UK Parliament / Open data

Wind Turbines

Proceeding contribution from Keith Simpson (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 22 April 2008. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Wind Turbines.
It is a pleasure, Mr. Wilshire, to be in Westminster Hall under your chairmanship. The debate comes against the background of the Energy Bill and the proposed reforms of the Government's renewables obligation. The question of offshore and inshore wind turbines is obviously controversial at the local level because, not least in my constituency, there is a suspicion that the Government are using the Planning Bill to take responsibility for planning away from local communities; indeed, if a project is deemed to be of national significance, it may be possible to fast-track it. Many people in Norfolk suspect that the subsidy system for developers gives them a financial incentive to appeal time and again against local planning decisions and the planning inspectorate, in opposition to the expressed views of local communities. I shall return to that central theme a little later. The challenge is that the Government are committed to renewable targets that will be challenging if not difficult to achieve within the time frame, and they will be fined under European Union renewable energy targets if they fail to achieve them. None the less, I understand the constraints under which the Government are working. I do not oppose renewable supplies. We need a range of options—any reasonable person would accept that—and there are strong environmental and financial arguments for renewables, especially for wind turbines, both offshore and onshore. I am not against them in principle. The problem with onshore wind farms is that the race to establish targets is becoming increasingly biased against local considerations. It is that problem that I wish to address today. In Norfolk, we have offshore and inshore wind turbines. Local opinion has been divided over the matter. In some areas, wind turbines have been broadly welcomed, and been built. In other areas, communities have been divided down the middle; it has been a most acrimonious debate. In some cases, including the one that I shall use as an illustration today, there has been almost total opposition.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

474 c407WH 

Session

2007-08

Chamber / Committee

Westminster Hall
Back to top