Examination of Witnesses (Questions 680
- 697)
WEDNESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2010 (afternoon)
SIR MICHAEL
PITT, DR
IAN GAMBLES
DR PAULEEN
LANE CBE
Q680 Mr Weir:
Do you agree with the position of the Law Society this morning
which argued that the site specificity of the nuclear NPS combined
with the Government's assertion that all the sites are needed
effectively constrains the decision making of the IPC?
Sir Michael Pitt: I think you
are right, it does. The fact that the Government has identified
ten sites has reduced the number of potential sites available
for applicants and, indeed, somewhat constrained the decision
making freedom of the IPC. On the other hand, it is for the Government
to make those choices—it seems quite appropriate that they
should do so—and the IPC has no argument with that. We are
quite happy that the government of the day is entitled to make
those strategic choices on behalf of the country.
Q681 Sir Robert Smith:
On the non site specific you seem to be holding out maybe more
hope than perhaps people expect that their independent representations
on the impact of the development will be able to carry weight
against the strength of these national guidelines.
Sir Michael Pitt: What I am saying
to you is that the National Policy Statements are really important
documents. They prevail; they are the main policy context; they
are the primary basis for decision making, so these are powerful
words that Commissioners must fully take into account. However,
it is quite clear also from the act that if a Commissioner feels
that the local impact is so great that it overrides the national
need then the Commissioner or panel can recommend against that
particular project.
Dr Lane: It might be worth making
the point that representations may not just be about whether or
not something should or should not exist; they are also about
the very important considerations around the exact detail of the
development order and mitigation measures. Because of the new
planning regime and the frontloading of the process whereby actually
a lot of the representations will be to the promoter at the early
stages, there is actually the opportunity for people's individual
representations to have quite significant impacts on the outcome,
not necessarily in the binary system of win-lose, but in terms
of the detail of the design and the organisation of the site and
the mitigation measures associated with it. I would not want to
put people off from making representations both to promoters at
the first two stages effectively that they have of consultation
and to the commission in terms of the examination process because
there are actually very important issues to be determined during
that.
Q682 Sir Robert Smith:
Those earlier interchanges between the promoter and those making
observations, are they audited by the Commissioner at the later
stage of the process?
Sir Michael Pitt: We are strongly
encouraging promoters of development to engage effectively with
their local communities, with the local authorities and consultees.
Commissioners will want to see that those constructive conversations
have taken place; they will want to see that the promoters of
development have responded positively to the representations that
have been made. Commissioners must be satisifed that there has
been effective consultation and if they believe there has not
been then they do not even have to accept the application in the
first place.
Q683 Dr Whitehead: Could
I go back to the question of the site specific NPS relating to
nuclear applications as far as you are concerned. If somebody
comes along to you and says, "I would like to put a nuclear
power station on Surrey Docks" you would presumably not even
entertain that notion on the grounds that it was not within the
specified sites. Is it not the case conversely that should someone
come along and say, "I wish to put a nuclear power station
on the site of Sizewell B" you would have to agree?
Dr Lane: That is correct. That
is exactly the situation; you have illustrated it well. If somebody
puts forward a site which is not one of the sites identified in
EN-6 then under our process it falls outwith our consideration
and it has to go to the secretary of state. We cannot actually
commence an examination of it; it goes elsewhere. If somebody
brings forward a site which is one of the identified sites and
we certify that that is the case along with all the other things
that we have to certify—including the community consultation
process—then we would examine it but what we are saying
is that it is not a rubber stamping exercise. It is examined on
the merits of the impact in that location.
Q684 Dr Whitehead:
So what might be the circumstances where you might not agree with
a nuclear power station being put on such a site?
Dr Lane: There are a whole list
of considerations that we have to make in respect of any application
both in EN-1 and EN-6 in respect of scale, massing, impacts, emissions,
everything, so all of the considerations would be relevant.
