Uncorrected Evidence 57

Memorandum submitted by the Country Land & Business Association (NPS 57)

1. Introduction

The Country Land and Business Association is the membership organisation for owners of land, property and businesses in rural England and Wales.

We speak for everyone who believes in a living and working countryside. Through the experience and expertise of members and staff, we promote our members' interests and influence decision makers to ensure the positive development of the rural economy. CLA professionals lobby continuously at EU, national and regional level in the interests of our members ensuring a visible presence and influence in the media and with Government.

2. The National Policy Statements Process

The CLA has two overarching concerns regarding the process of making and delivering NPS.

First, we are concerned that there is a democratic deficit. We acknowledge that Parliament has an oversight of NPS, but we do not regard this as adequate.

NPS, when made, will fundamentally affect the property rights and lives of those facing the designated developments.

This has implications for our second point.

Second, we do not agree that the NPS process gives proper consideration to the separate but linked powers that the IPC will exercise in respect of compulsory purchase.

Under the Act, a developer seeking consent from IPC will be granted not only planning consent but also approval to compulsory purchase proposals.

We do not agree that the well established checks and balances that exists to protect property rights are addressed in the IPC process.

3. Overarching Questions

1. Do you think that the Government should formally approve ('designate') the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement?

No, we do not believe that overarching energy national policy statement is acceptable in its current form.

2. Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide the infrastructure Planning Commission with the information it needs to reach a decision on whether or not to grant development consent?

Yes, broadly the NPS provides IPC with the information it requires for planning consent, but we note with deep concern that the 'development consent' process for IPC also includes the grant of compulsory acquisition powers.

We do not regard the NPS as adequate for the justification of a compulsory purchase order that may deprive a home or business owner of his property.

Previously, infrastructure proposals involving compulsory acquisition have been adequately dealt with under hybrid bills or the relevant enabling Acts.

We would wish to see the same safeguards included here.

We regard it as fundamentally important that the NPS set out clearly guidance to the IPC that requires it to be satisfied that the applicant has made every reasonable effort to secure what land rights it requires by agreement before applying for a development consent.

3. Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide suitable information to the infrastructure Planning Commission on the Government's energy and climate policy?

No, we regard the unnecessary and damaging limitation of nuclear power to be deeply harmful to UK Plc. 10 nuclear power stations may not be enough to keep the lights on in a low carbon world.

4. Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide suitable direction to the infrastructure Planning Commission on the need and urgency for new energy infrastructure?

Yes, energy infrastructure is covered adequately.

5. Do the assessment principles in the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement provide suitable direction to the infrastructure Planning Commission to inform its decision making?

No, the assessment principles should be amended to give greater weight to private property rights.

6. Does the draft Overarching Energy Policy Statement appropriately cover the generic impacts of new energy infrastructure and potential options to mitigate those impacts?

Yes. The NPS covers mitigation adequately.

7. Do you have any comments on any aspect of the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement not covered by the previous questions?

We reiterate our concern that pre-judging compulsory purchase issues may be damaging and potentially open to challenge.

We make comments below only where we have expertise and advice to Government.

2. NPS the IPC and the nature of the consent

The CLA argues that given the duality of the development consent, covering both planning and compulsory acquisition, there should be a significant upfront requirement on applicants to prove to IPC they have made every reasonable effort to secure the rights they require by agreement before applying for IPC consent. This follows existing compulsory acquisition guidance set out in CLG circulars and the compulsory acquisition manual.

3. Detailed comments

EN-3 - Renewables

Section 2.5: biomass and waste to energy

We have particular concerns over the National Guidance on biomass and waste combustion.

At section 2.5 the Guidance states "the combustion of biomass is likely to play an increasingly important role..."

We consider that this prejudges technology issues that should more properly be dealt with on a case by case basis. We agree that the recovery of energy from biomass, particularly biomass waste will become increasingly important, but we regard giving carte blanche to large scale incineration with low levels of energy recovery as wholly misplaced.

The key issue that we advise the IPC should be guided to is the Best Practicable Environmental Option - covering carbon saving as well other environmental outputs - for waste treatment. This is likely to maximise carbon saving and materials recovery if applicants are required to justify their proposals against the options available - which include Anaerobic Digestion for putrescible waste and gasification for dry biomass waste, together with high temperature incineration with energy recovery for plastics etc.

The current guidance is wholly misplaced. Consenting very large scale mass burn technology will lock UK waste policy into sub -optimal facilities for many years, and deny the valuable feedstocks to other sectors better able to maximise societal benefits from renewable energy and production of biofertiliser and biochar.

At section 2.5.8 it is not true to say energy from waste plants at the scale covered by IPC take fuel that would otherwise be sent to landfill.

50MW plants will demand long term contracts for waste incineration that deny feedstocks to more benign treatment plants such as AD and gasification, and disincentivise recycling and re-use.

We point DECC to guidance hidden deep inside the Waste Strategy that clearly favours AD over other waste technologies.

