Memorandum submitted by Natural England
1. Natural England welcomes the preparation
of the National Policy Statements (NPS) for energy to guide decisions
on major energy developments in England (and Wales).
— The transition to a low carbon economy
is imperative, to address both anthropogenic climate change and
long term energy security. We recognise the critical role that
the energy NPSs will play and support the strategic lead that
Government is providing.
— It is vital that a clear statement of the
national need for additional energy generation and supply capacity
is set out, which identifies the role of different types and scales
of infrastructure and technology in decarbonising the UK energy
system and maintaining affordable supplies.
— It is equally important that NPSs set
out how that additional capacity will be provided for in ways
that contribute to sustainable development.
— We advise that the energy NPS should,
in parallel with an improved regulatory framework, provide stronger
signals to the market, decision-makers and other stakeholders
as to the sustainable and diverse energy mix that is required.
— We also advise that decision-making for
major energy infrastructure should include a sound understanding
of where it is needed and best located to maximise benefits and
minimise costs. This requires clearer guidance on co-ordination
with spatial plans and strategic assessments of need and capacity.
— We recommend a number of improvements
to the text of the NPS to ensure that the natural environment
is properly considered in the siting, design and assessment of
major energy schemes, so that balanced, sustainable, judgements
can be reached.
INTRODUCTION
2. Natural England is a statutory body created
in 2006, charged with the responsibility to ensure that England's
unique natural environment is protected and improved. Natural
England's purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is
conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and
future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
3. In our capacity as a statutory adviser
to Government, we offer advice on the making of national public
policy through our analysis, evidence, and lessons drawn from
delivery experience. As an NDPB, we then implement national public
policy throughout its own activities via the development of organisational
policy (specific to the activities of Natural England), guidance
for local delivery, and forward programmes of evidence gathering.
4. Energy developments of all types can
have significant impacts on the natural environment, particularly
on sites of international and national nature conservation importance,
on our most valued landscapes, and our collective ability to adapt
to climate change.
5. It is, therefore, imperative that impacts
are fully assessed, avoided wherever possible, appropriately mitigated
and, as a last resort, compensated for.
6. Based on the evidence from case work,
Natural England believes that our future energy needs can be met
in a manner that is consistent with the protection and enhancement
of the natural environment. It is important that we do so, to
enable society and the environment upon which the economy depends,
to adapt to the challenges of climate change.
7. As a statutory consultee Natural England
will be fully engaged in the new infrastructure planning regime
at project level to ensure that environmental impacts are fully
addressed and opportunities to secure enhanced resilience of the
natural environment are maximised, as an integral part of the
provision of major infrastructure. A clear and robust NPS is fundamental
to ensuring sustainable decisions on major infrastructure projects
by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) and the effective
engagement of all stakeholders in the process.
8. Natural England's comments on the draft
National Policy Statements for energy can be summarised as follows:
GOVERNMENT POLICY
AND NEED
FOR NEW
INFRASTRUCTURE
9. The energy NPSs restate the Government's
existing policy for the market to decide what energy infrastructure
is brought forward within the framework of strategic interventions
by Government. We therefore recommend that the NPS should provide
a clearer strategic steer to energy companies, the IPC, and other
stakeholders on the evolution of the energy mix and that the regulatory
framework enhances such a steer. The strategic direction given
should be linked to the achievement of outcomes described in the
Low Carbon Transition Plan. While we recognise that there is a
need to retain some flexibility in the precise mix, and the NPS
rightly sets out a strong case for the need for all types of energy
generation as part of diverse mix, the NPS should prioritise low
carbon technologies if national and international targets on climate
change are to be achieved. The Committee on Climate Change have
made clear that electricity generation will need to be completely
decarbonised (not "largely", as stated in the NPS) by
the 2030s if we are to meet the 2050 target of 80% GHG reduction.
