Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Written evidence submitted by the National Grid Plc (IB 49)

Summary

1. In view of the need to address climate change and to ensure reliable, secure and affordable energy supplies, major investment in new energy infrastructure is needed during the course of this decade and beyond. This requires a clear and stable legal and policy framework which provides certainty and clarity to infrastructure developers, investors and local stakeholders and communities.

2. We are supportive of the proposals in clauses 23-25 of the Infrastructure Bill as well as the other practical measures which are being considered as part of the Planning Act Review to streamline and simplify certain aspects of the NSIP process.

3. Overall, National Grid is supportive of the proposals in clause 26 of the Infrastructure Bill. However, although we believe that the issues we have highlighted do not require changes to the Bill, National Grid would welcome a clear commitment from Government that they will be addressed appropriately in any secondary legislation and associated guidance.

4. We believe that long term infrastructure planning is essential to ensure that the UK can begin to create a broader public appreciation for the benefits and trade-offs associated with infrastructure investment and delivery - in order to build the public acceptability that will underpin the long term stability of infrastructure policy.

Introduction

5. National Grid owns and manages the grids to which many different energy sources are connected. In Great Britain, we operate the systems that deliver gas and electricity across the entire country. We own the high voltage electricity transmission system in England and Wales and the gas transmission system throughout Great Britain. Through our low pressure gas distribution business, we distribute gas in the heart of England to approximately eleven million offices, schools and homes – putting us in a vital position at the centre of the energy system.

6. We are at the core of one of the greatest challenges facing our society; supporting the creation of new sustainable energy solutions for the future and developing an energy system that can underpin our economic prosperity in the 21st century. We are committed to taking a leading position, alongside governments and regulators, in shaping the future energy landscape. We fully embrace the opportunity to support changes in the energy industry that will be needed to achieve the UK’s climate change targets.

7. National Grid welcomes the opportunity to make this submission to the Committee. We wish comment particularly on Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill.

Part 4 – Planning, Land and Buildings

Nationally significant infrastructure projects (Clauses 23-25)

8. In view of the need to address climate change and to ensure reliable, secure and affordable energy supplies, major investment in new energy infrastructure is needed during the course of this decade and beyond. This requires a clear and stable legal and policy framework which provides certainty and clarity to infrastructure developers, investors and local stakeholders and communities. In addition, there is a need for a shared understanding across industry, Government and the public of why significant investment in energy infrastructure is required, and the benefits and trade-offs for this country to gain a safe, secure, affordable and sustainable energy future.

9. National Grid has been a supporter of the Planning Act 2008 regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), including the National Policy Statements (NPSs) which set out the generic need for infrastructure development as well as the clearly prescribed timescales for examination and decision making under the 2008 Act.

10. We have been supportive of the practical improvements made to the Planning Act 2008 regime over the past few years, including the publication of updated guidance. With this in mind, we consider that no major changes to the Planning Act regime are needed at this stage. Rather, a period of overall legislative and policy stability is required to allow the system to bed in and to enable all of those involved to gain experience, build up good practice and get projects through the consenting process.

11. National Grid therefore endorses the approach adopted as part of the current Review of the Planning Act 2008 regime which focuses on selective, small-scale improvements, whilst keeping the system as a whole unaltered. We have been working closely with Government departments, industry colleagues, the National Infrastructure Planning Association (NIPA) and other stakeholders on the Review.

12. We are supportive of the proposals in clauses 23-25 of the Infrastructure Bill as well as the other practical measures which are being considered as part of the Planning Act Review to streamline and simplify certain aspects of the NSIP process.

13. Regarding clause 23, National Grid welcomes the proposal to allow the examining authority to be appointed earlier in the NSIP process (i.e. immediately after an application has been accepted, rather than after the applicant has certified that everyone was notified about the acceptance of the application and given the chance to make representations). This will enable inspectors to engage with the development project earlier which will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the examination process.

14. Regarding clause 24, we welcome the proposal to allow the appointment of two person panels of inspectors to examine applications (as an alternative to the appointment of a single person, or a panel of three, four or five persons). This gives the Secretary of State an additional option to tailor the number of inspectors to the needs and complexity of a project which, among other things, can increase the efficiency and/or reduce the cost of examinations.

15. Regarding clause 25, National Grid supports the objective of improving and simplifying the process for making changes to Development Consent Orders (DCOs) after consent has been granted. It is right that project promoters are expected to submit fully developed DCO applications that have been informed by full pre-application consultation. However, despite a developer’s best endeavours, changes to a project may be necessary after development consent has been granted, for example, due to regulatory changes, technical developments or the discovery of previously unknown factors. This includes cases where a change would improve the scheme (e.g. reduce its impacts) and/or where there is broad agreement among those affected that a change would be beneficial.

16. In our submission to the recent DCLG consultation [1] regarding changes to DCOs, we welcomed the general thrust of the proposals, but highlighted a number of ways in which the process for making changes to DCOs could be improved further. In respect of non-material changes, we recommended that the requirements for publication and consultation should be more flexible and light touch than was proposed in the consultation document. This would also bring the process for non-material changes for NSIPs more in-line with the established publicity and consultation requirements for projects under the Town and Country Planning Act.

17. Regarding material changes, our response to the DCLG consultation supported the bulk of the proposed revised process for making material changes, including the streamlined consultation requirements, the option of not holding an examination and the proposed timescales for examination and decision making. However, it is our considered view that, where the Secretary of State decides an examination is not required for material changes to a project, there should be flexibility to allow one set of written representations on the proposed changes (instead of the two rounds of written representations proposed in the consultation document). This would align the revised process for material changes with the revised process for DCO examinations in general as proposed by NIPA and others, reducing duplication and making the process more efficient.

