Memorandum submitted by the British Wind
Energy Association
BWEA—INTRODUCTION
1. BWEA exists to champion the generation,
deployment and use of renewable power. Founded in 1978, we work
to support our 550 corporate members to achieve the maximum deployment
of wind, wave and tidal energy and realise maximum benefits to
the UK. BWEA's members include Centrica, EDF Energy, EON UK, RWE
Npower, Scottish Power, Scottish and Southern Energy and Renewable
Energy Systems.
2. During the passage of the Bill through Parliament
and the development of its subsequent regulations and guidance,
BWEA has worked closely with a range of other stakeholders, including
the UKBCSE. The comments given below relate to the draft National
Policy Statements (NPSs) on Overarching Energy (EN-1), Renewable
Energy (EN-3) and Electricity Networks (EN-5). We would also be
happy to share with you our forthcoming response to the Department's
formal consultation on EN-1-5, which we will contain more detailed
views on the issues covered below, and is due to be submitting
on 22 February.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. The Challenge of Climate Change:
The Stern Review and other climate change studies have demonstrated
the clear and urgent need to reduce green house gas emissions
to avert climate change. The UK Government has accordingly adopted
ambitious renewable energy targets and carbon emission reduction
targets; 15% of all energy will need to come from renewable sources
by 2020 and an 80% reduction in carbon emissions is required by
2050. To achieve these targets requires a sustained multi-billion
pound investment programme to deliver a range of renewable energy
technologies across all areas of the UK, both on- and offshore.
BWEA's members will be responsible for providing the vast majority
of the UK's renewable energy generation necessary to ensure the
necessary de-carbonisation of the power sector.
4. The Need for Reform of the Planning Regime:
In order to deliver this much needed step-change in investment
and deployment, the renewables industry has long supported the
reform of the planning regime. The Planning Act reforms deliver
the measures necessary to develop the large scale renewable energy
infrastructure needed to meet our energy and climate change obligations
in a timely manner. BWEA therefore supports the Planning Act reforms
as they should enable the timely deployment of essential renewable
energy infrastructure through a fairer, more transparent and effective
planning regime than we have at the present.
5. The Importance of National Policy
Statements: We believe that NPSs are essential to enabling
the very substantial infrastructure investment programme needed
to address climate change and ensure continued security of supply
of the UK's energy supplies. NPSs need to be robust, relevant
and clear to provide sufficient detail to all stakeholders, including
communities, statutory consultees, local authorities and promoters.
It is essential that NPSs contain clarity on the key planning
issues—including the energy need, and the most likely impacts
and mitigation measures—that will be of greatest relevance
to the project in question. Clear direction on these issues will
enable all parties involved to efficiently assess proposals' compliance
with national policy; enabling more time for detailed consideration
of those local issues which could affect the surrounding community
and how best to address them.
6. We therefore welcome the introduction
of NPSs as the primary basis for decisions by the Infrastructure
Planning Commission (IPC) on nationally significant infrastructure
projects (NSIPs). We also support their use as material considerations
for both local planning authorities on smaller-scale energy projects,
and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) when considering
sub 100MW projects in the marine environment—as well as
providing invaluable guidance to all stakeholders and developers.
7. The urgent need for NPSs: The
NPS suite needs to be implemented quickly. Without the timely
publication of robust NPSs, there is a real risk that this much
needed renewable energy infrastructure will be delayed, potentially
jeopardising delivery on the UK's renewable energy obligations
and carbon reduction obligations.
8. The Statement of Need for Renewable
Energy Infrastructure: The national need for all forms of
energy infrastructure is clear and well established. It is therefore
essential that the needs case for renewable energy infrastructure,
and the planning weight to be accorded to this need, is clearly
stated within the NPS suite.
9. The Non-Spatial Approach: With
the exception of the Nuclear NPS, the suite of energy NPSs are
non-spatial in nature. This is important and should be supported.
