Ministers reveal plan to nearly double onshore wind across England by 2030
It comes as part of wider Government ambitions to transition towards a clean power system by 2030, with the hope of boosting economic growth, creating jobs, reducing bills, decarbonising the grid and strengthening energy security.
Last year, Labour axed the de facto ban on building onshore wind farms introduced by the Conservatives under David Cameron.
The Government's move put onshore wind on an equal planning footing to offshore wind and nuclear, paving the way for projects to be rolled out faster in the coming years.
The Conservatives criticised the strategy, accusing Energy Secretary Ed Miliband of making the country's energy 'unreliable and expensive' through his 'obsession with climate targets'.
As part of the plan, the Government set out 40 actions for ministers and industry to take to hit the 2030 onshore wind ambitions.
These include planning reforms, building supply chains and skilled workforces, resolving issues over how onshore turbines and aerospace infrastructure can co-exist, repowering old turbines, and exploring plans to expand the clean industry bonus for onshore wind.
The Government claimed the strategy will support the creation of up to 45,000 skilled jobs by the end of the decade.
In the foreword, Mr Miliband said: 'As one of the cheapest and fastest-to-build sources of power we have, onshore wind will play a critical role in boosting our energy independence with clean power by 2030.
'The reality is that every turbine we build helps protect families, businesses and the public finances from future fossil fuel shocks.'
'The reality is that every turbine we build helps protect families, businesses and the public finances from future fossil fuel shocks.'
Matthieu Hue, co-chairman of the Onshore Wind Taskforce and chief executive of EDF Power Solutions UK and Ireland, said: 'This strategy is focusing on overcoming barriers and challenges we face across the industry in the deployment of onshore wind while capturing the major socio-economic benefits it can bring to the environment and to local economies.
'This is a critical part of making Britain a clean energy superpower and delivering energy security.'
The Government said communities that host wind farms will benefit from money for community initiatives, such as new football pitches or libraries, or even bill discount schemes.
A typical 25MW wind farm paying the industry standard of £5,000 per MW of installed capacity per year could deliver £3.75 million of funding to be redistributed among the community on local initiatives of their choosing over a 30-year operating life, according to the strategy document.
In a statement, shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho said: '(The Energy Secretary) is shutting down the North Sea, concreting our gas wells and he's downgraded our plans for nuclear.
'All this means is that families' energy bills are going to go through the roof, and we'll just end up importing more from coal-powered China.
'The US security services have already warned us that Chinese wind turbines could pose serious risks to our national security, but he won't do a China audit. Ed wants to hit Net Zero targets no matter the cost to the British public.'
Elsewhere, the Government recently completed a process to de-risk offshore wind developments, led by the Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme.
It said this will inform the Crown Estate's marine delivery route map on strategic use of the seabed so that more offshore wind farms can be built in a way that considers all marine sectors, including fisheries, and protects the environment.
James Robottom, RenewableUK's head of onshore wind delivery, said: 'Overturning the unpopular onshore wind ban, which deprived us of one of the quickest and cheapest technologies to build for a decade, was just the start.
'The hard work to make the most of this great opportunity to grow our economy and strengthen the UK's energy security is now in full swing.'
