Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 299)
WEDNESDAY 20 JANUARY 2010 (morning)
MR ROBERT
ASQUITH, MS
GAYNOR HARTNELL,
MS GEMMA
GRIMES AND
MR PETER
MADIGAN
Q280 Chairman:
How many will go to the IPC, do you think?
Ms Grimes: There are currently
five that are expressing an interest with the IPC at the moment.
Q281 Chairman:
But most onshore wind farms will be dealt with in the current
planning system.
Ms Grimes: Yes. Around 70 per
cent of onshore projects in England and Wales will go to the Town
and Country Planning regime.
Q282 Sir Robert Smith:
You have covered my first question, which was about the Welsh
area of search and how it maybe has not made the difference, but
how does your approach to areas of search compare with the Government's
use of areas around the three licences for offshore wind?
Mr Madigan: The Rowntree process
is the leasing process for the seabed, so you have zones allocated
to companies and consortia of companies for them to develop. They
will start a process whereby those companies identify individual
projects and bring those forward to the consenting system. The
driver for allocating those zones was very much a commercial process.
It is not an area of search approach. There is no assumption that
these will be easier to consent than projects that were brought
forward outside of those areas. That was not the intention. It
was mainly driven by the need to have a competitive commercial
approach to allocate these areas.
Chairman: Let us return to an issue that
Robert took us to right at the beginning, when I rudely cut him
off: the relationship of NPSs with the existing planning system.
Q283 Dr Whitehead:
We have rehearsed some of these arguments and heard from Gemma
that 70 per cent of onshore wind applications will go through
the existing planning system. What do you think the relationship
should be between NPS and the existing planning system? Is it
a cut-off relationship or should it be a graduated relationship?
Ms Grimes: They are legally distinct
systems but there is a great deal of interconnection between the
two. You may be aware of a letter from the chief planner at CLG
that went to all chief planners and local authorities.
Q284 Dr Whitehead:
In November.
Ms Grimes: Yes. That confirmed
that local authorities would need to have regard to NPSs in the
creation of their development plans and in the review of their
development plans, and they should also have regard to NPSs when
making decisions on individual projects. We very much welcome
that. There are two points that we would like to be strengthened.
We would like guidance to be given to local authorities as to
the weight that should be accorded to NPSs when making decisions,
because it is fine to have regard to them but you are having regard
to so many things you want to know what things are more important
than others to bring into the balance. Also, it is stated in the
letter that NPSs do not form part of the local authorities' development
plan, and we would like that to be reviewed because, at the moment,
both the Department for Energy and the Department for Planning
are very unclear. I do not think they have decided either way
the relationship NPSs have to PPSs, whether they are the same
weight or whether one has slightly more weight than the other.
From our perspective, across both organisations, it makes no sense
to have two policies that have the same weight when one is saying
something slightly different potentially in emphasis to the other,
and they both claim to deal with renewable energy.
Mr Asquith: It would be very regrettable
if perfectly good schemes that had gone through planning failed
at legal challenge because a planning authority had inadvertently
perhaps misunderstood advice, or maybe the advice had not been
as clear as it might be about the relative status of these things.
I believe that if the NPSs are adopted and deemed to be a good
thing it should be a very strong material consideration. Indeed,
I think it would be better if they were somehow accorded the status
of PPSs in the planning system. That would be a quicker route
than the route of then trying to modify the relevant PPSs which
are not just PPPs-22 but PPPs-1, the climate change supplement.
In my sector we have to deal with PPS-10, sustainable waste management,
to fit with them as well. There is a danger when you have more
and more policy, well-intentioned, designed to cut through the
problems of the obstacles and getting schemes to go forward, that
it inadvertently creates a legal quagmire. That is our greatest
concern. At a practical level in terms of the non-IPC proposals,
it is very worthwhile noting that these NPSs will be clearly seen
as statements of government policy which will be used to make
a case for, or possibly against, projects. It must be seen that
whilst their principal purpose is for the IPC, they will inevitably
colour and have an effect upon the Town and Country Planning system
as well. That is something that needs to be very carefully thought
through as the final documents are prepared.
