The government is using the planning system to block new onshore wind and encourage shale fracking, even though the public would rather it did the exact opposite, says Megan Darby.

Which do you prefer: onshore wind or shale gas? It is a false dichotomy, of course – they are not in direct competition. One is a renewable power source; the other is a fossil fuel newly made accessible by technological advance. The mainstream consensus is that both have a place in the transition to a low-carbon economy. Still, everyone has a favourite. It is a litmus test of your energy priorities: climate change or security of supply?

The two sectors have enough in common to invite comparison. Both are backed by government policy yet must navigate the assault course of protest groups, environmental permits and local councils to get anything done. Accordingly, it is revealing to see how government treatment of the two energy sources diverges when it comes to planning.

In the past year, communities secretary Eric Pickles has personally blocked 11 windfarms in mainland Britain. Local authorities have followed his lead and rejected two out of three windfarms in the first five months of 2014. Meanwhile, the government is streamlining the planning process for shale gas exploration, prompting wind developers to complain of double standards.

Pickles awarded himself powers in October last year to “call in” contentious windfarm planning applications. This was to be a temporary measure, to make sure local authorities were following the spirit of new guidelines on renewable projects. In April, he extended this period by 12 months, taking him up to the next general election. The Conservative Party is now saying it will stop onshore wind development completely if it gets a majority next May.

Of the 13 projects Pickles has decided on to date, he rejected 11, in five cases going against the advice of planning officials. Another 24 projects hang in the balance. The main reason given for rejecting the proposals was to protect the character and quality of the landscape.

Tensions between national energy policy and local concerns are nothing new. The country needs energy but communities are not always delighted to play host to the windfarms, power stations and fracking rigs that entails.

It is part of Pickles’ brief at the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to empower people to shape what goes on in their area. That sometimes sets him at odds with the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc), among others. The remarkable thing about Pickles’ latest series of interventions is that he is overruling local authorities, including where they had voted to approve a scheme.

Developers are not happy with this state of affairs.

RWE Innogy’s ten-turbine East Heslerton windfarm is one of the latest victims. Mike Parker, head of onshore wind, asks: “Why, when we have a democratic planning process, supported by experts, does the minister feel he is better qualified to make these decisions? According to the planning inspector, our project ticked all the boxes.”

Parker expresses frustration at the block to investment. RWE Innogy is “still very committed to the UK”, which could be “an extremely strong market”, he says. “We have the supply chain, the desire, the capital, the financial partnerships to continue to invest in the UK. What we need is the planning process to allow that to come through in a timely and fair manner.”

Dale Vince, founder of Ecotricity, also spoke out after Pickles refused the green energy supplier’s Black Ditch project. He says: “We’ve worked diligently through the entire planning process, passed every test – including a public inquiry – only to have our application refused by a man who knows nothing on the subject. What faith can anyone have in the planning process when this can happen, when the rules are thrown out of the window on a whim?”

Utility Week approached Pickles for an interview on his stance on windfarms. In response, the DCLG press office reissued a statement by communities minister Kris Hopkins saying: “Inappropriately sited wind turbines can be a blot on the landscape, harming the local environment and damaging heritage for miles around. We make no apologies for changing planning guidance to ensure these issues are properly taken into account. Every appeal is considered with due process on its individual merits, based on the particular circumstances of the case.”

This message from on high is already having a devastating effect on windfarm planning across the country, figures gathered by Renewable UK show (see box on planning approval rates, below). From 2010 to 2013, local authority approval rates in mainland Britain hovered around 60 to 70 per cent of sites. In the first five months of 2014, the numbers were reversed: more than two out of three applications were refused. (Northern Ireland has a more centralised planning system that yields higher approval rates.)

The approval rate for England looks slightly better when measured by megawatt of installed capacity, going from 51 per cent in 2013 to 54 per cent in the first part of 2014, with some larger projects getting through. However, by that metric the situation looks even worse in Scotland, down from 61 per cent to 27 per cent, and Wales, down from 66 per cent to just 3 per cent.

