ministry”. It is those factors that should be given most consideration in determining planning applications.

What happened at Ellough? The officers at Waveney district council recommended the scheme for approval. The planning committee went against that recommendation and refused the application. The developer appealed, and the planning inspector upheld that appeal. The Secretary of State, on recovery, reversed that decision, which the developer challenged in the High Court, where they were successful; the Secretary of State’s decision was quashed and the appeal referred back to him for redetermination.

I shall highlight the issues that have come out of the case. First, Mr Justice Lindblom, in his judgment, emphasised the importance, in deciding whether to approve such a planning application, of having regard to the local planning authority’s development plan and of making decisions in accordance with that. Waveney district council has set down policies as part of its development plan in which it provides guidance and a framework for determining renewable energy planning applications. Unless material considerations indicate otherwise, the decision should be made in accordance with those policies. That is, after all, an important aspect of localism. The judge concluded that a failure to have regard to that requirement was a “fatal flaw” in the Secretary of State’s decision.

It is important for the applicant to engage in pre-application consultations with the planning authority and to tell the local community about their plans and answer its questions. In this case, the developer did that, distributing more than 3,000 leaflets and holding a public exhibition.

It is necessary for the planning authority to consider whether the imposition of planning obligations and conditions could mitigate concerns about the development. That course was also pursued and the scheme was altered, with the removal of an area from the application site, increased buffer planting and a reduction in the height of the panels.

The development is in the Hundred River special landscape area, and the planning officers at Waveney district council considered whether that was a reason to refuse the application. They concluded that mitigating measures could address their concerns and they had it in mind that, unlike the broads, the Hundred River valley is not a nationally designated area. That was the consideration on which they differed from the planning committee. Taking all factors into account, I believe that the officers were right—that theirs and the planning inspector’s decisions were the correct ones and the Secretary of State’s was the wrong one.

What is happening at Barsham? The position there is that the application for a wind turbine with a height of 125 metres was considered by Waveney’s planning committee in March 2013. There was an officer recommendation for refusal, to which the committee that time agreed. The developer appealed. The public inquiry took place last October, and the inspector issued his decision to uphold the appeal this April. Subsequently, the local community has issued a High Court challenge against that decision. That was initially heard in July, and the case was adjourned until 28 and 29 October.

There is considerable local unrest and unhappiness about how matters have unfolded, and I fully sympathise with that. I shall highlight some of the concerns. First, large numbers of people feel that their views, those of their democratically elected representatives and the decision of their local council have been ignored and there has been no attempt to include people and communities in the decision-making process, as was envisaged in the Localism Act 2011 and the national planning policy framework.

The community group HALT, which was set up to represent the views of local people, has 350 supporters. Their concerns have not been listened to—nor have those of Beccles town council, nine parish councils, the district councillor, the county councillor, the leader of the county council and two Members of Parliament: myself and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), whose constituency includes that part of the broads that lies close to the application site. All have made representations to the Secretary of State for the case to be recovered, but they have all been dismissed.

Secondly, the inspector has made the same mistake as the Secretary of State did at Ellough: he has not given Waveney district council’s local planning policies the priority that the legislation requires. In his decision, he criticised those policies at some length. He was wrong to do so, as the policies themselves had been submitted, examined and approved by another inspector before being adopted as the council’s planning policy.

The Broads Authority, the neighbouring planning authority, looked closely at the scheme, applied its own specifically produced seven-step landscape sensitivity study and concluded that the application should be refused. The inspector criticised its approach and applied limited weight to the study, partly on the basis that it had not been formally adopted by the authority, although that had not prevented him from criticising Waveney district council. The study is an excellent piece of work. I believe that in dismissing it, the inspector has misinterpreted his duty with regard to national parks, which is clearly laid down in legislation.

Another concern is that if the development proceeds, it is highly likely that an adjoining airstrip will have to close. It is not right that the planning system is in effect used as a vehicle for stopping activities, whether business or leisure, that have taken place for many years.

The inspector also commented that the proposed wind turbine was no different from the windmills that used to be an important feature of the broads landscape. In doing so, he missed the point. Not only is the proposed turbine much larger in scale than traditional windmills, but it is not intended for the local purpose of harnessing wind and generating energy that is used locally. As an aside, that is still happening in Germany today, where the planning system works better and where 50% of the country’s renewable power capacity is owned by private citizens, with profits remaining in local and often poor rural areas. Such an approach should be pursued in this country, but I digress. That is a debate for another time, with another Minister.

Various aspects of procedure have left the local community cynical, disillusioned and feeling as though the whole system is against them. First, HALT, which was a rule 6 party to the planning inquiry, made a prompt request when the date of the inquiry was announced for it to be changed so that its landscape consultant, who had an unavoidable clashing commitment, could attend to present her evidence. That request was rejected out of hand.

Secondly, it is a concern locally that in the High Court the Secretary of State and the developer are being represented by counsel from the same barristers’ chambers. I am fully aware that it is not unusual for barristers from the same chambers to represent different parties to the dispute, but the fact that that chambers is perceived to have a commercial interest in upholding a decision that, in effect, undermines Government planning policies, particularly with regard to developments in or near national parks, is causing considerable concern locally.