10. Flexibility: We welcome the creation
of a new single consenting regime. However, it is also important
that the new regime retains flexibility around the submission
of different elements of a project, with the option for each in
their own right being submitted as a NSIP.
11. Alternatives: We welcome clarification
within EN-1 that the IPC will not require applicants to assess
possible alternative sites, other than as required by the Environmental
Impact Assessment, Habitats or Water Framework Directives. This
is a proportionate response to infrastructure delivery.
12. Relationship with Existing Planning
Regime: There is a need for further guidance within the NPSs
regarding the weight to be given to NPSs within the local planning
regime. This would provide much needed assistance to local authorities
in the preparation of local and regional development plans and
in determining applications for energy infrastructure which fall
below the thresholds of the Planning Act 2008.
13. Relationship with the Marine Management
Organisation: The relationship between the IPC and the MMO
will be important in ensuring that the need for marine renewable
energy infrastructure is properly balanced against other concerns.
14. Aviation: We welcome wording
in EN-1 which encourages a constructive dialogue and partnership
approach between all relevant aviation stakeholders. This approach
is necessary if the UK is to deliver the necessary level of onshore
and offshore wind energy infrastructure.
15. Consistency of approach: There
is a need for greater consistency regarding:
(i) the equal treatment of technologies across
the NPS suite;
(ii) the equal treatment of different renewable
energy technologies within EN-3; and
(iii) the level of detail provided on specific
impacts within EN-3.
CONCLUSION
16. The reforms enabled by the Planning
Act 2008 are a welcome improvement in the planning approach to
nationally strategic energy infrastructure. BWEA strongly support
the creation of NPSs as the fundamental plank of this new planning
system, which will bring the UK a significant step closer to achieving
its key environmental goals of carbon reduction and renewable
energy deployment.
17. The timely publication of clear, robust NPSs
will be essential to the effective and efficient delivery of the
UK's renewable energy objectives, and we broadly support the integrated
nature, style, level of detail and content of the energy NPSs,
as currently drafted. However, in order to ensure that NPSs operate
effectively, NPSs must set out the UK's overarching energy needs
and provide sufficient information on the types of technologies,
their likely impacts and mitigation measures and the detailed
criteria against which proposals will be determined. This level
of detail will be necessary to enable all stakeholders to understand
this new planning process.
THE CHALLENGE
OF CLIMATE
CHANGE
18. The scientific and economic rationales
for addressing human impact on climate change is well established
and widely accepted. The Stern Review calculated that the dangers
of unabated climate change would be equivalent to at least 5%
of GDP each year. However, when more recent scientific evidence
is included in the models, the Review estimates that the dangers
could be equivalent to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs
of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now, to avoid the
worst impacts of climate change in the future can be limited to
around 1% of global GDP each year. The central message is that
reducing emissions today will make us better off in the future:
one model predicts benefits of up to $2.5 trillion each year if
the world shifts to a low carbon path.
19. In order to ensure the timely decarbonisation
of the UK's energy infrastructure, radical reform of the planning
regime is essential and long over-due. The UK requires a very
substantial amount of new renewable energy infrastructure in order
to move towards a low-carbon economy, and this imperative is recognised
in the Government's Renewable Energy Strategy.
20. The UK has clear objectives for carbon-reduction
and renewable energy generation, which are both achievable and
essential to the prevention of uncontrollable climate change.
The Climate Change Act 2008, which sets a statutory target of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 and the EU Renewable
Energy Directive, which establishes a legally binding target of
achieving 15% of all UK energy from renewable sources by 2020,
together necessitate a step-change in renewables development.
THE IMPORTANCE
OF NATIONAL
POLICY STATEMENTS
21. The NPSs are critical not only to the
success of planning reform, but also to the successful delivery
of the Government's energy and climate policy. National Policy
Statements will need to provide a stable, long-term and timely
policy framework in order to enable the delivery of the UK's renewable
energy targets.
