Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 179)
WEDNESDAY 13 JANUARY 2010 (morning)
MS FIONA
HOWIE, MR
PHIL MICHAELS,
MS NAOMI
LUHDE-THOMPSON,
MR SIMON
MARSH AND
MS EMMALENE
GOTTWALD
Q160 Dr Whitehead:
We are ready to undertake our second witness session. Welcome
to our witnesses this morning. In the evidence session this morning
we intend to focus on the planning framework, participation and
environmental assessment because Friends of the Earth and WWF
are also giving evidence in this afternoon's session and that
session will particularly look at energy strategy and technology-specific
issues. That is what I hope we will be able to concentrate on
this morning, but that should not of course constrain what you
have to say to us this morning. So welcome to our witnesses and
could you please, for the record, identify yourselves.
Ms Howie: I am Fiona Howie. I
am Head of Planning and Regions, at the Campaign to Protect Rural
England.
Ms Gottwald: I am Emmalene Gottwald,
Senior Planning Adviser at WWF UK.
Mr Marsh: I am Simon Marsh, Head
of Planning and Regional Policy with the RSPB.
Ms Luhde-Thompson: I am Naomi
Luhde-Thompson, Planning Coordinator at Friends of the Earth.
Mr Michaels: I am Phil Michaels,
Head of Legal at Friends of the Earth.
Dr Whitehead: Before proceeding I should
mention, for the record, that I am a member of Friends of the
Earth. I believe, Judy, you wish to say something.
Judy Mallaber: I am also a member of
Friends of the Earth. I may be a member of RSPB; I cannot remember.
Everybody else in the country is, though!
Anne Main: I must declare that I am a
member of CPRE and have been a supporter of Greenpeace.
John Robertson: Can I declare that I
am nothing!
Q161 Dr Whitehead:
Could I start with a very general process, and this is really
for everyone to consider a response. Obviously, there is a process
at which we are looking at the moment, an important part of the
process, of examining the draft energy National Policy Statements
before approval. Do you think, in general, that the Government
should now formally approve those statements?
Mr Marsh: If I may speak on behalf
of all of us, I think we would all agree that the National Policy
Statements in their current form are not suitable for approval
and we have particular issues about the inadequate consultation,
scrutiny and environmental appraisal as well as the content of
the NPSs, which I am sure we can discuss in more detail. It may
just be worth saying that we have been working together on these
issues for at least two years, since the Planning White Paper
and before, and I think all of us would agree, in principle, that
NPSs are a good thing and that there was a general consensus that
that was so when the idea was initially raised and that, by providing
that proper strategic framework for the decision-maker, that by
itself would achieve a lot of the time savings that were a criticism
of the old system. I think we now find ourselves in the position
that, having seen the draft NPSs, we are deeply disappointed with
them both as planning documents and in terms of compliance with
environmental law.
Q162 Dr Whitehead:
Is that everyone's view? Yes. Could I perhaps draw brief attention
to the overarching Energy National Policy Statement, which I assume
comes within the category of "disappointed" since you
have mentioned all the NPSs, but perhaps you could reflect on
the extent to which you consider that that does relate to other
policies on energy and climate change and how that document then
may or may not give the information to the IPC that it requires
about those policies.
Ms Luhde-Thompson: We think that
the NPS basically is failing to deliver on the aspirations of
the Climate Change Act, so there is a risk that the NPS is going
to lock the UK into high carbon infrastructure, and we are going
to look at that in more detail, particularly on the Low Carbon
Transition Plan and the assumptions that the Government makes
about the EU ETS in the afternoon session when my colleagues Simon
and Philip will speak a bit more about that, so I do not know
if that is possible to discuss that then.
Dr Whitehead: Yes, we will raise a number
of these issues a little later on. Indeed, perhaps I could turn
to the nature of the NPSs as planning policy documents as particularly
you have mentioned that.
Q163 Mr Weir:
We had a long discussion with our previous witnesses about the
spatial element of this and this is something that the Campaign
to Protect Rural England has also raised. You have said that the
NPSs have failed to outline the spatial planning approach which
delivers sustainable development. Could you tell us what you mean
by this and how they might be improved to take account of that
concern?
