Richard Clewer: Community benefits can ensure a fair energy transition

Cllr Richard Clewer is the Leader of Wiltshire Council.

The UK is building new energy infrastructure to meet growing energy demands, boost energy security, and keep bills affordable. Although we do need more clean power, the government cannot ignore the impact it has on local communities, which my residents in Wiltshire have experienced – with the construction of multiple solar farms such as the current application for the 2,220 acre Lime Down ‘mega’ farm. If the government ignores the impact on local communities and fails to address them in any way, anger will only grow against net zero and new infrastructure in general. This will undermine our future energy independence, climate action, and our energy security, not to mention our economic growth.

That is why the government should make community benefits mandatory, a common sense policy, to ensure developers recognise and fairly compensate my residents’ sacrifices to host the infrastructure.

As a councillor, I have seen first-hand the anger since the government announced new energy projects and fast-tracked policies that will accelerate the rollout of energy infrastructure. The need for developers to fairly compensate residents with mandatory community benefits, set in a way that benefits residents, is more important than ever. Government’s recent announcement ensuring households near new pylons save money on energy bills is welcome but sacrifices made by communities hosting other infrastructure such as solar farms must also be recognised.

The decision to set a 2030 target for decarbonisation is the perfect example of why pushing an agenda too hard, too fast, is unnecessary and counter-productive. The Government is not considering the potential pushback their rush could have.

Britain’s planning system has left many of us frustrated and the legitimate concerns of residents unheeded. New infrastructure does visually alter a community’s landscape. Pylons and solar farms will be visible, even with tree and shrubbery planting. Another unavoidable impact is increased traffic from heavy vehicles, which not only clog up roads, but can also cause damage to highways.

Developers, be they government or private, cannot simply bulldoze communities’ concerns. Otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past, ending up with wide-ranging public backlash and more red tape on new infrastructure that could derail the energy transition.

This does not mean we shouldn’t build the infrastructure, it means that we need to find a way to deliver it in a balanced way. Supporting farmers with solar to generate extra income makes sense to me. Despite what some opposition groups say, this new energy infrastructure will not lead to the industrialisation of the British countryside. Just 0.3 per cent of UK land will host solar panels if the government targets are achieved – only half the amount of land used for golf courses.

If however those applications are concentrated around villages it will effectively industrialise the countryside and that must be prevented. Farming is part of our rural way of life, we need to support it, not destroy it.

Additionally, if the government fails to build new infrastructure due to widespread organised backlash from policies and decisions alienating community support, our energy demand will outstrip supply. The UK’s demand for electricity alone is predicted to double by 2050. This failure would undoubtedly cause energy prices to spike, cripple businesses, force industry to move abroad to where cheaper energy is abundant, and could even lead to electricity blackouts.

A failure to build will cause the energy transition to stall, as net zero targets will not be met. The UK will be unable to achieve energy security, as we will still need gas imports placing us at the mercy of volatile European gas markets which are dominated by petrostates such as Russia. Alongside this, energy bills will remain high as expensive gas imports will continue to set the price by remaining a high proportion of our energy mix.

Therefore, we need something to balance our need to build with the concerns of local residents, especially if Labour continues with this too hard, too fast approach. The Government needs to show some sympathy and understanding to what people are sacrificing. That is why we need mandatory community benefits. This would see developers give financial payments to local communities directly impacted by hosting the new infrastructure.

Money could be allocated to give energy bill discounts or earmarked for environmental projects and the recipients can vary to include individuals, community groups, or elected bodies. Funds could either be paid to the local community in a lump sum or yearly.

Mandating community benefits could also benefit developers by improving developers’ relationships with communities, helping stop significant opposition that can prevent approval of the infrastructure application or delay its construction. Many developers already provide community benefits as it is widely considered good practice; making them mandatory means only the small percentage of developers not already doing so will change their behaviour.

However, developers and operators cannot just give out community benefits; they must also ensure there is meaningful community engagement throughout the application process, as well as the construction and operation phases.

Mandating community benefits is a common sense policy that helps get vital infrastructure built and ensures communities are included and directly benefit, reducing community opposition. If we fail to build new energy infrastructure, we risk torpedoing the energy transition, failing to reach net zero, energy shortages, and keeping high bills. But, if we fail to take local communities’ concerns into account, we risk net zero and tying up developers’ hands even more in the future. Mandatory community benefits will help ensure this doesn’t happen.

At the same time we need to avoid excessive concentration of solar farms and ensure that the best and most versatile land is retained for farming.

Government must apply some common sense, combined with strategic analysis, to the delivery of renewable energy rather than their current bull in a china shop approach.