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

APPENDIX C

EN-3 RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE

  We welcome this draft NPS and believe that it should be designated subject to comments below. Renewable energy has a key contribution to make to meeting climate change targets and to energy security by improving diversity of energy sources and reducing dependence on imported oil and gas.

Renewable electricity is planned to contribute 30% of the UK's final electricity consumption by 2020 to enable the UK to deliver its statutory target of achieving 15% of all energy consumption from all renewable energy sources, including heat and transport, by 2020. The majority of this is set to come from both offshore and onshore wind, supplemented by biomass-fired energy. To deliver the 2020 targets it would be beneficial if the NPS reinforced the clear need for a minimum of 14GW of offshore wind and 14GW of onshore wind by 2020.

  Delivering the proposed targets poses major challenges, and the extent to which it can be delivered is dependent on a number of barriers, of which planning is a significant one which must be overcome. Designating the Renewable Energy NPS is an important step in ensuring the planning process provides the certainty and confidence for investors in this technology.

  Overall we are pleased by the guidelines and content included within this NPS, however there are a number of small alternations we wish to propose to remove any uncertainty and prevent future delays in the planning process. We also wish to highlight some particular areas of strength within this NPS which we do not wish to see removed.

GENERAL

Paragraph	Comment
2.1.1	The paragraph states that the IPC should, when considering applications for renewable energy, start from the position that need has been established. However, although the need is described in EN-1, neither the paragraph nor the rest of the NPS says anything about what weight should be given to the established need.
2.2.1	We fully support paragraph 2.2.1 in particular the following: "Applicants should explain in their applications to the IPC how their proposals fit with the guidance and support its targets or, alternatively, why they depart from them. Whether or not an application conforms to the guidance or the targets will not, in itself, be a reason for approving or rejecting the application". Renewable energy in Wales remains under developed and will need to do more if it is to facilitate the delivery of the 2020 targets. The approach set out in paragraph 2.2.1 of the NPS will allow further development opportunities to arise in Wales, which we fully support.
2.3.2	This requires climate change resilience measures to be included in the EIA, which seems to be beyond the normal EIA requirements.
2.4	The Planning Act 2008 requires the NPS for a particular type of development to set out the design criteria for that type of development. We are not sure that section 2.4 is sufficient, given that it, in effect, says that energy infrastructure should be of "good design". This part of the NPS could usefully provide more detail on what it means by "good design" in this context.

BIOMASS AND WASTE COMBUSTION

  We are supportive of the text in respect to Biomass and Waste Combustion and believe that this section will enable us to carry out our role within clear guidelines. We would however like to note one minor point:

2.5.31	The paragraph explicitly acknowledges the need to weigh the benefits of the scheme against the impacts. However, it is not clear as to what weight should be given to the benefits. The paragraph needs to make it clear that significant weight should be given to the benefits.

OFFSHORE WIND

  We broadly welcome the guidance for offshore wind development and believe them to be well written sections and provide clear guidelines. It would be beneficial if the NPS reiterated the need for at least 14GW of offshore wind by 2020 and the resources that could be exploited further beyond this timescale to deliver a low carbon economy.

In particular we support sections on biodiversity, subtidal, Commercial Fisheries and Fishing, Oil, Gas and other infrastructure activities, navigation and shipping, Seascape and Visual Effects. The approach taken is pragmatic and the mitigation options highlighted are capable of being delivered by developers. We would be concerned if there were material changes to these sections as this would move away from the well balanced approach that's been taken.