Ms Howie: Absolutely. The role
we see for spatial planning is to set out aspirations for place-shaping
in the future, so over 15/20 years into the future, and it should
set a framework for more coherent development to build towards
that vision, and we feel that the NPSs, in their current form,
have not achieved that. We are not saying that they should be
site-specific necessarily, but what we feel needs to be improved
is that there need to be more criteria to guide the decision-makers
in ensuring that development is located in the most appropriate
locations that are beneficial for economic, social and environmental
reasons and away from areas that are seen, and are judged to be
likely to be most damaging. Generally, the spatial planning approach
certainly at the regional level, so the regional spatial strategies,
soon to be regional strategies, set that kind of vision and are
worked up over a couple of years. Working closely with local communities
to understand what the local impact might be of the development
that is believed to be needed over that time period and to try
and work with them to get some degree, and of course you will
never get total agreement on where things should be located, but
to understand what the concerns are and to weigh those against
each other to try and ensure that development that is going to
be there for decades into the future is in the best locations
possible.
Q164 Mr Weir:
But how far do you take that because, in earlier discussion with
witnesses as well, with any development, they are not sure what
type of development would be required in the future for energy
in particular. All energy projects have a lot of infrastructure
attached to them and are not necessarily covered by the NPS. The
example of CCS, we do not know what pipes are required and how
far they would have to go. In any other generation, there are
always problems with power lines, as we all know. As to all of
these problems, should they be covered by the NPS, or how do these
fit in with other parts of the planning system?
Ms Howie: Certainly what we want
the NPSs to do, more than they currently do, is to provide more
of a linkage between them. For example, where someone is coming
forward with a proposal that will require transmission lines,
it needs to be judged, to as far an extent as it possibly can,
holistically. Whilst we recognise that in EN5 they say, ideally,
these plans should come forward with the transmission lines included
in the application but it might not always be possible, there
should be still a very clear steer in the documents that it does
need to be considered, part of the implication of those transmission
lines, even if they are not included in the application; it does
need to be considered when the application is going through the
IPC. Therefore, something we would like as a criterion, for example,
should be that all power stations that will require transmission
lines should, wherever possible, ensure that those transmission
lines will not need to go through designated areas. We recognise
that the documents do say that we should avoid it going through
designated areas, but I think there still needs to be a much clearer
steer that the most appropriate locations should ensure that that
does not happen, and where an applicant brings forward a proposal
that does not meet that criterion, they should be required to
justify why that was not possible on this occasion to the IPC,
and that should all be part of the consideration process.
Q165 Mr Weir:
How does that fit in with the zoning approach because you could
see a lot of developments where a power line or a CCS pipe, or
whatever, will cover several zones travelling very long distances,
and I am not quite sure how we link these all together without
having a series of decisions by the IPC?
Ms Howie: Absolutely, things that
cut across the country are of course going to be difficult to
ensure that the full implications of them are considered, but
I think what we are advocating is that the IPC at least tries
to take that into consideration. Zoning of the transmission lines
is of course difficult and that is where the idea of criteria
and saying that, as far as possible, they should not be located
here or they should avoid these designated areas, for example,
so it is trying to give that national steer without going into
the detail which of course makes it far more difficult to get
a consensus on at the national level.
Mr Marsh: I think this relates
back to the question of the spatial expression in the National
Policy Statements, that actually, if you adopt a purely criteria-based
approach and you have no spatial awareness, you run a much greater
risk that developers will bring forward schemes in inappropriate
locations or inappropriate routes that will just get refused by
the IPC, and that does not really serve anyone. Having a greater
spatial expression in the plan gives developers a degree of certainty
about what is going to be appropriate and, we think, would be
very helpful.
Q166 Mr Weir:
The nuclear plan has a spatial element because we are fairly certain
where the new nuclear plant is likely to go. It is much less certain
with other generating capacities, and I wonder how, at this stage
of developing the plans, we can introduce that spatial element
without the Government effectively saying, "We will designate
an area as being the area for CCS" or the area for gas stations,
or whatever.
