Examination of Witnesses (Questions 760
- 779)
WEDNESDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2010
LORD HUNT
OF KINGS
HEATH OBE, MR
ADAM DAWSON
AND MS
ANNE STUART
Q760 Mr Weir:
I just have one point arising from the point that Ms Stuart made
about being carbon-capture-ready. There have been concerns raised,
I think, by Scottish & Southern regarding the fossil fuel
impact relating to gas generation, which is the opposite point
to the one Des was making. It says there that, if you are applying
for a gas-fired station, you must ensure that it is carbon-capture-ready
and it is economically viable to put in carbon capture, and they
are concerned that, as there is no CCS for gas at the moment and
no research at the moment going on in the UK, it will be impossible
for them to apply for a gas station. I just wonder what your views
are on that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
I do not think it is unreasonable for us to require carbon capture
readiness for gas-fired generating stations. Of course, those
colleagues who have been involved in the Energy Bill consideration
in committee will know that this has been the subject of some
debate, the extent to which we should signal now in terms of CCS
for gas-powered stations.
Q761 Mr Weir:
I think the point is not whether it should be carbon-capture-ready,
but the point is the economic viability of it when there is no
research into it in the UK and no one has demonstrated an economically
viable model for CCS for gas at this stage. If the IPC is to consider
the economic viability of it, in effect, it would have to turn
down a gas station.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: What
do you mean by `carbon-capture-ready'? I think being carbon-capture-ready
is very different from a requirement to develop CCS and often
it is around the land availability around a site to develop the
technology that is required. On the whole issue of CCS, clearly
we believe that we should focus on coal to start with because
it is a large emitter, but we have always thought that at some
stage in the future CCS was appropriate to gas-powered stations,
and we have laid amendments yesterday to the Energy Bill—sorry,
it is today, we were going to do it yesterday—which essentially
extend the CCS incentive to demonstration projects on gas. I have
to say, that is future-proofing because we are still very committed
to starting CCS with the four demonstration projects on coal,
but I think we can all see the direction of travel here.
Paddy Tipping: We will come on to talk
about CCS in a little while.
Q762 Dr Turner:
Philip, there is just one last question before we leave this need
issue. You say that it is for the Government to decide if the
energy mix is going right or not, which is fine, so I think the
only question is whether you declare that before the application
or after the event because after the event it is a bit difficult
to do anything about it. You could have a theoretical situation
whereby there were already quite enough gas-fired stations permitted
and along came another great thumping application for one and
you have no ability, because of the way the legislation is set
out, to stop that being approved if it meets all the other planning
criteria, whereas of course under the old system the Secretary
of State could have called it in, so that is why it is perhaps
sensible to put some provision in the NPS to cover that sort of
situation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well,
of course ultimately you can suspend the NPS if you want to, but
that would not be the approach that I would want to see happen.
In the first place, the application process takes time and it
is not as if an application, I think, creeps up on you, so we
will be able to keep track and, as I have said, if it appears
that the combination of the interventions that Government has
look like we are not getting the right mix, then we will not hesitate
to introduce new interventions. I think one has to recall on gas
that gas is important as the transition and it would also be needed
as part of the balance, given the intermittence in nature of much
renewable energy, so gas will have a role to play in the future
as well.
Q763 Dr Turner:
I think we have done that one to death. Let us move on to the
question of environmental assessment. All of the NGOs have been
critical of the Appraisal of Sustainability that has gone along
with the preparation of the NPSs. The question from their point
of view is why did the Department not evaluate the full range
of alternatives suggested by its own environmental consultants
in the Appraisal of Sustainability for the non-nuclear NPSs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think
the straightforward answer to that is because the non-nuclear
NPSs are not statements of new energy policy, what they do is
bring together existing policies. I do not think, in that sense,
the approach that has been suggested would at all have been appropriate.
The issue here, particularly if we talk about non-nuclear, because
obviously we have pursued a different course in relation to nuclear,
essentially is how does the energy infrastructure flow from the
policies that we have already enunciated?
Q764 Dr Turner:
It almost makes the Appraisal of Sustainability irrelevant if
you pursue that to its logical conclusion. It is difficult to
see quite how that appraisal has informed the drafting of the
NPSs when they were done at the same time.
Ms Stuart: I was involved in the
work we did on this. I think there is a slight conflation in the
argument that you have been given. We went through the process,
which is very linked to the SEA process, where one identifies
all the conceivable alternatives you can think of to your plan,
you then identify which ones of them are reasonable and you then
do the detailed appraisal on the ones you think we are reasonable.