Q285 Dr Whitehead:
The REA has suggested that local authorities and the rest of the
planning system should be required to follow NPSs rather than
have regard to them.
Mr Asquith: That would be our
preferred approach. That would obviously require some form of
modification to primary legislation about the planning system
to be affording that status. If that is not possible, the weight
that should be given to them should be very clear—if you
like, "very material consideration" or something like
that.
Q286 Dr Whitehead:
Do you think it is possible to get to that position without perhaps
entering into a greater potential quagmire of legal challenge,
a "paradise for lawyers," shall we say, than is the
case at present? Presumably your preferred outcome would create
a hierarchy of regard, and under those circumstances the extent
to which any sort of local decision-making might then be overridden
by requiring to stand in line with an NPS would appear to undermine
the status of PPSs and therefore a lot of the rest of the planning
system.
Mr Asquith: That hierarchy of
regard, as you put it, is already there. One sees with new PPSs,
as they are issued, almost universally a statement that where
there is conflict between the policy and this PPS and existing
policies in others and in development plans, then this PPS must
have precedence, but that statement clearly tells the reader and
the decision-maker what the hierarchy of regard is. With safeguards
like that, it could overcome the kind of problem you are talking
about.
Q287 Dr Whitehead:
The distinction at the moment in terms of NPSs as they relate
to IPC is that the NPS produces the general statement of policy,
within which an inquiry might be frameworked through the IPC.
If one puts that as a parallel issue as far as local planning
authorities are concerned, it is not easy at first sight to see
how the planning system could easily "tuck in" to that
arrangement as far as the IPC is concerned. Are there ways in
which you think that could be clarified?
Ms Grimes: It comes back to the
point that the NPSs are designed to be, and we believe them to
be, a restatement of existing government policy. Existing government
policy should already be fully taken into account by planning
officers under the Town and Country Planning regime but, as I
said earlier, because this government policy is so widely dispersed
and because current PPSs on renewable energy and climate change
were relatively out of date, this NPS is a consolidated summary
of government thinking on energy and climate change. We feel that
that should be a significant material consideration within the
TCPA regime.
Ms Hartnell: Coming back to what
I was saying earlier about what we would ideally have liked this
NPS to have done, in an ideal world it would have been great had
this statement been the kind of be-all and end-all of government
policy on various different issues, so that time need not be wasted
in the local decision-making process on, say, spurious claims
that really opponents of schemes only need to air the risk of
the lights going out because this wind farm is intermittent, to
sow a seed of scepticism among members of the committee. It would
be nice if the NPS were to set out non-issues as well, so that
one could say, "Look, this is a non-issue. We shouldn't be
discussing it in this planning committee." Furthermore, if
a developer could see this non-issue being discussed, there would
be some means of recourse where they could say, "We don't
want to be dealing with this. This shouldn't be on the agenda."
This is something the Environment Agency should deal with. It
is not something for the planning committee to be worrying about
in an ideal world.
Q288 Dr Whitehead:
In a sense, part of the design of NPSs, as far as what would be
considerations on major proposals or major national infrastructure
proposals is that certainly a fairly explicit aim is that the
percentage of time that is taken up in inquiry by those sorts
of issues, as opposed to location specific and design and arrangement
specific issues taking up the minority of the time, would be reversed.
The NPS is to some extent, as it were, a myth-busting device,
and the rest of the inquiry then takes place with those out of
the way prior to the inquiry taking place. What I cannot quite
see is whether that model could easily be replicated as far as
local planning authorities are concerned and how PPSs fit into
that process, and whether requiring an NPS to be, as it were,
the trump document as far as those other issues are concerned
would so far undermine the local planning system with a number
of other considerations that you might end up having far more
legal challenges than you think you might overcome as a result
of the non-issues being determined in the way that Gaynor has
suggested.
Ms Hartnell: I will leave the
detail to my colleagues who know far more about this than me,
but I would point out that in the fewer larger projects one could
perhaps afford a little bit more time to discuss these things.
When they are being discussed across the country in hundreds and
hundreds of small, local decision-making meetings, it is all the
more important that they are more efficient.
