Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Oct 05, 2021 Wind Farms Community Engagement Good Practice Review Aitken, Mhairi; Haggett, Claire; Rudolph, David Philipp Publication date: 2014 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Aitken, M., Haggett, C., & Rudolph, D. P. (2014). Wind Farms Community Engagement Good Practice Review. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Page | 1 Wind Farms Community Engagement Good Practice Review Dr Mhairi Aitken, Dr Claire Haggett & Dr David Rudolph Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 2 3. Community Engagement across Case Study Countries: Onshore Wind Farms .............................. 3 3.1 Comparison of Planning Frameworks, Consultation and Engagement Opportunities ..................... 5 4. Community Engagement across Case Study Countries: Offshore Wind Farms ............................. 7 4.1 Comparison of Planning Frameworks, Consultation and Engagement Opportunities ..................... 9 5. Case Studies of Good Practice in Community Engagement for Onshore Wind Farms .............. 11 6. Case Studies of Good Practice in Community Engagement for Offshore Wind Farms ................ 21 7. Trends in Good Practice in Wind Farms Community Engagement and Points of Interest .......... 26 8. Implications and Learning Points for Scotland: what should ‘good’ practice’ mean? ................. 32 9. Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 36 10. Conclusions..................................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix 1: Methods .................................................................................................................................. 37 Appendix 2: Expanded Discussion of Planning Regimes for Onshore Wind Farms in Case Study Countries ..................................................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix 3: Expanded Discussion of Planning Regimes for Offshore Wind Farms in Case Study Countries ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendix 4: Expanded Discussion of Onshore Wind Farms Case Studies ................................................. 74 Appendix 5: Expanded Discussion of Offshore Wind Farms Case Studies .................................................. 86 References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……95 Page | 2 1. Introduction This report sets out the findings of a review of community engagement for wind farm developments. We focus in particular on the engagement carried out by developers with communities. The aims of the study were to evaluate current good practice for engaging people in decision making about on- and offshore wind farms in different European countries; to evaluate the effect that different practices have on public opinion and acceptance; and to make relevant recommendations for Scottish policy and planning. The structure of the report is as follows. First, we briefly outline the methods used, and then provide an overview of the different planning regimes – focusing on the opportunities, timing and procedures for public engagement – in each of the case study countries. This overview is summarised in table form on page 8. We then identify and discuss some case studies in each of these countries which highlight points of particular interest, and we analyse these in terms of the volume, timing, and thoroughness of the public engagement that they permit, and the effect that this has. We then discuss trends in good practice in community engagement for wind farms, and the particular implications and recommendations for Scotland. 2. Methods The report provides evidence of good practice in Scotland, England, Wales, and compares this with four additional European countries. Their selection was to ensure a range in terms of: the number of wind farm developments; differences in planning systems; and anticipated transferability of experiences to Scotland. The countries chosen are: • Germany: selected due to its mature wind energy sector, both on- and offshore (32,479 MW installed as of June 2013) and the interesting prevalence of developer- community partnerships; • Denmark: selected due to its mature wind energy sector (both on- and offshore) and decentralised planning system; • Sweden: selected due to similarities between the Swedish and Scottish planning regimes, providing a useful point of comparison and potential applicability; • France: selected due to interesting differences between French and Scottish planning regimes (e.g. the French regional focus) which may offer opportunities for learning. Additionally, new offshore development processes are underway. We conducted a review of academic literature, policy documents and reports from commercial developers, community developers, local authorities and government bodies relating to community engagement for on- and offshore wind power in these countries. We identified case studies of good practice in community engagement, and interviewed developers, local councillors, planners, and community councils, and used a documentary analysis to examine the extent to which public acceptance is influenced by the engagement processes used. A detailed discussion of the methods used is given in Appendix 1. Page | 3 3. Community Engagement across Case Study Countries: Onshore Wind Farms The following section describes the planning systems in each of the case study countries and outlines the opportunities for community engagement about wind farms in these countries. We have analysed this information in terms of the opportunities and methods of engagement that are used, and taking into account their timing. For example, in some of the case study countries, community engagement was ‘front-loaded’ towards the earlier stages of the development process; in other countries this came later. The methods used also differ. This analysis is summarised in Table 1 (page 8). In Section 3.1 (page 9), we discuss the key points that pertain to this, and their relevance for Scotland. Page | 4 Table 1: Key Features of the Planning Systems in Case Study Countries for onshore wind farms Zoning / Pre-Application Post-Application (after Post-Approval / Post-Commissioning Time Pre-Project Stage submission, before decision) Construction Country Scotland . Comments on plans and . Non-binding pre- . Written comments and . Information provision . Community funds SEA application consultation representations depending on developer (for developments over . Possible hearing 20MW) . Information provision; public events on site England . Compulsory pre-application . Written comments and . Information provision . Community funds consultation, but no representations . appeals standardised approaches Wales . Compulsory pre-application . Written comments and . Information provision . Community funds consultations representations . Potential appeals Denmark . Public consultations and . Suggestions on content and . Public consultation period; written . Appeals . Benefits through various hearings while scope of EIA comments, representations and ownership schemes developing plans alternatives . Initiation of projects . Non-compulsory citizen meetings Germany . Public display of draft . Public display of documents . Potential financial plans . Written comments during approval benefits through (co)- . Written comments on procedure ownership local and regional . public hearing development plans Sweden . Early consultation on . Public hearings . Several rounds of public local plans consultation . Written comments France . Proposal of zones for . Information provision wind farms . Public inquiry . Consultations on zone designation Page | 5 3.1 Comparison of Planning Frameworks, Consultation and Engagement Opportunities For the UK case studies, this study has focussed on developer-led community engagement. That is, engagement relating to specific proposed developments rather than in local authority led spatial planning processes (such as local development plans or strategic development plans). This is due to the fact that, whilst planning authorities prepare spatial frameworks for wind farms of 20MW or above1, community engagement is currently most active (and contentious) in the UK in relation to particular