Pickles’ rationale for calling in windfarm decisions is to make sure local authorities are following revised guidance on renewables projects issued last July. However, Renewable UK director of external affairs Jennifer Webber says the interventions have more to do with politics than policy.

Onshore windfarms are a bigger issue for the Conservatives than for any other UK political party. Nearly all wind developments are in rural constituencies and in England and Wales at least, most rural constituencies are Tory seats. Accordingly, Conservative MPs hear a lot from anti-wind groups and are more likely to oppose such projects than the public at large.

Webber rejects the notion that Pickles is standing up for the voiceless, pointing to increased engagement and commitment to community benefits (the going rate is now £5,000 per megawatt of installed capacity). “In theory, things are a lot better for communities than they have been at any time,” she says. “It is difficult to see this as a fully grassroots movement. Around each application there will be people who oppose it, but I cannot see a good reason for that to have gone up substantially in the periods we are talking about.”

Indeed, while onshore wind has its committed opponents (Country Guardian lists more than 300 national and local groups), in general the sector enjoys strong popularity. Decc’s latest public attitudes tracker put public support at a record high of 70 per cent. Other polls show that even Ukip voters, commonly supposed to be anti-wind, are more likely to support than oppose development.

Despite all this, the Conservative Party is hardening its stance against onshore wind. Energy minister Michael Fallon has indicated that if the Conservatives get a majority at the next election, they will scrap subsidies for new onshore windfarms. He says: “We now have enough bill payer-funded onshore wind in the pipeline to meet our renewable energy commitments and there’s no requirement for any more.”

The UK is signed up to get 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 and onshore wind power is expected to contribute between 11 and 13GW. The Conservatives calculate that if you add up all windfarms in operation, construction and consented (assuming 30 per cent drop off), you get to 12.3GW.

Renewable UK says there is a risk other renewable technologies might not deliver on expectations and it makes no sense to limit onshore wind, which could potentially contribute more to the target. Webber points out “the world doesn’t end in 2020” and the Committee on Climate Change is counting on 25GW of onshore wind in its models to meet the UK’s 2030 carbon reduction target.

The Conservatives also want to return decisions on large-scale windfarms to local control. At present, under the Planning Act, projects of 50MW or more are ultimately decided by energy secretary Ed Davey.

Angus Walker, planning lawyer at Bircham Dyson Bell, comments in his Planning Act blog: “I think this is the first time the Planning Act has been used as a political tool, but it probably won’t be the last. The proposal won’t have much effect given the small proportion of onshore windfarms that are above the Planning Act threshold, but underlines the Conservatives’ ambivalence towards onshore wind – being officially in favour of it and unofficially against it.”

For Renewable UK, the proposed planning tweaks are minor compared with the subsidy threat. “We are being told that nothing that is not already consented will get financial support, so frankly what they do with the planning regime is largely irrelevant,” says Webber. “We are not calling for a massive overhaul of the planning system, just the opposite. We want it to be timely and predictable and at the moment it is neither.”

When it comes to shale gas, the Conservatives are less conflicted. They like it. Prime minister David Cameron has promised his government will go “all out for shale”. The Liberal Democrat and Labour parties also support exploration, albeit with some reservations.

As North Sea oil and gas fields dry up and the last few UK coal mines limp towards closure, the government is keen to find new domestic sources of fuel, both to limit reliance on imports and to replace the substantial tax revenues generated.

Proponents cite the great fracking boom in the US, where gas prices plummeted on the back of new shale supplies, cutting energy bills and boosting industry. Shale gas has also displaced coal in the generation mix, leading to lower US carbon emissions. (US coal, in turn, was exported to be burned elsewhere, so it is hard to say whether the environment has benefited on a global level – but that is not America’s responsibility).

In the UK, shale gas is not expected to have quite such a revolutionary impact. The gas is there, but it will be harder to extract, for reasons of geology, regulation and industry structure.

The British Geological Survey (BGS) estimates the Bowland shale holds 38 trillion cubic metres of gas and the Weald 4.4 billion barrels of shale oil (see map). A third survey, of a shale belt across central Scotland, is due out this summer. For reference, annual gas demand is in the region of 100 billion cubic metres. If 10 per cent of the Bowland gas were extractable (as in some US shales), it could meet UK demand for nearly 40 years.

