Star of Caledonia

While idly scanning the BBC website the other day, I spotted an article headed “Scotland-England border landmark plans on the move”. It’s about plans “for a multi-million pound landmark sculpture near the border between Scotland and England”. Known as the Star of Caledonia, it is hoped it will stand next to the M74 by the border. It has its own website and it seems that a lot of time, money and effort has gone into moving things along so far as they have got to date.

I have no strong views on it – I am neither pro nor anti the project. I mention it for no other reason than it leads in to another article about structures alongside motorways in Scotland (see below), but I do notice that the way to obtain funding for almost anything these days seems to be to go for the climate change/renewable energy angle. The Star of Caledonia website tells us that when it is complete it will be “a testament to renewables and sustainability”, which I find to be a little odd, since it also tells us that since 2013 “Gretna Landmark Trust (GLT) has been striving to raise £8M plus VAT to build the Star – a price that has risen substantially with the immense increase in world steel prices”. But sure enough, Community Windpower Limited has pledged £5.5M funding “subject to final technical design and viability”. That would be the same Community Windpower Limited whose managing director (who sits on the board of GLT) was interviewed just under six months ago on Radio 4 seemingly begging for help for the wind industry – I transcribed the interview here. South of Scotland Enterprise (SOSE) has also provided grant funding to develop the business plan. I see from its website that:

SOSE have a duty under the Procurement Reform Act to ensure we consider before conducting any procurement process the economic, social and environmental well-being of the South of Scotland area. We will put this in the heart of all decision making to comply with the duty and do our part to support the Scottish Government Climate Change Emergency.

I regularly travel up the M74 past Gretna while heading north to climb some of the Scottish hills that haven’t yet been blighted by the industrial-scale wind farms desecrating Scotland’s wild places on a proliferating basis, so I shall watch for developments with interest.

It is green thinks nature even in the dark

Next up was another article on the BBC website, this one being headed “What’s that big neon sign beside Glasgow’s M8?”. The neon sign in question, at junction 21 of the M8, says “IT IS GREEN THINKS NATURE EVEN IN THE DARK”. It was put in place for COP26, which was held in Glasgow:

The 3m (10ft) tall letters were constructed from lead-free glass in Edinburgh and installed on a large metal frame on top of the Schoolhouse in Kinning Park – a refurbished Victorian school turned into offices.

This allowed the sign to be visible about a mile away at the SEC, where world leaders and delegates were conducting climate negotiations.

At night the design can be seen much further away in areas like the Botanic Gardens, Bellahouston Park and Queen’s Park.

I know I’m old-fashioned, and a bit of a curmudgeon, but I am struggling to see what is green about it, nor can I understand how this helps nature. On the contrary, it strikes me as another blot on the landscape, but that’s just a personal opinion. The message in the incoherent non-sentence also leaves me cold, but then I was never very good at interpreting poetry and things like that. Others may get it, but I confess that I don’t. According to the designer (who apparently took six months to come up with the words):

“It makes you ask questions,” she says.

“IT IS” – is a declaration designed to “assert the urgent and undeniable reality of the climate emergency”, she says.

“GREEN” – represents environmental activism and economic transformation and the colour that we connect to nature, according to the artist.

“THINKS” – defines how human thinking is informed in decision-making rooted in scientific understanding and the human ability to reason and act, she says.

“NATURE” – represents the “vast realms of our planet from earth to atmosphere and its intricate ecosystems”

“EVEN” – represents how the climate crisis impacts [on] everyone and represents “a collective shift towards carbon neutrality”

“IN THE DARK” – both visual and rhetorical, it emphasises the artwork requires darkness to be seen but also how climate inaction “may leave us in literal darkness amid potential power outages”, according to Mary Ellen

She says the sign also anthropomorphises (gives human characteristics to) nature and suggests that if nature could think, then it is thinking and considering our planet: “It is green”, thinks nature, even in the dark.

Oh, right. That’s me told. Why didn’t I think of that? Actually, I do think about these things, and it occurs to me that what’s most likely to “leave us in literal darkness amid potential power outages” is the “climate action” imposed on us in the form of abandonment of reliable fossil fuels in order to rely instead on unreliable and unpredictable renewable energy.

However, none of that is really what I wanted to focus on. Further in to the article were some sentences that made me think (but probably not in the way intended by the artist – or by the BBC, for that matter):

It is run entirely on renewable energy, according to the artist.