22. The need for expeditious implementation of
the NPS suite is nowhere better demonstrated than in the case
of Offshore Round 3 delivery. The recent Round 3 announcement
on 8 January signalled the beginning of the development process
for 32 GW of offshore wind energy generation. Developers have
now committed to bring forward over 40 GW of projects, if built
this would represent about a third of the UK's electricity needs.
Without the timely publication of robust NPSs, there is a real
risk that this much needed renewable energy infrastructure will
be delayed, potentially jeopardising delivery on the UK's renewable
energy obligations and carbon reduction obligations.
23. It is also vital that they give clarity
on issues, which are raised time and time again at planning inquiry.
Therefore, they need to be robust and sufficiently detailed to
enable efficient and effective assessment of applications for
compliance, thereby negating the need for further debate on national
policy-related issues at inquiry. This will enable greater opportunity
to review and address the impact on the local community and environment.
24. The Overarching NPS for Energy (EN-1)
sets out the Government's energy policy priorities; the need case
for each electricity generation technology and the equal need
for investment in the electricity networks. It also confirms that
in order to address climate change and ensure continued secure
and affordable energy supplies, the deployment of new low carbon
generation will be necessary for the foreseeable future.
25. Therefore, when considering a prospective
energy project, either the IPC, or in the case of smaller-scale
energy proposals, the relevant local planning authority, or other
relevant decision maker, can begin assessing proposals on the
basis that the national need has been established, and not waste
lengthy periods of time debating the national need. This will
provide much greater time to assess the local impacts of a proposal
and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved/mitigated.
26. Equally, the value of setting out national
policy in a single place is that by including Government's policy
on particular issues within the relevant NPS, this will provide
clarity for developers, the IPC, statutory consultees, local planning
authorities and potentially affected communities, and again negate
the need for lengthy and needless debate. A good example of this
is electric and magnetic fields (EMFs), where planning inquiries
considering overhead electricity line projects often spend much
time debating the science surrounding EMFs. By setting out Government
policy on EMFs and the compliance standards network operators
will have to meet, everyone will know exactly what is required
to make a prospective project compliant, and can therefore concentrate
on the local issues such as the proposed route, the impacts, amenity
issues and how to satisfactorily address them.
NPSS—STYLE,
CONTENT AND
APPROACH
Format and Style
27. BWEA welcome the format and style of
the NPSs and in particular the cross-referencing between NPSs
and the Planning Act 2008, which ensure consistency and provide
information on:
— What the IPC should expect from applicants
and with whom it should consult.
28. The provision of information on impacts
and mitigation will enable all stakeholders to know upfront what
they can expect in terms of likely impacts arising from a project,
including guidance to developers regarding the actions they will
be expected to take in order to minimise that impact. Clear direction
on these issues will enable all parties involved to efficiently
assess a proposal's compliance with national policy and provide
more time for detailed consideration of specific local issues,
including the Local Authority Impact Report, Consultation Report
and other issues raised by the community.
The Statement of Need for Renewable Energy Infrastructure
29. The national need for all forms of energy
infrastructure is clear and well established. As such, it is essential
that the "need" case for renewable energy infrastructure
is confirmed within Overarching Energy NPS (EN-1). Without explicit
clarification of the weight that should be accorded to the need
case, when determining an application, there is a significant
risk of undermining a fundamental function of the NPSs; the provision
of clear direction on national energy policy, and it's interaction
with the planning system. Current wording within paragraph 4.1.1
of EN-1, which states that need should be "taken into account"
is insufficient and should be revised in line with existing guidance
on the planning weight to be given to other material considerations,
for example regarding flooding and coastal erosion (paragraph
4.20.15), and the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape
and countryside (paragraph 4.24.6). We are concerned that without
clear guidance on the great weight to be accorded to the need
for electricity, the IPC will be required to place greater importance
on other considerations which are currently accorded "great"
or "significant" weight.
Non-Spatial Approach
30. With the exception of the Nuclear NPS, the
suite of energy NPSs are non-spatial in nature. This is important
for a number of reasons including:
— The importance of the market in determining
where and when to develop nationally significant energy infrastructure
projects.
