Community Benefits and the Planning System – A Mismatch
Published on 30th Apr 2015
A Secretary of State decision to grant planning permission for a 41MW ground mounted solar farm near Swindon demonstrates that planning policy and DCLG have not caught up with DECC’s plans for community ownership of renewable energy projects
One would expect that the offer of community ownership and community benefit would be a strong reason for granting planning permission for a renewable scheme. In February this year the Government response to the Shared Ownership Taskforce advocated a strong preference for a substantial increase in the offer of shared ownership of renewable schemes through voluntary means. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that planning authorities should support community led-initiatives for renewable and low carbon energy. The Government response to the Shared Ownership Taskforce notes, however, that the planning system and community benefit is often ignored in planning decisions and that there is not a strong enough legal link between the two.
This point has been clearly demonstrated by the Secretary of State’s decision on 18 March 2015*, in which he granted planning permission for Swindon Commercial Services’ solar development, but in doing so he agreed with his Inspector that the legal agreements offered for establishing a bond issue and making community benefit payments should be ignored in considering whether to grant permission (in planning speak – given no weight). Although this doesn’t preclude a developer still offering a bond, making a share issue or offering shared ownership, as advocated by the task force, if this isn’t seen to assist planning permission being granted, where is the incentive to a developer?
Shared ownership is a carrot and stick; the Government want developers to make voluntary offers and if they fail to do so, they propose to legislate. What would be helpful in the meantime is to change planning policy so that these deals can be given significant weight in planning decisions.
*appeal reference APP/U3935/V/14/2216792
