28 Energy - summary of responses

Question EN 1 

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards energy, as set out in EN 1 'Energy supplies and energy related developments' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended? 

46 comments 

Theme  Summary 
General support for policy approach EN1  Broad support for the overall policy approach to energy supplies and energy‑related development. 
Support but strengthen policy wording  Support in principle but requests to strengthen criteria, particularly cumulative impacts, mitigation, and enforceability. 
Prioritise brownfield land and rooftops  Strong calls to prioritise previously developed land, industrial areas and rooftop solar over greenfield development. 
Protection of best and most versatile agricultural land  Concerns about loss of high‑quality agricultural land and requests for clearer assessment criteria or stronger protection. 
Landscape, heritage and environmental protection  Emphasis on protecting landscape character, heritage assets, Areas of Special County Value and key settlement gaps. 
Cumulative impacts and scale of development  Concerns about cumulative landscape and environmental impacts of multiple or large‑scale energy developments. 
Biomass, carbon capture and sustainability concerns  Questions and concerns regarding biomass sustainability, with some support for carbon capture and district heating links. 
Hydrogen production and water impacts  One respondent supports hydrogen production subject to safeguards, particularly around water supply, river processes and water quality. 
Fossil fuels and fracking opposition  Strong opposition to exploration, extraction or storage of fossil fuels, including shale gas and fracking. 
Community energy and local benefit  Support for community‑owned energy schemes, local benefit‑sharing and community involvement in decision‑making. 
Grid connection, infrastructure and flexibility  Requests for policies to better recognise grid connection constraints, substations and supporting infrastructure. 
Evidence base out of date or insufficient  Concerns that evidence on landscape sensitivity, renewable energy and thresholds is outdated or inconsistent with current policy. 
Need for a more positive and enabling policy  Views that EN1 is overly restrictive and should proactively allocate or identify suitable areas for renewable and low‑carbon energy. 
Support from infrastructure and statutory stakeholders  Supportive or neutral responses from infrastructure providers and statutory consultees, subject to safeguards. 

Question EN 2 

How can food production be protected by ensuring the continued viability of farm holdings? 

16 comments 

Theme  Summary 
Protect agricultural land for food production  Strong support for protecting land currently used for food production and avoiding development that would permanently remove arable or pastoral land. 
Farm viability and holding size  Concerns that loss of land can undermine the viability of farm holdings, particularly tenancy farms, and should be a material planning consideration. 
Opposition to housing on farmland  Clear opposition to housing development on land currently used for food production, with support for alternative growth options. 
Solar development and best and most versatile land  Concerns that solar parks should avoid economically viable agricultural land; soil grading alone is seen as an inadequate measure of value. 
Support for agrivoltaics and dual use  Support for renewable energy where it allows continued agricultural use (e.g. grazing, agrivoltaics) and does not reduce food productivity. 
Climate change as a threat to food security  Recognition that climate change poses the greatest long‑term risk to food production, supporting diversification and renewable energy as resilience measures. 
Local and seasonal food production  One respondent calls for encouragement of local, seasonal produce and reduction in food miles to improve sustainability and food security. 
Biochar and soil enhancement  One respondent supports innovative soil management techniques such as biochar to increase productivity, improve soils and reduce fertiliser use. 
Listen to farmers and farmer‑led solutions  Strong message that policy should be informed by farmers’ experience and support farmer‑led diversification and renewable cooperatives. 
Energy development should not displace food production  Views that renewable energy targets must be met without materially reducing food production, recognising grid constraints and temporary nature of solar. 
Wildlife and biodiversity impacts  One respondent has concerns about impacts of wind and solar developments on wildlife, particularly migratory birds associated with the Dee Estuary. 
Policy clarity and weighting in decision‑making  Requests for clearer policy tests, including food security assessments and explicit weighting of farm viability in planning decisions. 

Wind energy

Question EN 3 

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards energy, as set out in EN 2 'Wind energy' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended? 

35 comments 

Theme  Summary 
General agreement / support  Respondents generally support or agree with suggested policy approach EN2. 
Wildlife impacts (birds/Dee Estuary)  Several respondents raise concerns that the 2016 Landscape Sensitivity Study does not address impacts on birds and estuary habitats. 
Landscape and visual impact  Need to protect sensitive landscapes, settlement gaps and visually prominent areas. 
Outdated evidence base  One respondent requests that the 2016 Landscape Sensitivity Study is updated. 
Air traffic / glint & glare  Concerns about turbine reflections affecting aircraft flight paths. 
Ecology beyond birds  Concerns about impacts on woodland, bats and wider habitats. 
Community consent / local benefits  Calls for community-led schemes, benefit sharing and consent. 
Cumulative impacts  Need to assess cumulative effects with existing wind/solar infrastructure. 
Opposition to wind energy  One respondent presents the view that wind power is expensive or inefficient. 
Mineral Safeguarding Areas  Another respondent requests that Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) are protected from conflict with wind development. 
Infrastructure corridors  One respondent states that renewables should not sterilise decarbonisation infrastructure routes. 