That may be true, and I’m not in a position to contradict it, so I won’t directly. However, I do struggle to see how anything using lots of electricity, which I assume is supplied via the grid, can claim to be run entirely on renewable energy. It would be nice if the claim was looked into and confirmed or contradicted, depending on what the facts revealed. Perhaps BBC Verify could take a look? Next:

Fabricating the design in Scotland helped reduce the carbon footprint of the display and supported the businesses in Scotland that were involved.

Great, the carbon footprint of the installation was reduced. How big was the carbon footprint, please? Also, could we have an analysis of the reasoning that justified incurring the carbon footprint in the first place, and which justifies the ongoing energy use over two years after COP 26 has finished?

For what it’s worth, I regard the M8 installation as a metaphor for the whole COP process – but probably not in the way the artist intended. I see it as symbolising the futility of increasing CO2 emissions and achieving nothing of significance in the process.

…The installation did not [need] any planning permission due to [sic] at the time of COP26, according to the council. [missing word inserted by me to correct some of the BBC’s failed editing].

Am I imagining it, or does anything to do with the net zero/climate change/COP process get away with special treatment? I don’t remember reading anything at the time about “relaxed rules”, relating to planning,though I do seem to recall that the hysteria surrounding coronavirus was damped down so that COP26 could go ahead regardless of any covid risk. The Guardian reported on the relaxation of covid restrictions specifically for COP 26 here:

The government is planning to relax key Covid-19 restrictions for delegates to the UN Cop26 climate conference to be held in Glasgow for two weeks this November…

…The government has offered vaccines to countries coming to the talks, to enable all delegates to be fully vaccinated before the event. However, officials were unable to say how many had taken up the offer.

Those who are fully vaccinated and from red list countries will have to self-isolate for five days in hotels on arrival, and for 10 days if they are unvaccinated. Most attendees are expected to arrive through London.

All vaccines – most of which require two doses to give full protection – will be recognised by the government for the purposes of the event. Attendees will also be tested frequently throughout the event, but additional booster vaccines will not be required.

There will be no requirement for Cop26 attendees coming from amber or green list countries to self-isolate on arrival in the UK whether vaccinated or not, officials said.

I talked more generally about COP26 here and here.

Planning relaxation

The Labour governments of 1945-51 are generally acknowledged to have been the most successful to date (and for the foreseeable future if the plans of the current Labour opposition are anything to go by). Despite its problems today the National Health Service remains the achievement most regularly associated with the post-war Labour politicians. However, other policies were quietly and successfully implemented too. One of those was the creation of a national regime for planning permission. Before then, by and large it was a case of anything goes. Since then, we have all come to accept that there is a planning permission process to be satisfied in respect of most developments, and certainly all developments of any size. Admittedly the planning process doesn’t always proceed completely smoothly, and it often leaves someone (applicant or opponents) dissatisfied. However, it does provide a national framework, one that is readily comprehensible, which tries to ensure that order prevails over chaos.

Planning relaxation for renewable energy and associated infrastructure projects is the big demand of the net zero zealots. Are the rules in the way of your plans? Why, they should apply only to the little people! If they’re in your way, lobby to get them changed.

The June 2023 Report of the Electricity Networks Commissioner, Nick Winser expressed the conflict between expediting the planning process and remaining fair to those affected by major infrastructure developments, in moderate terms, but before I quote his report, the small print at the end of it tells me I have to cite this:

“Information taken from Electricity Networks Commissioner – Companion Report Findings and Recommendations, by Energy Systems Catapult”.

The licence is on page 66, section 9, of the Report.

The conflict, and suggested approach to it, can be found on page 12:

Planning and planning approvals are much commented on as key aspects of the transmission infrastructure delivery process. There is a tension between the need for infrastructure to support social and economic well-being and the impact that this infrastructure has on the environment, people and communities, in both the near and longer term. Failure to address and resolve this tension will jeopardise the journey to a Net Zero future by delaying electrification and the uptake of low carbon technologies. The objective should be to achieve the right balance wherein the best possible, albeit difficult choices are made, informed by the right information and constructive engagement with stakeholders. Planning sits at the centre of several decision-making processes including the regulatory approval process; land rights, and environmental assessment for example, and illustrates the value of taking a system perspective to support complex decision making.

However, there seems to be little doubt what he thinks is “the right balance” in this area. Section 5.8 of the Report (commencing on page 34) deals with the planning process in Scotland. The recommendations are all concerned to speed the process up (and one is left with the distinct impression that this means speeding up planning approval, rather than speeding up a possible planning refusal. For instance:

The automatic requirement for a public local inquiry when the planning authority objects should be removed. An alternative process should be introduced that would allow Scottish Ministers to hear more about a specific issue raised by statutory consultees as an alternative to a public inquiry. For example, if a planning authority objected to a project based on visual impact alone, then a hearing could be called by the Minster to investigate this issue. This would provide a quicker alternative to consider specific issues.