10. The UK does not have the same range
of levers on the provision of energy which some other EU nations
hold. Consequently, Government, and OFGEM, need to establish mechanisms
which regulate the market sufficiently well to correct actual
or potential market failures, particularly those which might lead
to low carbon or renewable energy being put at a competitive disadvantage
compared to high carbon, unsustainable sources. OFGEM's current
review of its regulatory regime provides an ideal opportunity
to achieve this.
11. Without the right regulatory mechanisms,
working in tandem with national policy and guidance to facilitate
the delivery of a diverse and sustainable energy mix, we are concerned
that existing interventions will not reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and secure affordable supplies as quickly and sustainably
as is necessary.
12. We would also welcome a clear statement
that fossil fuel generation without Carbon Capture & Storage
needs to be phased out in the next decade, and increasingly replaced
with low carbon and renewable alternatives in order to ensure
that the UK meets its legally binding carbon budgets and tackles
anthropogenic climate change. Investment in fossil fuel and nuclear
power must not lead to any diminution of investment in renewables,
other low carbon energy, or greater energy efficiency.
13. We appreciate that the primary purpose
of the NPSs is to guide decision-making on large scale energy
projects and therefore the focus is on new large scale, centralised
generation and distribution.
14. Nevertheless, NPSs will have a role
in guiding decisions on smaller scale schemes. We recommend that
it should communicate greater ambition on the contribution of
energy efficiency, demand management and distributed generation
to national, regional and local objectives.
15. These alternatives can reduce (but not
avoid) the need for large scale, centralised infrastructure and,
generally, be delivered more quickly and at less expense to society
and the environment.
RELATIONSHIP WITH
SPATIAL PLANNING
16. Whilst we appreciate that, with the
exception of the Nuclear NPS, the energy NPSs are not locationally
specific, energy planning is an integral part of spatial planning
at regional and local level, contributing to meeting wider needs
for development and delivering sustainable communities. Planning
and decision-making for major energy infrastructure must therefore
be properly co-ordinated with spatial planning, on- and off-shore
so that we ensure that we make best use of our land and seas.
We believe that the NPS should include clearer guidance on the
spatial dimensions of future major energy developments and how
effective co-ordination is achieved.
17. In the absence of co-ordination and
alignment with spatial plans (Regional strategies and Local Development
Frameworks and Marine Spatial Plans) and strategic assessments
of capacity and need, there is a risk that the investment decisions
of promoters and IPC decision-making will be made in isolation
and result in sub-optimal outcomes in respect of the natural environment
as well as energy security, emissions reductions and wider social
and economic objectives.
18. In some places, such as the Severn estuary
and other our coasts and estuaries, it is likely that a number
of NSIPs will be proposed and the need for a strategic spatial
approach is especially apparent where this is the case.
19. In 2008, Natural England recommended
that Government undertake a strategic assessment of the capacity
for renewable and low carbon energy to underpin the setting of
regional targets for any one type of technology or source. The
departments for Community and Local Government and Energy and
Climate Change have since embarked on a developing a robust method
for undertaking strategic capacity assessment, with English administrative
regions to carry out detailed capacity assessments and use these
to inform the setting of new regional targets (to 2020), and on
which to develop policies. We recommend that the NPS refers the
IPC and promoters to this initiative as one means of helping to
facilitate spatial integration. Better co-ordination with spatial
plans and strategic assessments will also improve IPC accountability
and public/community engagement with, and acceptance of, NSIPs
and provide greater certainty for energy companies.
RELATIONSHIP WITH
OTHER DOCUMENTS
20. The NPS should more clearly identify
how it should be used by the Marine Management Organisation and
regional and local decision makers to guide decisions on energy
developments falling below the Nationally Significant Infrastructure
Project thresholds and associated development.
21. It is important the suite of NPS can
be easily read as a package and implemented consistently. As currently
drafted, there are inconsistencies in the wording of generic issues
between the energy and the ports NPS, and between the various
energy NPSs. The NPSs would benefit from improvements in the consistency
and wherever possible should use the same wording.