Q685 Dr Whitehead:
Would you make a distinction between a nuclear power station application
that did not fulfil all those criteria on that particular site
and the idea that the site itself might therefore, as a result
of your examinations, be in your consideration not suitable for
a nuclear power station to be put on it? We have heard, for example,
from witnesses saying that there could be a severe problem of
flooding, coastal retreat on some particular sites and we are
very concerned that it may not be possible to defend a nuclear
power station site over a long period of time as a result of what
we think is going to happen on coastal retreat.
Dr Lane: That is one of the issues
we have to consider. If the panel have rejected an application
on those grounds or any other grounds that would not invalidate
the Policy Statement. I would imagine that any other promoter
would want to take that into account before they brought forward
another application; that would be open to them. If those grounds
were very significant I would have thought it would be a matter
the secretary of state would wish to consider in any updating
of the policy Statement. We cannot, as it were, de-designate an
individual site; all we can do is respond to the application in
front of us and, if we refuse it and we cite grounds for refusal,
that is a matter in the public domain and could be taken account
of by, as I say, a promoter or indeed the secretary of state.
Q686 Dr Whitehead:
You would have thereby effectively de-designated a site.
Dr Lane: We cannot de-designate
a site; we can only refuse a project for reasons clearly stated.
Sir Michael Pitt: In those particular
circumstances the views of the Environment Agency in relation
to flood risk would be paramount and taken into account by the
Commissioners. I guess that if a particular application was clearly
going to be in danger of flooding within a reasonable amount of
time then any further application may well be susceptible to the
same risk. So I guess the advice from the Environment Agency would
be consistently against that development taking place.
Dr Lane: I understand that was
what happened to the Dungeness site proposal as to why it did
not make it through to the final round.
Q687 Sir Robert Smith:
Going back to the earlier interventions, that pressure not to
go ahead would be weighed against the very strong pressure that
ten sites were needed and only ten were available on the other
side of the scale.
Sir Michael Pitt: Yes.
Dr Lane: That is correct, but
if the Environment Agency had made such representations we would
give them significant weight as suggested in the act and the NPS.
Q688 Paddy Tipping:
What would you say to a resident who lives in Sizewell who says
that this is a done deal, any new application is going to through?
How would you reassure?
Dr Lane: We have not pre-judged
any application and the process that I have just outlined has
to be gone through and we have to be satisfied that it is has
gone through in terms of communication by the promoter, through
consultation and also the examination. We are not a rubber stamping
body; we have to give due consideration to representations.
Q689 Paddy Tipping:
This is a real sceptic talking to you from Sizewell who says,
"Just give me some ideas of why you might turn it down".
Sir Michael Pitt: The way the
act is drafted is very interesting because once the National Policy
Statement has been designated the final decision is made by Commissioners
and there is no right of appeal. There can be a reference to the
courts for judicial review but, indeed, the decision of Commissioners
is final. I think if there were public in the position you describe
that would be one of the first things I would explain to them.
Q690 Paddy Tipping:
Pauleen, just give us some themes that you would be concerned
about in an application.
Dr Lane: Exactly the sorts of
things I have just been talking about. We would be looking at
the question of flooding and representations from the Environment
Agency; we would be looking at, for example, the issues which
have been raised in the local impact reports with us by the local
authority which might be in terms of impact on community, it might
be in terms of impact on transport. Those are all issues that
we have to consider and that would include, for example, the whole
life of the project, the construction phase, the operation phase
and indeed the de-commissioning phase.
Q691 Paddy Tipping:
Let us turn to a smaller and sharper area. In your written evidence
you make some interesting points about design and the need for
a clear statement on design. You point out that these are fairly
lengthy documents—that is a bit of an understatement—but
there are inconsistencies in them. These are areas where you would
hope that the draft NPSs are sharpened up.
Sir Michael Pitt: There are several
references in the NPSs to good design. I think we would like to
know a little bit more if we could about what the criteria might
be. I guess a lot of this is about visual intrusion, the use of
different textures and colours of materials in construction; issues
around good landscaping which can often soften the impact of a
very large structure. I think a little bit more in terms of the
framework around which those design considerations could be assessed
would be helpful, but we would clearly would want to get advice.
