Memorandum submitted by the Campaign for National Parks (NPS 61)

 

CNP considers that there are some fundamental issues to be addressed before the NPSs can be designated and considered sound. This submission focuses on EN-1 (overarching energy), EN-5 (electricity networks infrastructure) and EN-6 (nuclear).

 

1. National Policy Statement for Overarching Energy (EN-1)

 

· Assessing nationally significant infrastructure projects in National Parks

 

1.1 The guidance in the draft NPS for assessing projects in National Parks must be altered so that it reflects properly the rigorous examination required for such projects and the test that must be satisfied before such projects can be considered to be acceptable (exceptional circumstances and public interest must be demonstrated).

 

1.2 We are concerned that the guidance within para 4.24.7 is at odds with current Government policy for assessing major development proposals within National Parks, as set out in para 22 of Planning Policy Statement 7. The draft NPS attempts to define exceptional circumstances as those where development can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. This is in contrast to existing Government policy which is that both exceptional circumstances and public interest must be demonstrated (the two are not always necessarily equivalent) in order for a major development proposal to be considered acceptable.  Footnote 68 also changes existing Government policy as it attempts to redefine national considerations as including the contribution of the infrastructure to the regional economy. Nor is there any reference to the requirement for such proposals to be subject to the most rigorous examination. When taken together, the changes constitute a significant perversion of a key Government policy, the principles of which have remained unsullied throughout several governments. We therefore suggest the following rewording:

 

Nationally significant infrastructure projects should not take place in these nationally designated areas, except in exceptional circumstances. Because of the serious impact that nationally significant infrastructure projects may have on these areas of natural beauty, and taking account of the recreational opportunities that they provide, applications for all such developments should be subject to the most rigorous examination. Nationally significant infrastructure projects should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed.

 

1.3 The reference to the regional economy in footnote 68 should be deleted. National Parks are designated for the nation's benefit and because of their national significance - the suggestion that a contribution to a regional economy is a national consideration is not only prima facie wrong; it must also be regarded as an attempt to undermine the national significance of nationally designated areas.

 

1.4 The wording of this test also needs to be corrected in the gas and oil pipelines NPS (EN-4).

 

· The weight attached to development plans

 

1.5 CNP considers that the suite of draft NPSs do not, either individually or collectively, give sufficient weight to the relevance of the development plan (currently comprised of the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Local Development Framework) to the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

· Need and the absence of a locational strategy

 

1.6 The draft NPS is based on a premise that there is a considerable need for new investment over the coming years and that any new provision is needed. As part of this approach, the market is left to decide where proposals for new electricity generating infrastructure will come forward - for example, the proposed list of sites for nuclear power stations within EN-6 have been identified by promoters on the basis of market considerations, rather than through a rigorous site selection process based on sustainability criteria.

 

1.7 While we accept that the Government should not prescribe what development will be provided where, the absence of any priorities or steer for where infrastructure might be most desirable, acceptable or necessary is unhelpful. In our view, this is unlikely to result in the more strategic approach the Government aspires to - instead, objectors will continue to resist developments on a case by case basis. The need case will not be accepted by the public, as the draft NPS appears to be saying that whatever promoters say is necessary is necessary, regardless of the impacts that this might generate.

 

· Cumulative impact of development

 

1.8 EN-6 highlights the importance of considering the cumulative effects of nuclear development but EN-1 does not provide any guidance on how the cumulative effects of all energy infrastructure, including nuclear and transmission infrastructure, will be identified and assessed.

 

1.9 Significant cumulative impacts would arise if a number of different installations came forward in the same general area - for example, Cumbria is endeavouring to establish itself as Britain's Energy Coast with proposals and possibilities of nuclear, wind (onshore and offshore), tidal developments and their associated infrastructure. At which point will the potential cumulative impacts of these separate developments be considered, including on the special qualities and statutory purposes of the Lake District National Park? CNP suggests that the Committee's questioning of promoters and the Minister ought to include some potential scenarios such as this in order to probe them on how cumulative impacts will be assessed in practice.