And:

Further improvements should be made to the planning process to reduce the time taken to obtain planning consent to twelve months.

In England and Wales the analysis commences near the foot of page 35. It begins with an expression of concern:

The time taken to obtain planning approval for an identified project has been increasing. Projects are taking around eight years in pre-application and one and a half years in the planning application stage.

And so the first recommendation is simple:

The twelve month fast-track approval process should be used for approving all electricity transmission infrastructure in England and Wales. Current activities to streamline and shorten the process should be developed and applied as quickly as possible.

Section 5.12 (commencing on page 39) and section 5.16 (below) could have been lifted straight from John Ridgway’s recent article about behavioural nudges. 5.12 commences by stating the challenge:

Communities hosting national infrastructure do not always see a direct benefit for doing so. They are often faced with disruption during construction and left with visual impact once construction is complete. Communities may not see a direct link between connecting low carbon generation and local decarbonisation outcomes. Citizens may respond by strongly opposing projects.

And so they must be nudged into understanding that this is in their best interests after all, thus they shouldn’t be so crass as to object to the disruption to their lives and adverse visual impacts. The first recommendations are therefore to make clear the size of the bribe (sorry, community benefits) those adversely affected by such developments might receive when the project proceeds:

Guidance on community benefits which are the subject of a current consultation should be delivered and adopted quickly. This guidance should clearly set out what Transmission Owners (TOs) are able to offer as community benefits and what can be recovered through the regulatory process. CB2: Residents of properties close to new overhead lines should receive a defined direct payment. Communities should receive a set amount of money for new visible infrastructure they host. The benefit should be a defined value per kilometre of overhead line (OHL) or an appropriate amount for other visible infrastructure. This benefit would only be available for hosting OHL or other visible infrastructure, (e.g., substations).

Then there is the issue of land access for developments to proceed (section 5.14, commencing on page 42). Shockingly, some tiresome land owners might be difficult:

Access to third party land is required when designing and building new infrastructure. Access is needed to survey the land to ensure it is suitable and to carry out environmental surveys when designing routes. Land needs to be purchased or wayleaves put in place. Access to land is required for the lifetime of the asset for maintenance and future upgrade or replacement. During the design process voluntary access to land is often refused, requiring a warrant to be issued. Obtaining a warrant takes time and resources from the Transmission Owner (TO) and from the court system. To obtain planning approval land purchase must be completed or wayleaves need to be in place. Compulsory purchase and necessary wayleaves are sometimes required which extends the time to obtain planning approval. Wayleaves to access land for maintenance and replacement can expire or land can change owner. There is a risk that new landowners can ask for higher compensation to agree a new wayleave.

Well, that’s not on, is it? The solution:

The Transmission Owners (TOs) should be given the same statutory powers as other utilities to be able to access land for surveys when voluntary access has not been given. This would allow the TO to access land to carry out surveys required during the route design phase.

Compensation for wayleaves and purchase of land, voluntary and compulsory, should be set at a national level.

Section 5.16 (commencing on page 45) is where the nudging recommendations are set out with breathtaking clarity. People don’t really understand, apparently, and so there is this challenge:

Whilst there is some public acknowledgement of the need for renewable generation to support decarbonisation, there is very limited understanding of the electricity transmission infrastructure required to connect it. There is a need to engage with local communities impacted by the infrastructure when designing it and when applying for planning approval. Frequently these impacts are seen as negative. Communities can be averse to new infrastructure and ask for visual mitigation measures like undergrounding or offshoring without fully understanding the implications of these options.

If only they understood the benefits!

The impacts of new infrastructure can also be positive. To support the decarbonisation of the electricity network a range of jobs and skills will be required. Skills range from construction, environmental science, planning to engineering. There is a need for more people to work in these areas across all organisations involved in planning and building electricity infrastructure. These jobs, and the economic and social benefits that arise from them, could provide opportunities for people in the local communities affected by infrastructure build.

Recommendation number one supplies us with the first suggested nudge:

A Government-led national information campaign should be started on the need for electricity infrastructure and how this can lead to good outcomes for people and the communities in which they live and work. This should include how this need can lead to job opportunities for them and their families. This campaign could be like that used by the armed forces. The advertising campaign should show why new electricity transmission infrastructure is required to connect renewable energy to where it is needed. The campaign should also highlight the range of different job opportunities available such as engineering, environmental science, planning and construction, amongst others.

The second recommendation is that:

An independent website, possibly hosted by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) or a similar organisation, should be set up to provide information to the public…

The problem is that it isn’t really going to be independent if it is set up specifically to promote an objective that the Government of the day wishes to push through in the teeth of opposition from those affected by it.