Sue Ferns, senior deputy general secretary of trade union Prospect, said: 'The lost years resulting from the last government's inexplicable ban have resulted in significant workforce and skills-related challenges that urgently need to be addressed, which hopefully they will be in the forthcoming clean energy workforce plan.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Lord Woodley's intervention on IPP will only get prisoners' hopes up
Tonight, more than 2,500 people will spend yet another night in prison serving the long-abolished IPP sentence – the sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection. Some of these people have been in prison for 20 years. On Friday, as Labour peer Lord Tony Woodley's private member's bill to resentence IPP prisoners reached committee stage in the House of Lords, peers urged prisons minister James Timpson to take decisive action to end the injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms. Everyone familiar with the IPP sentence has a shared understanding of the ravages of this sentence. We are committed to ending its impacts on people in prison, as well as the merry-go-round of recall to prison for people on IPP licences in the community. And yet, there is no agreed route to making this happen. The IPP sentence was established in 2005 by the last Labour government. It required an individual to serve a specified term, at which time they would need to apply to and be released by the Parole Board. Despite expectations that it would be used sparingly, it was used to imprison 8,711 people, including hundreds of children, who received an equivalent 'Detention for Public Protection' (DPP) sentence. Because the Parole Board release test is very high – intended for those who have committed the most serious offences – it has proved difficult for people serving the sentence to secure release. The sentence was abolished by the coalition government in 2013, though not retrospectively. There are just over 1,000 people who have never been released, of whom over 700 are more than a decade over their tariff. I recently met a young man in a Midlands prison who had received a two-year DPP as a 15-year-old. He has now spent more than half his life in prison. He was released a couple of years ago, only to be recalled to custody earlier in the year for being late to probation appointments, which clashed with his employment. Again behind bars, he felt he 'can never escape the torture of the sentence.' In 2022, the Justice Select Committee recommended a resentencing exercise, but with a vast majority of IPP prisoners significantly over tariff, most would need to be released immediately and without a licence. The government at the time rejected this solution on the grounds of public protection, as has the current government. It is worth remembering that the IPP sentence is not for a specific offence. These people were just given an indeterminate sentence, while other people who committed similar offences were given determinate sentences and released years ago. People released on an IPP sentence also don't have a huge propensity to violence or crime; more people on IPP sentences have died by suicide in the community than have gone on to commit serious further offences. While a recent change to licence termination greatly helped those people serving IPP sentences in the community, it did nothing to accelerate the release of people who have never been released. In this context, late last year, the Howard League formed an expert working group, led by former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and charged with finding a way to release those people serving an IPP or DPP sentence while meeting the government's legitimate concern for public protection. The group reported last week with six key recommendations that would finally give all IPP prisoners a certain release date within two years via a change to the Parole Board release test, providing a runway to release for everyone serving an IPP sentence, while including safeguards for public protection. Other recommendations include providing greater support to IPP prisoners on release and reducing unnecessary recall of people to prison. The government is clear that it will not resentence people on the IPP. But it cannot do nothing. The status quo, which is the delivery of the last government's 'Action Plan,' does not end the sentence and just feeds despair. While the prison service is doing its best, it is unreasonable to expect staff to deliver change for the IPP population in the context of a prison overcrowding crisis. History shows that governments invariably find it difficult to remedy state wrongs, but people on the sentence and their families don't have time to wait for a Mr Bates vs The Post Office - style TV series. The IPP sentence is a state wrong which the government has a responsibility to right. The fact that thousands of people remain in prison under the IPP sentence brings shame upon our legal system. The government needs to act urgently.
Powys County Times
an hour ago
- Powys County Times
Bus improvements 'at expense of Powys council tax rise'
POWYS councillors have narrowly voted in favour of providing the £1.349 million needed to fund the new bus timetable preferred option. But many opposition councillors felt aggrieved that the extraordinary Powys County Council meeting was held on Friday, July 4, the last possible date to sign the paperwork that allows the new seven-year contracts to come into force on September 1. The preferred option will provide for longer distance services connecting the five 'sustainable Powys' hub towns and then travelling on to larger towns and cities that Powys residents need to get to for health, education and other services that are not available in the county. The changes would provide longer hours and weekend services, This option had been backed by the Liberal Democrat/Labour cabinet last month, and need an extra £2.354 million on top of the basic £5.442 million. To help fund this year's contract the council needed to find £1.349 million from several internal budgets, which were transferred as virements which could only be agreed at a full council meeting. Plaid Cymru group leader Cllr Elwyn Vaughan said: 'Why are we having this discussion at such a late stage? 