This will take about 10 minutes to read, so you might want to settle down with a cup of coffee…
TL:DR
- A change of government could alter everything to do with plans for Calderdale Wind Farm’s community consultation, according to the head of the Cavendish Consulting team in Manchester, Kevin Whitmore.
- HIs remark came at the end of a meeting on 15th May with Ban the Burn and Upper Calder Wildlife Network, where we asked for information about Cavendish’s plans for community consultation on the proposed windfarm – since they have fallen by the wayside.
- The meeting gave us a clear impression that Cavendish is not following good consultation practice, having identified that there is not yet any relevant legislation and ‘the government has set the bar very low.’ This is clearly unacceptable.
- Our main comments and asks are in yellow text boxes. A key element of good consultation practice is early engagement of the public in decision making about the environmental impact assessment. We want to engage in this without further delay, or it will be too late.
Cavendish don’t know when community consultation will happen – and seem to be disregarding the onshore wind planning consultation process
Kevin Whitmore told us Cavendish don’t know when the “community consultation” will happen – contrary to previous information, emailed to a member of the public, that it would take place over one month during the summer holidays.
He also said that Cavendish “hopes and intends” that it will comply with current (Dec 2021) Government guidance on good practice in community engagement for onshore wind farm planning applications.
But from what he went on to say, this seems unlikely.
First, he explained that Cavendish are used to doing consultations for Development Consent Order projects. These are Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects that are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate – not to the Local Planning Authority. There are strict consultation processes for this, and Cavendish Consulting are trying to “mimic” these processes that they’re familiar with.
Why? Is it in anticipation that the rules will change under a Labour government?
Bit of background: new National Policy Statements on Energy Infrastructure, that came into force in January 2024, exclude onshore wind projects from the category of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects that are submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Instead, onshore wind development planning applications are determined by the Local Planning Authority. This puts onshore wind on a different footing than other forms of energy, in planning terms.
Starmer has said a Labour government will make onshore windfarms planning consistent with other major infrastructure projects, so it makes some sense for Cavendish to pay heed to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. But until and unless this happens, onshore wind is under the Local council, and remains there until further notice. So Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects consultation guidelines are irrelevant at present, and the Good Practice on onshore windfarms consultation is what should apply.
Cavendish reckon they could send in the planning application without any consultation, and that until there’s legislation about onshore wind community consultation, the process “lacks teeth”
Kevin Whitmore said that when they submitted the Scoping Report,
“The developer had not been obliged to explain to various groups the ambition and reasons for the proposed wind farm or to try and understand the level of interest to inform future engagement. But once Cavendish has a clearer idea of the timeline for the planning application, it will develop a Community Engagement Plan, inform Calderdale Council about it and publish it on the Calderdale Wind Farm website.”
We asked what Cavendish would do if the community consultation shows that the community doesn’t support the proposed Calderdale Wind Farm. Kevin Whitmore replied that it’s not that the planning application can’t be submitted without community support – but it shouldn’t be approved without community support. He said there is no agreed legal definition of what community support for onshore wind energy developments means, and added,
“You can ask a KC to define community support and they’d struggle.”
Richard Riggs has told us Calderdale Council planning department also doesn’t know what community support means in legal planning terms and is seeking legal advice.
Cavendish isn’t going through the community engagement/consultation process to show there’s community support or not – it’s not their job and that’s not what they’re paid for.
Kevin Whitmore said they’re paid to tell the client what the community responses are and to report on the process to the client and Calderdale Council as the application is progressed.
He alleged that it’s not down to Cavendish to demonstrate community support or lack of it – but instead it’s the responsibility of Calderdale Planning Authority during its public consultation on the planning application. This seems at odds with Calderdale Planning Authority’s view in the Scoping Response.
He stated that if World Wide Renewable Energy (Global) has to comply with current government guidance on good practice in community engagement for onshore wind farm planning applications, all it has to comply with is Calderdale Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. He claimed,
“In terms of the “pure process”, World Wide Renewable Energy (Global) could send in the planning application without any consultation, and the government guidance bar for consultation is set incredibly low.”
This is not what the Calderdale Council Planning Department says. Its Scoping Response (p5) requires the developer to demonstrate community support as part of a planning application, and points out this is due to “Recent changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.”
Even the Development Consent Order/Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects consultation model “requires that at the pre-application stage the Statement of Community Consultation must be made available for inspection.”
And in response to a recent consultation on streamlining the process of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, government has recommended enhancement of local community consultation particularly early engagement. (Consultation Outcome: Operational Reforms to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects consenting process: government response Updated 6 March 2024) So even if Cavendish is “mimicking” the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects consultation model, they are required to engage early with the community as part of the consultation process.
Far from early engagement, we are now 9 months in without a smidgeon of engagement.
Community consultation timing is delayed and uncertain
This is allegedly because of the volume of work the developers have to do for the Environmental Impact Assessment and other impact assessments required by the Council’s Scoping Response.
According to Kevin Whitmore, the community consultation will be in 2 rounds, between the scoping process (which concluded in December with Calderdale Planning Authority’s Scoping Response) and submission of the planning application. He said that,
“All feedback to date and conversations between the two rounds of consultation will be used to inform the work of the team.”
