Richard Rout is a Conservative councillor and deputy leader of Suffolk County Council.
Energy Security is the phrase of the moment. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated how vulnerable the UK is to instability in the market, our reliance on imported energy and the need to cut off the purse strings to the likes of Vladimir Putin.
The move to generate more energy here at home is thus absolutely correct. Unfortunately, too often, large energy projects don’t just come at a financial cost.
Recently, we’ve taken comfort in the result in Uxbridge. We tell ourselves that where we give people a reason to vote Conservative, like opposing the expansion of the ULEZ, they will vote for us. This is true.
But so too is the reverse. In East Anglia, we’ve seen the flipside of these emotive single issues.
Our area is home to: a myriad of offshore wind schemes; the Sizewell C nuclear plant; a proposed new pylon run known as Norwich to Tilbury, which will carve Norfolk and Suffolk in two; and – if consented – the UK’s largest solar farm, Sunnica, which would span the Suffolk/Cambridgeshire border and take over 2,000 acres of farmland out of food production.
If all the proposed schemes go ahead, East Anglia will be generating upwards of 30 per cent of the nation’s energy while using less than six per cent.
In May’s local elections, the Green Party seized on this opportunity. We lost control of East Suffolk Council, where coastal communities are exhausted by a string of energy projects; Mid Suffolk Council, where solar on farmland and the proposed Norwich to Tilbury pylons weigh heavy on local minds; and West Suffolk Council, where some independent candidates campaigned heavily on an anti-solar ticket.
In the recent West Depwade county council by-election in Norfolk, the Green Party made another gain in an area impacted by the proposed pylons.
It doesn’t matter if Conservative Councillors voice opposition to these schemes – as the party of government, voters lay the blame squarely at our door.
The hypocrisy of the Green Party is mind-boggling. They at once extol the virtues of renewable energy, and then seemingly oppose any attempt to produce or transmit it. In the game of NIMBY-one-upmanship, the Greens are giving the Liberal Democrats a run for their money. Pointing this out might make us feel better,but it doesn’t address the problem.
The schemes coming forward are just the start. If we’re to hit net zero by 2050, the merits or otherwise of which I’ll park, we will need to more than double total energy production in the UK – likely nearly treble it. Currently, much of this energy will need to be produced in, or off the coast of, largely Tory rural areas, and transmitted through them to the major urban centres.
So, how do we achieve energy security without alienating our rural voters?
We need to think about producing the right sort of clean energy. The Government is right to be pursuing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), these small nuclear power stations which, because they don’t have the cooling requirements of schemes like those on the coast at Hinkley or Sizewell, can supplant old disused gas or coal fired power stations and connect to the grid closer to where energy is needed.
Food security is as important as energy security. We must rule out vast solar schemes on good quality farmland. Yes, farmers need to diversify, but we can’t have situations like those in Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire, and Suffolk where thousands of acres of farmland are to be swallowed up by single schemes.
Rishi Sunak made this a tenet of his leadership bid in the summer of last year and we need to see it surface as policy. Solar has a place but, given its relative inefficiency, it’s on rooftops and down infrastructure corridors.
Offshore wind must continue to play a role. It is abundant in British waters and while it can’t hit nuclear’s 95 per cent efficiency, it’s circa 60 per cent compares far better than solar, which hovers around 14 per cent in the UK. The challenge with offshore wind is getting the energy where it’s needed – the primary cause of these massive new pylon runs we’re seeing.
This is why the work of the OFFSET group of MPs is so important. Chaired by Sir Bernard Jenkin, it’s pushing National Grid and government to pursue an offshore transmission grid that bring power ashore closer to where it is needed. This approach could entirely remove the need for the Norwich to Tilbury project.
There will be energy security concerns, particularly given Russia leaving NATO trailing in the advancement of submarine capabilities, but these are not insurmountable.
A lot of hope has been placed in community benefits, with a government consultation recently closing. This is welcome but doesn’t go far enough. There must be a new approach. Three things are essential on all energy infrastructure schemes: coordination, communication, and fairness. Clear, consistent and understandable information on proposed projects must come from government, the National Grid, and regulators.
At a local level, project developers must treat our communities with respect and engage properly. They cannot get away with doing the bare minimum for local communities, with little funding and basic engagement. They need to be held to higher standards and where projects proceed, people must feel some benefit in the place they live.
Based on our experience in East Anglia, good engagement between project promoters and the county and district councils can lead to fruitful co-design of a project. However, it is very rare for energy developers to take this approach with our communities.
There is no practical reason for this; it happens because developers feel that they can get away with it. As a result, trust in the process breaks down and communities across the country are enraged by the feeling that they are being ignored.
On social media, the discontent spreads rapidly to other projects and it is increasingly difficult for even good developers to get a fair hearing. Politicians are left to pick up the pieces, facing a barrage of anger, whilst unable to speak about the economic benefits of these projects.
The creation of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero shows how seriously the Prime Minister takes these issues. But if we’re to reach our goals, more work lies ahead. We face a situation where getting each project over the line is iteratively harder and no sooner is a project approved by the Secretary of State but a series of judicial reviews land from community groups.
To take back the power from the likes Putin, and ensure we don’t get punished at the ballot box, we must take communities with us.