We quote from the waste strategy 2007

"Technology choice

24. The various energy from waste technologies, their different feedstocks, carbon emissions performance, and outputs are described in the 'summary guidance on energy from waste technology' (Annex E) which is intended to act as a guide to local authorities and others who are considering procurement. The Government wishes to encourage local authorities and businesses to consider using anaerobic digestion. Such use would complement current work on measures to promote anaerobic digestion in farming, where it has benefits for manure and slurry management. And in suitable circumstances, spare capacity may be available in on-farm anaerobic digestion plant to manage biowaste from the locality, as is common practice in Denmark. Our recent research has suggested that anaerobic digestion has significant environmental benefits over other options for food waste (and may be particularly cost effective for food waste if separately collected). Although anaerobic digestion is currently a commonly used technology in some other European countries this is not the case in England.

25. The electricity derived from the energy recovered in anaerobic digestion is eligible for Renewable Obligations Certificates. The WIP New Technologies Programme is also funding demonstration project(s). Plants have been situated successfully in light industrial estates within towns, and there is scope for using food wastes derived from both household and business sources. Defra has established an Anaerobic Digestion Policy Network to take forward work on anaerobic digestion and maximise the synergies between the different markets for it.

26. The digestate, produced by anaerobic digestion has a range of potential uses on land, including as a fertiliser or soil improver. Defra has asked WRAP and the Environment Agency to develop a standard and protocol for the digestate to help build market confidence in its recovery on land. Defra is working to establish the full potential, while WRAP is charged with developing this market along with its work to establish markets for waste-derived compost. The Environment Agency intends to have an operational protocol for anaerobic digestate by Spring 2008.

27. Subject to what is said in paragraph 25 above, the Government does not generally think it appropriate to express a preference for one technology over another, since local circumstances differ so much. Those making investment decisions should consider the 'summary guidance on energy from waste technology', and other similar information such as that which WIDP can supply - and make their own decisions. It is not helpful to

rule out a particular technology - such as incineration - in advance, since this unnecessarily restricts options and threatens to raise costs.

ANNEX E

1. The various EfW technologies, their different feedstocks, carbon emissions performance, and outputs are described in Table E.1 below.

2. This is intended to act as a guide to local authorities and others who are considering procurement options. As Chapter 5 of the Strategy states, the Government wishes to encourage more consideration of the use of anaerobic digestion (AD) both by local authorities and businesses. Such use would complement strong measures which are being taken to promote AD in farming, where it has benefits for manure and slurry management. In suitable circumstances, spare capacity may be available in on-farm AD plant to manage biowaste from the locality, as is common practice in Denmark. Our recent research1 has suggested that AD has significant environmental benefits over other options for food waste and may be particularly cost effective for food waste2 if separately collected. Although AD is currently a commonly used technology in some other European countries this is not the case here.

3. Apart from AD, the Government does not generally think it appropriate to express a preference for one technology over another, since local circumstances differ so much. Those making investment decisions should consider the information in this document and other information such as that which the Waste Infrastructure Delivery Programme (WIDP) can supply - and make their own decisions. It is not helpful to rule out a particular technology - such as incineration - in advance, since this unnecessarily restricts options and threatens to raise costs."

We argue the IPC should be given the same guidance as waste authorities in this important matter.

At paragraph 2.5.29 guidance states the IPC should accept that applicants may not know the precise details of the plant they intend to erect.

We accept that in matters of precise detail this is reasonable, we do not agree that IPC should grant consent unless the whole life cycle carbon balance of the proposal is known and compared to other alternatives for waste treatment.

Applicant should be required to demonstrate to IPC they have considered all the options and can justify combustion of valuable feedstocks at low levels of efficiency, rather than adopting a source separated approach that delivers both more energy and valuable fertilizer and soil conditioners.

At 2.5.33 "other locational considerations" no mention is made of the land rights that may be required for development consent to proceed.

Section 2.7: Onshore wind

The CLA argues that large scale onshore wind installations are not discrete power stations as was originally envisaged in the Energy Act provisions for national need for generation stations above 50MW.

The largest turbine available is less than 5MW. The fact that several may be grouped together does not make the development a suitable case for IPC.

The CLA argues that such proposals are better dealt with at local level so that the local circumstances and impacts of a very large scale turbine group can be assessed.

We argue that this section should be removed from the National Policy statement.

Draft National Policy Statement for Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines (EN-4)

The CLA represents the owners and managers of the land which will be affected by these installations.

We note that the "development consent" that will be granted by the IPC extends to an approval of compulsory powers under the relevant Gas, Pipeline or Electricity Act, yet see none of the safeguards that are built into those acts in the guidance to IPC.

We were shocked that the only mention of the impact on property owners arises at paragraphs 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 of the Electricity Networks NPS (EN-5), where it occurs with a general assurance to applicants that IPC will grant them the rights they require with no consideration of the rights of the landowners who may be affected.