Mr Marsh: Yes, I think that is
so. We are not saying that the National Policy Statement should
be prescriptive, it would have to be relatively broad-brush, but
I think we already have a certain amount of information about
the types of developments which are likely to come forward and
we know that people are already talking to the Infrastructure
Planning Commission about schemes which they wish to bring forward,
so I think, as the SDC said, we are not starting with a blank
sheet of paper; we actually have quite a lot of information about
what is likely to come forward.
Q167 Mr Weir:
So you would see the Government, for example, saying that the
areas that are likely to be for CCS will be developed and will
be set out in the planning framework within the NPS? Is that the
position you would like to see, effectively, saying now where
these developments are likely to go?
Mr Marsh: I think for any infrastructure
type, and obviously it has happened with nuclear because sites
have been identified, but for other infrastructure types, the
NPSs could give a greater steer on the kinds of locations in maybe
different parts of the country where those would be most suitable.
Q168 Mr Weir:
From the planning perspective, what is the impact of the NPS assertion
that there is an unlimited need for new generating capacity?
Ms Howie: I think it makes planning
fairly difficult. I know that you have covered it quite a lot
with the SDC before us, but, because it creates a strong presumption
in favour of development because there is a national need and,
therefore, the national benefit is very great, we fear that it
is effectively saying to the IPC, "You should do this unless
there are really, really strong other issues, and even those",
based on what is currently said in the NPSs, "we think you
should not give much weight to anyway because there is the national
need that we have already proved in the EN1". Certainly,
we are concerned that the balance, and this is really an important
job for the IPC, that needs to be given to looking at the national
benefits and weighing them against the local impacts, it is a
really tough job and at the moment, with the current focus, the
assertion of unlimited need, we think that that is just going
to be steam-rollered through and it would be very difficult for
the IPC to actually say, based on these criteria, "We are
not going to approve this development".
Mr Marsh: If I may say, it is
a very unsophisticated approach to need. It simply says, "We
need more of everything pretty much anywhere now", without
attempting to say, "How much do we need and what parts of
the country might we need it in and in what particular sectors
would it be needed?" That, would be, I think, more helpful.
Q169 Mr Weir:
I take it from that that you do not think there is sufficient
clarity in the role of the local impact assessments in the whole
process and you feel that the national need is just going to steam-roller
over everything?
Ms Howie: We certainly feel that
there is not enough clarity at the moment in the role of the local
impact assessments, both in the National Policy Statements and
more generally. We are disappointed that the Government have not
brought forward more guidance on what should be covered to help
the local authorities understand what they should be putting in
those documents and how that should be weighed against things,
and we certainly feel that those should be critical. The IPC is
about to start actually considering applications in March and
we still do not have guidance on that, and we really think that
is a huge worry, to be honest, the kinds of developments that
will be considered where local authorities might not understand
or might be concerned about what issues they are able to flag
up, what issues they should be flagging up, for the IPC to consider.
Q170 Mr Weir:
I can guess the answer to my last question. Are the NPSs fit for
purpose as planning documents?
Ms Howie: No. In the light of
our concern about both the guidance they give to the IPC, the
guidance they give to local authorities and the guidance they
give to applicants, no, we do not feel that they are currently
fit for purpose.
Ms Luhde-Thompson: Can I just
add a bit to that. Essentially, they are not fit for purpose as
planning documents because neither have they been tested or examined
as a planning document which has been in the existing planning
system. The point on the future pathways for carbon emissions
is also very unclear. There are no safeguards in these documents
in terms of planning, they do not require the carbon assessment
of projects, and we also feel that, because they have not been
properly subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment, obviously
they are not fit for purpose at the moment.
Q171 Charles Hendry:
Can I explore a bit further on the spatial issues. Is there not
a risk of planning blight as a result of developing this further?
On the nuclear plants, we know that there is only going to be
a relatively small number and it is pretty clear where those are
going to be, but would it not be necessary to identify huge parts
of the country as being potentially suitable for large wind developments
and large parts of the country for CCS or for gas facilities,
and is there not, therefore, a risk that you would blight huge
parts of the country where there may never be a real intention
to develop?
