Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 198)
WEDNESDAY 13 JANUARY 2010 (morning)
MS FIONA
HOWIE, MR
PHIL MICHAELS,
MS NAOMI
LUHDE-THOMPSON,
MR SIMON
MARSH AND
MS EMMALENE
GOTTWALD
Q180 Miss Kirkbride:
I do not disagree with your desire to engage the public and I
happen to think it is more difficult than perhaps we are getting
into the detail of here. For example, I suspect the 35,000 responses
on the Southwest was because they could see that houses were going
to block their view, and that really motivates people in a way
where with broader national statements, you can forget it because
they are too busy and they have got other things to do. I was
wondering really whether, even amongst the panel, the reality
of real engagement might cause some disagreement because I would
hazard to say that the location of a power station will be less
controversial than the location of a wind farm, which will really
wind up your members big time. Therefore, if you were more specific
about what was really going to go on and what really the implications
of these National Policy Statements are, then presumably your
members would be going mad. I am not sure about the RSPB, I am
not sure where we are on wind farms with RSPB, but our friends
from Friends of the Earth will be going, "Yes, that is great,
that is fine. The whole of Wiltshire, Surrey, Suffolk, Yorkshire,
whatever, that is how we are going to make a clean energy statement".
Would you really want this revolt from the shires that you are
going to get if you go down the road you are talking about?
Mr Marsh: I think we would all
agree that getting the public engaged in any form of development,
whether pro or anti, has to be a good thing and that clearly to
generate the debate and interest and to have that discussion is
a very positive thing. I think our positions on wind farms are
probably not as far apart as you might think, but maybe that is
another subject.
Q181 Miss Kirkbride:
Really?
Ms Howie: Absolutely. Yes, quite
often, certainly for the CPRE, the location of renewables is a
controversial issue, but that is why I think in the national guidance
there should be criteria for locating them towards generally the
best and the most appropriate locations, so away from designated
areas would be something that we would like to see and to where
they can link sensibly to the grid and things like that. Actually
having that debate would, I do believe, hopefully reduce the general
controversy around that issue. I do not know if people will have
seen it and I can pass on the reference if you would like to look
at it, but the University of Manchester did a report called Beyond
Nimbyism which they published last year, it was funded by
the ESRC, and they actually concluded from that that, through
a variety of methods, they engaged over 3,000 people and found
that only two per cent were classic Nimbys, i.e. they, in principle,
supported renewables, but refused to locate them anywhere. Actually
what they found was that a perception that developers had listened
to people actually made people far less likely to oppose the scheme.
They just wanted to feel that they had been engaged in the debate
and that actually the overriding decisions were taken into consideration,
but were still to locate whatever technology it was in that location.
I think it is very easy to say, "We should not discuss it
because we will never get agreement"—
Q182 Miss Kirkbride:
I am not saying that.
Ms Howie: I do think that is quite
often said, so people avoid trying to set out this energy mix,
but I do think that the majority of people are coming round to
this idea that we need to move to a low-carbon future and we need
to have this very tough debate of, "If you do not want that
technology in your area, what technology will you have?"
and to have that discussion in a more open manner than I think
the NPSs have done to date.
Q183 John Robertson:
I am a Member of Parliament for an inner city seat and it covers
various kinds of people, mainly on, shall we say, the poorish
side of rich and, therefore, their opinion on some of the things
that you have got are different. Their needs are: "Do I have
a job? Will the lights stay on? What kind of future have I got
for my family?" and they see those as of the most paramount
importance. It strikes me that part of the problem that we have
had in years gone by is that the planning process has been misused
by bodies such as yourselves. They have deliberately obstructed
power stations being built, they have deliberately obstructed
billions of pounds of investment that people in my constituency
want jobs from. Now, everybody so far has agreed that the planning
process has been abused and needs to be restructured, and the
Government has tried to do that. I think they have done a particularly
good job of it, but then again I am a member of the Government
benches and I would say that, so I would be interested to find
out, do you accept that people that are in my constituency and
in constituencies like mine find that what bodies such as yourselves
are doing are being deliberately obstructive and are not looking
at the bigger picture of the needs of the country and the needs
of them and their families?
Ms Howie: What I would say is
that of course the population as a whole is entitled to different
opinions and priorities in what they feel should be the most critical
point in decision-making for decision-makers. What we would argue
is that we believe that the planning system is there to create
a sustainable long-term future and not deliberately—
Q184 John Robertson:
You are either deliberately or not answering the question that
I put to you, and that is that the planning process has been misused
in the past and that bodies such as your own have deliberately
used it to obstruct any kind of investment.