THE NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT AND
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
22. The NPS addresses a wide range of impacts
relating to the natural environment. Major energy projects will
have significant impacts on the natural environment and it is
imperative that these impacts are properly assessed and avoided
and mitigated wherever possible. Appropriately sited and designed
energy projects can also deliver benefits for the natural environment,
such as increased ecological resilience.
23. Natural England considers that, as currently
drafted, the NPS does not clearly set out the Government's environmental
objectives (beyond those for tackling climate change). The natural
environment is largely treated as a range of impacts to assess
and overcome.
24. We advise that it highlights the importance
of our wildlife, habitats and landscapes, particularly designated
areas, the ecosystem services which the environment provides,
and the need for conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.
The role of protected areas and a healthy natural environment
in providing resilience to climate change impacts, in particular,
should be more clearly recognised.
25. Stronger guidance to the IPC and promoters
is required on the need to integrate (not automatically trade-off)
social, economic and environmental objectives and that additional
capacity should only be provided where it can meet sustainable
development objectives. Our engagement as a statutory consultee
on planning case work provides clear evidence that energy developments
can be compatible with environmental protection and enhancement.
The energy NPSs should also identify the need for NSIPs to deliver
appropriate enhancement, as well as protection, of the natural
environment and to become exemplars in sustainable development.
ASSESSING IMPACTS
OF PROJECTS
26. The NPS would benefit from clearer and
more consistent guidance on the weight that the IPC should afford
adverse impacts. The NPS sets out a robust case for the urgent
and significant need for additional generation and supply capacity
and the benefits it brings, but there is little to indicate what
types or level of adverse environmental or social impacts might
outweigh the need and benefits. As currently drafted some passages
give the impression that it will be difficult for adverse impacts
to outweigh benefits. Greater weight should also be given to steering
major development away from designated areas.
27. We support the aim to incorporate existing
national planning policy, where relevant, within the NPS, but
there are inconsistencies between the treatment of environmental
impacts in the NPS and the current suite of Planning Policy Statements.
The impacts sections of the NPS, in particular the landscape and
biodiversity impacts, should be strengthened to fully comply with
Government planning policy set out in Planning Policy Statements
and other Government objectives.
28. We are pleased that cumulative and long
term impacts are mentioned in the assessment principles, but we
advise that there is a need for greater consideration of the cumulative
impacts of energy and other potential infrastructure developments
where they are likely to be concentrated in particular areas (eg
the Severn Estuary and parts of the East and North West coasts).
NUCLEAR NPS (EN-6)
29. If in order to provide energy security
and a low carbon economy to 2030 nuclear power needs to be part
of the energy mix we advise that the NPS states that its proportion
should be reduced with growing deployment of renewable technologies
in 2020-40 and that it should, therefore, be viewed as a bridging
technology, not a permanent solution.
30. We accept that a need for new nuclear
power stations can be demonstrated, but question the conclusion
that all nine sites in England listed in the NPS are needed, since
the number of reactors that might be built at each site is unknown.
It would better for the Government to set out how much new nuclear
generating capacity it believes is needed rather than the number
of sites.
31. We emphasise that Government should
satisfy itself that the programme for managing radioactive waste
is based on sound evidence regarding the short and long term risks
posed, is considered as a national not just a local issue, and
that the regulatory framework delivers the highest possible safety
standards.
32. Natural England has provided technical
environmental advice throughout the Strategic Siting Assessment
of nominated sites, particularly with regard to the environmental
assessments (HRA and AoS). Overall we agree with the conclusion
that nine of the 10 sites nominated in England should be listed
in the NPS as "potentially suitable" and progress to
the application stage. All of the nominated sites are close to
internationally protected nature conservation sites, and many
face significant challenges in respect the evolution of our coastline.
