Memorandum submitted by the Environment
Agency (LCT 47)
Comments on Small Hydropower Company response to the Energy and Climate
Change Committee call for evidence Low Carbon Technologies in a Green
Economy
Summary
1. The Environment Agency has launched a major
programme of work aimed at streamlining the permitting process for hydropower developers, and improving the evidence base. This will
address most of the concerns raised by the Small Hydropower Company (SHC).
2. The SHC highlight some important issues in their
evidence, but they also make some unsubstantiated claims relating to their
permit applications, our role as a consultee in the planning process, and the
Environment Agency's approach to hydropower more generally.
3. The Environment Agency has issued 23 permits
to hydropower schemes so far in 2009, taking on average 130 calendar days from receipt of a formal application. Applications from
the SHC are taking considerably longer than we would like because they lack the
necessary information and the schemes themselves are inherently complex.
Background
The Environment Agency supports
the deployment of sustainable small-scale hydropower, and is committed to
helping England and Wales meet
their renewable energy targets. We also have statutory duties to protect the water environment, and to ensure
that flood risk is not increased by new developments.
Poorly designed hydropower schemes can have serious
impacts on the local river environment, particularly on fish populations, such
as salmon and trout, and on flood risk for properties downstream of the
installation. Our permitting process seeks to minimise these risks and, as well
protecting the environment, it helps schemes to be accepted by other river
users and stakeholders. We also provide advice to Local Authorities as a
statutory consultee in the planning process.
In August 2009 we published Good Practice Guidance
(GPG) for small-scale hydropower, which we developed in partnership with the
British Hydropower Association (BHA), and with angling and conservation groups.
The BHA is the main industry group for hydropower in the UK.
General comments
The SHC is developing a number of sites in England
on behalf of British Waterways. Following an initial meeting in January 2009 to
discuss their plans, we have been working with SHC and British Waterways to
support their permit applications.
We accept some of the criticism from the Small
Hydropower Company (SHC), particularly relating to the administrative delays
they have experienced and the consistency of approach within the Environment
Agency. However, we have been working with the hydropower industry, including
the SHC, to improve this, and have launched a major programme of work to ensure
we support the deployment of sustainable hydropower schemes in England and Wales. The SHC is aware of this
work, is actively involved in some of it, and has participated in the
stakeholder group we have established to steer it.
The SHC evidence highlights issues at particular
sites, but fails to recognise the improvements that we are putting in place. We
do not believe that their evidence provides an accurate reflection of the
permitting process.
Better regulation for hydropower
The Environment Agency is committed to enabling the
deployment of sustainable small-scale hydropower schemes in England and Wales. We have recently launched a
cross-organisational programme of work that will deliver this, including:
· Publication
of the Good Practice Guidance for small-scale hydropower schemes in England and Wales in August 2009. This provides clear guidance for developers on how schemes
should be designed to meet environmental and flood risk legislation.
· A review
of the permitting process for small-scale hydropower, with the aim of
streamlining the process and reducing administrative burden. A public
consultation will be launched in April 2010, and the review will conclude by
September 2010.
· A training
programme for our staff is being trialled to
ensure they have the expertise required to deal with hydropower scheme
applications. The programme should go live in January.
· A hydropower
'hub', with the support of DECC, is being developed to
ensure better coordination and consistency between staff working on hydropower
applications across England
and Wales.
· A major evidence
programme to refine and improve the Good Practice Guidance is in hand.
This work has been launched as part of an overall
effort to ensure the Environment Agency is supporting the sustainable
deployment of all forms of renewable energy, and in response to a significant
increase in interest in hydropower over the last 18 months. This programme of
work will ensure we are able to deal with these permit applications rapidly and
efficiently in the future.
The Small Hydropower Company's permit and planning
permission applications
We met with the SHC in January 2009 before they submitted
any permit applications to advise on their applications and what they would
need to consider. To date, the SHC has submitted five planning applications for
hydropower schemes that we have been consulted on. These applications have been
for schemes of varying size using different technologies, but the information
provided with each application has often been inadequate, with little
scheme-specific information.
The lack of sufficient information in the planning
applications, particularly relating to flood risk assessments, has led to
delays, with similar delays holding up the permit applications. The time taken
to process permit applications from the SHC is in contrast to the overall
average of 130 calendar days between developer's application and issue of
permit for the 23 schemes we have permitted so far in 2009. We also note a number of major inconsistencies
between our own records and the SHC evidence to the Select Committee. Further
details are provided in the attached annex.
We are concerned that the 'economies of scale'
(paragraph 2.2) that the SHC are attempting to achieve has led them to make assumptions about the appropriateness
of their schemes on specific sites. Our view is that SHC appear to be assuming
that our acceptance of one scheme on one site means the same scheme would be
accepted on another. However, every site is different, and there is
considerable variation in hydrology, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, fisheries
and flood risk between the sites proposed so far. This means that a one-size-fits-all
approach to managing their impacts is not possible.
