A question to our Secretaries of State.
Imagine two energy sticks on the countryside. Both around 15m high with the same visual impact, the same noise impact, the same traffic impact to service.
One produces carbon free energy, the other pumps out CO2.
One has a presumption against, no risk of costs if refused and almost certain to lose on appeal, likely to be called in by the SoS to make sure this happens.
The other has a presumption in favour of development, almost certain costs if refused, and is very likely to be called in by the SoS to make sure this happens.
So what type of energy stick has a presumption in favour and what a presumption against?
The national policy on noise and visual impact on both energy sticks is the same. National policy in the NPPF favours and promotes low carbon energy in numerous places – so why then does a presumption against decision regime apply to the low carbon stick and a presumption in favour regime apply to the carbon belching stick?
Saying its in the manifesto is no excuse – your not proposing any changes to planning law or national planning policy nor did you promise this in the manifesto.
We may no longer have a coalition but that doesn’t make planning policy contradictions on energy any less preposterously contradictory for a moment.