Fair shares

Exclusive research by Accent for Utility Week reveals that people are generally happy to host utility infrastructure projects but expect local investment in exchange. Rob Sheldon reports

When an energy company embarks on a large-scale infrastructure project, say building a windfarm, a new transmission line or a power station, there is inevitably an impact on the local community. Whether this impact is positive or negative depends on your point of view. Do you support the principle behind the kind of project being built – say, wind generation? Do you support the scale and scope of the proposed project specifically? Will the project have any direct personal implications – for example, will your property overlook it?

Important though the visual impact may be, there are likely to be many other considerations that are just as important for those who live in the area, particularly throughout the construction stage. Some of these impacts may be seen as detrimental – an increase in road traffic, for example – while others, such as increased employment opportunities, may be seen as benefiting the community and the local economy.

So how do residents in those communities affected by new large-scale infrastructure projects feel about them? Do they feel powerless against energy companies or do they feel that local interests have been taken into account? And if the energy company builds a new road to accommodate an increase in traffic, or supports local colleges, perhaps offering apprenticeships to local people, what do local residents think about that? Do they think companies are giving something back to the community, do they think they are compensating residents for any detriment caused, or do they think that the companies are, in effect, really offering a bribe to cancel out any potential objections?

Accent spoke to relevant members of the public to find out how aware they are of company activities in their area, what they think of them, how the energy companies engage with local communities and what they think the energy companies should do, if anything, for local communities in return for their presence.

Specifically, we spoke to residents in the Bridg­water area where EDF Energy plans to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C; to residents near Shoreham-by-Sea where Eon intends to resubmit its planning application for the Rampion offshore windfarm; and to residents near Clacton-on-Sea, where Dong Energy has built and extended Gunfleet Sands offshore windfarm.

In terms of company engagement with communities, residents near Hinkley Point C said they receive regular newsletters from EDF updating them of the company’s plans and mentioned an exhibition with scaled models in Bridgwater town centre.

Shoreham residents knew that there had been – and continue to be – meetings between Eon, the council and interested groups and were aware that Eon’s planning application for Rampion had been temporarily withdrawn. They weren’t sure, though, if there had been an exhibition of the plans.

Gunfleet Sands has been in operation since 2008 and local residents had little recall of information provided or exhibitions held. In fact, although two public exhibitions were held, one resident Accent spoke to said: “The windfarm just sprung up! It was born ­overnight.”

Almost all the people that Accent spoke to were in favour of the energy generation schemes. Residents in or near the Shoreham-by-Sea and Clacton-on-Sea areas were positive about the windfarms because they see renewable energy as progress, and “at least they’re not nuclear”. And residents near Hinkley were positive regarding Hinkley Point C, despite it being nuclear. It will be a continuation of an ongoing power generation programme in the area: the nuclear element is already on their doorstep.

One described Hinkley as no more than “a couple of blobs on the landscape”, to which Hinkley Point C would make little difference. In addition, they have already seen significant benefits in terms of training and employment opportunities: links with the local college have seen a number of apprenticeships filled locally, with more to come. There were concerns, though, about what will happen once construction is complete. At that stage, employment opportunities are likely to require specialist qualifications, which locals may not be able to typically offer.

While some Shoreham residents were concerned about the potential environmental impact on the South Downs of cabling, residents in or near Shoreham and Clacton were positive regarding any impacts on natural marine habitats. A keen angler in Clacton said fellow anglers think that fishing is much better since the windfarm, and that there is certainly much more match angling locally. She thought that the windfarm restricted trawling opportunities, thereby increasing local fish stocks. Similarly, a Shoreham resident who lives near the coastline thought the windfarm would reduce fishing activity, to the benefit of natural habitats. Another, though, was concerned that some diving areas may now be inaccessible.

Given this generally positive outlook regarding large-scale infrastructure projects, do residents think the energy companies should give something back to local communities in return for their presence, for any disruption caused through the construction process or for any subsequent detriment caused?

Well, yes, in a word. Despite potential benefits such as increased employment opportunities, the people Accent spoke to do think the energy companies involved should give something back to the community. Ideally, they thought, this should be proportional to the amount of profit they make from the energy generation scheme. “I’d think it should be a few million,” said one.

But what form should this take? More specifically, what types of community investment do residents want the energy companies to support?

A potential reduction of energy bills for all residents in the affected communities was not well received. In the first instance, questions were raised regarding the definition of affected residents. Should affected residents be those who can see the infrastructure from their property, for example, or those who suffer increased traffic, or those within a certain mile radius of the worksite, or those who are in a particular income bracket? And, if a definition can be agreed, what level of discount should each qualifying household receive – and for how many years?

Most of the residents Accent spoke to would prefer a lasting legacy and something that would benefit the community rather than individuals.

Residents near Bridgwater are concerned about the increase in traffic associated directly with the construction of Hinkley Point C. They said EDF has built park and ride facilities to make it easier for construction workers to reach the site, but this doesn’t necessarily suit residents because it increases traffic in other areas. What they really want is a Bridgwater bypass, but EDF has made it clear that it will not contribute to the costs of this.

So if transport schemes are to be predominantly designed for the benefit of the energy company, not to benefit the wider community, is there anything else residents want as a quid pro quo? For some, sports facilities would be welcome because they would benefit future generations. Investment in local schools was also seen by some as an investment in the future, but others said that anything involving children is an easy shortcut to appealing to people’s emotions and simply a calculated “vote-winner”. Donations to local charities were also considered to be an emotional “easy win”.

Schemes that had the widest appeal were focused on local needs and the particular impact of the infrastructure. Shoreham and Clacton residents, for example, would like to see benefits for users of the coastline and the sea, such as sponsoring boats for local sailing clubs and improving the facilities along the seafront. Residents near Hinkley would like to see continued opportunities in terms of training and employment, but would also like to see some investment in helping to regenerate the town centre.

So it seems that residents do expect something back from energy companies, and that energy companies are best advised to consult locally about what sort of investment would be valued most by the communities affected by infrastructure works. Such investments in the community would not be seen as bribes, nor would they be seen as compensation. Rather, they would be seen as a fair exchange for the community playing host to the energy company and thereby helping to increase its profits.

Rob Sheldon is managing director of Accent

Powering Britain’s Future

National Grid is holding a nationwide debate about how best to meet the UK’s unprecedented energy challenges. Utility Week has sponsored the part of that debate that relates specifically to the issue of community investment:

How can National Grid strike the right balance between delivering infrastructure required across the UK and mitigating the impact on local communities?

What part should community investment – putting something back into impacted communities – play?

Have your say at http://bit.ly/12wj794

Or get involved in other parts of the debate, which so far include:

How should key players in the energy sector promote widespread understanding and acceptance of the national energy challenge?

How can we help people in local communities get involved in local debates about the nation’s energy infrastructure?

Go to poweringbritainsfuture.co.uk and follow @nationalgridPBF

This article first appeared in Utility Week’s print edition of 15th March 2013.

Get Utility Week’s expert news and comment – unique and indispensible – direct to your desk. Sign up for a trial subscription here: http://bit.ly/zzxQxx