Ms Howie: No. I would say that
we have not deliberately used it to delay or prevent investment.
Q185 John Robertson:
And yet all the other people are saying differently.
Ms Howie: Well, I would say that
we have tried to ensure that, when applications come forward for
a major development that will have long-term implications on sites,
on jobs, on whatever, it is located in the most appropriate place
and it is the right development for that site, and we need to
consider social, economic and environmental issues in considering
those applications. Whilst I recognise that your constituents
might prioritise—
Q186 John Robertson:
I would accept that, but you have just said that two per cent
of the population were returning returns and that turns out to
be 1.2 million people, if you consider that the country is 60
million people. You do not think that is an awful lot, so perhaps
somebody else could come in and try and answer about the planning
situation that we have had over the years?
Ms Luhde-Thompson: Friends of
the Earth's opinion is that the planning system is a way to mediate
these really important decisions that affect a lot of people and—
Q187 John Robertson:
For five years, six years, seven years?
Ms Luhde-Thompson: No, it is not
about time necessarily.
Q188 John Robertson:
With the best of wills, if we are asking companies to invest billions
of pounds of money into the infrastructure of this nation, then
five, six or seven years is a long time for these people because
they will go somewhere else and spend their money.
Ms Luhde-Thompson: Of course,
so what we are saying is that the NPS process of consultation,
we do think there should be a time limit, it is not an open-ended
process.
Q189 John Robertson:
We accept that.
Ms Luhde-Thompson: So that is
fine and we are all agreed on that. We just think that there should
be good consultation so that people have the proper amount of
time, they are given enough notice, so four days is not really
enough, to be able to say, "Okay, this is what I think about
this, that and the other." The second thing is that, when
you go into a public inquiry, the new public inquiry system under
the Planning Act reduces the rights of people to participate;
it is a different system. We met with Sir Michael Pitt recently,
in December, and we took community representatives, and they have
all been involved in public inquiries, so somebody who had been
involved in Thames Gateway Bridge, Birmingham Northern Relief
Road, Terminal 5, dare I mention it, and Mersey Gateway Bridge.
Now, these people, when they were involved in the inquiry, had
fantastic local information. One of the ladies was retired, one
of them worked full-time and they were giving up their time because
they were really interested in the issues. For instance, on the
Birmingham Northern Relief Road it was actually the objectors
who brought up the concept that perhaps the hauliers should not
have to pay a toll on the M6 toll to reduce congestion and to
make air quality issues better in central Birmingham. That was
not brought up by the hauliers or by the people, so they are able
to bring this great information—
Q190 John Robertson:
We do not need any more examples. Friends of the Earth are happy
with the old planning process and, "We have not changed anything
and we are very happy that it might take five or seven years for
projects to go through the planning stages"?
Ms Luhde-Thompson: No, correction.
We think that the unified consent regime is an improvement on
the system. What I was just talking about was people's rights
to participate in the process because we do not think that the
causes of delay are actually people—
Q191 John Robertson:
You cannot really force people to take part in a process.
Ms Luhde-Thompson: Of course not,
but you have to make sure that they have the opportunity.
Q192 John Robertson:
With the best will in the world, I try to get a message out to
my electorate and people might not take my message. The amount
of people who say to me, "Well, we never hear from you and
you're never in the papers and you're not on television".
Well, with the best will in the world, I cannot get on television
and I cannot get the newspapers to take my story. How far down
the line do you go to try and involve people in consultation?
Eventually you have to draw the line and say, "I have told
you about it, you have not taken part in it, so what more do you
want?" It seems to me that what I am hearing today is that
it does not matter how much the Government would do anyway because
it would never be enough. Now, people would say that that would
be the case with anything, but I am not getting any feedback that
you are willing to, shall we say, contribute to the consultation
rather than just object to it. That is the feeling I am getting.
Emmalene, we have not heard from you; how about saying something?
Ms Gottwald: I think that the
consultation issues are difficult ones and it is difficult for
us to sit here and say to you what would be an absolutely perfect
consultation process because it has to be different in each case
because you have to take into account, firstly, what you are consulted
on and also the people you are actually consulting. One of the
issues that we are saying here is that there has been evidence
in many situations, not just this one, that the Government is
taking the bare minimum approach to consultation and we are concerned
with that.
