House of Commons - The proposals for national policy statements on energy

The proposals for national policy statements on energy - Energy and Climate Change Contents

5 OTHER REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PLANNING ACT 2008

107. In addition to parliamentary scrutiny of the draft NPSs, the Planning Act 2008 states they must also be subject to public consultation and an appraisal of sustainability before they can be designated by the Secretary of State. In this Chapter we consider the Government's conduct of both these requirements. We also examine briefly a general requirement within the Act that NPSs should have regard to the desirability of achieving good design.

The Department's consultation

108. DECC launched its consultation alongside the publication of the draft energy NPSs on 9 November 2009 and it closed on 22 February 2010. In addition to seeking written and online responses, the Department held a number of local events near the sites proposed for potential nuclear development and several more general national events on the suite of draft NPSs. There were also a number of technology-specific stakeholder meetings with environmental NGOs and industry. The Energy Networks Association told us it believed "the draft NPSs should be subject to the deepest and widest consultation process to ensure they have got the widest agreement and legitimacy [...]".[206] A number of witnesses, however, were critical of the consultation process. For example, WWF said the Government had taken "the bare minimum approach".[207] Another group remarked: "[...] the consultation process is fundamental and I think it is very flawed".[208] Both the Environmental Law Foundation and the Sustainable Development Commission suggested that the consultation process was not compliant with the Aarhus Convention,[209] which has been ratified by the UK.[210] This "obliges the Government to make appropriate practical and other provisions for public participation [...] within a transparent and fair framework. There must be sufficient time for the public to prepare and participate effectively during the decision-making process [...]".[211] The following sections examine more closely the process adopted by the Government and the difficulties faced in seeking to engage the public in these issues.

LOCAL EVENTS

109. The Planning Act 2008 requires the Secretary of State to: "ensure that appropriate steps are taken to publicise the proposal" where it relates to specific sites.[212] Over the course of the consultation period the Department held local events at each of the proposed sites for potential nuclear development. The purpose of these was to: raise awareness of the consultation; encourage people to take part; and allow them to discuss issues with senior policy officials. Venues for the events were suggested by local authorities and energy companies. Each comprised an exhibition that ran for three days, with a two-hour public meeting on the morning of the third day.

110. In evidence, witnesses raised a number of criticisms concerning the conduct of the local events. One concern was the short notice of their time and location.[213] The Hartlepool event began on Thursday 12 November—three days after the publication of the draft NPSs. As a consequence, just 63 people attended the exhibition with 34 at the public meeting. The Hinkley Point event that followed the week after had a similarly poor attendance. One group opposed to the development told us the event had been poorly advertised, was difficult to find, and was poorly attended.[214] The Department subsequently responded to these criticisms by holding additional public meetings at Hartlepool, Hinkley Point and also Dungeness, where there was significant local concern that the site had been excluded from the draft nuclear NPS.[215] Witnesses also highlighted the remoteness of some of the venues, poor publicity and the cold weather as having contributed to the poor turnout for several of the events.[216] Figure 2 gives a summary of the attendance at each of the local events, as well as the number of people potentially reached through leafleting and newspaper advertising.

111. In general, there was frustration among many of those we heard from that local concerns were not being taken into account. The Town and Country Planning Association told us: "the real issue is whether or not communities have had a proper voice, and it seems very obvious that they have not [...]".[217] One witness described the process as "unresponsive [...] We have made a myriad of comments. Many of them ignored and they come back in a sort of vague and bland document [...]".[218] Another said: "The general local opinion is that the whole thing is a done deal already. They will not take any notice of us, so why bother?".[219] Elsewhere, one local group said: "The format of the meetings was not conducive to proper public engagement".[220] Finally, the Law Society told us it believed, on the face of it, that the statutory requirements on consultation under the Planning Act 2008 had not been met.[221]

Figure 2: Attendance and advertising for local events

Event	Date	Exhibition attendance	Public meeting attendance	Households leafleted	Businesses leafleted	Newspaper advertising readership
Hartlepool	12-13 Nov	63	34	5,040	1,335	331,000
Hinkley Point	19-21 Nov	67	35	5,000	92	391,000
Heysham	26-28 Nov	257	71	13,788	98	242,000*
Sizewell	3-5 Dec	142	64	11,000	100	330,000*
Bradwell	10-12 Dec	142	52/28**	10,000	30	317,000*
Wylfa	7-9 Jan	173	80	12,300	95	256,000*
Braystones	11-13 Jan	133	99	6,789	38	124,000*
Sellafield	14-16 Jan	165	96	6,789	38	124,000*
Kirksanton	21-23 Jan	385	207	2,088	296	187,000*
Hartlepool***	26 Jan	-	72	-	-	-
Hinkley Point	27 Jan	-	96	3,914	92	391,000*
Oldbury	4-6 Feb	633	216	3,562	87	478,000*

