The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) commissioned report “Positive Planning for Onshore Wind” was released this week with headlines congratulating or criticising the RSPB for calling on the UK government to increase their commitment to onshore wind energy. However do the headlines reflect what is contained in the RSPB report?
The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) said that it welcomed the report which it claims recognises that as part of a wider mix of renewable energy, a significant increase in onshore wind capacity, meaning a greater number of wind turbines, will have to be deployed in order for the UK to meet its objectives under the EU 2020 targets on renewable energy.
The RSPB emphasised this week that the Government must ensure the national and local planning process is well resourced, in order to handle an increase in the number and scale of renewable energy projects. The BWEA however raised a red flag of caution when it pointed out that the issue of spatial planning (mapping of go and no-go areas) raised in the report “must not be used as an excuse to tangle wind farm applications in red tape“.
The report carried out by the Institute for Eurpoean Environmental Policy says that there are genuine concerns over the impact of poorly sited wind energy projects upon nature conservation, which need to be balanced against the requirement to expand wind energy. It notes that at present, the planning systems for onshore wind are not always successful in guiding development to sites that are appropriate from a nature conservation perspective, at a pace of development sufficient to meet the demands of the next decade.
Based on analysis of planning systems across the UK and in Germany, Spain and Denmark, certain actions are identified that it believes could improve the planning process, help increase acceptance of onshore wind, take account of nature conservation concerns and simultaneously accelerate the expansion of environmentally sustainable onshore wind capacity. What it fails to recognise is however the natural and human geographical differences in each of these countries and how these features and characteristics affect the availability of economically viable wind energy sites and the nature (size, design etc.) of the resulting wind energy projects.
Recommended measures to meet the above objectives in the report include the early engagement of stakeholders and fully clarified reasons for nature conservation objections. The report authors however worryingly believe that the introduction of nationally mapped sensitivity areas will increase the understanding of the potential locations and their appropriateness for onshore wind. Mapped green, amber and red traffic light areas are hinted at to “clearly support appropriate site selection and project design”. What the authors do not realise is that this mapped information is already held by wind farm developers on their mapping databases – they know where potentially sensitive designations are. The problem is that the number of potential sites is so few that they have to look in more detail at these areas which often offer good wind resource, away from dwellings.
The major problem with a mapped traffic light system is that it is not based on detailed bird survey work which is a requirement of Environmental Assessment and this survey work is the only way of really knowing what the impact of a wind farm might have on bird species or habitat. It fails to recognise that there are a raft of mapped non – nature conservation related constraints which also have to be taken into consideration. Such a traffic light system may work in countries which unlike the UK are less constrained e.g. Germany is a much larger country with a much greater land area away from dwellings and the coast. Here the number of potential wind farm sites away from designations is greater – albeit there are relatively low wind speeds. The UK is an island and is different to other countries in that much of its wind resource is in coastal areas.
The report is written without an understanding of the restricted number of potential wind farm sites in the UK and the other constraints that are experienced such as dwellings, cultural heritage and protection of special landscapes such as national parks. It does however recognise that high quality environmental impact assessments offer a solid information base and opportunities for local nature conservation benefits.
Commenting on politics, the report notes that England has yet to implement a forward looking, clear and robust approach to onshore wind but that “there is now a need and, with the development of the Renewable Energy Strategy, an opportunity, to do so“. This is not going to be achievable if individual planning applications have more ammunition against them through the introduction of spatial mapping which is likely to be politically influenced. Unfortunately although the motives of this report are I am sure well intentioned, it is flawed through a lack of understanding and through its recommendation for introducing a traffic light mapping system – effectively a wind energy trip wire. If the recommendations about spatial mapping are introduced, it will frustrate rather than push forward the delivery of well-sited and potentially ecologically justified wind energy projects in England.