 

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

 

· A strategic approach to transmission is needed

 

2.1 A strategic vision is needed for the UK's transmission network but unlike the scenarios presented by the Electricity Networks Steering Group this must have sustainability considerations at its heart. At present, National Grid is required to provide connection agreements for each new site of generating capacity before any assessment is made of the appropriateness of either the location of the generating capacity or the grid connection that it would require. A strategic vision of the electricity transmission network (onshore and offshore) is called for and this must factor in environmental considerations - such as the location of National Parks and other nationally designated areas - if it is to win public acceptance.

 

· Mitigating measures

 

2.2 The draft NPS does not take a positive enough view of mitigating measures such as undergrounding. This should be de rigueur in nationally designated areas such as National Parks.

2.3 Research by Ofgem demonstrates that the public is willing to contribute financially towards the undergrounding of lines in sensitive landscapes. Much progress has been made on undergrounding visually intrusive distribution lines through a special funding allowance to Distribution Network Operators set up by the price control review process. Where a new transmission line is proven necessary in a National Park following the rigorous process outlined in paras 1.2 and 1.3 of this submission, its entire length must be undergrounded within that landscape (subject to consideration of possible local impacts on interests such as archaeology) and funds must be available for this. The process for offering connection agreements to generators is not transparent and should not be divorced from the consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects - the two must be linked.

 

· Joined-up approach to applications for generation and associated development

 

2.4 The Infrastructure Planning Commission should be given the strongest possible encouragement to consider applications for power stations and associated development such as grid connections at the same time. This is especially pertinent to the proposed greenfield sites at Kirksanton and Braystones where is currently no grid infrastructure. This would enable the Government's vision of a single integrated consent regime to be achieved in practice and the overall acceptability of a project to be considered before development consent is issued for individual elements.

 

3. National Policy Statement for Nuclear (EN-6)

 

· Legality in respect of the Habitats Directive

 

3.1 We are concerned at the legality of the draft NPS in respect of the Habitats Directive and its test of Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI).  The draft NPS relates the grounds for IROPI to the protection of human health and public safety and to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment (i.e. tackling climate change). Given this, the Government is not seeking an opinion from the European Commission, despite the presence of priority habitat types within sites which may be affected.  We think that this argument is flawed and agree with the many other submissions to the inquiry that the legality of this element of the draft NPS should be tested.

 

· Site specific considerations

 

3.2 We have serious concerns about the suitability of the proposals for Kirksanton and Braystones because of their impact on the setting, tranquillity and special qualities of the Lake District National Park. The ecological impacts at Kirksanton would be extreme, and both sites would have impacts on internationally and nationally designated sites of ecological importance. Coupled with the adverse impact on the Lake District National Park and other factors such as the impacts on the marine environment, we consider that there is a compelling case to remove both sites from the NPS.

 

3.3 We are concerned about the cumulative impact of up to three nuclear power stations in this remote, rural part of Cumbria - scrutiny is needed of how will this assessed by the Infrastructure Planning Commission and the process by which the public will be able to make its views known on cumulative impacts.

 

3.4 Three nuclear power stations, two of which would be greenfield sites, would expand significantly the character of the area dominated by nuclear power station infrastructure.  Scrutiny is needed of whether this would be publicly acceptable before these sites can be included within the final NPS, especially given the impact on the character of the nationally designated Lake District National Park.

 

3.5 Given the small size of the Braystones site, we question whether it would be feasible for the intermediate level waste that it would generate to be stored there and whether there may be plans in the longer term to coalesce the site with Sellafield. While this may appear to offer operational efficiencies, this would further extend the area of countryside dominated by nuclear power station infrastructure and increase the impact on the Lake District National Park. 

 

3.6 We do not accept the validity of the site selection process through which the ten listed sites have emerged. They have come forward simply because developers have nominated them and in our view there has not been a rigorous assessment of whether there are any viable alternatives.

 

3.7 As mention in para 2.3 of this submission, the proposals for new nuclear power stations cannot be considered in isolation from the implications of strengthened or new electricity transmission infrastructure, especially as the latter would intensify as the number of power stations consented in West Cumbria increased.  The least impactful options ought to be given the highest priority (undergrounding and using offshore connections), and grid capacity needs to be considered in the light of other non-nuclear major energy generation schemes such as offshore wind and potential tidal barrages.  These points are also relevant in respect of the new nuclear power station at Wylfa in North Wales, as this would have implications for the electricity transmission line that runs through the Snowdonia National Park.

 

January 2010