Mr.
Ainsworth: Again, it seems to me that new
clause 2 does exactly the same job that I set out to do,
only it does it rather more elegantly. The Climate Change and
Sustainable Energy Act 2006 enabled permitted development rights to
apply to some microgeneration installations, such as solar
installations. It did not extend to air source heat pumps or to
microwind technology. As was discussed on Second Reading—I know
that the Liberal Democrats have an interest here—that has proved
to be a real impediment to the development of those technologies. In
fact, the Government have long promised to do something about that and
clear away the bureaucratic blockages that are standing in the way of
the development of air source heat pumps and microwind.
I said on
Second Reading and I will say it again now that I am not in favour of a
complete free-for-all; there must be proper consultation and proper
safeguards. So I seek the Minister’s assurance on two points.
First, I hesitate to ask for it, in the light of what has recently been
discussed, but there should be consultation. Secondly, as far as
potential noise nuisance is concerned, the consultation will focus on
the noise level of 45 dB at the nearest property. That was agreed with
the Minister’s predecessor and I think that that agreement is
still secure, but it would be very good indeed to hear confirmation
that it is secure from the present Minister.
Therefore,
new clause 2 moves things on for air source heat pumps and microwind.
However, just to prove that nothing is ever perfect in life, there
remains unfinished business. I am certain that amendment (a), which was
tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, derives from representations
made on behalf of proponents of the micro-hydro industry and in
particular from Mr. Anthony Battersby, chairman of the
Mendip Power Group. I warmly commend Mr. Battersby for his
work on behalf of the micro-hydro sector, which I strongly support.
However, I very much regret to say that I believe that there are
technical reasons why the Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for
taking this matter forward. It should be completely straightforward to
take it forward, but it is not. I understand that there are EU
environmental regulations to consider, along with Environment Agency
licensing considerations and abstraction licences, as well as consents
and processes to take into account. There are other Government
agencies, such as Natural England, that have a remit in this area and
their views need to be taken into account too.
It is not
just that Mr. Battersby, sadly, made his points to me rather
late in the day. Even if he had made them to me slightly earlier, it
would still have been enormously difficult to have included provision
for micro-hydro in the Bill. Furthermore, it is not as if the obstacles
that micro-hydro faces are only related to the planning process. Of
course, it is the planning process that new clause 2 is principally
concerned with.
Although I
would encourage the hon. Member for Cheltenham to withdraw his
amendment, I hope we will hear some encouraging news from the Minister
about the Government’s future plans to unblock these obstacles
to the development of micro hydro power. I know that Mr.
Battersby is aware that Conservatives have pledged to reform the
licensing system as soon as is practicable. I hope we will hear again
from the Minister that there is all-party agreement about the need to
move forward on this potentially very exciting form of micro
power.
3.45
pm
Martin
Horwood: I am grateful for the fairly supportive comments
from the hon. Member for East Surrey. He speculates as to who
approached me in relation to hydropower. He is wrong—it was my
hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath),
who is a great champion of hydropower in this House and who is very
proud of telling me that his constituency may have no escalators, but
it has lots of rivers.
Mr.
Ainsworth: I am prepared to take what the hon. Gentleman
says at face value, but I know where Mr. Battersby
lives.
Martin
Horwood: That sounds rather
threatening.
Mr.
Ainsworth: It was not intended to be threatening. If you
visit him, I am sure he will tell you all about
micro-hydropower.
Martin
Horwood: It is an important point. As the hon. Member for
East Surrey says, it is true that there are genuine difficulties with
incorporating micro-hydro in the same way that other energy sources
have been included, mainly because of extraction licences and their
environmental and European implications. These are, however,
frustrating and irritating impediments and it is very important that we
set a timetable for trying to remove them. It is important to have
extraction licences where large amounts of water are being taken into
the general water supply and being returned a few hundred yards further
down the river. This is nonsense. Some encouraging news, as the hon.
Member for East Surrey called it, from the Minister would be rewarding.
We framed the amendment trying to take account of that. That is why it
has rather more open phraseology and also a two-year timetable. If the
Minister could take up that level of ambition, it would be very
encouraging. Under the circumstances, and in anticipation of the
encouraging news, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Joan
Ruddock: The Government have tabled new clause 2 to
replace clause 5. Before explaining the merits of that, I will briefly
set out why we cannot support clause 5 as it stands. I will then deal
with amendment (a), where I hope my news might be
encouraging.