Mr Asquith: It is important to
distinguish the scope for legal challenge from the scope, if you
like, of planning appeal-type challenge to a decision which is
taken locally. My concern is that a planning authority might inadvertently
rely on something and give it a greater status than it should
have done. That is why the status should be clarified for the
NPSs. When it comes to these, as Gaynor says, non-issues, which
are the old chestnuts of our business, it is helpful. Those are
specific planning matters. It might be a planning appeal or a
re-invite in some way, but they are not really legal issues for
challenge of planning decision-making.
Q289 Charles Hendry:
Is there not a danger that you will be perceived as wanting a
mighty sledge-hammer of a planning system to force through applications
where there is very little public support in that locality, when
you should also be looking at other ways of getting public engagement?
There are some major wind farm applications where there is no
local public support for them because those communities cannot
see the benefit which they are going to get. There are others
where the local community is actively supporting the application
because of part-ownership schemes and aspects like that and they
can see a very real benefit to their local community from doing
it. Should that not be the area where you are focusing rather
than on the legal challenges?
Mr Asquith: I cannot really speak
for the wind sector per se, but really issues of how one handles
public engagement, part public ownership, for example, are not
planning issues. Indeed, those are more powerful tools to use
than perhaps some of the spatial policies which were being referred
to previously. In my search of renewable business, we are finding
that we are not as inherently objectionable, and therefore the
kinds of issues we are dealing with are the lack of understanding
of what it is we are doing, which is reflected partly in the drafting
of the renewables document.
Ms Hartnell: Yes, that is an area
we would work on in parallel. The Conservative Party proposal
to allow local communities to keep a proportion of the business
rates for wind farms, and wind farms alone, for a period of time
is good, but I would suggest that it should not just be for wind
developments, it should be for all renewable projects. That is
the sort of thing that we think is extremely helpful. We would
push for that approach to be adopted. There are all sorts of ways
in which local communities can be rewarded.
Mr Asquith: I was at a public
engagement event only this last weekend and the inevitable question
came up, "Why can't we get cheap electricity from you locally?"
There are all sorts of reasons why we cannot do that and it would
be wrong and foolish of me to promise to do that, but the kind
of solution to which Gaynor alluded is an answer which is currently
not available to us but, ultimately, is nothing to do with planning.
Q290 Charles Hendry:
We seem to have gone through a process of saying, "This is
good for you. You should have these locally," and that did
not really work in terms of getting consent, and then saying,
"It would be really bad and irresponsible if you try to oppose
these," and that has not really worked. It seems that the
way forward needs to be of much more active engagement, of winning
hearts and minds, with people really seeing that there is a benefit
for their community for hosting a facility, and then you move
them from being active opponents to active supporters. That could
be business rates, it could be local community ownership, it could
be cheaper electricity. In a way, that is going to be the area
where you win people over rather than by saying, "Even if
you might not want this, we want a system which will force this
through against your wishes."
Ms Grimes: I fully agree with
all those points and I agree with you that there is certainly
more that could be done by the industry, but there is also more
that government could do in informing, genuinely informing, the
public as to the climate change problem and the means by which
we can genuinely address it, and address it in the most timely
and cost-effective manner. I do feel there is more work that needs
to be done on that, because, however much work we do: we would
say that, would we not, because we are the industry.
Charles Hendry: Challenge understood.
Chairman: One of the big objections to
wind farms in particular are environmental objections, landscape
objections. Let us talk about that a bit.
Q291 Dr Turner:
We have agreed that, if successful, the NPSs can be very useful
in eliminating time-wasting by, for instance, need as established
by the NPS, and one would hope that that would equally rub off
on local planning decisions as well. There is nothing that local
planning committees love more than reinventing the wheel. This
also happens with environmental impact assessment. The same, often
generic issues, can be chewed over at vast length and expense
time and time again, when in fact virtually all of the evidence
contained is virtually identical. If then NPSs are successful
in dealing with this matter, they should resolve a lot of environmental
impact considerations, saving time, saving cost, which again could
hopefully rub over into local decisions. Do you think that the
statements do that satisfactorily?