Source: Department of Energy and Climate Change (*there were two rounds of newspaper advertising for these sites; **there were two public meetings at different venues for the Bradwell site; ***The local authority also contacted 1,000 people through its stakeholder database)

112. However, the Minister told us he was satisfied their process had been "thorough and effective", noting that there had been a significant amount of local media attention surrounding each of the events.[222] He also said there had been "good acknowledgement of the openness in the way in which officials had been prepared to discuss with people […]".[223] One attendee of the local events described the staff at the exhibition as "charming, polite and amiable".[224] It is worth noting too that DECC's engagement with the potential nuclear sites is not in isolation. EDF Energy told us, for example, that at the time it had identified Hinkley Point as a site for development, the company held nine exhibitions, receiving 1,100 visitors; 22 meetings attended by 600 people; and received around 150 written submissions.[225] The firm said it believed DECC had also made significant effort to engage with communities near to the proposed sites.[226]

GREENFIELD SITES

113. One issue raised in evidence by the residents of Braystones and Kirksanton was the treatment of greenfield sites in the consultation process. Whereas most of the sites in EN-6 may have expected the possibility of development adjacent to their existing nuclear power stations ever since the first indication of a programme of new nuclear build in 2005, this would not have been the case for greenfield sites. These would have first become aware of their nomination in early 2009. The residents of Kirksanton told us that initially there had been an expectation that nuclear new build would take place only on existing brownfield sites. They could find no evidence of the point at which the Government had indicated that greenfield development was possible as well. Their representative told us: "We and Braystones could never have been part of the early [...] process because no one was looking for us—we were only nominated in March 2009".[227]The Planning and Environment Bar Association also highlighted the differences between the greenfield and brownfield sites, and argued for "a process of consultation in relation to each site being considered, which is appropriate to the characteristics of the site [...]".[228] However, the Minister told us there had been a strong response to the consultation from the greenfield sites, noting: "I do not think there should be any issue of people [...] not feeling that they had the opportunity to input".[229]

114. In relation to the level of local engagement for all the proposed nuclear sites, it is worth noting that while a large proportion of the evidence we received from local groups was opposed to nuclear development, this does not mean there was not also local support as well. One of the main reasons for the original choice of sites was that there already existed a local skilled workforce and there was a greater degree of local public acceptance of nuclear power than in the wider population. Although we received little evidence from nominated communities in favour of new build, we note that the majority of the evidence we took in relation to Dungeness, which has not been selected, was in favour of development there.

TIMING AND DOCUMENTATION

115. The amount of documentation that formed part of the consultation on the draft energy NPSs ran into many hundreds of pages. This was a significant concern to several of our witnesses.[230] One told us: "the impression one gets from below it that this tonne-weight of stuff is being thrust upon people, almost saying to them, "You can't possibly respond to this, can you?" It's just too unmanageable".[231] Others noted that without access to a computer and the Internet it was difficult to get hold of the relevant documentation or respond to the consultation.[232] Planning Aid said that to make the draft NPSs more accessible it had produced two-page leaflets summarising them. It made these available through its network of regional offices and online, and told us several thousand copies had been downloaded during the first few weeks of the consultation.[233]

116. Linked to criticism over the size of the documents were complaints about the length of time for the consultation—in particular because it overlapped with our own scrutiny of the draft NPSs.[234] In order to produce our Report before the General Election we had to begin taking oral evidence seven weeks before the close of the Department's consultation, and have a substantially earlier deadline for written evidence in order for it to inform our questioning of witnesses. The RSPB told us: "given the timing of the consultation period, and the squeeze on the Parliamentary process [...] we have concerns about how robust the consultation and scrutiny process will be".[235] Indeed, an Early Day Motion put down by Paul Truswell MP that voices the same concerns has received 67 signatures from Members of Parliament.[236] The Department's consultation closed on 22 February. It received 3,120 responses from organisations and members of the public and around 43,600 hits on its dedicated website.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

117. Overall, various witnesses were critical of the approach taken by the Government for its consultation.[237] The Sustainable Development Commission described it as "a very traditional approach to community engagement".[238] The Town and Country Planning Association also believed there had been very little public engagement or expenditure on public awareness. Its planning spokesperson, Dr Hugh Ellis, told us: "I can find no one who is aware that we are about to approve one of the most significant programmes of new infrastructure that the country has seen in 40 years. It [...] will pass through the public without any proper consultation".[239] Elsewhere, the Law Society stated: "[...] we suspect that much of the general public has not engaged with the NPSs and their decisive nature".[240] As the Environmental Law Foundation concluded: "It is a false economy to attempt to make the decision-making process more efficient by seeking to remove important elements of public participation [...] While the government is concerned to provide a process that reduces delay, uncertainty and upfront cost [...] this may result in a system that is less fair and transparent, especially for communities who will bear the impacts of those decisions". [241]