Not least among the obstacles to shale gas extraction is the planning regime. Britain is a densely populated island and there will be plenty of people taking an interest in developments near their homes. Campaigning website Frack Off already lists 130 protest groups around the country, who are making ready to block test wells. Alongside getting environmental permits, fracking operators must prepare to win hearts and minds.

The government set up an Office for Unconventional Oil and Gas in Decc to help smooth the path for fracking operators, rationalising the environmental and planning consent process. Last month, it announced changes to trespassing law so that individual landowners could no longer block fracking beneath their properties. This was sweetened with a £20,000 voluntary community payment for each lateral well, on top of the £100,000 plus 1 per cent of revenues already promised by industry for each well site. Decc has reserved the power to intervene if the industry does not honour that commitment.

It is early days for the UK unconventional oil and gas industry and it is 20 years behind onshore wind in the business of winning local support.

To date, only one UK fracking site has got planning consent, a Cuadrilla test well at Preese Hall in Lancashire. It was passed by a planning officer in 2009 and went more or less unremarked upon until a minor earthquake in 2011 made the wider world sit up and take notice. The BGS investigated and found it “highly probable” that Cuadrilla’s fracking had caused the tremor, of 2.3 magnitude on the Richter scale. However, experts advised that more serious quakes were unlikely and it was safe to resume activity.

Catherine Howard, planning lawyer at Herbert Smith Freehills, says: “It shows what a light touch was applied for unconventional oil and gas generally until 2011, when there was the earth tremor. Since then, we have seen a light shone on the consent process.”

The mini-quake set off a ripple of awareness that was only amplified last summer when Cuadrilla started test drilling for shale oil in Balcombe. Hundreds of protesters descended on the West Sussex village to picket the site, including Green Party MP Caroline Lucas. A carnival atmosphere prevailed and the media seized on the punning opportunities afforded by the term “fracking”. Last week Greenpeace activists, with their usual flair for the publicity stunt, donned hi-vis vests to “frack” outside the prime minister’s Oxfordshire home.

The term “fracking” has become so loaded that Wrexham council turned down a coalbed methane exploratory borehole in March over fears it might lead to fracking, despite developer Dart Energy’s assurances to the contrary. Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, describes the technique of pumping large volumes of water, sand and chemicals at high pressure into a well to break up the rock and allow gas to flow out.

Ken Cronin, chief executive of the UK Onshore Operators Group, plays down the novelty of fracking. Onshore drilling for oil and gas has been going for about a hundred years, with 120 operational sites, he says, and fracking techniques have been used at a number of those sites. “The only difference between shale and conventional gas is where the gas is. This word ‘unconventional’ is actually about the geology, not the process. The fracturing techniques are the same. What is different is the amount of water and the pressure you use is higher.”

The first company to test out the new streamlined consenting process for fracking will be Cuadrilla, at two sites in Lancashire. The company has submitted a planning application for Preston New Road and another, at Roseacre Wood, is due to ­follow shortly. Igas is reportedly looking to venture into the East Midlands.

While the government has tried to create a supportive environment for shale gas, the public is not overwhelmingly convinced. The same Decc poll that put public support for onshore wind at 70 per cent gave shale gas exploration an approval rating of just 29 per cent, with 22 per cent of respondents against. The industry may take comfort from the fact that the biggest tranche of respondents, 44 per cent, were neutral on the subject, ­suggesting room for persuasion.

It remains to be seen whether shale gas fracking plans will get approved in this context. Cronin says: “The total planning system from beginning to end has not been tested yet… We are very keen to work with local communities to ensure that everyone has the right amount of information. We live in a system that the arbiters of the planning process are local authorities. That is the reality of it.”

Howard is optimistic that once people get used to the idea of fracking, they will accept drilling rigs in their area. “I am hopeful councils will become more confident in decision-making on exploratory proposals. The public and councils will see there is nothing to be worried about and sentiment will soften.”

While the shale gas industry will go through a similar planning process to wind developers, the objections they must overcome are different.