The fact that our consultants, very correctly, identified as many
alternatives as they could was exactly what I would expect of
an appraisal of this type. What then happened was we talked through
with them what could realistically happen and, in the context
of the purpose of the plan as set out, we had said that the purpose
of writing National Policy Statements was not to invent new energy
policy but to explain how existing energy policy was applied.
In talking with them we came to the conclusion that it was not
reasonable to say that the plans had a different purpose to the
one we had set out when we started, which is why we landed up
where we were.
Q765 Dr Turner:
That is fine, but, of course, the IPC process does not supplant
the need for environmental impact assessment?
Ms Stuart: No.
Q766 Dr Turner:
It has been put to us by Friends of the Earth that the Appraisal
of Sustainability is actually in conflict with the Strategic Environmental
Assessment legislation. What is your view on that assertion? That
is Friends of the Earth's assertion?
Ms Stuart: Yes, they have said
the same thing to us in a very detailed letter which we are still
looking at in detail, but on the SEA legislation I would be fairly
confident. The purpose of SEAs is to assess the environmental
impact of plans and programmes, not of policies, so to argue that
we failed in the SEA Directive because we failed to assess the
impacts of policies is a slightly circular argument to me, but,
as I say, our lawyers are still having fun poring over the 14
pages we were sent.
Paddy Tipping: We have talked quite a
lot about the spatial nature of the nuclear NPS and the non-spatial
nature of the others. Let us just pursue that for a bit longer.
Q767 Sir Robert Smith:
I should remind the Committee of my entries in the Register of
Members' Interests, given the evidence we have been having, of
a shareholding in Shell and a visit to Total's carbon capture
and storage demonstration project funded by Total. You mentioned
in some of the earlier evidence that each application should be
judged on its merits, there should be no quotas, and so on, but,
of course, when it comes to the nuclear NPS there are ten sites
identified and then a description of need, that ten sites are
needed. Does that not really heavily constrain the IPC's decision-making?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No,
I do not think so, and it is not meant to. As you know, we have
identified that by 2025 we might need about 25 gigawatts of non-renewable
electricity generating capacity, and what we have said is that
we think that the nuclear sector should be free to put in development
applications as much as they want to up to that level. If you
take the ten sites, I suppose, if there was one reactor per site,
the potential gigawatt development would be between 12 and 17
gigawatts, but that does not take account of applications which
might embrace more than one generator, and I think some of the
pre-applications that are being proposed actually consist of two
generator applications. The point I am making is that, in the
end, it will still be entirely up to the IPC to decide. Although
we have gone through this process and said we think that these
ten sites are appropriate that does not constrain the IPC, when
it comes to an individual consent process, to actually turn down
an application. I would not want it to be thought that we are
so constraining the IPC. What we were trying to do is to identify
a number of sites where we thought it would be possible to see
development and where it was appropriate and met the kind of tests
that needed to be undertaken by 2025.
Q768 Sir Robert Smith:
Could someone come in with an application for somewhere not on
the list?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps
I could ask Mr Dawson to comment on exactly what would then happen.
This is not inflexible, but, of course, due process would have
to be gone through.
Mr Dawson: I think the first thing
to recognise is the sites are identified out of a pretty lengthy
process which started right back in 2006. If somebody came forward
with an application for somewhere else that was not listed, was
not one of the ten sites, then the IPC could consider it and the
IPC would be able to make a recommendation to the Secretary of
State, but the Secretary of State would have to consider whether
to re-run the whole siting process to identify whether or not
it was an appropriate site, in the same way that we have identified
the ten that were listed. They could come forward, but the hurdle
is quite high to gaining consent, and the IPC could not grant
consent.
Q769 Sir Robert Smith:
If they were to refuse several sites, how do you think the Government
would have to react?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think
we would have to probably look for more sites. In a sense what
we have been saying here is that it is for the IPC to deal with
each consent on its merits. I have already said if there are other
interventions that are necessary, then, clearly, it would be up
to government to do that. I would have thought that one of the
obvious answers is to say that if in terms of the energy met we
are worried that we are not getting enough development and it
was clear that the sites that we potentially thought might be
suitable were not being consented, we would either have to revisit
the policy or we would have to look for other sites. It is interesting
that on my visit to Cumbria, where three of the sites are listed,
as you know, one of the points put to me is of issues around local
infrastructure: "What would be the impact if you had three
nuclear generators being developed in Cumbria? What is the impact
on the National Park?" These are legitimate issues about
local infrastructure, roads, and that is for the IPC to consider
and, in the end, they will have to come to a view.
