Community benefits or bringing planning into disrepute?

1. Community benefits or bringing planning into disrepute? Paul Miner MA MRTPISenior Planning Officer Campaign to Protect Rural EnglandESRC Seminar, Cardiff University. 17 February 2009 Community benefits or bringing planning into disrepute?

2. The Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales: • who are we? • what is our purpose? • what do we do?

3. Who are we? • CPRE and CPRW were set up in 1926. • CPRE is a charity with 58,000 members and supporters • Branches in every English county and groups in many local government districts • A National Office staff of 55 with a policy team of 16 • Regional policy officers in each of the 9 English regions

4. What do CPRE and CPRW do? At the forefront of debate about England and Wales’ rural heritage. Local campaigning: 100,000 planning proposals screened each year National campaigning: a voice for the countryside with the UK Government and Parliament and the Welsh Assembly Champions of: • a plan led approach to settlement, infrastructure and natural resource use • reform and development of farming, forestry and land management policies for the widest public benefit • effective protection of landscape character, biodiversity and public access now and in the long term • the highest standards of urban and rural settlement design and management • the widest possible public involvement in the national debate on the future of the countryside

5. How are community benefits from wind farms offered? • ‘Goodwill payments’ or ‘community funds’ offered by big energy generators directly to local communities • At least 35 cases in England and common in Scotland – likely also to happen in Wales • Alongside local business rates (paid to Treasury) and Section 106 agreement for environmental mitigation • Co-ownership in some cases

6. What the industry says E-ON UK: ‘The local community can expect to receive an annual income for the lifetime of the wind farm. This can be spent as the community sees fit, for example books for schools, restoration projects, social enterprise projects and even microgeneration technologies.’ (Accessed at www.eonuk. com/about/community.aspx on 30 September 2008). npower renewables: ‘npower renewables offers a range of community benefit packages at our operating onshore and offshore wind farms, these usually benefit those communities living closest to the site…these packages have been used to fund a variety of activities including community building refurbishments, environmental education programmes, energy efficiency schemes and supporting local groups and organisations.’ (Accessed at www.npowerrenewables.com/bearsdown/community.asp 30 September 2008). Renewable Energy Systems (RES) Ltd: ‘At each wind farm site we design, construct and operate, our goal is to ensure that we create significant environmental, economic and community benefits at the local and global scale…We are happy to discuss with local communities living around Wadlow Farm the following ideas, either as individual or combinations of benefits:…(which include) based on an annual payment paid by the owner of the wind farm to the local community for the lifetime of the wind farm, the community fund can then be used to provide assistance and support to local projects, events and good causes…the value of the funds is related to the size of the wind farm and at Wadlow Farm, we anticipate that the community fund available will be £29,900 / year.’ (Accessed at www.wadlowfarm.co.uk/index.asp?pageName=benefits, a website managed by RES, on 30 September 2008).

7. Why are goodwill payments a problem? • Government – currently no clear, consistent steer • Transparency and public involvement • Local communities – who are they, and are they being short-changed? • ‘Benefits’ should be related to development – but aren’t

8. Government policy • CLG - ‘cannot influence planning permission’ BUT... • DTI endorsed report advising on possible ‘grey areas’ • Circular 5/05 – clear policies on use of Section 106 ‘planning gain’ agreements • Difficult to apply to wind farms (beyond environmental mitigation) • Is it appropriate to talk of ‘planning gain’ from wind?

9. Public involvement • Selective approaches to ‘community representatives’ • No consultation through the planning system • Agreements are not legally enforceable (cf., S106) • Unfair and potentially divisive

10. Are communities being short-changed? • Costs of wind farms – provision of turbines, service infrastructure, grid connection, business rates • BUT large sums being made through... • Renewables Obligation Certificates • Sale of electricity to the grid

11. Are communities being short-changed? • Bears Down wind farm (assume 27% load factor): • £1.2 million a year in ROCs • £1.1 million a year sales to grid • £50-100k a year business rates • £15k a year community benefits • Picture of Bears Down is common access taken from flickr.com

12. Are communities being short-changed? • Clearly there is ‘planning gain’ from wind • Scope to offer significantly more ‘community benefits’ when we do proper planning, meaning... • ‘Community’ is more than just those whose property values are affected; and • ‘Benefits’ are firmly related to increasing renewable energy generation, achieving CO2 reduction targets and reducing impact on landscapes • But how do we achieve this?

13. What is the solution? • A number of ideas: • Ringfenced business rates (unfair and unrealistic?) • Co-ownership (also divisive but could be part of a package?) • Community Infrastructure Levy • Better use of Section 106 agreements

14. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) • A number of advantages: • Plan-led: agreed up-front and transparently • Can be tailored to local circumstances • Links ‘planning gain’ to provision of necessary infrastructure • Disadvantages: • Could kill off smaller schemes • Wind turbines likely to be outwith liability • Government and/or LPAs simply won’t bother

15. Section 106 agreements • Government policy states: • ‘A planning obligation must be: • (i) relevant to planning; • (ii) necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; • (iii) directly related to the proposed development; • (iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and • (v) reasonable in all other respects.’ • (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Circular 05/2005, paragraph B5).

16. Section 106 agreements • A number of issues for the industry: • Only used regularly for mitigation IAW wind farms • Do not allow benefits unrelated to development • Negotiation is often complicated • LPA might not spend the money • But a number of potential advantages: • Should be plan-led: agreed up-front, transparently and... • Link ‘planning gain’ to provision of necessary infrastructure • Can be tailored to individual cases

17. The solution? • Local authority infrastructure plans identify a range of technologies and solutions to meet RE and CO2 targets • Wind farms steered to most appropriate locations • All community benefits through S106 and to meet infrastructure plan and all Circular 5/05 tests • LPAs must spend the money! • Planning practice guidance?

18. Conclusion • (Penarth, near Cardiff, looking over the Severn Estuary) • ‘Community benefits’ – what we mean needs to be clear • Use the planning process – fairer, more transparent • ‘Community’ can’t be just ‘affected’ property owners • But need confidence that planning will be effective • Clearly link benefit with promoting renewable energy and CO2 emissions reduction • Please contact me: 020 7981 2830; paulm@cpre.org.uk