Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 5 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Energy Bill.
Energy Bill
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have already made changes to the planning system to help microgeneration, such as by extending permitted development rights to microgeneration technologies and putting local renewables and low-carbon strategies at the forefront of local planning authority thinking for new developments. Permitted development for most microgeneration technologies, including solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, ground source, heat pumps and combined heat and power, came into effect on 6 April 2008. That means that householders will not be required to go through the planning system to install those technologies, as long as installations meet certain requirements. Obviously, we are keen to see the development of the microwind generation industry, building on expertise in this market. It is right that we ensure that permitted development is introduced in an appropriate way; to do so inadvertently might damage the industry. That is why further work is required to complete standards for microwind turbines and to link permitted developments to certification under the microgeneration certification scheme. One issue that needs further consideration regarding wind turbines is the point that the noble Lord raised about detached and semi-detached properties. Costs will have to be looked at in considerable detail. There is a cost in general to meeting the EU renewables target, as is well understood, and some of that cost is passed on to consumers through higher energy bills. Obviously, we want to ensure that, at the end of the day, we have a cost-effective approach. However, I cannot answer the noble Lord’s point in any more detail because, although he does not agree with what we have done, the government amendment is an enabling amendment. We need to do a great deal more work. Frankly, that is why I very much resist the ““shall””, as opposed to the ““may””, and the tight timetable set out in Amendment No. 32. I hope that noble Lords might be persuaded by that argument.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 705 c234
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Consumers Decommissioning Costs Combined heat and power Licensing Information Energy Electricity generation Oil Planning permission Payments Nuclear power Power stations Nuclear power stations Parliamentary scrutiny Prices Microgeneration Offshore industry Scotland Safety Renewable energy Technology Wind power Carbon emissions Renewables obligation Feed-in tariffs Statutory instruments
- Legislation
- Energy Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:26:55 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506167
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506167
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506167