Mr Madigan: You are absolutely
right that one of the major benefits of the NPSs is, as Dr Whitehead
said, the myth-busting aspect and focusing on the really sensitive
issues that need to be debated in detail. We have some minor drafting
points that we would like to bring forward in our written response
to the consultation about some aspects of that, just to refine
those points and add clarity. It is a balance. In some areas there
is a need for specific detailed advice on the issues at hand;
in other cases it would be a judgment based on the evidence. In
those cases, the IPC needs to understand the drivers behind the
evidence that is coming forward so that it can make an informed
judgment. There are some points on that, but generally the approach
we think is very good and we are supportive of it.
Q292 Dr Turner:
If it is successful, the NPS should deal with the generic issues
so that you are left purely with site-specific issues for any
given application.
Mr Asquith: One of the points
about environmental impact assessment is that it driven by yet
another Directive, in that case the European Directive and it
is a separate process which in the UK is largely done through
the planning system, in this case the IPC system. One of the things
that could achieve the result that you are referring to is a very
specific and tightly-run scoping process for environmental impact
assessments under the IPC. I did not see anything specifically
about that in the drafts. When one scopes the EIA with the local
authority, often you end up dealing with issues which you should
not really deal with but you do anyway because you realise that
that is the reality of how it should be handled locally. With
this kind of process, a real tight drafting of the scope of EIAs,
would help so that we could eliminate all the areas which are
in that particular case not relevant or are of very limited concern.
Q293 Dr Turner:
You think that with a little tweaking the policy statements do
that.
Mr Asquith: I think they could
do with a bit of a tweaking, but yes.
Dr Turner: If you would like to give
us your tweaks in writing, that might be helpful.
Chairman: Our final area is to talk about
different technologies. Gaynor, you mentioned that very early
on.
Q294 Mr Weir:
Do you feel that draft NPSs deal adequately with the generation
of energy from biomass and waste as an option?
Mr Asquith: Certainly one of the
things I have found a little frustrating about the draft of renewable
energy is the point I made earlier about the speed at which technology
moves. We are promoting schemes for biomass and biomass from waste
projects, and a description of what an energy from waste project
or a biomass project looks like in the draft is in many ways quite
different from what we are proposing, even when we are proposing
things above the 50 megawatts. At that level, I feel it illustrates
a general concern of the pace of technology and a danger of being
too specific in these documents about what the issues will be.
That is one area of concern I had. Another area of concern with
biomass and energy from waste is that we are ultimately talking
about something, whether it be the original fuel or the secondary
fuel, being burned, combusted, and that raises the issue of air
emissions. The section on air emissions I think could be tighter
and clearer and refer more strongly to the role of the Environment
Agency in regulating proposals under the environmental permitting
regime, such that, put crudely, projects simply will not come
forward if there is any scope for them to exacerbate air pollution
concerns at all, including effects on nature conservation, which
is, in fact, one of the main areas that we do look at.
Q295 Mr Weir:
Some of our witnesses have also expressed concern about the source
of the biomass or waste for these and taking into account the
carbon emissions of that. What is your view on that aspect?
Ms Hartnell: I know that is sometimes
an issue if biomass is being imported, for example. We have put
in a bit of information in our evidence that the emissions associated
with ocean transport of biomass are incredibly low, some 36 grams
per kilowatt hour of electricity produced, whereas coal will emit
something like 800 or 900 grams per kilowatt hour. It is a very
small additional contribution in terms of carbon from this overseas
transport. Distance alone is not the important thing; it is the
means of transport that is important. The Government did look
at this in a lot of detail when it was considering whether to
keep going on coal-firing back in the 2005 review of the Renewables
Obligation. It commissioned quite a lot of environmental assessment
of this and concluded that it should be a longer-term option because
the carbon savings were significant from imported biomass.
Q296 Mr Weir:
What about the other aspect of waste? One of the other issues
was that if we start burning lots of waste, then perhaps that
would impact on recycling and in effect add to emissions. Do you
have a view on that?