  However, we would like to raise the following number of small modifications to remove any ambiguities and prevent delays in the future:

Water depth and foundation conditions
2.6.31	Similar to 2.6.30 and wind resource, water depth has a significant influence over economics. This should be stated. There is no mention of distance from shore. This will also impact on project design economics and should be mentioned in the document.
Other offshore infrastructure
2.6.35	The NPS should also recognise that a range of offshore developments will need to co-exist. As currently drafted we believe the onus is too great on the offshore wind developer. There is quite a lot of infrastructure in the sea and whilst the majority of it can be avoided through careful siting, there are a number of pipelines/cables that offshore wind export cables will need to cross to be able to connect to the transmission network. Offshore wind developers do not want to be in a position of weakness when such crossings need to be made. This would benefit from a "weighting" statement as used in other parts of this section.
2.6.51	Monitoring is mentioned on several occasions within this section. It is important that monitoring requests and conditions are reasonable in their nature and do not impose disproportionately onerous survey campaigns on offshore developments. The industry has had a number of examples of monitoring conditions that are difficult to implement in practice. We would urge that developers be asked to undertake reasonable monitoring where this is practical recognising that some aspects may not be possible.
Fish
2.6.76	"The inter-array and export cables should be armoured and buried at a sufficient depth to reduce electromagnetic fields (EMF) (greater than 1.5m below the sea bed)". This is a significant constraint which we oppose. Our experience of operating offshore wind farms in the UK suggests that the risk addressed by this mitigation proposal is extremely low and that this mitigation measure is not proportionate. Cable burial depth is contingent on individual site and environmental conditions and economics.
Intertidal
2.6.88	Whilst we welcome the proposed mitigation highlighted in the draft we believe it would be enhanced by inserting "technical practicalities" at the end of the sentence.
2.6.89	This paragraph should recognise that an OFTO appointed by Ofgem will be responsible for installing and operating export cables running across intertidal habitats. Though developers can work to together to minimise export cables if applying for them as associated development with an offshore wind farm, it is ultimately the decision of an OFTO or OFTOs as to how many cables are required.
Marine Mammals
2.6.96	We would like "Reasonable" to be added at the start of the sentence.
2.6.97	We would like "if practical" to be added to the first sentence after the word "employed".
2.6.98	In the final sentence we would like "are caused" to be replaced by "may be caused."
Ornithology
2.6.101	We would like this to say "reasonable" ornithological surveys recognising in the past onerous conditions have been set which have been extremely difficult to implement.
2.6.104	This mentions a FEPA licence, but it is our understanding that this will be part of the development consent order and not require a separate licence. We would like this to be made clearer.
2.6.105	We do not believe that this paragraph is necessary, as it is a statutory requirement to decide an application in accordance with the NPS. Some parts of paragraph 2.6.103 seem to be appropriate for the decision-making section and could usefully be moved here.
2.6.107	"Subject to other constraints, wind turbines should be laid out within a site, to minimise collision risk, where the collision risk assessment shows there is a significant risk of collision". A site layout is dependent upon many variables. There will naturally be some competing factors and so it would be helpful to explicitly recognise this within the NPS. We also propose that the mitigation measure should state that developers should, where practical, seek to minimise collision risk. This will provide flexibility where this may not be possible because of the conditions of the site in question.
Historic Environment
2.6.151	We would like "necessary monitoring" in the first bullet to be replaced by "reasonable monitoring".
2.6.152	We urge a pragmatic approach to the Historic Environment as we are concerned that changes may be required to layouts during construction, due to the discovery of marine archaeological remains.
Physical Environment
2.6.201	Geotechnical investigations are potentially very expensive and do not necessarily need to be completed prior to consent (though they will certainly be completed before construction). Therefore we propose that this paragraph is deleted.

ONSHORE WIND

  We welcome the general comments made in respect to onshore wind. We particularly support the wording in paragraph 2.7.1;

"Onshore wind farms will continue to play an important role in meeting renewable energy targets".

  If the UK is to deliver around 30% renewable electricity by 2020, onshore wind will need to contribute around 14GW in capacity. At present there is a little over 3GW in operation, and hence within a decade, there will be a requirement for a further 11GW to be consented and constructed.

  Furthermore we welcome the statement made on the "Capacity" of a site in paragraph 2.7.10:

"The spacing will depend on the prevailing wind direction and the physical characteristics of the site ... This is a matter for the applicant".