Clause 5
requires the Secretary of State to bring forward legislation to grant
permitted development rights to small wind turbines and air source heat
pumps on, or within the curtilage of, a dwelling house within three
months of the day on which the legislation is passed. First, let me
assure the Committee that we intend to consult shortly on the
introduction of permitted development rights for these technologies on
domestic premises, with a view to introducing the necessary
legislation. Committee
members may be aware that we consulted on the principle of extending
permitted development rights to wind turbines and air source heat pumps
in domestic properties back in 2007, but there were some outstanding
issues to resolve, particularly in relation to noise. We have now moved
further forward on that issue and I can confirm, as I was asked to do
by the hon.
Member for East Surrey, that we have agreed to test out a higher noise
limit—45 dBA—through the consultation
process. We
plan to issue the consultation document later this summer; it will set
out our detailed proposals for permitted development rights for wind
turbines and air source heat pumps on domestic premises. The Government
generally consult for 12 weeks on policy proposals, following which we
will need to analyse responses and decide on the appropriate way
forward. Once we have decided on final proposals, we will need to draft
the secondary legislation that will implement the permitted development
rights. The draft legislation will prescribe the technical
specification of the technology and method of installation. This places
a requirement on us—I am sorry to say this—to refer the
amendments to the order to the European Commission, so as to allow
other member states to consider the proposals and ensure that we are
not creating barriers to entry into the market for European companies.
This process takes a minimum of three months. If other member states
raise objections, the time scale is extended.
There are
therefore a number of hurdles for us to overcome before introducing the
legislation, and we cannot go through all those processes within three
months, which is why the new clause proposes to extend the period to
six months. Finally, the changes to the general permitted development
order will automatically be subject to negative procedure by virtue of
section 333 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
clause 5(3) is therefore
superfluous.
Charles
Hendry: I should be grateful if the Minister clarified a
couple of things. In my constituency, as in that of the hon. Member for
Cheltenham, there are a significant number of listed properties. Will
she ensure that the consultation exercise will look at the development
issues in relation to such properties? It is not simply a planning
issue, but a question of whether there may be a need for listed
building consent, as
well. Will
the Minister also look at the pressure that the air source heat pumps
put on the electricity infrastructure? I am a great supporter of such
pumps, but there is no record of where they are being installed. The
local electricity network will need to be upgraded to accommodate the
extra electricity demand, and it would be helpful to have a system in
place whereby somebody actually knows the number of pumps being
installed, so that necessary upgrades can be carried
out.
Joan
Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those two
important points. I share his concern about listed properties. I
recently spoke at a meeting organised by the Church of England, which
owns many listed properties. We talked about whether new technologies
could be installed, and the difficulties faced. He is absolutely right
that we need to look at the issue. He is also right about the pressure
on the supply from air source heat pumps. The piloting that has
occurred has been brought to our attention, and the matter clearly
needs to be addressed. The consultation will have to look at both those
matters. New
clause 2 will replace clause 5 and requires the Secretary of State to
amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 in relation to England to introduce permitted development
rights for wind turbines and air source heat pumps on,
or within, the curtilage of a dwelling house. The term “dwelling
house” is defined in the interpretation clause of the Bill, and
reflects the broad concept of what constitutes use as a dwelling house
for the purposes of planning legislation. Adopting that broad
definition will allow us to address concerns about the treatment of any
particular buildings that would naturally fall within the definition,
but which may need to be treated differently in respect of any of the
rights proposed. We may then make appropriate amendments to the GPDO to
take account of those
concerns. Amending
the GPDO for the technologies is a natural follow-up to the legislation
we introduced in April last year, when we extended permitted
development rights to various types of domestic microgeneration
equipment, such as solar panels, ground and water source heat pumps,
biomass flue systems and combined heat and power system flues. The
Government have always planned to extend permitted development rights
to domestic wind turbines and air source heat
pumps. The
consultation that we will issue later this summer will set out our
proposals for permitted development rights for wind turbines and air
source heat pumps. The consultation will propose that the installation
of those technologies should, among other criteria, be subject to a
noise limit of 45 dBA at the window of a habitable room in any
neighbouring property, as the hon. Member for East Surrey has
suggested. The
new clause specifies that amendments to the GPDO must be made within
six months of the Act coming into force. That should allow sufficient
time to assess the consultation responses, finalise the legislation and
then go through the necessary clearance procedures with the European
Commission, prior to introducing the legislation, which is planned for
April
2010. The
new clause places a requirement on the Government to review the
effectiveness of the amendments to the GPDO as soon as practicable
following two years of the amendments having been made. That provides
an opportunity for the Government to assess how well the permitted
development rights are working, and in particular to assess the
appropriateness of any noise limits that might be contained in the
legislation. In conclusion, the new clause is an important driver for
the work we are doing to introduce permitted development rights for
wind turbines and air source heat pumps on domestic properties. I
therefore ask Committee members to support the new
clause. Finally,
I need to explain why the Government cannot support amendment (a). The
amendment requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals to
introduce permitted development rights for micro-hydropower in a
domestic setting within two years of the Act coming into force, as the
hon. Member for Cheltenham said. The Government have considered the
introduction of permitted development rights for micro-hydropower
already and we have rejected it. I shall explain why.