— The range of technical, operational, commercial,
ecological and other environmental considerations that determine
where a developer might consider proposing a project eg the wind
speed for wind energy developments or proximity to the grid network.
— The evolution of energy technologies
and mitigation measures which could quickly affect the legitimacy
of any assumptions leading to spatial "mapping" for
differing technologies, thereby quickly rendering the NPSs out
of date.
— The resource intensive nature of undertaking
detailed spatial planning (be it centrally, regionally or locally)
which would inevitably delay the introduction of NPSs.
Flexibility
31. Whilst the new regime very much improves
the ability for the consenting authority and all stakeholders
to consider the holistic implications of any nationally significant
infrastructure project, through a new single consenting regime,
it is also important that the new regime retains flexibility around
the submission of different elements of a project, with the option
for each in their own right being submitted as a NSIP, as currently
put forward in section 4.9 of EN-1. This provision is likely to
be important for much energy infrastructure, such as a proposed
electricity generation project and any connection or indeed deeper
reinforcement of the electricity network system.
32. For a range of technical, commercial or environmental
reasons it may not be appropriate for a renewable energy developer
to include within their consent application the connecting assets
or any necessary reinforcement works. However, we support the
requirement for the applicant who submits an application first
to demonstrate that there are reasonable options available for
connection to the electricity grid.
33. The proposed approach strikes the right
balance enabling the IPC and other stakeholders to understand
the likely full implications of a proposed development, whilst
enabling the developers of the respective elements of an energy
project, the opportunity to for one party to apply on behalf of
all involved; to jointly apply or to apply separately.
Alternative Sites
34. BWEA welcomes the wording laid out in
Section 4.4 (Alternatives) of EN—1 the Overarching NPS,
which confirms that when there is a policy or legal requirement
to consider alternatives (such as under the Environmental Impact
Assessment, Habitats or Water Framework Directives) the IPC should
frame any consideration of alternatives in the context of the
scale and urgency of the UK's need for energy infrastructure.
35. We also welcome confirmation that the IPC
will not require applicants to assess possible alternative sites,
other than as required by the Environmental Impact Assessment,
Habitats or Water Framework Directives. Due to the magnitude of
the investment in energy infrastructure required within the short
to medium term, it is essential that the planning system enables
the smooth and timely consent of acceptable proposals. The imposition
of any burden for a proposal to meet a "best available"
test would run counter to the Government's objectives set out
in the Renewable Energy Strategy and Low Carbon Transition Plan,
for the timely and efficient delivery of necessary infrastructure.
36. Section 4.4 of EN-1 also allows the
IPC to potentially exclude vague or inchoate alternatives or to
potentially place the onus on third parties proposing an alternative
to provide any necessary evidence. Whilst energy developers will
themselves normally consider all reasonable expedient alternatives,
taking into account suggestions from the local community and other
relevant stakeholders; a range of technical, operational, commercial,
geological, ecological and other environmental factors will often
significantly constrain the number of practicable alternative.
37. The proposed approach will ensure that
all genuinely viable alternatives are considered whilst making
sure that the proposing of alternatives is not used to unnecessarily
frustrate or delay valid applications which have already been
through the established process of consultation with the affected
community, local planning authority (ies) and statutory consultees
to develop the best all-round proposal.
Relationship with Existing Terrestrial Planning
Regime
38. BWEA supports wording within EN-1 confirming
that NPSs may be a material consideration in decisions made under
the Town and Country Planning Act and welcome the further guidance
provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
However, we would support further clarity within the NPSs themselves
regarding the weight to be given to NPSs within the local planning
regime. This guidance would provide much needed assistance to
local authorities in the preparation of local and regional development
plans and in determining applications for energy infrastructure
which fall below the thresholds of the Planning Act 2008.
