Anne Begg (Aberdeen South, Labour)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 2—Microgeneration: dwellinghouses—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/418) (the “GPDO”), in relation to England, to provide for the grant of planning permission for specified classes of equipment for microgeneration on, or within the curtilage of, a dwellinghouse.

(2) The classes of equipment for microgeneration specified by virtue of subsection (1) must be or include wind turbines and air source heat pumps.

(3) “Specified” in subsections (1) and (2) means specified in the GPDO.

(4) The amendment mentioned in subsection (1) must be made within 6 months beginning with the coming into force of this Act.

(5) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may grant planning permission subject to limitations, exceptions or conditions.

(6) The Secretary of State must review the effect of the amendment of the GPDO as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of 2 years beginning with the date on which the amendment comes into force.

(7) In this section “microgeneration” has the meaning given by section 82 of the Energy Act 2004.’.

Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey, Conservative)

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.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

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.

Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey, Conservative)

I am prepared to take what the hon. Gentleman says at face value, but I know where Mr. Battersby lives.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

That sounds rather threatening.

Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey, Conservative)

It was not intended to be threatening. If you visit him, I am sure he will tell you all about micro-hydropower.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Minister of State, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour)

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 (Shadow Minister, Energy and Climate Change; Wealden, Conservative)

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 (Minister of State, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour)

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 (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Minister of State, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour)

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.

Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey, Conservative)

Is that not possibly because 84 per cent. of the people who responded were promoting different technologies?

Joan Ruddock (Minister of State, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour)

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.

Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister and apologise for interrupting her again. I vividly recall visiting the hydro project in New Mills, Derbyshire recently. There was a plan to install an Archimedes screw into the river there, which was going to power the local primary school. The plan ran into all sorts of problems with the Environment Agency, which insisted that an abstraction licence was required, even though the water was simply going to be deviated a few yards, turn through a screw, and be put back in.

I accept that it might be rather a white-knuckle ride for local fish—if they had knuckles—to go through the Archimedes screw, but I cannot believe that any serious environmental damage was going to be done. That is the sort of problem that people encounter, and I hope that the Government will take these issues seriously and get some reform in place.

Joan Ruddock (Minister of State, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour)

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we have taken this seriously and that we believe, as he does, that the system could be very much improved. I am pleased to tell Committee members, on behalf of DEFRA, that we can commit to a complete review of the environmental consent process for micro-hydro power. Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that the aim of the review will be to develop recommendations for a streamlined system that is quick and easy for developers, but which maintains a high level of environmental protection.

The review will be undertaken by the Environment Agency—working in co-operation with DEFRA—within a year of the Bill coming into force. It will take account of any ongoing, or future, work. While the Government cannot support amendment (a), I hope that hon. Members will accept the Government’s commitment to this important sector. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Charles Hendry (Shadow Minister, Energy and Climate Change; Wealden, Conservative)

That is a welcome proposal and we are keen to support micro-hydro power. However, can the Minister clarify for the Committee what, exactly, will be delivered within a year? Is it the policy that will be put in place, a document for consultation, or a review? Exactly what will have happened within 12 months?

Joan Ruddock (Minister of State, Department for Energy and Climate Change; Lewisham, Deptford, Labour)

I cannot do more than repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman, which is that the review will be undertaken by the Environment Agency, working in co-operation with DEFRA, within a year of the Bill coming into force. The review will take account of any ongoing and future work. This is a review which is directed at getting a new system, so that developers have a streamlined system that is quick and easy for them. It will provide the recommendations for that to happen. That is as much as I am able to tell him at this stage; it is a DEFRA lead, and, having worked in the area of environmental permitting, I know that there is no doubt this is a very complex matter. My words are on the record as to what we seek to achieve, and that is to get improvements into this area so that these technologies can be put in place much more easily and quickly—clearly having to use planning permission, but dealing with some of the barriers and frustrations that hon. Members have raised here today.

Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey, Conservative)

I am most grateful to the Minister for her response to what has been a worthwhile debate. I wholly agree with her analysis that this new clause is potentially a very major driver, putting real weight behind air source heat pump technology and micro wind, and that offers very exciting opportunities for job creation, carbon reduction, and cost reduction as well. So I warmly support the new clause, and I thank the Minister also for her response to the Liberal Democrats’ amendment, which I think has some nuggets of hope contained within it.