Q770 Sir Robert Smith:
It has been put to me that traditionally they have been on the
coast for cooling purposes, but some of the newer developments
are looking to have cooling towers taller than the Post Office
Tower. Presumably the IPC, again, have to take into account the
impact of the development.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes,
that is absolutely right.
Q771 Dr Whitehead:
Why do you think there is such a distinction between the very
precise spatial approach of the nuclear NPS and the completely
non-spatial approach of all the other NPSs? Do you not think,
at least in terms of indicative areas for development, a more
spatial approach might have been taken as far as the non-nuclear
NPSs are concerned?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do
think it is a very fair question and I understand that a number
of organisations have raised this. I think you do have to go back
to the unique aspects of nuclear energy and the reason why the
Government in 2006 made this commitment that a site-specific approach
would be taken. We have discussed how many sites might be available
and might be necessary. Inevitably, the number of sites that are
going to be judged suitable will always be limited, and so I think
it was both right in terms of public confidence in a new nuclear
policy but also practically to do the specific work in relation
to individual nuclear sites, but when you think of the whole energy
infrastructure, I do not think that that necessarily follows.
There is a massive amount of work that would have to be undertaken
to go through the kind of process we have done with nuclear, the
time that would be taken, the costs, because you would be dealing
with so many different types of technology, so many sites, I would
have thought issues of blight, of investment in decisions. Obviously
I will look at this more carefully at the end of the consultation
process, but the impression that I have got from a lot of stakeholders
is that once you get into the details of this, actually they are
not in favour, and I think in relation to the other technologies
it is much better for the developer to put their proposals and
then to go through the process.
Q772 Dr Whitehead:
We have managed to do this on offshore spatial planning apparently
without too many difficulties.
Ms Stuart: The offshore spatial
plans are spatial but they are very, very high level, they cover
a big area, and so you could go somewhere in there. It is a bit
like saying you could build a wind farm in Norfolk. It is not
the sort of thing that people are doing for nuclear, where we
are actually drawing a line round the site; so I think there is
a very different approach. We did look at the possibility of indicating
areas and indicating regions. The problem we came across, particularly
with onshore wind, was the fact that it can go pretty much anywhere
where there is some wind, so you land up drawing a map of the
country that says you can go very nearly anywhere, which is not
really much help to anyone. There is also the concern we had that
if you start narrowing down those areas by adding in extra criteria,
they still have to stay fairly wide because there are a lot of
suitable areas and we want a lot and are you starting to create
blighted issues. If you narrow down again, there then comes the
point which Lord Hunt referred to where there is a particular
concern from both industry and other areas that if you have too
small an area you put too much stuff in that constrained area
and the impacts become quite bad for the environment in the surrounding
area. If you have too small an area from industry's point of view,
of course, it very much constrains what they can do and means
that, if they can find a suitable site elsewhere, they cannot
build on it, and we have seen this. There have been a lot of attempts
at spatial planning and it tends to work very fine until you start
trying to work out the transport plan for putting seven wind farms'
worth of kit up a small side road.
Q773 Dr Whitehead:
Is that not precisely what you have done with nuclear?
Ms Stuart: The nuclear one, I
think, because the sites that are possible are much more constrained—Adam
can speak better on this—but there was a very big sweep
of the whole country and we came down with a small number of sites.
Mr Dawson: Nuclear is different.
There are not that many places where you can actually put nuclear
power stations—you have to have access to cooling, there
are population density criteria set out by the regulators, and
so on—so it is relatively more easy to identify the sites
where new nuclear power stations can be built than for other forms
of energy infrastructure, and there are significantly more constraints
about where you can put them.
Q774 Charles Hendry:
The ten sites which have been identified so far for nuclear: is
it your assumption that those are the best ten sites in the country
or is it more that they are the only ten sites which you can see
as being appropriate?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The
definition we have used is that we think they are potentially
suitable for development. The Atkins study actually looked at
three other sites which they thought might be suitable, but we
thought that they would not be potentially developable by 2025,
which is a criterion we have used.
Q775 Charles Hendry:
You were talking about your visit to Cumbria and the potential
cumulative effect and the impact on the infrastructure and on
the National Park. Would the IPC take account of the cumulative
effect or would it not be required to look at a site-specific
approach and say: "What are the merits of that particular
application?" bearing in mind that somebody may get permission
but ultimately not build the facility?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My understanding
is that they can take account of the cumulative impact, which
I think is fair. Perhaps my colleague would like to come in, but
it does seem to me to be fair to a particular community or communities
that they are able to take that into account.