Final decisions on the suitability or acceptability of these sites
should, therefore, only be made after full and detailed environmental
impact assessment and "appropriate assessment" under
the Habitats Regulations has taken place at the project level.
33. We support the Government's conclusion
to exclude Dungeness from the list of potentially suitable sites
in the NPS, due to the extreme difficulty associated with mitigating
and compensating for the environmental impacts on a rare, internationally
important shingle habitat, and in view of the long term sustainability
of this coastal site.
TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC
ENERGY NPSS
Our main comments on EN2-6 can be summarised
as follows:
34. In our view the Fossil Fuels NPS provides
adequate guidance to the IPC and promoters, but there should be
a stronger commitment and clearer timetable in EN-1 regarding
the need to phase-out fossil fuel generation in the next decade.
35. We advise that the Renewable NPS should
require the IPC to consider the sustainability of biomass feedstocks.
We are not confident that sustainability standards are robust
enough through the Renewables Obligation Certificates process,
as suggested in the NPS.
36. We support the application of the Holford
rules in identifying routes for power lines as set out in the
Electricity Networks NPS, but would like to see greater emphasis
on the need for strategic planning for electricity networks, which
fully considers the need to avoid designated areas wherever possible
and minimise environmental impacts. There is a particular need
for careful planning and clear guidance for the landfall of offshore
cabling.
37. Natural England would expect electricity
networks to avoid protected sites and landscapes wherever possible.
Where impacts are unavoidable, undergrounding should be given
serious consideration. The section on undergrounding of power
lines in the Electricity Networks NPS should be strengthened to
avoid giving the impression that financial considerations will,
almost invariably, outweigh the need to avoid adverse environmental
impacts.
APPRAISAL OF
SUSTAINABILITY
38. The Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS)
for EN-1 needs to give consideration to a wider range of reasonable
alternatives. It is recognised that an AoS/SEA of a plan that
does not contain location specific proposals is going to be less
detailed than one that does. However the alternatives selected
within the AoS for the Overarching Energy NPS do not allow for
a reasonable comparison and the objectives are too narrowly defined
to identify which alternative policy options are environmentally
desirable. We recommend using the approach in the Nuclear NPS
AoS, the first two stages of which are applicable to a non-location
specific NPS.
39. The AoS also needs to place greater
emphasis on the wider policy framework within which the proposals
will be delivered. This is particularly relevant for identifying
indirect, cumulative and additive effects. The AoS should consider
the implications of other current and forthcoming NPS, the Marine
Policy Statement, development plans and other proposed infrastructure
developments.
40. Detailed amendments are required to
the AOS to enable Natural England, as a statutory adviser on SEA,
to determine if the selected policy options are the least environmentally
harmful, and the identified impacts, mitigation measures and monitoring
requirements are correctly set out.
HABITAT REGULATIONS
ASSESSMENT
41. We appreciate the difficulty of carrying
out the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of strategic high-level
plans but feel that the HRA of EN1-5, as currently drafted, lacks
rigour. We generally support the conclusions of the HRA of EN-6
(nuclear).
42. The Habitats Regulations Assessments
for both EN1-5 and EN6 have concluded that it cannot be excluded
on the basis of objective evidence that there will not be an adverse
impact on the integrity of sites protected by the Habitats Regulations;
Natural England supports this conclusion. The HRAs also conclude
that there are no feasible alternative solutions and Imperative
Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) exists. We recommend
inclusion of a clear statement, in both the HRAs and the NPS themselves,
that the findings of no alternative solutions and IROPI only apply
to the NPS, and not to individual applications.
43. The IPC will be a competent authority
for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations and will therefore
have to ensure that it correctly applies the tests within the
Habitats Regulations when considering applications for development
consent. EN-1 directs the IPC to consider a narrow range of alternative
solutions and to assume that need has already been demonstrated.
This risks guiding the IPC to decisions that do not meet the requirements
of the Habitats Regulations.
January 2010
| 
