Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460
- 474)
WEDNESDAY 27 JANUARY 2010 (morning)
MR BRIAN
SEABOURNE, MR
PAUL SPENCE,
MR SIMON
WELLS AND
MR DAVID
PORTER
Q460 Mr Anderson:
If they are given sufficient weight, what would happen if you
had a dispute, if the NPS said "we want to go consultation
on X" and they said, "yes, we will go for that"
but the local authority, which might not be directly in X but
in Y that will not be affected except perhaps by connection to
the grid and pipe work, and that goes to court? Do you think the
NPS should have the power to overrule that?
Mr Wells: Being a lawyer, obviously
I would say that this is a bit of a grey area! Clearly, our expectation
is that the development plans will in time be aligned with the
NPSs and the process to enable those to be aligned is under way
and will happen as development plans are revised. Clearly there
is that opportunity for conflict. At the end of the day, the way
a dispute is resolved ultimately is through the law, I suppose,
but how it is resolved will depend on the weight given by the
local authority to the various plans it has to take into account.
Q461 Mr Anderson:
Until such time as they come into line, do you think that that
fills in an almost automatic risk of delay and challenge and therefore
more legal challenge?
Mr Wells: There is always the
risk of legal challenge. The risk of successful legal challenge
is the same; it depends on the weight to be given. It is probably
worth bearing in mind that it could be developers who are challenging
this; it could be anybody involved in the process who may end
up in that sort of challenge.
Q462 Colin Challen:
Correct me if I am wrong but I think there is something like 3
GW of wind held up in the planning system. That figure might be
quite different. Do you know what proportion of those applications
for wind that is held up in the planning process would fall below
the threshold to be considered by the IPC, do you know? Is it
a significant amount?
Mr Seabourne: I do not know. We
could let you have a note on that. We would have to look at the
projects and see what capacity they were.
Q463 Colin Challen:
It would be interesting to know. Leading on from that, by the
very nature of the new technologies, they start off on a fairly
small scale and wind is now well established but looking at other
renewable technologies, to go through research, development and
deployment, they start at a fairly small scale. Is there a danger
that this planning system, by setting a threshold at the level
it is, could actually work against new technologies which may
get bogged down by the local planning process? Should that be
addressed?
Mr Wells: I think that is consistent
with the point you have just made on the status of the NPS and
how that is reflected in the TCPA system. Clearly the IPC process
has to have a threshold somewhere and whether or not some tunes
could be played on the threshold that has been put in place is
another debate. By having the NPSs and the importance of emerging
technologies identified through the NPSs as something which will
contribute to renewables targets, decarbonisation, et cetera,
is another reason for integrating NPSs into the TCPA regime. A
lot of the smaller scale renewables that you are talking about
are offshore. Clearly, it is not just the relationship between
the new planning regime and the TCPA; it is also to ensure that
the relationship with the new marine management organisation and
the marine policy statement and the implications there are fully
matched up as well.
Mr Seabourne: I support that.
Q464 Paddy Tipping:
Are you confident that the relationship with the Marine Bill and
the NMR is clear? They are both new bodies that are going to emerge.
There does seem a potential for overlap and possible conflict
here.
Mr Wells: Yes. There is also the
possibility of a gap as well. There is certainly some possibility
for conflict because the marine policy statement is being progressed
on the same timescale as the national policy statements. The MMO
is looking to be in operation shortly after the IPC is set up,
so clearly there is a lot of dialogue and dovetailing to be done.
Until all of those bodies are in place and the marine policy statement
is further developed, I do not think it is possible at this moment
to be confident either way.
Mr Seabourne: It is very important
that the marine and coastal access regime does give due weight
to the need for energy developments in the marine environment,
including smaller scale projects which are not covered by the
IPC. The IPC has to take account of the views of the MMO when
it considers projects, but when we have a marine policy statement
designated by the Secretary of State, that needs to be consistent
with the NPSs under the Planning Act.
Mr Porter: Mr Chairman, we can
let you have a note in response to Mr Challen's first question
about the number of wind applications that are held up.
Colin Challen: That should be on those
that fall below the threshold.
Q465 Paddy Tipping:
You are the experts. I think that there are only five applications
for on-shore wind farms that are above the threshold.
Mr Wells: That is correct. There
have obviously been one or two which have gone under the old Section
36 regime. You are correct that there are very few applications
of that size on shore.
Q466 Colin Challen:
How many gigawatts or megawatts do those five represent? We may
get towards the answer to my question this morning.