Solar energy

Question EN 4 

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards energy, as set out in EN 3 'Solar energy' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended? 

44 comments 

Theme  Summary 
General support (Yes responses)  Respondents expressing general support or agreement with the suggested policy approach EN 3. 
Rooftop / brownfield first  Respondents stated a strong preference for rooftop, car park and brownfield solar development before any greenfield use. 
Protection of agricultural land and wildlife / avian impacts  Respondents raised concerns about loss of productive farmland and opposition to ground-mounted solar on greenfield sites; and concerns about bird impacts, Dee Estuary functionally linked land, and need for explicit mitigation. 
Biodiversity enhancements  Requests for required biodiversity gain, habitat connectivity, or ecological safeguards. 
Landscape / visual impact / glint and glare  Need for landscape sensitivity assessment, visual impact consideration, and glint & glare assessments. 
Policy wording too weak  Comments that policy allows loopholes and should be more explicit/mandatory. 
Need for updated evidence / flexibility  Requests to update evidence base or add flexibility regarding high-sensitivity classifications. 
Large-scale mixed-use solar potential  One respondent highlights role of large mixed-use sites to host solar infrastructure. 
Community benefit / local benefit  Requests for community benefit funds, jobs, or local energy discounts. 
Opposition to Ground Solar (general)  Objections to large-scale ground-mounted solar for aesthetic or land-use reasons. 
Glint and Glare / Aviation  Concerns about aviation safety from solar panel glare. 
Developments should not be permitted on green field land  Firm opposition to any solar on greenfield land. 

Sustainable energy and heat

Question EN 5 

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards energy, as set out in EN 4 'Sustainable energy and heat' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended? 

34 comments 

Theme  Summary 
General Support  Majority of respondents express agreement with suggested policy approach EN 4, often without additional comments. 
Strengthen low‑carbon requirements / remove fossil fuels  Policy should be more prescriptive, eliminate fossil fuels, mandate renewables such as solar panels, and prioritise zero‑carbon heat sources. 
Environmental safeguards  Support conditioned on protecting groundwater, rivers, estuaries, ancient woodland and biodiversity from infrastructure impacts. 
Concerns about heat networks / fossil fuel dependence  Concerns raised about gas‑fired heat networks, affordability, limited consumer choice, and need for cost‑effective decarbonisation. 
Community benefit / climate justice  One respondent calls for community‑led schemes, local benefit tests, affordability measures, and alignment with climate justice principles. 
Policy clarity & alignment with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  Another respondent states that the suggested policy wording unclear; should reflect National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by including low‑carbon energy and broadening energy storage provisions. 
Viability concerns  Overly prescriptive requirements could undermine development viability and require flexibility. 
Retrofit for existing homes  One respondent suggests that the policy must consider existing housing stock and ensure retrofittable, affordable technologies. 
Prioritise previously developed land / efficient siting  Another respondent encourages the development of renewable and heat projects on brownfield land and siting near industrial heat users for efficiency. 

Low carbon fuel and carbon capture

Question EN 6 

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards energy, as set out in EN 5 'Low carbon fuel and carbon capture' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended? 

35 comments 

Theme  Summary 
General support / agreement  Respondents broadly support suggested policy approach EN 5 to low‑carbon fuel and carbon capture. 
Environmental safeguards  Some support is conditioned on protecting water resources, designated sites, air quality, and requiring integrated water management. 
Support for green hydrogen / limits on blue hydrogen  Some respondents stated a preference for green hydrogen; blue hydrogen only with strict limits; grey hydrogen should be excluded. 
Concerns / objections to hydrogen or Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS)  Some respondents consider hydrogen and carbon capture untested, costly, or ineffective and oppose support. 
Community benefits / local impacts  Need for community benefit tests, consultation, and minimising disruption from pipelines and industrial development. 
Biodiversity and landscape protection  One respondents suggests that infrastructure must avoid ancient woodland, settlement gaps, and ecological corridors, ensuring nature recovery. 
Policy flexibility for emerging technologies  Policy should be flexible to accommodate evolving low‑carbon and carbon capture technologies. 
Strategic infrastructure alignment  Importance of aligning with HyNet, Peak Cluster and national infrastructure planning. 
Industry‑specific needs / grey hydrogen at Stanlow  One respondent requests to allow grey hydrogen at Stanlow refinery to ensure operational continuity. 

Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.