Onshore Wind Turbines

David Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I always agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour—I would be foolish not to. Just to prove the point, Northamptonshire is one of the least windy places in the country, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), there is a wind farm at Burton Wold that is operating at 19% capacity on average. That is not helping us to deal with our carbon problem.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

While we are thinking about the size of the subsidy and the effect on the behaviour of both landowner and operator, does my hon. Friend agree that it is leading to progressively less responsible investment? The example that I want to raise affects both my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and me. In my county of East Yorkshire, there have been wind farms of enormous size—400 feet; 125 metres; 40 storeys tall—getting closer and closer to dwellings and, now, less than half a mile from a dwelling. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) agree that the sheer size of the subsidy is leading to irresponsible investment?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I absolutely concur with my right hon. Friend.

Do the Government believe that the renewables obligation banding for onshore wind is sustainable, necessary or good value for money? Have they considered the effects of the renewables obligation banding in inhibiting renewable diversification? Will the Minister agree at least to conduct a review of the banding for onshore wind?

Noise is a problem that many of our constituents fear when it comes to onshore wind. Different studies show that about 20% of all wind farms constructed in the UK trigger quite serious noise complaints. Since 2009, the wind industry has adopted a new noise modelling scheme that predicts acceptable noise levels much closer to dwellings, leading to planning applications coming forward with big turbines very close to dwellings. There are fewer proposals in remote locations and, as we have just heard, modern turbines are getting bigger.

The Minister knows that his Department commissioned a report. I apologise: it was not his Department, but the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The report was on amplitude modulation and in effect concluded that it was not cost-effective to research wind farm noise problems because only a few people suffer from them. That is patently not the case. However, as the Minister knows, his Department was caught out by a freedom of information request that revealed that in 2006 it had instructed the Hayes McKenzie Partnership to remove from a report a recommendation that acceptable night-time noise levels should be reduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I completely concur.

I want to wind up by saying—

[Mr David Davis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way twice to me. I want to pick him up on his kindness to Hayes McKenzie and his gentle language about what was, without doubt, a cover-up of the World Health Organisation guidelines, which said that people, when they sleep, should have an environment at 30 dB. What was said by the Government was something much louder than that—35 to 40 dB. That was a very bad cover-up. Hayes McKenzie was clearly complicit, because it did not put in the public domain what was said. I would like my hon. Friend to tell me whether he thinks that Ministers should undertake to make all the information put forward, in whatever review they do, available in the public domain without limitation or edit.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I would very much welcome the Minister committing to that. Indeed, I have asked him about whether there are secondments from the noise industry to DECC at the moment, and I believe that the reply I got was slightly incorrect. I will contact the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charles Hendry]

That is central to predetermination and to ensuring that more of the work is done through earlier discussion between the developer and the council, so they can agree what they think might be generally desirable. We are making those changes. We also need to ensure that we have lead authorities with particular expertise in handling such applications. Many authorities have not dealt with such applications before and do not know how to handle them when they come through. Finding ways to build a genuine body of expertise within local authorities is part of the approach we are considering.

We removed regional spatial strategies and the top-down regional energy targets, because they moved us away from the localism we want. We are committed, in relation to applications for below 50 MW, to local communities and local councils deciding how their areas will develop. The new planning framework will cover all forms of development and set out national economic, environmental and social priorities. Tackling climate change and ensuring our energy security will be among our top priorities, but as I said, we want communities and individuals to own a stake in our collective low-carbon future. That is why we are looking at how local communities can benefit from business rates staying locally, and why we want more genuine community ownership of applications, so that people can see the link between hosting a facility and the benefits that it brings directly to the local area and to the services that people care about.

[Mr David Davis]

rose—

[Charles Hendry]

I am running seriously short of time, but in view of the immense seniority of my right hon. Friend, how could I say no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

We welcome everything that the Minister has said so far, but sometimes local community advantage cannot overwhelm the destruction of people’s lives. They will be protected only by leaving the decision at local level and not overruling it time and again at a central appeal.

[Charles Hendry]

Where a case goes to appeal, it will be decided only in relation to the wider planning guidance that the Government set out. If it is felt that the guidance has not been adhered to in making a determination, it is entirely proper that there be an appeals process. In the spirit of fairness, we all believe that it is right that if an application is turned down at one level, people should continue to have a right to appeal for a redetermination. It must be done within the spirit of the rules set down, and that is absolutely key to what we are saying.

In the debate, we have heard a call for the transfer of support from wind to other renewable sources. We do not see wind as the ultimate solution on its own. It has a part to play, but we supported the banding of the renewables obligation certificates, because that started to give more support to emerging technologies, which need more help to come to fruition. The UK should lead the world in marine technologies, and the steps that we are taking elsewhere will ensure that, certainly by the 2020s and beyond, this will be the natural place in the world for people to come to develop those technologies. In the meantime, we need continuing diversity, and that includes wind. We cannot rely entirely on one low-carbon technology. We expect other low-carbon technologies to come through, particularly nuclear technology—without subsidy—which we are making progress on, as well as clean coal and coal with carbon capture. We expect the widest range of renewables possible in the framework.

Onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective and developed of all renewable technologies, and has almost zero marginal cost, because once the facilities have been constructed, the cost of the energy—the wind—comes without charge.