Richard Rout is a Conservative councillor and deputy leader of Suffolk County Council.
Energy Security is the phrase of the moment. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated how vulnerable the UK is to instability in the market, our reliance on imported energy and the need to cut off the purse strings to the likes of Vladimir Putin.
The move to generate more energy here at home is thus absolutely correct. Unfortunately, too often, large energy projects don’t just come at a financial cost.
Recently, we’ve taken comfort in the result in Uxbridge. We tell ourselves that where we give people a reason to vote Conservative, like opposing the expansion of the ULEZ, they will vote for us. This is true.
But so too is the reverse. In East Anglia, we’ve seen the flipside of these emotive single issues.
Our area is home to: a myriad of offshore wind schemes; the Sizewell C nuclear plant; a proposed new pylon run known as Norwich to Tilbury, which will carve Norfolk and Suffolk in two; and – if consented – the UK’s largest solar farm, Sunnica, which would span the Suffolk/Cambridgeshire border and take over 2,000 acres of farmland out of food production.
If all the proposed schemes go ahead, East Anglia will be generating upwards of 30 per cent of the nation’s energy while using less than six per cent.
In May’s local elections, the Green Party seized on this opportunity. We lost control of East Suffolk Council, where coastal communities are exhausted by a string of energy projects; Mid Suffolk Council, where solar on farmland and the proposed Norwich to Tilbury pylons weigh heavy on local minds; and West Suffolk Council, where some independent candidates campaigned heavily on an anti-solar ticket.
In the recent West Depwade county council by-election in Norfolk, the Green Party made another gain in an area impacted by the proposed pylons.
It doesn’t matter if Conservative Councillors voice opposition to these schemes – as the party of government, voters lay the blame squarely at our door.
The hypocrisy of the Green Party is mind-boggling. They at once extol the virtues of renewable energy, and then seemingly oppose any attempt to produce or transmit it. In the game of NIMBY-one-upmanship, the Greens are giving the Liberal Democrats a run for their money. Pointing this out might make us feel better,but it doesn’t address the problem.
The schemes coming forward are just the start. If we’re to hit net zero by 2050, the merits or otherwise of which I’ll park, we will need to more than double total energy production in the UK – likely nearly treble it. Currently, much of this energy will need to be produced in, or off the coast of, largely Tory rural areas, and transmitted through them to the major urban centres.
So, how do we achieve energy security without alienating our rural voters?
We need to think about producing the right sort of clean energy. The Government is right to be pursuing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), these small nuclear power stations which, because they don’t have the cooling requirements of schemes like those on the coast at Hinkley or Sizewell, can supplant old disused gas or coal fired power stations and connect to the grid closer to where energy is needed.
Food security is as important as energy security. We must rule out vast solar schemes on good quality farmland. Yes, farmers need to diversify, but we can’t have situations like those in Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire, and Suffolk where thousands of acres of farmland are to be swallowed up by single schemes.
Rishi Sunak made this a tenet of his leadership bid in the summer of last year and we need to see it surface as policy. Solar has a place but, given its relative inefficiency, it’s on rooftops and down infrastructure corridors.
Offshore wind must continue to play a role. It is abundant in British waters and while it can’t hit nuclear’s 95 per cent efficiency, it’s circa 60 per cent compares far better than solar, which hovers around 14 per cent in the UK. The challenge with offshore wind is getting the energy where it’s needed – the primary cause of these massive new pylon runs we’re seeing.
This is why the work of the OFFSET group of MPs is so important. Chaired by Sir Bernard Jenkin, it’s pushing National Grid and government to pursue an offshore transmission grid that bring power ashore closer to where it is needed. This approach could entirely remove the need for the Norwich to Tilbury project.
There will be energy security concerns, particularly given Russia leaving NATO trailing in the advancement of submarine capabilities, but these are not insurmountable.
A lot of hope has been placed in community benefits, with a government consultation recently closing. This is welcome but doesn’t go far enough. There must be a new approach. Three things are essential on all energy infrastructure schemes: coordination, communication, and fairness. Clear, consistent and understandable information on proposed projects must come from government, the National Grid, and regulators.
At a local level, project developers must treat our communities with respect and engage properly. They cannot get away with doing the bare minimum for local communities, with little funding and basic engagement. They need to be held to higher standards and where projects proceed, people must feel some benefit in the place they live.
Based on our experience in East Anglia, good engagement between project promoters and the county and district councils can lead to fruitful co-design of a project. However, it is very rare for energy developers to take this approach with our communities.
There is no practical reason for this; it happens because developers feel that they can get away with it. As a result, trust in the process breaks down and communities across the country are enraged by the feeling that they are being ignored.
On social media, the discontent spreads rapidly to other projects and it is increasingly difficult for even good developers to get a fair hearing. Politicians are left to pick up the pieces, facing a barrage of anger, whilst unable to speak about the economic benefits of these projects.
The creation of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero shows how seriously the Prime Minister takes these issues. But if we’re to reach our goals, more work lies ahead. We face a situation where getting each project over the line is iteratively harder and no sooner is a project approved by the Secretary of State but a series of judicial reviews land from community groups.
To take back the power from the likes Putin, and ensure we don’t get punished at the ballot box, we must take communities with us.