Again, an organisation like CABE would be a very good example
and we would take account of those views in coming to our conclusions.
Q692 Paddy Tipping:
What about the inconsistencies of language? Is this just a drafting
matter?
Dr Lane: Clearly these are drafts
and we think it would be helpful if there was a greater consistency
across them, particularly in relation to the question of weighting
and hierarchy, and we have drawn attention to that factor, that
if the opportunity is to revise the text it would be helpful to
do so. Clearly if we are faced with the text we will work with
it, but we think it would be helpful, particularly for promoters
and for people being consulted on processes, that those inconsistencies
were ironed out.
Dr Gambles: Can I just add to
that. It is a matter for the Government how they want to draft
this, but what we want to avoid is wasting valuable time in the
examination with debate around nuances of meaning that perhaps
were not even intended to be there in the first place but are
just accidents of drafting. I think we are asking for a certain
amount of simplification, clarification and tightening up for
that reason.
Q693 Paddy Tipping:
When you are sitting on an inquiry you will be presented with
evidence that some people will think are fact and are non-controversial,
things like the possibility of magno-electric fields around power
lines or the consequences of wind flicker or even noise. Would
you have to examine that evidence?
Sir Michael Pitt: I think this
is a very important question about where does the Infrastructure
Planning Commission get the detailed specialist expertise it needs
to properly evaluate complex evidence. We know that there is going
to be a great deal of that on any or all of the applications.
The specialist understanding will come from a potential number
of sources: perhaps the Commissioner him or herself; from the
staff of the secretariats; and also in the act the ability of
the Commission to appoint experts from outside. If, for example,
shadow flicker was a big issue on a wind farm then if the Commissioner
so wished I am able as Chair to appoint an external expert to
support the Commissioner in handling that evidence.
Q694 Paddy Tipping:
Thank you very much for coming. This is one of your opportunities
to influence the draft NPSs. Is there anything you want to tell
us that ought to be done?
Sir Michael Pitt: I only wanted
to add one point which we have just touched on but not really
given enough emphasis to, and that is the central importance of
the local authority. Obviously there are a large number of statutory
consultees but we will, I think, be looking to local authorities
to weigh up and represent the interests of their local communities.
They have the democratic mandate; they will be preparing the local
impact report and they will be working with the applicant on the
nature of the consultation exercise that should be undertaken
in that area. I just wanted to emphasise how much importance we
attached to that role of the local authority and that Commissioners,
I think, will be taking a great deal of heed to the evidence that
they provide.
Q695 Paddy Tipping:
That is helpful; we are seeing the local authorities in two seconds.
Sir Michael Pitt: I happen to
know that!
Q696 Paddy Tipping:
They will tell us they do not have enough resources to do this.
What is your view on that?
Sir Michael Pitt: This is a tricky
one. I think it is right to say that the new regime places special
responsibilities on local authorities. A number of planning authorities
are relatively small district councils. I know it has been argued
that they would have had to have done this work anyway even under
the old regime. As I was just saying to you, we will value very
highly the contribution that local authorities make to this planning
process. They will need professional and technical expertise to
come to their own conclusion about what is in the interests of
their local communities and I think they do need to have the resources
to do that effectively. I am not going to take that any further
because I think that is a matter for CLG and ministers to resolve,
but I think there is a potential issue there.
Q697 Paddy Tipping:
Let me push you a little bit more. Should the developers pay for
this?
Sir Michael Pitt: I know that
planning performance agreements are being reached in some parts
of the country and I can see, for example, that is happening in
Somerset. I have spoken to the leaders of one or two of the councils
there and they are very pleased that those agreements have been
entered into. On the other hand, they also say to me that their
residents feel that the local authority is receiving funding from
the applicants themselves and that in some way might create a
sense of bias. I think that is a consideration that should be
looked at.
Paddy Tipping: Thank you all very much
indeed, that was really helpful.
| 