  In addition 2.7.13 in respect to Access is also another important paragraph:

"Given that potential onshore wind farm sites are largely in rural areas, access for the delivery of turbine components during construction can be a significant consideration for wind farm siting".

Technical Considerations
2.7.7	Although this paragraph states that wind resource is a "key consideration for the Applicant", it is not clear whether this is or is not a matter that will be taken into account by the IPC. Many objectors try to question the capacity factor and the efficiency of onshore wind. The NPS should make it clear that these are not factors that are relevant to the IPC application, although the IPC will need to be aware of the economic impact of changes to the configuration of the proposal which affect the wind resource.
2.7.16 & 2.7.19	We support the following statements and believe these are critical to ensuring appropriate development is allowed: "They are not permanent and can be decommissioned relatively easily and cheaply" ... ... "the time-limited, non-permanent nature of wind farms is likely to be an important consideration for the IPC when assessing impacts such as landscape and visual effects and potential effects on the settings of historic assets."
2.7.21 and 2.7.24	We are supportive of the flexibility in the project details as noted in these two paragraphs.
2.7.25	We welcome the wording here.
2.7.26	The paragraph suggests that the IPC should investigate the reasons for a micro-siting request. The tone of the paragraph is at odds with para 2.7.53, which suggests that micro-siting as an acceptable form of mitigation. We would like the paragraphs to present a consistent picture and allow for micro-siting.
2.7.30	"In determining an application for the repowering of a site, the new proposed replacement scheme should be determined by the IPC on its individual merits". On a repowered site, the concept has already been agreed that the area is suitable for wind development and therefore impacts have already been addressed by the original consent. As it is therefore an accredited wind farm site, it should require a more streamlined EIA compared with a new site as it is effectively already a brownfield site.
2.7.34	"The IPC should not seek a sequential approach". We would like further clarification on what this will mean in practice?
Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
2.7.36	This paragraph refers to potential for bat and bird strikes. However, paragraph 2.7.40 only refers to an assessment of collision risk for birds. It is not clear whether collision risk modelling is required for bats. This is a particularly sensitive issue that has been raised at a number of recent wind farm inquiries. It is not clear why an inconsistent position is taken in the draft NPS.
2.7.46	"the IPC should seek to validate the results of the EIA and any collision risk modelling by requiring, where reasonable, relevant monitoring during the construction and operational phases of onshore wind farms". Our concern is what happens if during construction and operation, the results are not validated; will the consent condition force the wind farm to be shut down, placing significant risk on the developer?
Landscape and visual
General	We are concerned that this section is very light in detail. It may be useful to include the SNH guidelines on visual representation?
2.7.56	It would be helpful if this paragraph clearly stated that the presence of significant landscape and visual effects, which are unavoidable, does not mean that a project is necessarily unacceptable. Although this may be inferred, it would be better if it was stated explicitly.
2.7.57	This introduces a duty to "minimise" effects on the landscape. It is not clear what this means, bearing in mind that paragraph 2.7.59 states that mitigation in the form of a reduction in scale may not be feasible. Further clarification would be useful. Furthermore we also note that this does not introduce a requirement to mitigate visual effects, only landscape effects; is this intentional?
2.7.58	The paragraph states that the IPC should consider any evidence put before it on the effects of turbines where those turbines are similar in scale to the turbines proposed for the development and where those turbines are at a similar distance from residential properties as the turbines proposed in the development. We are not sure how this requirement would be achievable if the applicant has not submitted details of the turbine they propose to use for the development.
2.7.59	The paragraph states that mitigation in the form of reduction in scale of the wind farm may not be feasible. However, there is no other guidance given on mitigation. We believe that this section needs further detail on landscape and visual mitigation measures.
Noise
2.7.64	It is not clear what is meant by updated guidance issued and accepted by Government. We do not believe it is clear whether or not this would take into account the recent Acoustic Bulletin article, which has now been accepted as best practice interpretation of ETSU, but has not been formally accepted by Government.
2.7.68	Whilst we welcome the statements made in this paragraph, it is unhelpful that reference is simply made to PPS22, bearing in mind the age of the PPS and its forthcoming revision. Instead, there should be a more up to date reference taking into account recent "evidence" that is circulating at virtually all wind farm inquiries.
2.7.71	This paragraph (and the preceding one) appears to be suggesting that a noise condition relating to levels of operational noise from the wind farm is only required where effects on ambient noise levels in residential amenity "cannot be ruled out". It is not clear what this means or whether it is suggesting that where there is clear compliance with ETSU-R-97 that a requirement on the DCO is not necessary. Further clarity is required on this point.
Shadow Flicker
General	We welcome the pragmatic approach taken in particular accepting that where the possibility of shadow flicker exists, mitigation can be enforced through use of conditions. Where properties are constructed following operation of a wind farm, we would not want retrospective action taken against the development. This should instead be factored into the planning decision made on the housing development.
Traffic and Transport
2.7.92	"it may be appropriate to request that the applicant undertake a dry-run of the delivery of the largest components to ensure delivery is possible in a way that minimises disruption". We do not support this sentence and propose instead the following: "The applicant should be required to submit sufficient desktop evidence to demonstrate delivery of the largest components is possible in a way that minimises disruption".