Wind opponents focus on the visual impact of wind turbines on the landscape and potential threats to birdlife or peat bogs. At a national level, they take issue with the level of subsidy involved, the intermittency of generation and claims for carbon savings.

Shale gas opponents raise concerns about water consumption, groundwater contamination and waste products of fracking. They also argue that exploiting new sources of fossil fuel undermines global efforts to tackle climate change.

The situation in onshore wind shows that public support is no protection against ministerial meddling. The nascent fracking industry, which has yet to secure widespread acceptance, enjoys government favour today but remains vulnerable to campaigns and politicking. Exploration companies should take note: the planning process is a constant battleground. Unlike shale strata, protesters and ministers cannot be fracked into submission.

I must protest: opposition groups get organised

Kathryn McWhirter of Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association was not politically active before shale drilling arrived in the area. Now, it is no exaggeration to say campaigning has taken over her life, putting her work as a freelance wine writer in the shade.

Cuadrilla got planning permission for a Balcombe test well in 2010, but the first McWhirter heard about it was in newspaper reports in December 2011. “All this stuff about how the industry communicates is really not true,” she says. It became apparent Cuadrilla had approached the parish council, but its members, who had stood unopposed, did not represent McWhirter’s views on the matter.

From opposing developments in Balcombe, McWhirter joined a global movement against “unacceptable extractive fossil fuel businesses” – covering coalbed methane as well as shale gas and oil. She has spoken at conferences across Europe and hosted like-minded protesters from as far afield as the US, Canada and Poland. “At first it was: oh my god, there is this oil well coming to my village. Then it became: I really want to stop this worldwide.”

Martin Porter of Frack Free Greater Manchester is a long-standing environmental activist, on issues ranging from GM crops to new roads. He has been involved in Greenpeace for more than 15 years. “I was aware of fracking before it became a local issue,” he says. “For me, it is primarily about climate change. I have been involved with various Greenpeace climate change campaigns, none of which were particularly effective, which is why the fracking campaign is so exciting. We have really had a lot of success.”

The Greater Manchester group has been swelled by those more concerned about local environmental issues around sites at Barton Moss and Daveyhulme. Its largest demonstration in March attracted more around 1,000 protesters, according to police estimates.

Alison Davies of Cadwriaeth Ucheldir Maldwyn (Conservation of Upland Montgomeryshire) has been opposing windfarms in Mid Wales and nationally for 20 years. Her family used to have a wind turbine on their farm, which was off the electricity grid, but found it did not provide the reliable power they wanted. When they were approached by developers wanting to put part of a windfarm on their land, they declined.

Davies and her group challenge planning proposals on the detail, from “grossly exaggerated” claims on carbon savings to assurances about peat land preservation. “Our reasons for objection are grounded in the planning process and solid facts, not based on emotion,” she says. “We are not Luddites. We are not professional activists. We are people who think and what we have learned is that this is a huge con.”

Demonstrations are less her style: “You don’t win a planning battle by waving a banner but you do sometimes make the politicians realise you have a voice. There is a place for it.”

Mike Hall of Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery (Fells) is behind one of the referrals to Eric Pickles, along with Natural England and two National Park authorities. Fells objects to all “inappropriately sited” planning developments in Cumbria and North Lancashire, of which 90 per cent are energy-related. Started in 1999, it has taken part in eight public inquiries and succeeded in blocking the plans in six of those, Hall says. “We are pretty expert.”

The latest windfarm proposal under contention was approved by the council against the advice of the planning officer and strong objections from conservation groups. “They focused entirely on climate change, which is not a planning issue,” says Hall. Fells focuses on the planning process rather than demonstrations: “Although you need a bit of emotion and a bit of spirit in campaigns, it does not actually win the argument.”

Wind power “has a small role to play” in the energy mix, says Hall, “but we don’t fundamentally believe that windfarms can address the shortfall of electricity supply we are facing”. Shale gas, on the other hand, Hall sees as a dependable source of energy that could reduce emissions by displacing coal. Accordingly, Fells would support “sensitively sited” fracking, with “appropriate safeguards”.