Clause 5
Green Energy (Definition and Promotion) Bill
3:30 pm
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.