APPENDIX D

EN-4 GAS SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE AND GAS AND OIL PIPELINES

  We welcome much of the detail included in this NPS and believe that it should be designated subject to comments below. However we do wish to raise some points we believe to be outstanding in this draft.

We believe there is still a key role for gas supply infrastructure including gas storage facilities and pipelines and believe that this need should be made much stronger in the NPS. Little emphasis is placed on its importance within the current drafting. The UK needs more gas storage investment as the UK's effective use of the UKCS as a source of flexible gas supply diminishes. LNG import facilities are needed to improve the UK's access to alternative gas supplies.

  Furthermore this NPS to be notably weak on for CO2 pipelines and would like further clarity as to whether this is to be included as a project for determination by the IPC.

Paragraph	Comment
Clarity over technology to be included
1.2.4	Why is it "may" and not "should be" of consideration -as indicated in the following example; This NPS, and in particular the policy and guidance on impacts in Part 2, may be helpful to local planning authorities (LPAs) in preparing their local impact reports. We believe it should be re-worded to state "should be".
1.7.1	This paragraph does not accurately reflect the provisions of section 17 of the Planning Act 2008, which describes the underground gas storage facilities that constitute a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. For example, section 17 treats storage facilities differently depending on whether they are located in England or Wales. Section 17(2) states that development is NSIP if it relates to creating underground gas storage facilities in England or starting to use underground gas storage facilities in England. Section 17(3) states that development is caught if it is starting to use underground gas storage facilities in Wales and it relates to storage in natural porous strata and the developer is a gas transporter. This is an interesting distinction, because it suggests that creation of a storage facility in a cavern in Wales would not require development consent. Similarly, the paragraph does not mention the differences in approach in relation to LNG facilities as set out in Section 18. For example, it would appear that an LNG facility is not an NSIP if it is to be located in Wales, given that Section 18 only refers to such facilities within England. This should be mentioned in the NPS. A similar situation exists in relation to gas reception facilities, as set out in Section 19 of the Act. The NPS indicates that only gas reception facilities within England fall within the definition of NSIP. We would ask that this is amended.
Need
2.1.1	The paragraph states that the IPC should start its consideration of applications on the basis that need for the development has been demonstrated. However, no indication is given as to what weight should be afforded to that need. As the IPC must balance any adverse impact of the proposed development against its benefits it would be helpful if the draft NPS made it clear that the need for the development should be given substantial weight.
Good design
General	As noted in response to the other draft NPS there is a need for greater clarity in respect of "good design".
2.3.3	It is not clear what is meant by requiring Applicants to demonstrate "good design". Although more guidance is given in paragraph 4.5 of EN-1 as to what is meant by "good design", it is not clear how this would apply to gas supply infrastructure and pipelines.
Hazardous substances consent
2.4.3	This paragraph is similar to paragraph 4.12.3 in EN-1 where the NPS appears to have confused the requirement for hazardous substances consent and the scheme for controlling major accident risks.
Site selection
2.6 Landscape and visual	It would be helpful if there was some discussion in Section 2.6 about possible landscape and visual effects from above ground facilities related to underground gas storage projects. This is important because such facilities are often in the open countryside and therefore significant landscape and visual effects are likely to arise from the development required for such a facility including compressor buildings and stacks.