Ms Howie: I think at the moment,
because the documents do not give any steer on appropriate locations,
but do assert a severe need, then that is almost the situation
we are in at the moment. We feel that the benefit is to give a
steer towards appropriate locations. It does not necessarily have
to be zones and it might just be, "These are things which
must be avoided and these are the things, ideally, near to existing
transport infrastructure might be an example, to try and minimise
the associated development that is needed for a new site".
No, I think directing it towards the most appropriate location
does not necessarily mean that everyone will think it is a free-for-all.
I think that at the moment it is a free-for-all for the developers
to bring forward proposals.
Q172 Charles Hendry:
Could you do that more through guidelines in terms of the closeness
to infrastructure that you mentioned just now, so, rather than
actually having a map of the country where you say, "These
are areas where we think they should be considered", to go
more to the guidelines?
Ms Howie: I think guidelines and
guidance, certainly the CPRE feels, might be the best approach
in light of the fact that zoning may be incredibly controversial
and take a huge amount of time, but yes, I do think that the NPSs
are the right place to have that guidance and that steer for those
making the decisions.
Mr Marsh: But I think we would
feel that maps may be helpful in some circumstances and that some
developers find them helpful because they give them certainty
about where investment is likely to be appropriate.
Q173 Dr Whitehead:
Could I clarify the nature of your views on the question of unlimited
new generating capacity. You have mentioned that it would be a
good idea to have some view of constraint on capacity and what
capacity is needed in the NPSs. Does that include the question
of a concept of energy mix and how that might then feed down into
the planning system, so would you have two axes of the total requirement
likely to be needed as far as energy is concerned and then, within
that, the mix of energy that might be preferred?
Ms Luhde-Thompson: Simon is going
to talk more about this this afternoon, but just briefly, we think
that there are three ways that the NPS could have a look at the
climate change issue in more detail to give better guidance. One
is the future pathways issue, so where we are going and how we
are going to meet the aspirations of the Climate Change Act. The
second thing is to have some policy safeguards in, so these are
where there are right mixes of technologies that will deliver
what we need to do in terms of reducing carbon emissions and there
are going to be some wrong mixes. If the IPC has clearer guidance
on what the right mixes could be, then they have a much better
basis and ground on which to make decisions, which is obviously
helping them at the moment, but I feel that they are not really
being helped at all in terms of guidance and which projects to
approve and which not to approve. In order for the Government
to have an idea and the Committee on Climate Change to keep track
of what is actually happening in terms of carbon emissions, you
would need to have a carbon assessment for each project, and that
would be information that the IPC could then give to the Committee
on Climate Change and there would be a method of finding out what
is happening. In terms of timing, the really important issue is
that the IPC, I think, has 55 applications before it at the moment
and some of these applications are going to be around for 20/30
years. We have an issue with that in that the NPS is only looking
at certain timeframes and the timeframes do not match up with
how long the lifetimes are of the projects that are being approved,
so you have to look at that in much more detail, I think, because
the implications of the IPC's decisions are otherwise going to
draw us away from where the Government might want to go in terms
of reducing emissions.
Dr Whitehead: We have not particularly
touched on this so far, but certainly in evidence the RSPB raised
issues about the timing of the consultation period and indeed
the whole process of consultation within these proposals.
Q174 Sir Robert Smith:
I wondered if you could maybe outline your main concerns about
the way that DECC have handled the consultation on the Energy
NPSs.
Mr Marsh: I will defer to my colleagues
on this one!
Ms Luhde-Thompson: Well, we have
a couple of issues about the consultation process. I can use the
example of Hartlepool, if you do not mind, which is that the NPSs
were published on the Monday and the consultation was then happening
on the Thursday, so that is not really enough notice for people.