118. However, there was also acknowledgement of the difficulty of attracting public interest in planning policy. As one witness put it: "I do not think the man in the street [...] really wants to look at the spatial strategy for energy".[242] The Campaign to Protect Rural England noted, though, that there had been examples of regional spatial strategy consultations that had received a much larger number of responses than that which the draft energy NPSs managed.[243] The CPRE argued that achieving local 'buy-in' to the NPSs early on could potentially reduce the risk of delay later when planning applications for particular sites came forward. Friends of the Earth also pointed to the Government's engagement with the public on its environmental policy for genetically modified crops as an example of where it had adopted creative means of bringing people into the debate.[244] The Minister, however, argued: "You can always find different ways to consult", but that the Department's consultation had been "thorough and effective".[245] He also noted that developers would have to conduct further local consultation at the time of their applications to the IPC, as required under the Planning Act 2008.

119. Local authorities will provide an important means of representing local concerns to the IPC at the time of planning applications. However, we heard evidence from the Local Government Association, raising concerns that many authorities would not have the resources to carry out the work required of them. It told us: "whether it is a small council or a big council [...] we will be quite hamstrung unless we find additional sources of finance".[246] The IPC agreed with this, stating that local authorities: "will need professional and technical expertise to come to their own conclusions 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 think there is a potential issue there".[247]

120. The energy NPSs will play a key role in determining our future energy mix. It is clear that the Government's consultation has not gone far enough in engaging the public. It is unfortunate too that the publication of the draft NPSs has come so late in the current Parliament, thus constraining the time available for consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. We recommend the Government learns from this experience and for future NPSs considers more innovative ways, particularly with regard to greenfield sites, in which it can engage the public in these important documents. We were particularly concerned that the late inclusion of greenfield sites into the consideration process leading towards the site-specific NPS effectively prevented either a clear comparison between possible greenfield sites or effective consultation on those sites proposed. The Government should also ensure it provides adequate time for Parliament to complete its scrutiny, preferably after its own consultation. The Government will also need to review the resources available to local authorities to ensure they are able fully to undertake their role in the planning process.

Appraisal of sustainability

121. The Planning Act 2008 requires that the "Secretary of State must carry out an appraisal of sustainability of the policy set out in the statement".[248] Accordingly, alongside the draft energy NPSs, the Government has published separate appraisals for each statement. For the draft nuclear NPS there is a main report appraisal and 14 site-specific appraisals covering each of the sites nominated into the Strategic Siting Assessment process or considered through the Department's Alternative Sites Study. There is little statutory guidance on what these appraisals should contain. The Government, however, has stated that their role is to: "help ensure that the NPSs take account of environmental, social and economic considerations with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development".[249] They have also been undertaken in such a way that incorporates requirements from the European Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment. This requires environmental effects to be taken into account by authorities during the preparation of plans and programmes in areas such as land-use, transport, waste and water management, and energy.[250]

122. The environmental NGOs and regulators both expressed varying degrees of concern at the Government's conduct of the appraisals of sustainability. A criticism raised by the Sustainable Development Commission and others was on the consideration of reasonable alternatives within the appraisals for the non-nuclear NPSs. This considers four strategic level alternatives, including the option of there being no NPS. The Government's preferred approach is an NPS that: "a) set out high level Government energy policy, b) defined through generic criteria, types of location which were unlikely (and/or likely) to be suitable for energy developments and c) set out guidance on how impacts of energy developments could be avoided or mitigated".[251] Of the two other options, one included only (a) above, and the other included (a) and (b). The appraisal justifies its choice on the basis that it "enables the clearest guidance to be given to the IPC on the circumstances in which different forms of energy development will be acceptable [...]".[252] The approach contrasts with that taken for the draft nuclear NPS, which considers a range of alternatives, including the possibility of not establishing a list of sites, as well as that of having a prohibition on new build.

