Fyson On... Defying Vested Interests in Quest for Green Policy

Sep 07 - Planning

Publication of the planning policy statement on renewable energy has led to a predictable flurry of indignation from protesters against wind farms. But deputy prime minister John Prescott should take heart. Public opinion is not set against these scene-changing structures, which are accepted widely in other countries where wind strengths are far lower than in the UK. Despite the nimby howls of indignation, Prescott is within his rights to set out a revised policy context for renewable energy and land-use planning. The drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is now of overriding concern to society as a whole.

Whether the energy source is giant wind turbines, hydroelectric, biomass, waste-burning power stations or small-scale solar units on individual buildings, the government is justified in defying the hostility of vested interests and their special case pleading. The media takes far too seriously exaggerated scare stories from campaigners and self-interested defenders of a view or supporters of a rival power supplier.

All who take part in this debate have to realise that the issue is simply finding the power sources that have the least serious effects. Changing the rural scene with structures that can be removed if they become unnecessary may reduce aesthetic appreciation of the countryside for some. But it is preposterous for them in their outrage to set this effect against the potential hazards of global warming, to which it appears likely that humankind is contributing significantly.

Aware of this absurdity, some have tried to rubbish the viability of wind power because it is an intermittent source. Prescott is right to rule this out as a planning consideration and to set out key principles that add up to the promotion and encouragement rather than the restriction of renewable energy development. Obstructive planning policies will not be acceptable. On the contrary, planning authorities can now require a development to include a reasonable proportion of renewable energy generated on-site. "Reasoned justification" will be required if regional or local plans rule out or restrict some types of energy technologies.

If there is a criticism to offer of this admirably forthright bit of policy-making, it lies in the absence of guidance about how such a justification will be assessed by government and, more importantly, how adverse effects on the integrity of specially designated countryside can be judged. The Campaign to Protect Rural England's point that the latest planning tools are not available to match the policy situation is a fair one. The government may be reluctant to offer guidance concerning the aesthetics of local scenery, but without it the planners' burden of judgement will bethatmuch more onerous.

The government is justified in defying the hostility of vested interests and their special case pleading

Anthony Fyson is a freelance writer on planning issues.

Copyright Haymarket Business Publications Ltd. Aug 20, 2004