'It's highly unfortunate and some would say unprofessional that we're having such an important discussion on multi-million-pound contracts at the very last minute. 'It's been known for months when the new contracts would be in place. 'We've been railroaded into a take it or leave it situation, and we should have had more time.' Cabinet member for Highways, Transport and Recycling Cllr Jackie Charlton (Liberal Democrat) said: 'I am really disappointed that you think this is unprofessional. 'I think it's been one of the most professional processes I have seen in this authority. 'We've looked at the really extensive contracts we have with local providers, making sure we can extend wherever possible our existing (bus) network and deliver on what people asked for.' Cllr Charlton stressed: 'It's been through the full democratic process, it's been through scrutiny, cabinet and has been out to engagement.' Cllr Gareth E Jones (Powys Independents) believed that funding the bus services from next year onwards could result in a 'two per cent increase in council tax'. Cabinet member for Finance, Cllr David Thomas said: 'It's a premature to suggest that it will be funded from council tax as we don't know what (financial) settlement we'll receive from the Welsh Government.' He explained that departmental savings, and the government funding floor agreed earlier this year could all be considered to help fund the bus contracts in the longer term. While opposition councillors continued to attack the proposal Liberal Democrat councillors came out to defend it. Cllr Glyn Preston (Liberal Democrat) said: 'One of the largest villages in Wales (Trefeglwys) not served by a bus route, is now going to be served by one.' Cabinet member for legal and regulatory services, Cllr Richard Church (Liberal Democrat) pointed out the 'cross party' Economy Residents and Communities scrutiny committee had supported this option after they discussed the report last month. 'We should be shouting from the rooftops the fact that we are bringing back Sunday and evening services,' said Cllr Church. Eventually a vote was held which saw 25 councillors vote in favour of the virement, 21 vote against it and one councillor abstained.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
No 10 regrets choice of ‘insipid' new cabinet secretary, sources say
Keir Starmer's No 10 increasingly has 'buyer's remorse' about the new cabinet secretary, Chris Wormald, who has only been running the civil service for six months, Downing Street and Whitehall sources have told the Guardian. Wormald, who was the permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care during the Covid pandemic, was chosen by the prime minister from a shortlist of four names. Starmer made his pick in consultation with the head of the civil service and the first civil service commissioner, saying at the time that Wormald 'brings a wealth of experience to this role at a critical moment in the work of change this new government has begun'. However, multiple sources said some people around Starmer were growing to view the choice of Wormald as 'disastrous' for the prospects of radical reform of the civil service and had begun to explore options for how to work around him. One said Wormald was viewed as 'insipid' and prone to wringing his hands about problems rather than coming up with solutions, and too entrenched in the status quo. The Spectator reported on Thursday that Starmer had picked Wormald despite others being looked on more favourably by the expert panel that had shortlisted the candidates. It quoted a cabinet minister as saying: 'If you want to do drastic reform of the state, you don't appoint someone whose grandfather and father were both civil servants.' It is understood the panel did not rank the candidates, so there was no preferred choice, but gave four 'appointable' names who would do the job well and assessments of each one. The shortlist of four also included Antonia Romeo, now permanent secretary at the Home Office, Olly Robbins, the Foreign Office permanent secretary, and Tamara Finkelstein, the permanent secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. A government spokesperson said: 'The appointment decision was made in line with the usual procedures for appointing permanent secretaries. Under this process, a panel proposes a shortlist of appointable candidates for a final decision by the prime minister. 'The cabinet secretary is leading the work to rewire the way government operates, driving efficiency and reducing bureaucracy as part of prime minister's plan for change to renew our country.' The doubts about the choice of Wormald as cabinet secretary are not new but it has been a difficult few weeks for Starmer on domestic policy, with questions over why he became distracted by foreign affairs and missed the implications of a looming rebellion on welfare cuts. The cabinet secretary is the prime minister's most senior policy adviser and also responsible for running the civil service. In the past, prime ministers have attempted to solve problems with how No 10 and the government is run by splitting the role into a cabinet secretary, a Cabinet Office permanent secretary and a separate head of the civil service, as happened under David Cameron. These were merged back into a single cabinet secretary in 2014 after a three-year experiment in dividing power. The Times reported in April that No 10 was considering greater changes to the machinery of government to create more executive power at the centre, with fewer procedural demands on officials' time, a higher bar for public inquiries, and a civil service that better reflects Britain's class diversity. On his appointment, Wormald told civil servants they would have to 'do things differently' and promised a 'rewiring of the way the government works'. His position is likely to come under further scrutiny when the next stage of Covid inquiry reports are published in the autumn on core political and administrative decision-making. The first report found there had been 'a lack of adequate leadership' in Britain's pandemic preparation, saying the civil service and governments 'failed their citizens'.