We suggest suitable drafting be included at 2.9.3 as follows:

2.9.3 Gas and Oil companies will need either to own the land on, over or under which construction is to take place (or to hold sufficient rights on or interest in it), or to have written permission to install their pipelines and associated equipment. They will also require subsequently to have access to that land for the purposes of inspecting, maintaining, repairing, adjusting, altering, replacing or removing the pipeline or equipment.

The necessary agreements with landowners/occupiers are generally obtained by the companies through a permanent or long leasehold easement agreement.

The IPC should ensure that applicants use all reasonable endeavours to acquire the rights they need by agreement before making and application for development consent.

The IPC can reasonably expect that the overwhelming majority of these contracts will have been acquired by voluntary agreement and will have been concluded before the IPC receives the application. However, where the applicant wishes to install a new pipeline or pipelines and despite making all reasonable efforts agreement cannot be reached with the landowners, the applicant may apply for a or compulsory rights order as part of their application to the IPC. The applicant may also apply for the compulsory purchase of land on the rare occasions it can justify that a compulsory rights order does not confer sufficient rights and where this is necessary. This would be unlikely to be sought where pipelines and ancillary equipment are installed, but may occur where other network infrastructure, such as a new pressure reduction station, for example, is required and cannot be acquired by agreement.

Detailed comments

2.9 Gas and Oil pipelines

Paragraph 2.9.3 covers impacts of the proposal. CLA argues that applicants should be required to assess the impacts of their proposals on the interests of the landowners who will be affected and set out proposed mitigation and working methodology to minimize this impact.

The current "Letter of Undertaking" agreed between the National Grid and the farming and landowning organisations provides a model. A copy can be supplied on request.

At paragraph 2.9.7. the guidance turns to below ground usage, ignoring the question of existing surface uses that may impact in site selection.

The CLA argues that applicants should be required to seek a route that avoids or minimizes damage to the interests of land managers and landowners.

At paragraph 2.9.22 the guidance turns to IPC decision making on landscape. Again we argue that this should also take into account existing land use and the interests of the landowner, particularly if he has alternative plans for the land that may be incompatible with a proposed pipeline.

At paragraph 2.9.25 guidance on mitigation should also point out that direct drilling can reduce the impact on rural business activities and landowners' interests, for example where a pipeline needs to cross land set out for a golf course green or other valuable and intensively managed development.

At paragraph 2.9.30 the IPC should also be guided to assure the protection of existing piped water supplies and water availability both for human and livestock welfare, which can be severed by pipelining activities.

The IPC should also have regard to the protection of land drainage required to deliver agricultural productivity.

At para 2.9.33 mitigation should extend to

� Replacement water supplies where these are cut off

� Reinstatement of field drainage

At para 2.9.34 the guidance is limited to soil geology. This is inadequate. Cutting a trench for a pipeline through valuable agricultural soils risks permanent harm to agricultural productivity. Applicant should be required to demonstrate their proposals and expertise in restoring agricultural soils when restoring pipelines.

Draft National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5)

We regard the drafting at paragraphs 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 as wholly unacceptable and set out below our alternative which we hope Government will adopt.

2.2.2 Electricity companies will need either to own the land on, over or under which construction is to take place (or to hold sufficient rights on or interest in it), or to have written permission to install their electric lines and associated equipment (for example, poles, pylons, transformers and cables). They will also require subsequently to have access to that land for the purposes of inspecting, maintaining, repairing, adjusting, altering, replacing or removing the line or equipment.

2.2.3 The necessary agreements with landowners/occupiers are obtained by the electricity company through either a wayleave or permanent easement agreement.

The IPC should ensure that applicants use all reasonable endeavours to acquire the rights they need by agreement before making and application for development consent.

The IPC can reasonably expect that the overwhelming majority of these contracts will have been acquired by voluntary agreement and will have been concluded before the IPC receives the application. However, where the applicant wishes to install a new line or lines and despite making all reasonable efforts agreement cannot be reached with the landowners, the applicant may apply for a "necessary" or compulsory wayleave as part of their application to the IPC. The applicant may also apply for the compulsory purchase of land on the rare occasions it can justify that a wayleave does not confer sufficient rights and where this is necessary. This would be unlikely to be sought where lines and cables are installed, but may occur where other electricity network infrastructure, such as a new substation, for example, is required and cannot be acquired by agreement.

The above issues will be a relevant consideration in the IPC's assessment of whether the electricity company has properly examined both alternative routes and mitigation of the effects of its proposals.

At paragraph 2.6 "impacts of electricity networks" the guidance fails to refer to impacts on landowners business and wider interests. Large scale electricity infrastructure is recorded as significant disbenefit to rural tourism in a number of studies in Wales and Scotland.

The applicant should be required to assess the wider impact of its proposal on the rural economy and relevant landowner interests as well as on the landscape and other generic impacts in EN-1.

January 2010