There has been a change in the way current and potential development sites are viewed in the renewable energy sphere. The progression from primarily considering sites for a single technology use for example onshore wind, to a more sophisticated evaluation of a site and how generation and storage assets might be combined to make the most effective use of a site. This has been driven by several factors including developments in technologies, competition for sites, planning and grid constraints, and the need to make efficient use of time, resources and assets.
Whether a development is a ‘co-location’ project will be a question of fact in each case. The Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit refers to applications for such developments as ‘hybrid applications’. Generally, the aim will be to make the most efficient use of a site either by delivering a combination of generation and/or storage assets at once or phased over time. Co-location can also be thought of in the context of locating energy generation assets near to end user points, whether that be the grid (perhaps via storage to manage constraints and maximise exports), for the generation of hydrogen, or to heavy energy users such as manufacturing premises, transport hubs or data centres.
When planned and delivered well, there are many advantages to a co-location development. There are however several aspects that should be considered at the outset, both from a practical perspective, for example, physical restrictions on site and engineering solutions, and from a legal/consenting perspective, for example, implications for planning, grid, land agreements, CfD regime and other contracts. Key questions include: (i) is there a primary aspect to the development/are all aspects of the development required to make it viable? (ii) how are the assets ultimately to be held? For example, owned/operated by a single or multiple entities; (iii) is there any interaction with existing infrastructure and is re-powering/upgrading of such infrastructure proposed? (iv) will delivery be phased, and if so, how does this fit with the proposed planning and funding strategy? (v) will infrastructure be shared? (vi) how do the proposals fit within the new grid connection regime (TM04+) to be introduced imminently as part of the Government’s CP30 action plans?
Answers to these questions will inform how the development is to progress and should be shared with the relevant professional team early on. This will help ensure that appropriate strategies are progressed and that legal agreements and rights secured reflect the priorities of the developer/landowner/funder/relevant third parties.
The opportunities presented by co-location/’hybrid’ developments are clear, but there is a risk that too complex a proposal without clarity on key objectives and timelines could cause delay and complications. For example, whether a project is being treated as a single development or multiple phased, albeit connected, developments, is likely to have an impact on the approach to planning in the context of protection of habitats and promoting BNG (biodiversity net gain) and how potential environmental impacts are scoped. In the same way, in land agreements all requisite rights may be required from the outset, but if not, there will likely be a balancing exercise between ensuring the ability to secure all required rights when needed, and level of obligations, including payments, committed to from day one. From a landowner perspective the same will be true in the extent of rights to be granted and land secured.
The trajectory towards increasingly efficient use of land and resources in the generation of energy is a positive one, particularly in the context of multiple competing uses for land and infrastructure as well as impending net zero targets.
