Memorandum by the Wildlife Trusts
INTRODUCTION
1. The Wildlife Trusts welcome the opportunity
to comment on the proposed National Policy Statements for energy.
2. The Wildlife Trusts are a partnership
of 47 individual Wildlife Trusts covering every part of the
UK, together with the Isle of Man and Alderney. Together, we are
the UK's largest voluntary organisation dedicated to protecting
wildlife and wild places wherever they occur, in the countryside,
in cities and at sea. We are supported by more than 765,000 members,
including 135,000 junior members, and our expert staff are
aided by a formidable workforce of more than 39,000 volunteers.
We manage almost 2,200 nature reserves, covering 80,000 hectares
of land, ranging from inner city urban sites to the UK's finest
wildlife areas.
SUMMARY
3. The Wildlife Trusts support the Government's
ambitions to tackle climate change and meet UK targets to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. We share the sense of urgency in deploying
and developing solutions to move the UK towards a low carbon society
and to increase the proportion of overall energy generated from
renewable sources.
4. We believe that securing widespread public
support for the transition to a low carbon economy is critical.
This would be helped considerably if the development of major
new energy infrastructure is seen to respect the natural environment.
5. The National Policy Statements (NPS)
provide a golden opportunity for the government to establish a
clear strategy that sets out an appropriate balance between the
urgency of the need for new energy infrastructure and the importance
of protecting the UK's most important wildlife sites. In their
current form, we believe that the draft NPS have missed this opportunity.
6. Our key concern is that the NPS appear
to be based on the premise if we are to move towards a low carbon
society and reduce our dependence on fossil fuel we will inevitably
need to sacrifice the protection of the natural environment and
accept loss and damage to some of the UK's most important wildlife
sites. We do not share this view and believe that the urgency
of the need for energy infrastructure does not preclude an appropriate
level of environmental protection, including robust planning guidelines
that protect national and European wildlife sites.
7. We accept that there is overriding need
to tackling climate change, including meeting the UK's obligations
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, this does not mean
that there is overriding need and no alternative to any proposal
submitted by a commercial developer for energy infrastructure
in any location, as the NPS suggest. In our view, the general
environmental benefits of the overall policy do not preclude
or downgrade the importance of project-level analyses of biodiversity
impacts.
8. We question the adequacy of the NPS Appraisal
of Sustainability. Due to the lack of specific information on
the location and extent of the required infrastructure (with the
exception of nuclear) it is not clear, even in general terms,
what the overall environmental impact of the policies would be.
We accept that there are significant environment benefits associated
with reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change but
this does not mean that any government policy with the objective
of combating climate change is automatically "sustainable",
regardless of the likely project-level biodiversity impacts.
9. With regard to the specific policy for
nuclear infrastructure, we note with alarm that all of the proposed
locations have the potential to result in adverse impacts to Natura
2000 sites; including locations where unavoidable impacts
on habitats and species of European importance such as coastal
dune, costal lagoon, natterjack toad and otter would occur. In
our view, such sites should not be considered suitable and should
have been excluded by the Strategic Siting Assessment.
10. We question whether development of the
nuclear infrastructure at sites where there would be a significant
and unavoidable impact to Natura 2000 sites could comply
with the Habitat Regulations. Even if the overriding need and
lack of alternatives was demonstrated (in our view the NPS do
not achieve this) we consider it unlikely to be feasible (either
practically or economically) to implement the unprecedented levels
of ecological mitigation and compensation that would be required.
APPRAISAL OF
SUSTAINABILITY
11. With the exception of the nuclear NPS,
no information on the location or likely extent of the proposed
energy infrastructure is provided. Instead, we are informed that
there are unlikely to be alternatives to any locations that come
forward and all are needed. It is even stated that "the
IPC [Infrastructure Planning Commission] should operate on the
basis that consent should be given except to the extent that any
exceptions set out in the Planning Act apply" (EN-1 Section
4.1.1). This suggests that project-level biodiversity assessments
would not be given appropriate weight in the planning process
and brings into question the conclusions of the strategic sustainability
appraisal.