2.6.10	We also find that this paragraph is quite vague and that the statement made in 2.6.10 is not entirely true: "... there are very strong seasonal and daily variations in gas demand. It also highlights the fact that our previous ability to rely on direct offshore gas production is diminishing as UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) production declines with a consequent increased need for storage" We do not believe it states the need for gas storage clearly enough. We would like to see something much more powerful like the Secretary of State statement from May 2006: "... we need timely and appropriately sited gas supply infrastructure to be delivered to the market because:   —  Great Britain is becoming increasingly dependent on gas imports and requires new gas supply infrastructure to help ensure security of supply;   —  new projects enable extra supply and storage options if they proceed without avoidable delays;   —  there are limited locations currently suitable for much needed gas storage projects;   —  onshore storage is needed to enable slow-moving gas to be available close to market when consumers require it;   —  new energy infrastructure projects provide national benefits shared by all localities"       (Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announcement to House of Commons on 16 May 2006)
2.6.10	This focuses predominantly on short to medium range and there is little reference to/clarity on long range storage and it is unclear on how the NPS has arrived at this conclusion. DECC should explain its thinking here?
Water quality and resources
2.6.17	This paragraph refers to 2.5.22. However, this is an incorrect reference. We assume that the reference should be to 2.6.23
Gas and Oil pipeline safety
2.9.4	It would be helpful if the NPS made it clear that the IPC should regard any pipeline that meets the standards set out in paragraph 2.9.6, or other established standards, as being safe.
Location
General	We would like the NPS to make it clear that there are only limited locations where gas storage is possible and it is likely that such locations will be within the open countryside. However, given the need for such storage facilities, the landscape and visual effects that would inevitably occur, should not be held as a reason, in their own right, to refuse development consent.
2.9.7	It is not clear in the first sentence of this paragraph what is meant by the terms "relevant operator", "authority" or "utility". In the second sentence it would be useful to clarify in what circumstances an investigation of contaminated ground will be needed.

APPENDIX E

EN-5 ELECTRICITY NETWORKS INFRASTRUCTURE

  We welcome this draft NPS and believe that it should be designated subject to comments below.

We welcome the guidelines set out and particularly support the inclusion and prominence given to the Holford Rules in the Landscape and Visual section.

  The NPS rightly points out the difficulties of "Under Grounding" and the recognition that this can be a very costly alternative, which also has a number of impacts that would need mitigating. We believe it is critical to maintain this commentary within the final NPS.

  However the draft NPS is very orientated towards transmission line reinforcement as opposed to distribution. This could be rectified quite simply by adding in "and/or distribution" after transmission in much of the document, for example.

  2.4.1:  Bullet 3: "... increased transmission and distribution losses";

  2.8.2:  "All high voltage transmission and distribution lines"

  2.8.3:  "Transmission and distribution line conductors"

  2.9.5:  "... EMFs arising from the transmission, distribution and use of electricity."

  2.9.7 and 2.9.8:  "... transmission or distribution line"

  We would reiterate the need to continue to maintain and apply the overhead lines exemption rules so that `business as usual' work does not create an unduly onerous process for the developer and hold up necessary and routine work. Furthermore it is needed to ensure the IPC is not flooded with straight forward work that had typically been covered by this rule in the past. We have submitted a response to the recent consultation supporting the need to maintain the overhead lines exemption rules.