If SHC had engaged us more consistently through
pre-application discussions, as is recommended in our Good Practice Guidance,
many of these issues could have been overcome early on.
Of the five applications, one has been granted
permission, one has been refused and we are working with SHC to resolve issues
with the other three. Of these, the scheme at Linton-on-Ouse has proved the
most complex and further details are given in the Annex.
Annex - detailed response to issues raised in the Small Hydropower
Company evidence to the Climate Change and Energy Select Committee
1 SHC's
application for a hydropower scheme in Gunthorpe, River Trent
Gunthorpe raises particular concerns
relating to flood risk as the area is very sensitive to flooding and the village of Gunthorpe does not benefit from flood
defences. A number of properties in the village regularly flood. The River Trent upstream and downstream of
Gunthorpe weir is also of significant importance for both fisheries and
ecology. This is therefore a complex
proposal that must ensure that it does not increase flood risk to others,
allows the safe passage of the maximum number of migratory fish and protects
the wider aquatic environment.
We have identified a number of
inconsistencies between the SHC's evidence and our own records.
1. The SHC claim not
to have received a response to their permit applications. The SHC applied for
permits on 17 June 2009, and we acknowledged the applications formally by 2
September. We were in contact with British Waterways, the nominated contact in
the application, throughout the interim period. Delay was due to the
application being in the name of the Agent rather than the occupier, which is
highly unusual and led to concerns about how the permit could be enforced.
2. The SHC assert that the
Environment Agency had not read their documentation prior to a meeting with the
SHC on the 8 September 2009. By this time we had scoped the requirements of a
planning submission (our letter of 10 February 2009); met with SHC to discuss
the Flood Risk Assessment (16 February 2009); reviewed the planning submission
and outlined our objection to the detail of the planning application (our
letter of 15 July 2009).
In addition:
1. The presence of the weir
pool is a very important feature of the fishery habitat on this reach of the Trent. Whilst a fish pass is extremely important for
the passage of adult fish, it cannot mitigate for the loss of a significant
spawning and nursery area.
2. We recommended the
installation of a vertical bar fish screen to SHC in line with Good Practice
Guide. SHC have offered an alternative
design using horizontal bars. As this is
a new and untested technology suggested by the developer we would normally
expect the company to provide the supporting information that enables us to
assess it fully.
3. The type of turbine used
in a hydropower scheme has implications for the level of the fish screening
required. This is outlined in our Good
Practice Guidance. Archimedes screw turbines do not require fish screens as
fish can pass safely through. Other turbines, such as Kaplan, require screening
to prevent fish mortality as a result of entering the turbine.
2 SHC's
application for a HEP installation at Linton-On-Ouse
We were
first consulted on the Linton-on-Ouse scheme by the Local Planning Authority
(LPA) on 22 June. Some of the supporting information submitted with the
application was not specific to the site, and in some cases made reference to
conditions in different regions. We were therefore forced to object to the
application. This was based on concerns over the impact on fisheries and flood
risk, and was until acceptable details were submitted. Due to the complexity of
the application we needed to extend our statutory timescale to respond, but
this was agreed by the local authority.
We were
not approached for pre-application advice from SHC regarding this scheme. Had
we been contacted, we would have been able to let SHC know what information we
needed to see to assess the environmental impact of the scheme adequately. This
may have negated the need to object to the proposals, and is why we always
recommend developers approach us early on in the process.
On 17
August we received a highly critical response from SHC via the local authority.
We provided a thorough response to this, which sought to clarify to SHC exactly
what was required to overcome our objections. This response was issued within
our 21 day statutory timescale. We therefore contest the point raised in
paragraph 4.5.4.1 stating that our response suffered from 'tardiness'.
Agents
acting on behalf of SHC subsequently submitted a draft Flood Risk Assessment
which addressed our concerns. We advised that this information be submitted
formally to the local authority so that we could remove our flood risk
objection. This is needed to ensure it becomes part of the planning conditions,
but to date this has not yet been submitted.
In
reference to the letter of 17 September (4.5.4.1), this was addressed to the local
authority and not sent directly to the Environment Agency. We have consulted
our records and are unaware of a formal consultation from the local authority
on this information.
The Linton-on-Ouse
scheme has the added complication that there is already an existing permitted
scheme on the other bank of the river, where the operator has recently received
planning permission to extend the works. The applicant, Mr Throup, has
permission to construct an additional Archimedean Screw turbine on the west
bank of the river.
3. The Environment Agency's hydropower
scheme on Romney Weir
The SHC evidence suggests that the Environment Agency has abused its
statutory power for commercial gain in the permitting and development of Romney
Weir (4.5.3.2.2.3).
