The Clean Energy Double Down

by

Councillor Duncan Enright
Labour Councillor and Deputy Leader of West Oxfordshire District Council
and
Councillor Oliver Patrick
Liberal Democrat Councillor and Vice Chair of Planning Committee South, Somerset Council‍ ‍

At the National Growth Debate on 21 April, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband delivered a clear message. The UK will not retreat from clean energy. It will double down.

Miliband remains one of the most popular Cabinet members among Labour councillors, largely because of the clarity of his net zero vision. Across the political spectrum there is broad support for energy independence and taking back control of power generation. Yet that consensus often fractures locally, where councillors of all parties support renewable investment in principle but resist it when schemes are proposed in their own areas.

In his speech, Miliband framed clean power as the economic opportunity of the 21st century. Renewables, nuclear and low carbon technologies are positioned not just as environmental necessities but as drivers of jobs, investment and national resilience. This argument is now widely accepted. What is less often acknowledged is that every wind farm, solar park, grid connection and substation must pass through a planning system shaped as much by local sentiment as by national policy.

Most of the clean energy transition depends on decisions made by local planning authorities and, crucially, local councillors. The ambition to decouple electricity prices from volatile global gas markets relies on delivering infrastructure at scale and pace. That means faster decisions, clearer leadership and more effective engagement with communities. In practice, this is where national strategy meets local politics.

Miliband pushed back against calls for expanded oil and gas production, arguing that fossil fuels cannot deliver long term price stability or energy security. At a strategic level that case is strong. Politically, however, it is often easier to approve incremental fossil fuel infrastructure than large scale renewable developments that alter landscapes and attract organised opposition.

This contradiction is already playing out locally. In South Somerset, gas powered peaking plants in Crewkerne and Yeovil progressed with limited public resistance, while modest solar proposals generated significant attention and vocal opposition. The issue is not simply policy compliance. It is perception, trust and local politics.

Planning committees, community campaigns and stakeholder engagement are not side issues in the transition. They are the battleground. Decisions are shaped by how schemes are presented, how concerns are addressed and how confident members feel in the proposal. A technically sound scheme can still fail if it loses support in the room. Progress in renewables deployment is encouraging, but the next phase will be more difficult. The easier sites have largely been delivered or are in train. Future projects will be more complex, more visible and more politically sensitive, involving communities that are engaged and often sceptical.

This is why the politics of planning matters. Miliband’s commitment to double down is a statement of political will – but the real test is whether that political will carries through into the local planning system, where national ambition is decided case by case.

In the end, the clean power mission will succeed or fail not in speeches, but in planning decisions.