STATEMENT OF NEED

Statement of need
2.1.1	The last sentence in this paragraph indicates that the IPC should assume that the need for the infrastructure has been demonstrated, as suggested in Section 3.8 of EN-1. However, Section 3.8 only describes in detail the need case that has already been put forward for reinforcement of the transmission system. It does not deal with the need case for reinforcement of the distribution network in any detail. Furthermore, there is a conflict with paragraph 2.3.4 of EN-5, which suggests that the IPC may require further evidence in relation to need for a particular project. The weight that should be given to the need for development is not mentioned, either here or in other parts of the NPS. It would be helpful if the NPS could clarify that the need for distribution electricity network development should be given significant weight.
Site Selection
2.2.1	The most suitable route to take should be via the most expedient and not necessarily the most direct as this NPS states. Furthermore, the applicant will need to consider cost and obligations under its license as well as engineering and environmental aspects that are noted. We would also like an amendment to be made to ensure it is clear that the section also refers to substations, as well as generating stations, whilst this is only a slight amendment it is important. The revised wording should be as follows: "The general location of electricity network projects is often determined by the location, or anticipated location, of a particular generating station or substation and the existing network infrastructure taking electricity to centres of energy use"
2.2.2	The first sentence is confusing as to whether "permission" means "development consent" or not. This needs to be clarified.
2.2.5	Reference is made to the Schedule 9 duties in the Electricity Act 1989. However, this paragraph does not make it clear whether the IPC will take these factors into account when considering an application, or what weight should be given to those duties.
General assessment principles
2.3.1	The paragraph refers to providing environmental information even where an ES is not required. As with the requirements in EN-1, we believe that this is excessive and should be deleted.
2.3.2	We believe the wording here is important as it allows the necessary flexibility in submitting applications for generating stations and overhead lines etc. either together or separately. We welcome the recognition that it is not always possible to take a holistic approach to this.
2.3.5	We note that this paragraph is referring to duties that are placed on National Grid. However, there should be more specific reference to the statutory duties as set out in Section 9 of the Electricity Act 1989, which requires transmission and network operators to develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated and economical system of electricity supply. Furthermore, it should be specifically stated that this must be taken into account by the IPC when determining any application.
Good design
2.5	This section relates to proposed development being of "good design". However, there is very little to say what "good design" actually consists of. We believe it would be helpful for the NPS to explain what it means by "good design".
Landscape and visual
2.7.7	Our understanding is that this range may not be completely accurate and that 12-17 is a more appropriate figure.
2.7.9	Similarly we are also led to believe that with connection of a new nuclear power plant this range may be much higher with at least 18 cables, if not 24. As such the cost will be even greater and a stronger emphasis on overhead lines should therefore be made.
2.7.12	The first bullet point states that the IPC should expect the applicant to have considered network reinforcement options (where alternatives exist) which might allow improvements to an existing line rather than the building of an entirely new line. A DNO will have evaluated fully the need for the investment as part of his licence obligations and can set out the process he has gone through to arrive at the conclusion that the proposed investment is required in his application. He should not, however, be expected to set out why all the various alternatives to a proposed network reinforcement would not meet his objectives. This would go significantly beyond current practice.
Noise
2.8.1-6	We are pleased to see this objective approach.
EMFs
2.9.10	This paragraph suggests that the IPC will still need to be satisfied that 132kV lines will comply with ICNIRP basic restrictions. However, this does not accord with the Route Map as shown in Annex A, which suggests that lines of 132kV and below are assumed to comply with ICNIRP and therefore will not be an issue for the IPC.
2.9.11	This paragraph is inconsistent with the table and route map. We believe that the route map is to be relied upon, rather than this paragraph.
January 2010

---

---

---

Prepared 23 March 2010