Q193 John Robertson:
Who says that?
Ms Gottwald: We do.
Q194 John Robertson:
But I would say they have not.
Ms Gottwald: Well, we would disagree
then because, as has been mentioned on many occasions today both
by the SDC and ourselves, this has been a concept in the making
for a couple of years, if not longer, now. We have known about
this process for a very long time, but there has not been sufficient
early engagement, not just with us as stakeholders, but also with
the public generally on these concepts, and we have tried to push
the Government to do that and we have tried to meet with them
too.
Dr Whitehead: I think we have gone down
this route as far as we can this morning. We need to spend a little
time on talking about environmental assessment and habitats in
relation to NPSs, in particular the question of the appraisal
of sustainability.
Q195 Dr Turner:
Your organisations have been fairly scathing about the NPSs and
the appraisal of sustainability. Would you like to tell us what
your major criticisms are?
Mr Marsh: Yes, we certainly have
been quite scathing and, as you will see from our evidence, the
RSPB and WWF commissioned some experts to analyse the appraisals
of sustainability, which is something we have been arguing with
the Government for some time, that it should incorporate the requirements
of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, so we are
pleased to see that they have done that. Unfortunately, they have
done so in a way that, we feel, fails to meet the requirements
of the Directive. I think the key issue is the alternatives which
have been looked at in the appraisals and now the NPSs because
it is a requirement in the Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) that you should look at reasonable alternatives. What Government
has actually done is, rather than looking at alternative ways
of meeting our energy requirements, it has simply looked at alternative
ways of doing an NPS or having an NPS or not, which I think completely
misses the point. The Planning Act actually requires the Secretary
of State to appraise the policies in the NPS and, following the
spirit and purpose of the Directive, requires you to think about
the environmental impacts of this programme of energy development
which is going to come forward in future years so that, when you
get to the project stage and you do your more detailed assessments,
your strategic decisions have already steered you towards the
least environmentally damaging options, so what has simply happened
is that the appraisals have effectively appraised the impacts
of this particular consenting regime. That is something that should
have happened, and indeed in part did happen, when the Planning
Bill was being considered and, as you know, we now have the system
of NPSs and people think, in principle, that they are a good idea,
but that is not really the question that is being asked. The question
that we wish to see answered is: what are the impacts of these
policies and the projects that will flow from them on the environment?
That really is not the question that is being asked, so the appraisals
do not attempt to think about alternative energy mixes or is there
an alternative to a market free-for-all, but it simply focuses
on the consenting process, and we feel that that is wholly inadequate.
There are further weaknesses about how it has assessed environmental
impacts, but I would particularly focus on that issue.
Q196 Dr Turner:
But these statements are guidance to a committee which is carrying
out the sort of consenting process in order to expedite government
policy. They are not intended to spell out government policy;
government energy policy is spelt out separately. Are you realistically
trying to say that, for instance, an NPS should determine whether
a large-scale renewable energy infrastructure project is desirable
in comparison with, for instance, improved domestic energy efficiency,
because that is the implication of what you are saying? You are
trying to change policy rather than stop the enactment of policy.
Mr Marsh: I think it is very difficult
to properly assess reasonable alternatives for the NPS if you
do not have the opportunity to debate those issues. I think that
there is difference of opinion here between our expectations of
what the NPSs should do and what the Government's expectations
are.
Mr Michaels: I think it is not
whether or not ultimately the Government decide to adopt a different
policy at the end of the process; the question is that, when going
through the process, the Government are open to considering different,
alternative policies or even different, alternative ways of delivering
those policies, and that is what the legislation quite reasonably
requires. What has happened here in these Energy NPSs, the first
five at least, is that the Government has been offered by Entec,
its consultants, 17 different alternatives that the consultants
considered were reasonable and ought to be assessed. In each case,
the Government has said, "Those are not reasonable alternatives
because they are not consistent with our current policy."
In other words, the Government has said, "We are not open
to considering any alternatives that are different from our policy"
and, with the greatest respect, what that does is entirely undermine
the purpose of considering alternatives in the first place because
you start the process with an entirely closed mind and all you
do is you assess, as they have done, different ways of describing
the level of detail to the IPC by which these policies should
be considered.
Q197 Judy Mallaber:
Can you give us some examples of what kinds of alternatives, you
would think, should be discussed that would not then just overturn
the whole overall thrust of the Government's energy policy. Can
you give us some examples that might help to clarify that?