It had been published in the local authority magazine in November,
but of course 9 November was when it was published. You need to
give people notice, people are working and you have to have time
to go to an event like this. That is what resulted in not a lot
of people going and, having spoken to some people there, there
is quite a lot of concern about that and how the local authorities
responded, but essentially we are just running out of time to
have a good consultation process. People are very concerned that
they might be inputting into the consultation process, but you
are not going to look at what they are saying, so those things
are not going to be considered when you make your recommendations
in your Report. The other issue is, does the Government have enough
time to consider these consultation responses and actually think
about them properly and make a difference or change parts of the
NPS, because otherwise it just looks like it is lip service and
it is not that actually people are being listened to about their
concerns about what might be in the NPS. The General Election
obviously and the timings have made it quite difficult, but, I
think as the SDC mentioned earlier, these have been in drafting
for a long time, but basically they have been drafted without
public input and without people discussing it at any point. I
think with the site-specific NPS, it is even more problematic
because essentially you are deciding on a site, but you are just
asking people to write to an email address saying what they think,
whereas normally you would have some kind of hearing and people
would be able to come along, say their piece and discuss why it
is going to be there and feel that they have actually had some
input into that decision. We really feel that there should have
been some sort of consideration of that and some kind of arrangement
made for that, particularly on that, but again, with all planning
documents, not PPSs, but local development frameworks, local development
plans, regional spatial strategies, you have an examination where
people can come and object and that sort of thing.
Q175 Anne Main:
You said previously that, if this were any other form of application,
people could go along and have their say. Are you concerned that
maybe under the new proposals there is not enough rigour being
put on the system to ensure that, if alternative sites were more
appropriate, that could be challenged? It seems to me at the moment
that you have not got a lot of criteria on which to judge a site,
maybe even the number of the workforce that can get there in a
green fashion or the availability of workforce. It seems that,
if you have not got have a list, if the specifics are not there,
it may be that you cannot argue that one site is not the most
appropriate because another site might be more appropriate. I
do not know how specific you would like this to become now.
Ms Luhde-Thompson: The thing is
that the NPS puts a lot of issues in and it says, "Right,
these can no longer be discussed at inquiry because we have talked
about this in the National Policy Statement", but how much
talk has there been about the National Policy Statement if you
have had a very limited consultation period and parliamentary
scrutiny rather than an examination which a planning document
might usually be subject to. I think that is a real concern because
then do your documents have credibility, is there public legitimacy,
have the issues been properly tested; all these questions are
then raised.
Ms Howie: I think it is also worth
mentioning, and the SDC mentioned it and we feel it, that time
and time again of course, because planning is seen as a dry issue
and topic, that it is harder to get people engaged in the process,
especially when they are very long-winded processes. I would highlight
the example of the Southwest Regional Spatial Strategy where RSSs
are historically very complicated, going on over a very long period
of time, and it is hard to get the public to engage with them,
but the Government received 35,000 responses to a consultation
about the Southwest RSS, so, if you work hard, you can get people
to engage in those processes. I do think that these are national
debates, so lots of people will not feel the need to engage until
local applications come forward, but I really think that there
must be an emphasis on trying to get these NPSs right and trying
to get local people to buy into these national policies, and that
will hopefully reduce the numbers of problems that happen further
down the line when applications come in and the number of objections
to the specific schemes so that people believe that this is the
right national strategy for shifting us towards a low-carbon future
and delivering the energy infrastructure that we do need in the
future.
Q176 Sir Robert Smith:
Mr Michaels, you are on the legal side of the Friends of the Earth.
If there is not a proper consultation, do you see any legal challenges
coming forward?
Mr Michaels: I think I can see
a range of legal challenges arising both out of the designation
of the NPSs themselves at this stage, and then further down the
line in terms of the nationally significant infrastructure projects
that come forward. I think that some of those legal challenges
will come out of the inadequacy or the inability of people to
test whether the location is the correct one at a stage when they
can be meaningfully involved in the process because, as Naomi
said just now, what we have is a situation where the key decisions
as to where nuclear power stations are going to be are being made
now by the Secretary of State following parliamentary scrutiny,
but without any opportunity for those who are going to be very
directly affected by a power station on their doorstep having
the chance to be engaged. Then, when they are given the chance
to engage, they will be able to comment on questions of insect
infestation, for instance, but not on whether or not there should
be a nuclear power station on their site, and that certainly,
in my view, is likely to lead to legal challenges on that issue.
There is a range of other legal difficulties, but I think we might
come on to them later in these questions.