123. Many of the bodies submitting evidence, including the Sustainable Development Commission, WWF and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, criticised the appraisal for EN-1 to 5 for failing to consider alternatives ways of delivering the need set out in the NPS, such as reduced energy demand.[253] The RSPB also raised this concern, stating: "What the Government has done is, rather than looking at alternative ways of meeting our energy requirements, it has simply looked at alternative ways of doing an NPS [...] which completely misses the point".[254] Friends of the Earth highlighted the fact that the Department's consultants, Entec, had posited a range of alternative approaches, but that DECC had ruled these out as unreasonable.[255] The NGO also criticised the Department's evaluation of the alternatives, noting it is: "neither quantitative nor qualitative but impressionistic".[256] In response the Department reiterated that the purpose of the NPSs was not to create new energy policy, but to set out existing policy. It was for this reason that it ruled out consideration of alternatives such as defining the energy mix within the NPS or setting quotas for different technologies.[257]

124. The WWF took the view that: "the environmental assessments undertaken are fundamentally flawed [...] it could be argued that the way in which the assessments have been carried out is nothing less than a case study on how to circumvent the spirit of the SEA and Habitats Directives".[258] Elsewhere, the Environment Agency and Natural England told us that, while the appraisals were broadly fit for purpose, there were still ways in which they could be improved.[259] One concern was that the appraisals did not at present make an assessment of the cumulative environmental impacts of new generating capacity. The Agency believed these effects could be significant, depending on the location of future developments and the eventual energy mix.[260] The Campaign for National Parks made the same point in relation to Cumbria: "Significant cumulative impacts would arise if a number of different installations came forward in the same general area [...] with proposals and possibilities of nuclear, wind (onshore and offshore), tidal developments and their associated infrastructure. At which point will the potential cumulative impacts of these separate developments be considered [...]?".[261] The Environment Agency also argued there should be more guidance for the IPC on the expectations on developers to monitor the environmental impacts of their developments. Finally, the Agency told us the NPSs should draw from the appraisals more explicitly—at present there was a lack of transparency as to how the two documents were linked.[262]

125. The lack of guidance on the conduct of an appraisal of sustainability for an NPS means it is difficult to determine whether the Department has fulfilled its requirements under the Planning Act 2008. We recommend the Government produces such guidance to assist departments in the future production of NPSs. We note the concerns raised by the environmental NGOs over the lack of consideration of policy alternatives within the appraisals for EN-1 to 5, particularly regarding the possibility of energy demand reduction. This contrasts with the approach taken in EN-6, which considers explicitly the "realistic option" of a nuclear NPS that prohibits new build, despite this being counter to Government policy. The Government must ensure consistency of approach across its appraisals of sustainability. It should also make a better assessment of the cumulative environmental impacts of new generating capacity; provide more guidance for the IPC on the expectations on developers to monitor the environmental impacts of their developments; and link more explicitly the appraisals to the NPSs.

The importance of good design

126. The Planning Act 2008 requires that: "If a national policy statement sets out policy in relation to a particular description of development, the statement must set out criteria to be taken into account in the design of that description of development".[263] Accordingly, EN-1 states that: "The expectation should be that good aesthetic and functional design can go together although the nature of much energy infrastructure development will often limit the extent to which it can contribute to the enhancement of the quality of the area".[264] This somewhat uninspiring exhortation to achieve good design is in contrast with the Government's existing advice to Local Planning Authorities which states clearly that: "Good design is indivisible from good planning [...] High quality and inclusive design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process".[265]

127. The IPC itself stated that: "[...] it would be helpful for the NPSs to set out a clearer high-level framework for the consideration of design issues, indicating more explicitly what components of good design the Government considers applicants should be incorporating into their proposals [...]".[266] We questioned the Minister on this issue and, whilst he followed the sentiment in the NPS, he did commit to looking again at this. He told us: "I [...] am committed to good design in public buildings [...] Obviously, energy infrastructure sometimes does not lend itself to beautiful buildings, but we will do our best, [...] It is an open invitation for us to look at what we say on design, and I am certainly very positive about doing that".[267]

128. We do not consider the issue of good design is treated with sufficient rigour in the draft NPSs. We would look for a much stronger message on design that is more in line with the Government's existing stated policies expressed, for example, in Planning Policy Statement 1 and, in this, we are heartened by the Minister's commitment to look again at the current wording in the NPSs.

206 Q 300 (Energy Networks Association) Back

207 Q 192 (WWF) Back

208 Q 240 (Nuclear Consultation Group) Back

209 UN Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters 1998 Back

210 Ev 524 (Sustainable Development Commission) Back

211 Ev 303 (Environmental Law Foundation) Back

212 Planning Act 2008, Section 7(5) Back

213 Qq 174 (Friends of the Earth), 551 (Shut Down Sizewell Campaign), 516 (Stop Hinkley) and 558 (Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group); Ev 529 (Town and Country Planning Association) Back

214 Q 513 (Stop Hinkley) Back

215 Q 738 (Minister for Energy) Back

216 Qq525 (Radiation Free Lakeland), 529 (Braystones Residents), 551 (Shut Down Sizewell Campaign), 553 (Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group) 559 (Lanyon); (Town and Country Planning Association) Back

217 Q 4 (Town and Country Planning Association) Back