12. The conclusion of the sustainability
appraisal can be interpreted to mean that because the overall
objectives of the NPS are "sustainable" (ie they would
result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions) any project-level
effects are largely irrelevant.
13. Specifically with regard to impacts
to biodiversity it is concluded that new infrastructure "may
affect ecology as development may occur on previously undeveloped
land" (EN-1 Section 1.6.1). Given the likely scale,
location and timescale of the new energy infrastructure and the
potential impacts to Natura 2000 sites, we consider this
to be a wholly inadequate consideration of this issue.
14. The exceptions set out in the Planning
Act which are referred to in the NPS and would preclude planning
consent being granted by the IPC include: (i) where the IPC is
satisfied that the adverse impacts outweigh the beneficial impacts
(taking account of mitigation), and (ii) where granting consent
would be unlawful.
15. These exceptions do not provide us with
much confidence that project-level biodiversity impacts would
be given appropriate consideration by the IPC. With regard to
(i) it is stated in several places within the NPS that adverse
impacts to biodiversity at a project-level should be weighed against
the general adverse impacts to biodiversity associated with climate
change. On this basis, it is hard to imagine any proposal that
would not be considered to provide an overall "benefit"
given the potentially catastrophic effect of climate change on
biodiversity. However, reducing the argument in this way is misleading
and based on the false assumptions that the government's current
proposed energy strategy is the only way to tackle climate change
and there is no alternative to any proposal for major energy
infrastructure in any location.
16. With regard to (ii) (ie proposals being
unlawful) the government has set out its case for the overriding
need and lack of alternatives to the energy infrastructure in
the NPS. This limits the IPC's ability to challenge proposals
on the basis of non-compliance with the Habitat Regulations, which
is likely to be a key legal compliance issue for the proposed
energy infrastructure. The IPC is therefore put in a position
where it would be very hard for it to challenge any proposals
on the basis of adverse project-level biodiversity impacts.
17. We believe that the Government should
give much firmer guidance on the extent and possible locations
of the energy infrastrure and should not provide a policy that
would support proposals on any site regardless of the project-level
biodiversity impacts. In particular, much firmer guidance should
be given on avoiding damage to wildlife sites of national and
European importance.
COMPLIANCE WITH
THE HABITAT
REGULATIONS
18. The NPS set out the government's energy
and climate change objectives including transition to a low carbon
economy and providing security of supply. The need for specific
new energy infrastructure over the next 10-15 years is then
set out against the background of these objectives. The basic
premise is that in 2020 energy demand is likely to be the
same or greater than now; whilst many existing power stations
will have closed and c. 30% of power will need to come from renewables.
The "low carbon strategy" is renewables (particularly
wind), combined with nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture
and storage. In addition to new generation, the need for a better
supply network (eg a network that can deal with supply from a
greater number of locations) is set out.
19. The over-riding conclusion based on
the government's predictions of demand is that there is a significant
short-term need for major new energy infrastructure and that any
site that is proposed is needed. In policy terms, this means that
the "demonstration of need" and "consideration
of alternatives" issues are effectively closed and not something
that should be considered in detail by the IPC when determining
applications.
20. Specifically with regard to the assessment
of alternatives (as required under the Habitat Regulations) it
is stated that given the need for the energy infrastructure any
assessment of alternatives should be "proportionate"
(EN-1 Section 4.4.3) and undertaken with consideration of
"whether there is a realistic prospect of the alternative
delivering the necessary infrastructure in line with the urgency
of the need" (EN-1 Section 4.4.3). For nuclear infrastructure,
no sites beyond the ten proposed can be considered as alternatives
and the sites should not be considered as alternatives to each
other.
21. The impression is that the need for
the infrastructure is such that it is unlikely that any alternatives
would be considered viable so this should not be a major line
of inquiry for the IPC (eg "given the level of need for
energy infrastructure as set out in this NPS, the IPC should have
regard for the possibility that all suitable sites may be needed"
EN-1 Section 4.4.3). Suitable in this context presumably
meaning any sites that have been brought forward by developers.