Relationship with Marine Management Organisation
39. We welcome wording within EN-1 concerning
the importance of a close working relationship between the IPC
and Marine Management Organisation (MMO). This will ensure consistency
between the MMO and IPC processes and prevent the creation of
a two track approach. It will also ensure that the Government's
Renewable Energy Targets, as communicated through EN-3, are considered
by the MMO process. We would oppose a change to the relationship
of the IPC and MMO.
Aviation
40. BWEA welcomes the wording, and the "tests"
included within Section 4.19 of EN—1 the Overarching Energy
NPS, which stresses the importance of protecting military and
civil aviation interests whilst providing guidance to developers
and the IPC on the issues that need to be considered and how potential
impacts might be mitigated/avoided.
41. In particular, Paragraph 4.19.15 is helpful
in stressing that "where there are conflicts between Government's
energy and transport policies, the IPC should expect the relevant
parties to have made appropriate efforts to work together to identify
realistic and pragmatic solutions to the conflicts" and "in
so doing, the parties should seek to protect the aims and interests
of the other parties as far as possible." This encourages
a constructive dialogue and partnership approach between all parties
which is necessary if the UK is to deliver the level of onshore
and offshore wind energy infrastructure necessary to meet the
twin challenges of carbon reduction and renewable energy generation.
42. We urge the Committee to resist any
proposals to streamline the content or reduce the level of detail
of the suite of energy NPSs, which as currently drafted, provide
both the stable policy framework energy developers need to invest,
and the right level of detail to enable effective assessment of
compliance with national policy, thereby providing more opportunity
by the IPC and all stakeholders during IPC consideration or planning
inquiries to consider and satisfactorily deal with the real issues
that could affect a local community.
Balanced Approach
43. As stated, BWEA strongly support the
general level of detail provided in the NPS suite. We support
the generally constructive way in which issues of environmental
and landscape protection are balanced with the need for new sustainable
energy infrastructure and the reasonable approach taken to accommodate
the introduction of new renewable energy schemes, in balance with
existing interests, for example aviation.
44. However, we are aware of a number of minor
inconsistencies in the current drafting of advice on potential
impacts and mitigation measures throughout EN-3. In light of the
fact that the IPC Commissioners and secretariat will not have
had previous experience of many of the issues covered in EN-3
(including marine specific issues), and the ways in which these
issues interact with the different technologies, we recommend
that further care be taken to provide a necessary level of detailed
advice to the IPC, across technologies.
45. These issues can be addressed with minor
changes. In some cases this will require the addition of more
detail and in others less detail. Our written submission to the
Government will give details of the changes required.
RECOMMENDATIONS
46. In particular, we urge the Committee
to:
— Acknowledge the importance of the Statements
of Need within the energy NPSs, as invaluable in stating beyond
all doubt the need for the range of included technologies, thereby
negating the need for lengthy debates on the need at each individual
planning inquiry.
— Support the need for NPSs to be robust and
sufficiently detailed to enable assessment of applications for
compliance, thereby again negating the need for further debate
on national policy-related issues at planning inquiry.
— Support the importance of flexibility
around submission of different elements of a project, with the
option for each in their own right being submitted as a NSIP,
whilst endorsing the proposed approach, which requires developers
to ensure that an appropriate level of detail is included to enable
the IPC and stakeholders to understand any likely associated implications.
— Support existing wording around the assessment
of alternative sites as a proportionate approach.
— Support the existing non-spatial approach
taken in the NPSs.
— Support the need for greater consistency
in the treatment of different technologies and impacts within
the suite of NPSs.
— Acknowledge the need for further guidance
as to the weight to be accorded to NPSs by local authorities when
preparing plans and determining renewable energy applications
below 50 MW.
— Acknowledge that 2020 is not the end
of the journey in terms of energy infrastructure investment, with
significant amounts required well beyond, and suggest to DECC
that they include further emphasis of investment requirements
from 2030 to 2050, including reference to the Renewable Energy
Strategy and the Climate Change Committee Report.
January 2010
| 