The two rounds of community consultation will cover:
- Evolution of the project since the scoping stage – including info about: various assessments and studies undertaken to inform the Environmental Impact Assessment required by Calderdale Council Planning Department’s Scoping Response; and how the project has responded to key community concerns that have been raised so far eg traffic and access, impacts on blanket bog, birds etc, and community benefits.
- A report back on the first round of consultation and how that’s shaped the planning application
The information Cavendish will be able to provide in the community consultation depends on how much the consultants get on and do their Environmental Impact Assessment and other technical survey work. Cavendish would like to show:
- What the project is
- Info about various assessments and studies undertaken to inform that
- How project has responded to community concerns eg traffic and access; impacts on blanket bog, birds etc; community benefits. Key issues that have been raised so far.
He added, so if they’re not in a position to answer those queries and concerns, what’s the point?
The second consultation round would try show how they’ve responded to round 1 and what wlll be in the planning application. Consultants will be available at drop in events to talk about the work they’ve done.
It will be a hybrid consultation using events, website, paper based info and the public can submit feedback digitally, on paper and in person at events.
The community consultation has been “drifting away from the point of action” amid a “void of information”, according to Kevin Whitmore. His reason was, that until the developers have carried out the environmental impact assessments and surveys required by Calderdale Council’s Scoping Response, there is nowt to consult on.
This excuse fails to recognise that government guidance requires an “early and effective” opportunity for community and consultees to participate in decision making about the Environmental Impact Assessment.
Our view: the first round of community consultation should be soon. It should inform us all about how the developers propose to address the Environmental Impact Assessment.
They have had five months to work that out. And current Government guidance on environmental impact assessment is that,
“The aim of Environmental Impact Assessment is to ensure that the public are given early and effective opportunities to participate in the decision making procedures.”
If they delay the first round of community consultation to the point where it is about the outcomes of the environmental Impact surveys, the community and consultees won’t have any “early and effective” opportunity to participate in decision making.
As far as we are concerned, “early and effective opportunities” should include the chance to participate in decision making about how the Environmental Impact Assessments are carried out – not just the chance to comment on their outcomes after the event.
This is particularly important because – as Ban the Burn stated in its response to the Calderdale Wind Farm scoping report – the developers’ proposals for measuring peat depth and the carbon impact of the wind farm, are questionable.
We don’t think these problems have been solved by Calderdale Council Planning Department’s specifications for the environmental impact assessments. So the first round of community consultation needs to cover how the developers’ Environmental Impact Assessment proposes to:
- measure peat depth,
- identify peat habitats and
- compare the carbon intensity of the wind farm on the Walshaw Moor peatland with its carbon intensity in alternative sites identified in the sequential approach.
Although Calderdale Planning Authority’s Scoping Response requires the developers to consider alternative wind farm sites across England in a sequential approach, it doesn’t seem to require comparison of the carbon intensity of the wind-generated electricity at the alternative sites, with the electricity generated at the Walshaw Moor site.
But without this measure, how is it possible to determine:
- If the developers have properly considered alternative sites for the proposed wind farm?
- Whether they are even aware that carbon intensity has to be the green goal for electricity, a key measure of the appropriateness of a wind farm site, and should not exceed 15g/kWhour, according to the 5th Assessment Report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? (They didn’t mention it in their Scoping Report)
As the basis of the comparison of the carbon intensity of the proposed windfarm at the alternative sites and on Walshaw Moor blanket bog, we think that the developers should use a typical manufacturer’s Life Cycle Analysis figures, such as Vesta’s.
Vesta do their Life Cycle Analysis based on a typical 100MW farm and take into account construction carbon footprint, but not any soil carbon effects.
NOTE ON SOIL CARBON EFFECTS: When it comes to taking account of soil carbon effects of wind farms on mineral (non peat) soil, the British Society of Soil Science Science Note, Soil Carbon, p 6, is relevant: “It can be difficult to determine the baseline soil C content”, compared to the carbon content in peat land (typically over 50%). But it adds that in most non-peat agricultural soils, soil organic carbon (SOC) is typically less than 5%.
So it can be easily seen that loss of soil organic carbon to CO2 from disturbed non-peat soil is going to be far less than from disturbed peat. Furthermore, soil inorganic carbon – made up of minerals such as chalk- makes up about 40% of total carbon in UK soil and is generally more stable than soil organic carbon. So it is unlikely to be lost from the soil to CO2.
The first round of community consultation should also provide information about the Stage 2 Habitats Regulations Assessment
The Habitats Regulations Assessment (Stage 2) is to determine, beyond any reasonable scientific doubt, whether the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. We think the first round community consultation should also include information about this.
Ban the Burn has been advised that for a planning process that is more than one level – eg planning application and Habitats Regulations Assessment (Stage 2) we should be cautious of what we are told.
So we want the stage one community consultation to include information that we can interrogate about how the applicant intends to submit the Environmental Impact Assessment, the Stage 2 Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment and the Planning Application.
END NOTE: We used the Aarhus Convention logo as the graphic for this post because the Aarhus Convention places a legal duty on the UK government to protect the public right to:
- environmental information
- participation in decision making about environmental issues
- easy and effective access to justice, if the rights to information and participation in decision making are denied
The Aarhus Convention covers planning matters as well as environmental regulatory matters. It just seemed worth reminding ourselves of the public right to environmental information and to participation in environmental issues.
Save And Restore Walshaw Moor 