22. We accept that there is overriding need
to tackling climate change. However, this does not mean that any
major energy infrastrure project should automatically be considered
as meeting the tests given in the Habitat Regulations, regardless
of its location and design and without a full project-level environmental
assessment. We are dismayed by the apparent attempts to circumvent
due process under the Habitat Regulations by presupposing project-level
analyses of need and alternatives.
23. We are also concerned that contrary
to the NPS, the need for each element of the government's energy
policy has not been fully established. The policy seems to be
based solely upon meeting predicted increases in demand without
full appraisal of measures that could be implemented to manage
and reduce this demand or alternative means of meeting it.
24. In our view the NPS should be setting
out a clear policy framework that prevents significant adverse
impacts to European Protected Sites, rather than downgrading the
existing legislative position by effectively circumventing appropriate
project-level investigation.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
ON THE
DRAFT NUCLEAR
NATIONAL POLICY
STATEMENT (EN-6)
25. The draft nuclear policy statement differs
from the other NPS in that it lists the sites that the Government
has judged to be potentially suitable for the deployment of new
nuclear power stations by the end of 2025. It states that the
sites are not alternatives to each other, because all are needed,
although in an apparent contradiction it raises the possibility
that a number of the sites could fail at project level.
26. The Strategic Appropriate Assessment
of the proposed sites indicates that all have potential for adverse
impacts to Natura 2000 sites, including direct impacts to
priority features (eg coastal dune; heathland; dune grassland;
coastal lagoon) and European Protected Species (eg great crested
newt; otter; natterjack toad; bats). It states that project-level
detail would be required to determine if these impacts could be
avoided or mitigated.
27. Based on our existing knowledge of some
of these sites and the details of the infrastructure that would
need to be located within them (eg new roads; marine loading facilities;
bridges; grid connections; pipelines for the abstraction and discharge
of sea water) we consider it highly unlikely that these impacts
could be fully avoided or mitigated and therefore compensation
would be required.
28. Guidance provided by the European Commission
for compensation for impacts to Natura 2000 sites[319]
includes the following: "compensatory habitat must have
the functions comparable with those which justified the selection
criteria of the original site" and "have or be
able to develop the specific features attached to the ecological
structure and functions, and required by the habitats and species
populations". In addition it is stated "there
is general agreement that the local conditions necessary to reinstate
the ecological assets at stake are found as close as possible
to the area affected by the plan or project" and that
"there is wide acknowledgement that [compensation] ratios
should be generally well above 1:1"
29. We believe that providing an appropriate
level of ecological compensation would not be achievable either
practically or economically given the massive scale of the impacts,
the nature of habitats that would be affected and compensation
requirements (as detailed above).
30. We question the "nomination driven"
Strategic Siting Assessment for the nuclear sites, which is likely
to have resulted sites being proposed on economic rather environmental
grounds. We believe that significant adverse impacts to Natura
2000 site should have been an "Exclusionary" rather
than a "Discretionary" criterion in the Strategic Siting
Assessment stage.
CONCLUSION
31. We believe that in their current form,
the National Policy Statements have failed to provide the appropriate
balance between facilitating the energy infrastructure that we
urgently need and ensuring protection of the environment. In particular,
we are concerned that the NPS do not set out a framework through
which even the nation's most important wildlife sites would be
adequately protected. Instead, the statements seem to be laying
the ground-work for project-specific environmental impacts to
be a minor consideration in the planning process and for sites
that are economically attractive but environmentally damaging
being consented on the basis of the apparent need for the development
and the apparent lack of alternatives.
January 2010
319 Guidance document on Article 6 (4) of the
"Habitat Directive" 92/43/EEC: clarification of the
concepts of: alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding
public interest, compensatory measures, and overall coherence.
European Commission, January 2007, paragraph 1.3.1. Back
| 