Q177 Sir Robert Smith:
Obviously, you are campaigning groups, so how have you tried to
engage your own members in this limited period, and what do you
think could be done now to improve the process even at this late
stage?
Ms Howie: At CPRE, we have 43
county branches, so we would normally communicate to them and
then they filter back, so we have circulated summaries of the
NPSs and asked for feedback. We also held a seminar to get our
members to come in to discuss it, where unfortunately, due to
the snow, we had slightly fewer than we had hoped. Also, it is
worth mentioning that to fit it in with the timing of the consultation
process, we had to hold it on 6 January which of course is never
going to be hugely popular timing, so, although we had a 12-week
Government consultation running across Christmas, which made it
more difficult as well, we have tried to get certain technical
input to our evidence and to our more detailed response which
is going to DECC from our members. From the point of view of improving
it, I do not know the details of the nuclear events, but I believe
that the five half-day seminars that DECC have run have all been
in the day, and just simple things like perhaps holding some in
the evening so that people that are at work could come and attend.
The idea that people are going to take half a day off work, I
think, is slim to come to one of these meetings, and certainly
at the London one there were a lot of policy people from lobbying
organisations, but perhaps not some of the people that we are
really trying to engage in this process, so I just think more
thought needs to be given to engaging people rather than just
stakeholders.
Q178 Judy Mallaber:
Just following up directly on that, do you think it is actually
possible to involve people outside the lobbying organisations
and the interest groups which are already focused on it. I know
that, even when you have had a consultation on a local plan in
the past which might have more specific points in it, more concrete
than this, it has been difficult to get engagement until the point
at which there is actually something on your doorstep. Is that
a feasible objective?
Ms Howie: I think that, in order
to get `normal' people, if I can use that term, rather than people
that are from interest groups and active members of those interest
groups perhaps to engage in the process, what we and the Government
need to do is clearly articulate the long-term implications of
these policies. I certainly know that CPRE could do that better,
but I think also that there is a role for Government in doing
that, in actually explaining that, once designated, these NPSs
will set a framework for our energy policy for the future and
actually that, I think, will certainly encourage more people to
sit up and take notice and actually try and understand what the
implications might be. I think it would be difficult, I certainly
agree, because some people will not be interested until local
specific applications come forward, but I think that, if we could
explain what these documents are aiming to achieve and what the
framework they will create is and certainly with regards to the
Planning Act if we were able to generate a lot more interest amongst
the public by explaining the new planning system which will decide
where power stations are going in the future: more people sit
up and do try and understand the intricacies of what is being
proposed.
Q179 Judy Mallaber:
Government departments tend to be terribly traditional on how
they go about doing things and talking to the public. Do you not
think there might be a danger that, if they engaged in a more
pizzazzy process that did grab people, they would then be immediately
subject to criticism from political opponents as to why they had
wasted a lot of money on advertising and promotion?
Ms Howie: I think there certainly
needs to be a balance. I do not think people should throw money
at it to try and achieve that aim, but I think there are clever
ways of doing it. I know that there is work in planning aid to
try and reach some traditionally harder-to-reach communities there,
but I do think that there would certainly be an argument that
the Government could use to say, "This is a really critical
important policy. It will reduce the costs to the Government if
it cuts down on opposition to local plans and, therefore, we did
this analysis so that we could justify spending this much money
on ensuring that we get this document right, and part of getting
it right is engaging with communities".
Mr Michaels: I think it is worth
saying that everyone accepts that this is a difficult issue, engaging
people on something that is at a pretty high level and, to some
extent, a level of abstraction, but the Government has done it
in other cases. If one looks at, for instance, the GM debate that
was organised a few years ago, I am not saying for a second that
that was a perfect process, but what the Government did there
was it took a major environmental policy that did not have immediate
direct effects in specific locations, so you would not get people
automatically involved, and arranged a series of fairly creative
ways of bringing people into a debate so that they could get involved
in hearing views on different sides, sharing their ideas and helping
to shape the process going forward. It took some time, not a huge
amount of time, and it resulted in a pretty powerful piece of
analysis that helped the Government shape its policy. That is
the sort of thing which I think could be a model for the type
of engagement that could happen with National Policy Statements
on energy now.
|