The third nudge is to consist of a mix of bribery and brainwashing of young people:

Information on all types of careers and opportunities should be provided in a variety of ways to appeal to different age groups; examples include use of profiles of real people, videos, content creation to appeal to younger audiences, using influencers and animations. Links to training schemes and qualifications required should be included so that at any point in your career it is possible to see what is required to enter the industry. This is intended to give information on green jobs in a variety of ways that speaks to different age groups including primary and secondary-school aged children. This recommendation is linked to Recommendation NC2 describing where this content could be hosted.

It’s all described as a “light touch” national campaign, that might cost approximately £15 – 20 million per annum. Still, if people can be persuaded that they haven’t understood their own best interests properly, with the result that the amount of time spent on dealing with planning objections can be reduced, net zero will be able to proceed full speed ahead.

Needless to say, the National Infrastructure Commission is very enthusiastic about all this. Its Chairman, Sir John Armitt, said:

Speeding up the planning process for major infrastructure projects is vital to achieving net zero, improving climate resilience and boosting economic growth.

Government’s endorsement of a strategic spatial approach to the energy transmission network is a big step forward, and we welcome the ambition to get decisions on major projects made within two and half years, down from the current average of over four years.

To achieve this ambition, government must urgently finalise a new set of clear, updated national policy statements for energy and transport and progress the other Commission recommendations it has adopted. While there are indications of progress on promoting greater access to environmental data, government needs to go further to provide firm commitments and timeframes for data sharing and to support the development of mitigations that benefit multiple projects in key sectors and locations.

Industry and investors will be watching to ensure government moves from commitments to action. There’s no time to lose.

It’s not just at the national infrastructure level where rules are to be changed to benefit some and adversely affect others.On 1^st December 2023, the Renewable Energy Magazine reported :

The UK Government has implemented changes to permitted development rights rules, enabling more homeowners and businesses to install solar panels on their roofs without going through the planning system…

…The changes will mean homes with flat roofs will be able to install panels without planning permission, bringing rules in line with those for businesses.

Current rules that require businesses to apply for planning permission if solar panels will generate more than one megawatt of electricity will also be scrapped, meaning organisations will be able to install more solar panels on rooftops without the delay and cost of applying for planning permission…

…The government’s decision has been welcomed by solar trade association Solar Energy UK, which has been lobbying for such a move.

The view from the other side

Scotland Against Spin (SAS), as its website says is “the independent alliance campaigning for the reform of the Scottish Government’s wind energy policy”. It is petitioning the Scottish Parliament for reforms to the Scottish planning system which (notwithstanding the suggestions by Nick Winser that it is too slow) is biased to an almost extraordinary degree in favour of those developers seeking permission for renewable energy projects. The issues are graphically illustrated on a different part of the SAS website. The petition:

asks the Scottish Government to look at ways of ensuring that “demonstration of local support is a key material consideration in the decision-making process”.

In March 2021, Scotland Against Spin lodged a petition seeking stronger powers for communities to influence planning decisions relating to onshore wind. The group has voiced concern over large-scale wind farms in Caithness and Sutherland.

Onshore developments above 50 megawatts are determined by the Scottish Government under Section 36 of the Electricity Act. Residents have been left feeling powerless when projects have been given the go-ahead by ministers despite local opposition.

A current example is the planned 19-turbine Golticlay wind farm near Lybster. Highland Council objected in September 2017, saying it would have “a significantly detrimental visual impact on the Caithness landscape”.

A public inquiry was held in October the following year and the application was granted in March 2021, having been dealt with under Section 36.

Now the developer, RWE Renewables UK Onshore Wind, is seeking to increase the maximum blade-tip height of the turbines from 130 to 200 metres.

One objector claimed last month: “There is no democracy in Scotland – it’s a dictatorship”. Unless we’re in the central belt, we don’t count, basically.

Scotland Against Spin wants English-style planning legislation to be adopted north of the border, saying: “In England, planning permission for a wind farm depends on a project being able to demonstrate local support, satisfactorily address any impacts identified by the community and make sure strong environmental protections remain so that valued landscapes are protected.”

Conclusion

For what it’s worth, I agree with Scotland Against Spin, and I wish them the best of luck with their petition. The problem is that renewable energy organisations are lobbying for the English planning system to be changed to resemble that in Scotland, and the mood in the establishment, as its views have been set out above, seems to be one of determination to go even further than that. Net zero is to be driven through, regardless of the cost, whether that cost be financial, personal, emotional, or environmental.