There was considerable upset about the fact that the High Court hearing on 10 July had to be adjourned because neither the Secretary of State nor the developer’s legal teams had put together and presented their evidence properly. That was understandably annoying to the claimants, who had invested considerable time and incurred considerable expense in putting their case together. However, the judge recognised the iniquity of the situation and awarded costs for the day in the claimants’ favour.

I must draw my conclusions together. On paper, the Government’s planning reforms have much to commend them, but they are not being put into practice in the intended manner. I refer back to the foreword written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells for the national planning policy framework. He emphasised the need for planning to be a collective exercise that includes, rather than excludes, people and communities. The experiences from Barsham show that that is not being achieved. If the Barsham decision stands, it will effectively drive a coach and horses through the Government’s planning reforms. It will undermine the importance of local plans, create a precedent for development in close proximity to national parks and disfranchise local communities.

In summary, I have three requests for the Minister, which I hope he will address in his reply. First, at Ellough, the application is in a state of limbo. Although the Secretary of State’s decision has been set aside as being unlawfully made, the planning application remains undetermined. From the applicants’ perspective, the situation makes running their business difficult. I would be grateful if the Minister impressed on the Secretary of State the need for a prompt decision on the matter. Development that is sustainable should go ahead without delay.

Secondly, at Barsham, I urge the Secretary of State to quash the planning inspectorate’s decision and to instigate a fresh planning inquiry, which he should recover for his own determination. In his letter to me of 4 December last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins)—the Minister’s departmental colleague—commented that cases would be recovered only if they raised wider concerns and echoed beyond the local area. I submit that that is the case at Barsham.

Finally, I believe that full details of all renewable energy applications that have been recovered since October 2013 should be made available for Parliament to scrutinise, so that it can judge for itself how the new planning system is working, consider whether the system is achieving its objectives and decide whether reforms are necessary. It is important that the system should function properly, so that local communities and developers know where they stand. The renewable energy industry needs to have confidence in the system so that it can make investment decisions with a degree of certainty. Local communities need to know that they will be given a fair hearing. They need to know that their views will be properly considered and not ridden over roughshod, as I fear has been the case at Barsham.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Albert Owen and Peter Aldous

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous]

I shall come to that issue in a moment.

My second point is that HMRC’s analysis fails to take account of the vital role played by static caravan owners in a local economy such as that in Waveney. They are, in many respects, the “anchor tenant” for the whole tourism industry. They come to stay in the area for most weekends, and they do not limit their visits to the summer season. They spend money in local shops, restaurants and pubs, visit the many day attractions in my area such as Pleasurewood Hills and Africa Alive, or spend a day on the beach or boating on the Broads. A reduction in their numbers would have a significant knock-on effect on the many businesses in the area.

Finally, I believe that the rationale for the introduction of the tax is flawed. It is claimed that it addresses an anomaly, as touring caravans are subject to VAT while static caravans are not. However, the industry has come a long way since 1973, when the VAT exemption was first made, and I believe that today’s static caravan has more in common with a holiday home than with a mobile caravan. Static caravans are more like second homes in terms of their facilities and the nature of the accommodation, the investment that their owners have made in them, and the way in which they are used—not just for once-a-year holidays, but for regular visits throughout the year.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Another consequence of the tax is that those who currently buy caravans to use as second homes would actually buy second homes. That would raise the price of affordable homes, especially in rural areas such as the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

[Peter Aldous]

I am not sure that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The problem with many second homes is that they are very expensive. What worries me that, certainly in my area, people would go abroad for holidays. They might even buy a villa in Spain, which really would be cheap, and the whole tourism industry would be affected.

In many respects, the current tax treatment of second homes and statics is, by chance, similar. The former pay stamp duty, while the later pay VAT on movable items only. To change that balance would unfairly penalise this group of people. Many of them cannot afford a second home, yet they are similar to second-home owners in so many ways. Such a move would be regressive in taxation terms.

In summary, I believe that the impact of this proposal will be far greater than HMRC’s assessment implies. It will have a significant negative effect on the economy and on jobs in specific locations around the country, including my constituency. Further, I question whether the anomaly it is intended to address actually exists. I therefore urge the Government to think again, and to allow a vital industry to continue to play a key role in securing the economic recovery.

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Albert Owen and Peter Aldous

Friday 3rd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that I misread him. He and I do not agree on quite a few issues, but I am very happy to have him on side on this one. He mentioned the Daily Mail. It is only fair to mention the Daily Express, which has been actively campaigning for the Bill and for extra daylight hours in the evenings. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to point that out, and he is absolutely right about the benefit that parts of Europe, especially Gibraltar, enjoy.

I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion. This is a good Bill. It is a good idea, and it would be good for the United Kingdom. However, I want to see those independent analyses of the four nations, which will be important in making our mind up. This is not an anti-Scottish Bill; it is a pro-UK Bill. It would benefit the whole of the United Kingdom. The proposals would reduce energy consumption. The evidence relating to electricity demonstrates that, and there would also be benefits for gas consumption. Crime would also be reduced, because opportunist crime peaks during October and November when it gets dark before people come home from work, so their properties are empty after nightfall.

The hon. Member for Castle Point mentioned the reduction of accidents and fatalities on our roads, and it is essential that we address that point in the Bill. The increase in tourism would be very positive, as would the increase in sports and leisure. Who likes going to a football match in the winter when it gets dark early and they have to put the floodlights on by half-time?

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Or at the kick-off.