ACCESS and Regen submit joint response to the House of Commons Committee on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Published on 14 May 2025
ACCESS Director Professor Patrick Devine-Wright (University of Exeter) and Dr Rebecca Windemer, Planning Lead at Regen and ACCESS Leadership College Fellow recently submitted a joint response to the House of Commons Committee on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (PIB25).
It was a response specifically to Clause 22 of the bill: ‘Benefits for homes near electricity transmission projects’, which suggests provision for a financial benefit scheme based on individuals living within a fixed distance (500m) of transmission infrastructure.
Patrick and Rebecca argued that using a set distance to determine community benefits is inequitable and risks increasing conflict within communities, and between communities and grid operators, reducing community acceptance of new transmission infrastructure, causing delays and failing to deliver value for bill payers’ money.
They cite research conducted by the University of Exeter on behalf of the Irish grid operator EirGrid and evidence from peer-reviewed social science research, which demonstrates the unintended negative consequences of applying similar ‘objective’ distance thresholds.
They recommended, instead, that energy bill discounts form just one of the options offered to communities through a wider community benefits package. This package should be formed through dialogue with host communities, taking visual impact and distance as a starting point, not a pre-determining qualifier.
This joint submission is a great example of collaboration between Regen, ACCESS, and the University of Exeter.
Patrick Devine-Wright says: “Given the complexity of environmental challenges, it is vital that policy on planning and infrastructure is informed by robust evidence. We know from peer-reviewed social science research that applying ‘objective’ distance thresholds can have unintended negative consequences, even if they may initially appear to be fair. Instead, include distance thresholds within discussions with impacted communities. That’s more likely to produce positive outcomes considered fair by all.”
Rebecca Windemer says: “Communities should be at the heart of decisions about new energy infrastructure. Rather than applying one-size-fits-all rules, it’s vital to engage directly with each community to understand their specific needs and priorities. Community benefit schemes must be shaped through meaningful dialogue so that support is fair, locally appropriate and helps to build trust in the energy transition.”