SUMMARY
Summary
A long-standing criticism of the planning regime has been that national policy and, in particular, the need for major infrastructure, is not clearly set out. The Government has sought to address this issue through the setting of national policy statements (NPSs), which will form the primary basis for decisions on planning applications for nationally significant infrastructure considered by a new body—the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). This Report examines the Government's proposals for six NPSs on energy. We believe there are a number of ways in which the statements must be improved if they are to serve their purpose successfully.
A key question is the extent to which the NPSs reflect existing Government policy. They should take a more holistic view of the energy sector, giving greater consideration to transport and heating. The analysis underpinning the Government's case for the need for new conventional electricity generating capacity in the light of the large amount of gas-fired capacity already in development is questionable. At present, the case put forward suggests the Government believes it will not meet its renewable energy targets, or that nuclear or CCS infrastructure will not come forward in sufficient quantities. Because the draft NPSs do not set out a hierarchy of technologies, there is also a risk of locking the UK into a high-carbon energy mix. In addition to addressing policy levers, such as the operation of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the Government should place additional safeguards within the NPSs, including the requirement for applicants to conduct a full life-cycle carbon assessment of their proposals, and require the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to report annually on the cumulative emissions arising from developments consented by the IPC as part of its overall monitoring of progress against the carbon budgets. Furthermore, the Government should adopt the CCC's proposal that the electricity sector be fully decarbonised by 2030 as this would better inform the IPC's long-term decision-making.
On technology specific issues the Government should review the guidance set out in the draft NPSs on carbon capture readiness and combined heat and power, and amend the Statements so they consider the future need for carbon dioxide transportation networks. The renewables NPS should also direct the IPC to assess the sustainability of the fuel sources for new biomass power plant.
On nuclear power, we agree with the Government's approach of identifying 10 sites potentially suitable for development, though this should not preclude the possibility of some of these being refused planning permission. We also accept the Government's assertion that it is not for the IPC to consider the arrangements for the long-term repository-based storage of radioactive waste, though we do not accept this argument for on-site interim storage. Additionally, the Government should set key milestones for the delivery of a geological disposal facility and report annual progress to Parliament.
The status of the NPSs within the wider planning system is ambiguous, and the Government should consult on, and publish, definitive guidance for decision-makers at all levels. There is also greater scope for the non-nuclear NPSs to take account of spatial issues, and this could be assisted by the development of some form of English national spatial strategy.
We note significant concerns about the Government's consultation process and its conduct of the appraisals of sustainability for the draft NPSs. The Government must learn from this experience and use it to inform the preparation of future NPSs. Overall, given the importance of the energy NPSs in delivering our energy and climate change objectives, we recommend that they are subject to a debate in the main Chamber on an amendable motion, offering the possibility of a vote, either in the current Parliament or at the earliest opportunity in the next Parliament.
|
|
|