Mr Wells: I cannot say. We would
have to incorporate that in the note to you.
Q467 Paddy Tipping:
Just looking at it a different way, of all the wind farm applications
that go in, only 29 per cent were approved by local authorities.
Is that right?
Mr Wells: I could not tell you
whether that is right or not. It certainly feels as though that
might be in the right ball park.
Q468 Paddy Tipping:
Again, it would be useful if you could you let us have some information
around that. Turning from wind power to nuclear, the NPSs are
silent about the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste. Is that
a sensible approach to take?
Mr Spence: I am not sure it is
fair to say that they are silent about the disposal of the waste.
I think the first point I would like to make is that the industry
here in the UK has had a history of managing its waste safely
and effectively for the last 50 years, for the life of the existing
stations. What we have in the NPS is the statement that says that
essentially we have been through a process to identify what the
UK should do with the waste that we create and that has reached
the conclusion that deep geological disposal is the right answer
for us as a country. That is in line with international standards.
There are no apparent technical show-stoppers to achieving that.
There is a process set out by the Government's White Paper as
to how we are going to march towards having that in place for
this country, and that provides sufficient basis to move ahead
for nuclear power. We support that position. We think it is important
that we do continue to move forward to address both the legacy
waste and to find the solution and the site for that solution
for the new waste as well.
Q469 Paddy Tipping:
What does that mean in the short to medium term, in terms of on-site
storage? It is going to take quite a long time to develop a deep
repository.
Mr Spence: It means that for that
interim period we as the developer have to make allowance for
the interim storage of the waste on site, which is what we do
today. For example at our station at Sizewell we have had waste
from the years of production already gone through and we are ready
to do that for the whole life of the station. We will do that.
We will do that safely. That will be part of the application that
we make. It is certainly an area that we have heard that people
around the sites are keen to understand and keen to be reassured
on that it is safe. We believe we can give them that reassurance;
we can give them that for the time that we have to hold the waste
locally and then it will move to that national site as and when
it is ready. That is where I reach the point that says the sooner
the better for that national repository.
Q470 Paddy Tipping:
Just supposing, and it is a bit supposition, that the site were
to be in West Cumbria, I am right in thinking that the authority
that would give planning permission for that would be Cumbria
County Council and not the IPC?
Mr Spence: I would have to give
you a note on that.
Mr Seabourne: This point was raised
last week, as I recall. If you look at the Managing Radioactive
Waste White Paper, it does say that the Government will intend
to ensure that the deep geological repository would come under
the new planning regime. They stated that as their intention,
although at that time the new regime was not in place. As I understand
it, it is the Government's intention to bring that facility within
the remit of the Planning Act and the IPC.
Q471 Paddy Tipping:
Perhaps you could just write that down for us, Brian, because
there is conflicting advice.
Mr Seabourne: I will.
Q472 Colin Challen:
What the Chief Executives of E.ON and EDF told the Trade and Industry
Committee in 2006 was that the long-term solution to the disposal
of radioactive waste would be a prerequisite for the approval
of new nuclear. That is no longer the case, I take it?
Mr Spence: I think we would look
to see that we are still making progress at the time we make our
application and at the time we make our investment decisions.
We still need to see continued progress towards having that final
repository available but at the moment we are seeing sufficient
progress to give us the confidence to move ahead with our plans.
Q473 Colin Challen:
How do you define "sufficient progress" because I have
to say that is a very political statement? When politicians say
"we are making progress towards our targets" it does
not really make any difference to anybody what they are saying;
it is just a fudge. You are just repeating a fudge that would
have been given to us 30 or 40 years ago.
Mr Spence: I do not think I am
repeating a fudge because I think that since 2006 we have seen
the publication of the White Paper; we have seen the CoRWM process
reach its conclusion about the technical solution. Those are two
tangible steps in the right direction. There is a process laid
out.
Q474 Colin Challen:
"Tangible steps", with respect and on the ground, not
government reports and reports of government committees ad nauseum.
Mr Spence: I think statements
of intent are important from government; statements of policy
are important.
Paddy Tipping: I think that is a good
point on which to finish some lively issues here. We are grateful
to you all for your evidence and particularly grateful that it
was so concise, succinct and to the point. You have been extremely
helpful. You are going to let us have some information about wind
farms and thresholds and, Brian, you are going to sort out the
number and about who is going to give consent to the repository.
Thank you all very much indeed.
| 