Mr Michaels: I suppose there are
two ways of answering that. The first is to rebut the underlying
assumption that it would be impossible to do that. If one looks,
for instance, at the ports NPS, and I am certainly not holding
up the ports NPS appraisal as a wonderful thing, but what they
do there is they do assess a whole range of different policy approaches
to delivering the Government's overall ports' objectives, and
that is in stark contrast to these energy NPSs. Similarly, with
the nuclear NPS there is at least, albeit very thin, an appraisal
policy of having no new nuclear, which of course is in contrast
to the Government's present policy position, so what is happening
here is starkly different from what is happening in other NPSs.
In terms of which other alternatives could be assessed, rather
than my putting forward those alternatives, one only needs to
look at alternatives proposed by the consultants that are set
out clearly, and they have set out in their appraisal for sustainability
report, I think, eight different alternatives just on the first
overarching NPS, all of which the Government have rejected, and
all of those alternatives seem to me to be reasonable alternatives
that are at least capable of being appraised. That is not to say
that they should be adopted, but they should at least be evaluated
so that the Government has the best information available to it
when it decides which policy ultimately to take forward.
Dr Whitehead: We are running out of time
this morning, and I would like to finally and briefly turn us
to Habitats Regulations assessment.
Q198 Mr Weir:
Could you tell us what your views are on the Department's conduct
of the Habitats Regulations assessment with the draft energy NPSs,
and there is a difference, I believe, between 1 to 5 and the nuclear
one, basically because the nuclear one is site-specific, as I
understand it.
Mr Marsh: Well, the Habitats Directive
works on two levels, so it will work on the NPS level and also
the project level, and essentially it sets out a series of tests
that the decision-maker has to follow to protect the integrity
of European wildlife sites. I think there are a number of problems
with the Habitats Regulations assessment, particularly of the
non-nuclear NPS. It does conclude that you cannot rule out adverse
effects on European sites, but, because of the nature of the document,
and this links to the discussion about the spatial nature, there
is a complete absence of spatial information about what those
impacts might be. I think that the second and perhaps more significant
issue is that under the Habitats Directive one has to think about
alternative solutions in a similar way to the appraisals of sustainability,
and unfortunately they use the same inadequate alternatives as
were used for the appraisals of sustainability, so, in our view,
the assessment wrongly, or perhaps at least prematurely, comes
to the conclusion that there are no alternative solutions for
what is being put forward in the statement. The third issue is
that it then goes on to try to demonstrate that there are imperative
reasons of overriding public interest, which is the third and,
if you like, most demanding test under the Habitats Directive,
without having any of that spatial information in order to do
so. There is a second set of concerns about the guidance that
the assessments give to the IPC as to how it will carry out at
project level the Habitats Regulations assessment. We think it
is both unclear and unhelpful on that point, and I think that
the problem is particularly that the decision of the IPC is heavily
circumscribed and that the finding of IROPI, if you like, gives
the green light for developers and I think that developers may
potentially come to the wrong conclusion that it automatically
gives them a green light when their project will have to be tested
more thoroughly at the local level and, at the same time, the
IPC will not have the discretion it needs to think about the alternative
solutions when it is faced with a particular project, so that
is one set of issues. I think on nuclear it is slightly different
because it is site-specific, so there is spatial information and
we are generally somewhat happier about the way that that has
been done. I think the gap there is that there is no attempt to
look across the suite of nuclear sites to assess which might be
the most damaging to European wildlife sites or which might be
the least damaging, so, when the IPC comes to consider a particular
project, it has no sense of whether there might be less damaging
solutions maybe on another site, and that is a matter of concern.
I think what the NPS should do in that case, and it would be relatively
straightforward, is to do a comparative exercise across the suite
of nuclear sites to try and identify which are the more sensitive
and less sensitive sites, but, secondly, also to make sure that
the IPC is free to consider other options, which might mean going
back to alternatives which have been discarded earlier in the
process because they might turn out to be less ecologically damaging.
Dr Whitehead: I am afraid we have run
out of time this morning with our discussions. I believe that
most of the issues on Habitats Regulations assessment have been
covered. Fiona Howie, Phil Michaels, Naomi Luhde-Thompson, Simon
Marsh and Emmalene Gottwald, thank you very much for your evidence
this morning. We are very grateful for your contribution to this
process and, rushed or not, we will continue to examine these
issues closely.
|