Mr Asquith: Yes, I do. There are
a couple of points I would like to make there, one of which is
the relatively recent PPS-1 climate change supplement refers to
renewable and low carbon energy. That is an important consideration,
in that there are some forms of energy which, whilst they are
not renewable, in that they are using short-cycle carbon, are
still better outcomes for material than the alternatives, be they
landfill or whatever. That is an important mindset to have when
considering the carbon footprint, if you like, of a generation
proposal. Indeed, we routinely do carbon footprinting analysis
to answer the specific questions you have on specific projects.
In terms of setting back recycling, I can only speak for the projects
we are doing. We are looking at material which would be biomass.
Some of it, yes, would have been paper and card in its prior life
to becoming a fuel feedstock, but we are looking at material which
could never be recycled as paper and card because it is of a low
quality. It is important to examine the diminishing returns of
recycling more and more of a relatively poor quality resource
versus the energy benefits. At some point between those two is
a cut-off. I do not think that we are generally at or approaching
that cut-off yet, with recycling rates in most parts of the country
now around 50 per cent. There is still a way we could go to achieve
more good quality recycling and I do not think that should be
seen as preventing energy projects which ultimately are there
to replace landfill.
Ms Hartnell: Just to observe that
those countries in Europe which are generally associated with
being the greenest in Europe have the highest recycling rates
and the highest rates of energy recovery from waste. The two things
go perfectly comfortably hand-in-hand.
Q297 Mr Weir:
Do you think the NPS has excluded consideration of wave and tidal
power, hydro-power, and why do you feel they have excluded that
from their guidance?
Mr Madigan: From the point of
view of the BWEA there is currently no wave and tidal projects
coming forward that are over 100 MW. However, we do see them coming
forward in a reasonably short space of time. We are quite comfortable
that wave and tidal has been excluded from this NPS. However,
through the provision process, or at the behest of the Secretary
of State, there does need to be added a section on wave and tidal
at an appropriate time.
Q298 Dr Turner:
Do you think it is necessary that the NPSs should exclude, for
instance, wave and tide? Why can it not become a more generic
requirement expressing the need for renewable energy?
Ms Grimes: Wave and tidal are
referred to in EN-1 under that guise, demonstrating the types
of technologies that are likely to come forward to produce renewable
energy and other types of energy.
Ms Hartnell: I do not think this
guidance sufficiently deals with wave and tidal. It is making
clear it will come later, but why is it excluded? It does need
to be clarified on that. Notwithstanding the general points we
would want to make about this guidance being wider across the
board, it is dealt with poorly, and I think the intention was
that it should have been there, but it was a question of time
and resource.
Ms Grimes: From our understanding
of talking with the Department for Energy, it was the intention
that it would not be dealt with in detail in EN-3 at the moment,
and we understand that and accept that with the knowledge that
it will be brought forward at a later stage when wave and tidal
is closer to market at that kind of generation capacity. Perhaps
there is a need for further clarification within the wording of
the NPSs because we are in dialogue with the Department for Energy
directly; perhaps there are things we understand from them that
are likely to come forward but are not expressed in detail in
the documents themselves.
Sir Robert Smith: Surely, given the great
potential in the long run, wave and tidal must have nothing that
holds it up any more and treats it as a Cinderella; so we should
be getting on making sure there are going to be no barriers to
wave and tidal as it comes through.
Q299 Dr Turner:
It should be easy enough to produce a catch-all provision that
will cover it!
Mr Madigan: It is also worth pointing
out, in parallel we have seen the development of the Marine Coastal
Access Act as it is implemented, and you have the Marine Management
Organisation, which will be consenting projects under 100 MW.
From our point of view we want to see absolute consistency between
the approaches of both the MMO and the IPC so that you have a
complete, smooth delivery system and smooth process, and that
will greatly help delivery of wave and tidal projects.
Ms Hartnell: I think it is very
important. Environmental consenting is one of the things that
has the potential to really stifle the development of wave and
tidal renewables, and it really could do with beefing up in that
respect, we think, on this guidance.
Chairman: That is a strong point to finish
on. Robert, Gaynor, Peter, Gemma, that was really crisp evidence,
with a good bit of disagreement at times, which is always very
helpful. Thank you all very much.
| 