The
Department for Communities and Local Government, in conjunction with
the Welsh Assembly Government and the Planning Inspectorate,
commissioned Entec UK Ltd to review the operation of development orders
surrounding permitted development rights for householders to install
microgeneration equipment within the curtilage of a dwelling
house, and to make recommendations for improving those development
orders.
As part of that work,
the consultants examined the potential for hydro schemes to benefit
from permitted development rights. The consultants undertook extensive
discussions with the industry and local authorities, and examined case
studies to inform their work. They found that domestic hydro schemes
were very rare and that very few would fall within the curtilage of a
dwelling house, which is the accepted extent of permitted development
rights for householders. Participants in the workshops, including the
British Hydropower Association, shared that view. The consultants
concluded that domestic hydro schemes are so rare and potentially
complex—including engineering and construction works, as well as
watercourse abstraction—that changes to permitted development
rights are not required or appropriate.
Martin
Horwood: I am rather disappointed by the Minister’s
emerging response and—given the number of dwelling houses that
are converted water mills, where the drop in water height is and has
been sufficient to generate energy—surprised. Surely that is a
common occurrence. At the risk of going against my previous advice and
suggesting that further consultation is required, I urge the Minister
to look more carefully at this matter in
future.
Joan
Ruddock: I appreciate that what I have said so far is
deeply disappointing to the hon. Gentleman, but I will come on to
something that may improve his mood. I do not think that we need to
consult because this was clearly a thoroughgoing and properly
constructed consultation and the results were very negative. However,
the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Surrey will be aware
that there are factors that make getting permission for such
microgeneration facilities very difficult. We need to address those
factors, which I intend to do in a moment.
The
consultants recommended that above-ground pipelines might be permitted
development, provided they were up to 0.5 m in height. However, the
Government concluded that such a small change would not really achieve
much in practice, given that the rest of the scheme had to get planning
permission anyway. The proposal not to include permitted development
rights for hydro schemes was the subject of a consultation—the
second consultation—from April to June 2007. Of those who
commented on the hydro proposal, 84 per cent. agreed that it should not
have permitted development
rights. 4
pm
Mr.
Ainsworth: Is that not possibly because 84 per cent. of
the people who responded were promoting different
technologies?
Joan
Ruddock: I am tempted to say that the hon. Gentleman could
be right. I have not read the responses to that particular
consultation, which happened several years ago. However, when looking
at responses to consultations and coming to a judgment, the Government
are careful to consider whether it is a fair response, or whether it
might be otherwise motivated. I am relying
on what I have been told, and one might consider the consultation from
the point of view of the previous consultation, after which all that
the consultants could come up with was, “We’ll let them
have a few pipes above ground.” We are looking now at a second
consultation, which was based on the conclusions of the first, and I
have to believe that it is a fair representation and that the first one
was not the way forward.
In summary,
the Government’s view on the matter has been informed by the
consultations, but also by discussions with the industry, local
authorities, and environmental and professional bodies. Our view has
been the subject of public consultation and we have found that there is
little appetite for permitted development rights in a domestic context
for hydro
technologies. I
take this opportunity to assure Committee members that we are aware of
concerns relating to the environmental permitting systems for
micro-hydro power. When I was a DEFRA Minister I had to deal with
environmental permitting and I know what a nightmare it is. The
Environment Agency is already working on implementing a good practice
guide for small-scale hydro, which will be published by the end of next
month. Those who are interested will undoubtedly wish to get hold of
that good practice guide, to see if it complies with their
needs.
| 
