Top-down intervention in local renewable projects is hurting public support for them
In a new report, The Fabian Society describes how investors still do not feel safe investing in renewables because of a lack of community consent.
‘Transition By Consent’ emphasises that only by winning support from local communities can sustainable green energy solutions be delivered to the UK in the long term.
It finds that, although most of the public are supportive of renewable alternatives in theory, development plans are still failing to win consent. New analysis shows that 57 per cent of wind farm applications are being rejected, up from 37 per cent in 2013 and 21 per cent in 2008.
The report identifies a disconnect between national support for renewable energy projects and local consent for developments, which it calls the ‘Not In My Back Yard’ phenomenon.
The report adds that the communications secretary is making the market even more unpredictable with top-down interventions:
“Pickles has made a political intervention from Whitehall on 50 wind farm projects including pulling in every single ‘larger project’ of two turbines or more that has gone to appeal.
This intervention implies that the government is not taking the threat to renewable energy provision very seriously.”
Top down planning only works in the short term, the study finds, as opposition grows up in communities who feel they have been shut out of the planning process.
Looking at the developers who have had success, the report concludes that it is crucial to include the community as a partner in project design, and also to make the project in question more than just an energy proposition. Making a project benefit the community in other ways – new jobs or new Broadband proposals, for example – can increase public support for it.
The Fabian Society gives the example of the Olveston wind farm in Thornbury, where a ‘great deal of money’ was spent but the project ultimately failed to take off because it did not have the support of the local community.
Tidal Lagoon in Swansea Bay, however, shaped its project with the community’s participation. It found high levels of concern about local employment opportunities, and so designed a project with a variety of promising career paths in such fields as construction, tourism and mariculture. The report states that it is important to tailor each project to local needs in this way.
As far as government responsibility goes, it is time for ministers to stop making top down decisions, and instead help developers to transition to renewables by popular consent.
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
13 Responses to “57 per cent of wind farm applications are turned down”
steroflex
Have you looked at the figures?
Allow me to state the obvious: Wind farms need the right kind of wind. Otherwise they provide NO electricity at all. That means we fall back on nuclear (a bit) and coal (not very green) until both are shut down in the near future. Then what?
Solar energy is lovely here in Australia it really works. But England is not on the Equator and the sun does not shine at night.
There are no huge batteries to store electricity – just redistribution of generated stuff as it is generated.
Why does a person like me have to tell you that? Why?
steroflex
Working class people are proud of their work. They are proud to be providing for the country. That is Socialism.
Fracking does precisely that.
But – hey – real Socialism today seems to mean higher wages, more dole, more benefits and more allowances and to hell with the consequences.
I do not believe the State is the Great Provider and I do not believe in Father Christmas either. My problem with the Tories is that they are simply Socialists. Who can tell the difference?
Leon Wolfeson
Ah right, boosting corporate profits by replacing offshore gas with onshore, cutting the tax take, is to you “socialism”, as you deny society.
I’m sure you don’t believe in state pensions, NHS or JSA either. Or council rubbish collectors, or…
ForeignRedTory
What else do you call a failure to subordinate your personal interests to the interests of the Human race, eh?
Individualism is for Thatcherists. And such.
steroflex
….. or Leon Wolfeson