18. Overall, National Grid is supportive of the proposals in clause 25 of the Infrastructure Bill, particularly the provisions that allow the Secretary of State, or the person making an application, to exercise a discretion. The issues outlined above do not require changes to the Bill, but National Grid would welcome a clear commitment from Government that they will be addressed appropriately through a revision of secondary legislation [2] and associated guidance.

Deemed discharge of planning conditions (Clause 26)

19. National Grid supports the proposal to introduce the deemed discharge of planning conditions. As explained in the DCLG technical consultation document of July 2014 (see above), there is a justifiable expectation that, where a local planning authority has decided to impose planning conditions, the authority should seek to make a decision on an application to discharge the conditions with the minimum of delay. Failure to do so does not in reality give the applicant an ‘implementable planning permission’ and will therefore delay development.

20. In our response to the DCLG consultation, we supported the introduction of the deemed discharge of planning conditions. However, we queried the need or justification for exempting certain planning conditions from the deemed discharge, as proposed in the DCLG consultation. The consultation document recognised that failure of a local authority to discharge a planning condition leaves the applicant with a planning permission that is not ‘implementable’. Like developers are rightly expected to adhere to all planning conditions, planning authorities should be expected to progress the discharge of any condition within required timescales. Therefore the deemed discharge should apply to all conditions, otherwise the objectives of increasing certainty of a decision by a certain date and of ensuring planning permissions can be implemented will not be achieved.

21. As recognised in the Government’s response to the technical consultation published in November 2014, "deemed discharge is not about penalising local authorities. It is about ensuring that they hit the deadlines they are already working towards, and providing the applicant with greater certainty as to when a decision can be expected. This proposal will not undermine the ability of the local authority to consider the matter properly within a reasonable timescale, or to refuse approval where it is not satisfied with the proposal or to enforce where a developer has not complied with the substantive condition" (paragraph 25, emphasis added).

22. We share the concerns expressed by others that deemed discharge could lead to unintended consequences, if the provisions were not implemented carefully. It is equally important to bear in mind that it is not the intention to remove the developer’s duty to adhere fully to any planning condition imposed by the local authority. Developers will still be required to adhere to all conditions and appropriate safeguards should be put in place through secondary legislation to ensure that developers provide clear evidence in their applications to the local planning authority to demonstrate that planning conditions have been adhered to in full.

23. We respect the Government’s decision (as set out in its response to the technical consultation on deemed discharge in November 2014) to go ahead with its proposal to exempt certain conditions from the deemed discharge. We welcome that the Government intends to apply the exemptions only to those conditions that relate to the reason for the exemption, rather than to all the relevant conditions attached to the planning permission.

24. However, we note that this is not intended to apply to development which requires Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and/or that is located in a protected European site or Site of Special Scientific Interest (see paragraph 21 of the Government’s response to the technical consultation). In these cases, all conditions would be exempt from deemed discharge, regardless of whether those conditions relate to the reason for the exemption or whether they are unrelated. This blanket exemption seems disproportionate as it would mean that, for example, deemed discharge would not apply to any development that requires EIA, regardless of whether the development has any significant adverse impact on the environment or not, or whether the conditions in question relate to environmental impacts or not. National Grid consider that, if the Government wishes to exempt certain conditions for EIA development or development in certain designated areas, it should apply the exemptions only to those conditions that relate to the reason for the exemption.

25. Overall, National Grid is supportive of the proposals in clause 26 of the Infrastructure Bill. The issues outlined above do not require changes to the Bill, but National Grid would welcome a clear commitment from Government that they will be addressed appropriately in any secondary legislation and associated guidance.

Part 5 – Energy

26. We all rely on having energy at our fingertips - from the warmth and light we rely on at home, and the power which keeps our factories and offices going, to the mobile communications and other technologies that are essential parts of our modern lifestyle.

27. We believe that long term infrastructure planning is essential to ensure that the UK can begin to create a broader public appreciation for the benefits and trade-offs associated with infrastructure investment and delivery - in order to build the public acceptability that will underpin the long term stability of infrastructure policy. It is vital that government and industry work together to raise the public awareness of the need for new energy infrastructure and the benefits it can bring and rebuild trust in the industry and government to deliver a sustainable, reliable energy system at an affordable cost.

28. Investment in energy is critical to support the UK economy in the short term & encourage investment and growth in the long term. It can also deliver sustainable economic benefits such as job creation, export opportunities and a gateway for further investment. We feel that a long term infrastructure plan for the UK will not only help to identify the decisions that need to be made but also provide a platform to present the many economic opportunities.

29. However, in order to really bring an infrastructure narrative to life all stakeholders will need to be engaged, including the affected communities and the end consumers, in the development and delivery of infrastructure plans. This will not only ensure that the communities are properly engaged but it will also present opportunities for them to have a say and clearly understand the associated benefits and trade-offs - enabling people to really see ‘what's in it for them’. We feel that this process will increase the benefits for the UK by ensuring that the plans are shaped in a way that provides a platform for economic growth and in-turn improve the public ‘buy-in’ for infrastructure development and policy decisions - such as those on energy.

30. At National Grid we are fully committed to working with communities where we are planning on building infrastructure. Powering Britain’s Future is National Grid’s campaign to build a better understanding of the energy challenge and trust in our role - connecting people to the energy they use.  We want to establish stronger relationships with communities, enhance the understanding of the need for and benefits of new energy infrastructure, and demonstrate that we are doing the right thing.  This is about stimulating a better debate about the tough decisions and trade-offs that have to be made if we are to ensure we have a reliable, safe and affordable low-carbon energy system for the future. 

January 2015