Romney Weir is an Environment Agency owned weir upon which we are
developing a hydropower scheme in partnership with a developer. It is a pilot
scheme in which we are leasing the site to the developer who will design,
construct, operate and maintain the development. The aim is both to demonstrate
best practice and to generate renewable energy, in line with Government's
ambition to generate more renewable energy on the public estate.
The developer is responsible for obtaining planning permission and the
necessary statutory consents rather than ourselves, and the application will be
treated as any other. There are some differences to the SHC's own applications,
mostly because the developer is using an Archimedes screw turbine, which is
fish-friendly and therefore does not need screening. The scheme also includes a
fish pass and a system to ensure there is variation in the flow over the weir
gates to protect the ecological value of the weirpool.
4.Our regulatory responsibilities
The SHC accuse statutory organisations including
the Environment Agency to have "on
occasion little or no understanding of their duties under Law and what a
reasonable person may expect of them" (4.5.6.1.1) and to fail to "exercise
their duty and operate within the law" (4.5.1).
Our regulatory requirements for hydropower schemes
are consistent with the environmental legislation, particularly the Water
Resources Act 1991, the Land Drainage Act 1991, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries
Act 1975 and the Water Framework Directive (2000). This legislation requires us
to ensure that new developments within the river environment, including
hydropower, do not increase flood risk and do not cause unacceptable damage to
fish or the wider environment.
We are also a statutory consultee in the Town and
Country Planning process for developments at flood risk, or for operations in
or adjacent to a Main
River. Our role is to ensure that all proposals
comply with Planning Policy 25 "Development and Flood Risk" (PPS25). Developers are required to submit a Flood
Risk Assessment to demonstrate that their proposals comply with PPS25 and to inform the scheme design.
Where we have objected to hydropower schemes
through the Town and Country Planning process, it has usually been due to
insufficient information being supplied, particularly in relation to the Flood
Risk Assessment. Since flood risk is a
material planning consideration, Flood Risk Assessments will continue to be
required as part of the planning process.
We accept that there have been a small number of
occasions where our planning officers have objected to a scheme on other
matters when we are also addressing them through the permitting system. We are
addressing this issue, and will ensure
better coordination between our planning and permitting roles.
5.Staff expertise and resourcing
The SHC accuse the Environment Agency of having "a
lack of experience and knowledge (and in some cases inadequate numbers of
qualified staff) in dealing with the technical aspects of renewable applications".
(Section 4.5.6.1.3)
We have produced the hydropower Good Practice
Guidance, which provides our staff and developers with detailed technical
guidance. However, we accept that expertise within the
Environment Agency is currently limited to a small number
of staff. This is because until recently we have seen very few applications for
hydropower. In response to increased interest we are
training more staff throughout the organisation in
hydropower.
6.Defining requirements for developers
The SHC complain that we do not state what
environmental mitigation standards are adequate (4.5.6.1.4), but also that we
should only define outcomes and not how they
should be achieved (4.5.3.2.2.2). The Good
Practice Guidance sets out a number of
environmental mitigation options, but it also allows developers to propose their own mitigation
measures as long as it is accompanied with an appropriate risk assessment. This
is because default guidance is preferred by smaller developers, for whom the
burden of providing detailed risk assessments would be onerous. Larger
developers, such as the SHC, are able to deviate from the default guidance, but they must provide
the evidence that shows their proposals will protect the environment and address flood risk issues.
7.The role of small-scale hydropower
The SHC's understanding of the potential for new
small hydropower is not consistent with the available evidence. A recent report
by ITPower on behalf of DECC estimates an available resource in England and
Wales of approximately 250MW, whilst our own mapping of opportunities suggests
a theoretical, unconstrained maximum of 1100MW. This would be equivalent to
1.5% of UK
electricity needs, and would involve developing many tens of thousands of small
sites. We are undertaking work to provide a better assessment of hydropower
opportunities and potential win-win benefits when associated with provision of
fish passes.
8.The evidence base for our regulation of
small-scale hydropower
The Good Practice Guidance (GPG) represents the
best science and expert opinion in drawing up its recommendations on fish
screens, flows available for hydropower, and design of fish passes. The Guidance was developed in co-operation
with the British Hydropower Association (BHA) and with other stakeholders,
particularly fisheries interests. It is acknowledged by all parties that there
is a need to obtain further evidence on the effectiveness of the mitigation
measures installed on hydropower sites. However there is relevant information
in the scientific and operational literature on hydropower and other
abstraction processes that is directly applicable. We will be undertaking work
to improve the evidence base, and this work was presented to hydropower
stakeholders at a meeting on 18 November, which SHC attended.
The first phase of this work
will be completed by March 2010. If
necessary, the Good Practice Guidance will be updated with the findings of
these projects.
December 2009
| 