Ms Stuart: The EIAs that must
be done on all proposals for infrastructure would cover the cumulative
impacts of the proposed development on the area, including all
development consent that was ahead of it in the planning process.
If something has just entered the planning process and there is
something that has already got a planning application in but not
yet consented, they would have to take that into account because
there is a realistic prospect that you might land up with it being
built. If the circumstances then changed, you could go back and
change your EIA and say, no, actually they decided not to build
that. Otherwise you land up with a situation where the fact that
you are building your wind farm next to the site of a proposed
school and the site of another proposed wind farm is not taken
into account.
Q776 Charles Hendry:
Are you completely comfortable that the same approach should be
taken in this process towards greenfield sites as legacy sites?
The evidence which we have had is that people have been much more
willing to accept an application in a legacy site—they expected
it, in many cases they were pushing for it to happen—but
there has been a much more negative reaction from people who had
no idea that their community and their village was going to be
identified. Do you think the same process is applicable to both?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes,
I too have received that feedback. I do not think you can visit
Cumbria without understanding that as a whole it is a community
that is very pro and supportive of nuclear development, but, nonetheless—the
point you have raised—people living on or near the greenfield
sites have also expressed that view. I do think that the Atkins
study and the process it has gone through is entirely appropriate
both for areas where you already have a power station and greenfield
sites. It looks to me that it is thorough and I see no reason
why the IPC cannot come to a clear decision in relation to whether
it is legacy or new.
Q777 Dr Whitehead:
When we look at the distinction between the spatial precise proposals
for the nuclear NPS and the non-spatial proposals for the non-nuclear
NPS the accusation could arise that effectively you have given
a number of nuclear power station developers free sites rather
in defiance of what would be the normal process of identifying
a site and negotiating its value and developing it, and so on,
especially since a number of these sites, effectively, were identified
in the first instance, so I understand, by potential developers
of nuclear power stations. Does that not mean that as far as the
nuclear NPS is concerned there is a completely different assumption
about site value and site access and company advantage compared
with, say, developing a non-nuclear power station within one of
the non-spatial NPS constraints?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps
I could ask Mr Dawson to answer that in some detail, but, of course,
there are two points that I would make. Yes, developers were in
a position to put forward sites but so were other organisations
as well. The second is really coming back to the question because
we have listed ten sites does that mean that the IPC has to give
consent on each of those sites? The answer, very clearly, is,
no, it has to deal with it on its own merits.
Mr Dawson: There is one other
point I would add, which is that the existing sites are where
they are for very similar reasons to the reasons why you would
put them there if you were looking at the country from a blank
sheet of paper, so to speak. Nuclear power stations were sited
by the CEGB and others at points where they met the population
density criteria, where the geology was suitable when you did
the site investigation, where there was access to cooling water,
and so on, and so you would naturally expect that land in the
vicinity of existing nuclear power stations would be potentially
suitable for new ones because it has, essentially, similar characteristics
to those that the CEGB would have identified in the first place.
Q778 Dr Whitehead:
The population density criteria: presumably that is because it
is not advisable to put them near centres of population?
Mr Dawson: There are criteria
set out which the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has to advise
on. In terms of the density of population in various directions
from the nuclear site, that was an exclusionary criterion that
we set out for siting any new nuclear power station.
Q779 Dr Whitehead:
One of the criteria may well be the fact that these sites may
well flood over the next 100 years. Indeed, one of the issues
relating to those sites is the presence on them of material stored
for between 100 and 160 years prior to any sort of entry into
a repository. If the IPC said, "Well, actually that is a
pretty material consideration. We are concerned about the fact
that there may well be coastal retreat on a number of these sites
except for nuclear power stations," how would you react to
that in terms of the search for sites and the site-specific nature
of what the NPS presently says?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: What
has happened in relation to climate change aspects of the ten
sites is that all those nominated sites were assessed against
flood risk, et cetera, really against projections that take us
up to 2100, because that is the evidence that is currently available.
In relation to other developments, clearly, one would expect the
IPC to take account of climate change impacts. That must become
a feature of all considerations in the future. If I think of the
Climate Change Act, the adaptation requirement on statutory bodies,
all of this must lend the whole public sector, and in its interface
with the private sector as well, to ensure that we are looking
at climate change impacts decades ahead and making sure, as far
as possible, what we are developing now is fit for purpose then,
so I would not really see a distinction there.
| 
