Angus Walker's Planning Blog 70 - 51

The Planning Act 2008 is one of the most important pieces of legislation affecting major infrastructure projects for many years. The same new procedure will be available for the third runway at Heathrow Airport, new nuclear power stations and windfarms being planned around the English and Welsh coast, the next high speed railway north from London, and many more high-profile projects.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

70: Analysis of legal requirements for NPSs

3rd December 2009

Today's entry discusses what is legally required to be in a National Policy Statement and whether the recent drafts comply.

As any reader of this blog should know by now, seven National Policy Statements were issued in draft on 9 November. The Planning Act does not say that much about what has to be in them - there is a list of things they may contain, but only a small number of things they must contain.

There are four things that an NPS must contain: (i) design criteria, (ii) reasons for the policies in the NPS, including how the policies take into account (iii) mitigation of, and (iv) adaptation to, climate change. The NPS must also be drafted on the basis that (i), (iii) and (iv) are desirable.

Design criteria

This was added by an amendment in the House of Lords when the Planning Bill was considered there. An NPS must include design criteria, and also have regard to good design as part of contributing to sustainable development. All seven NPSs faithfully include a section on design:

EN-1 (overarching energy) - paragraph 4.5
EN-2 (fossil fuels) - 2.3.17
EN-3 (renewables) - 2.4
EN-4 (pipelines and storage) - 2.3
EN-5 (pylons) - 2.5
EN-6 (nuclear) - 3.5
Ports - 1.10.6 and others in part 2

Reasons for policies

It is important that reasons are given for the policies in an NPS, because the IPC will need to know how much weight to put on the 'benefit' side of the scales when comparing it with 'adverse impact'. Simply stating that there is a significant need for the infrastructure may not be enough to undertake the balancing exercise.

There is no particular place in any of the NPSs that says 'here are the reasons for the policies' (except possibly paragraph 1.10.4 in the Ports NPS). Arguably, however, reasons are given as each NPS goes along. I have not done an exhaustive test of whether every time a policy is given, reasons are given for it, but in general they seem to be.

Climate change adaptation

Adaptation to climate change (i.e. if the infrastructure is built, can it withstand the potential effects of climate change such as flooding and higher temperatures) is faithfully dealt with in each draft NPS:

EN-1 - paragraph 4.8
EN-2 - 2.3.15
EN-3 - 2.3
EN-4 - 2.2
EN-5 - 2.4
EN-6 - 3.7
Ports - 2.14

Climate change mitigation

Finally, climate change mitigation is how a project will help to reduce the prospect of climate change. As well as explaining how the policies in the NPS fit with climate change mitigation policies, the government must recognise that climate change mitigation is desirable when drafting an NPS. Unlike climate change adaptation, there is no separate section dealing with this issue in any of the energy NPSs, although there is one in the Ports NPS at paragraph 2.13, which therefore gets four out of four for compliance (and gnashing of teeth from DECC?).

Arguably, however, the whole ethos of the government's energy policy is aimed at climate change mitigation, by requriing new electricity generation to be based on the low(er) carbon forms of renewable energy, nuclear power and carbon captured (at least in part) fossil fuel generation.

Nevertheless, I think it would be clearer if there was a dedicated paragraph or two in each NPS that dealt with how the policies in the NPS take climate change mitigation policy into account. Even if that is not worth doing in every case, two particular situations cases spring to mind. The first is the choice of the level of 300MW of carbon capture and storage for a new coal-fired power station, which is not explained (as far as I can see). Surely that is something for which reasons should be given in terms of climate change mitigation, as the remainder of the plant's output will still be churning out CO2. The unlimited need for gas and oil infrastructure, too, could be seen as perpetuating the use of those substances for heating and travel, thereby causing emissions, and perhaps ought to be justified in terms of climate change mitigation policies.

69: Report of the energy National Policy Statements public consultation meeting

2nd December 2009

Today's entry is a report of one of the public meetings being held on draft National Policy Statements.

Today saw the London public meeting organised by the government to discuss the six draft energy National Policy Statements issued on 9 November. This is the middle of five meetings being held around England and Wales - Peterborough and York having hosted meetings already and Cardiff and Exeter still to come. There are also meetings local to the ten sites identified as suitable for new nuclear power stations (nine meetings, Braystones and Sellafield in Cumbria sharing theirs), and three meetings on the Ports NPS (at the well-known ports of London, Cardiff and Leeds (!)).

The meeting took the format of presentations by David Kidney MP, energy Minister, and Adam Dawson of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), followed by a question-and-answer session of about an hour and a quarter. This was more intended to be for seeking clarification than giving actual responses to the consultation. The questioners were anyone who wished to ask something from the 100 or so in the audience (I would say about 15 did) and the answerers were a panel of civil servants, four from DECC and one from the Department of Communities and Local Government ('CLG'), whose areas of expertise covered the planning and energy policies in question. Tea, coffee and pastries were on offer at the start, and a buffet lunch at the end, together with free copies of the six draft NPSs available to take away (total cover price: £130), so definitely value for money, being free.

Probably the most popular subject of questions was that of nuclear waste, which is effectively excluded from consideration by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (other than temporary on-site waste) by the wording of the Nuclear Power NPS. The reason is the seemingly innocuous one that nuclear waste will be considered by a different body, so the IPC needn't duplicate that, but the prospect of a nuclear power station being approved by a body that does not consider what it leaves behind is too much for some.

I managed to ask four questions. I repeat the questions, rather more eloquently expressed with hindsight than at the time, and the answers, here.

Q: Will the consultation on the NPSs allow changes to policy, or just to the way policy is expressed?

A: The consultation is not intended to be on the policies themselves (i.e. they are not expected to change), but if a sufficiently cogent argument were expressed in a response, a change in policy might be possible.

Q: Why does each NPS have a section on 'climate change adaptation' but none has one on 'climate change mitigation', when the Planning Act requires NPSs to deal with both (or, strictly speaking, explain how each NPS takes them into account)?

A: The whole ethos of government policy on energy is climate change mitigation, so that runs through them all without needing a separate section, but one could be included if that would be clearer.

Q: Why does the Renewables NPS only deal with wind, biomass and energy from waste projects?

A: Solar projects in the UK are never likely to exceed the 50MW threshold. Tidal and wave projects are in their infancy, and the timescales involved in getting to the stage of putting in an application for an over-100MW project (e.g. a Severn barrage) are long enough that the Renewables NPS could be amended in time to deal with them.

Q: Is there some uncorrected draft text in the footnote on page 40 of EN-1?

A: Yes, well spotted!

Other nuggets: another claimed benefit of the new regime is that by simplifying consent it will encourage international investment in new electricity generation.

DECC targets are 40% of electricity generation to be low carbon by 2020, including 29% from renewables (i.e. 11% nuclear).

If the next general election is held on 6 May (or earlier, presumably), then any debate on the NPSs on the floor of the House of Commons would be held after it. This is because although the select committees have until 28 March to report to the government (see yesterday's blog), given that Easter is on 4 April, Parliament will probably not sit at all between that date and the election. Designation (i.e. final approval) of any NPS is realistically not likely before summer 2010.

The only other consultation meeting I am likely to attend is the London one on the Ports NPS in January, so any feedback on the others would be welcome.

68: National Policy Statements - Parliamentary scrutiny explained

1st December 2009

Today's entry explains how the draft National Policy Statements will be considered by Parliament.

National Policy Statements are the expressions of need and impacts that will be used as the basis for deciding applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects starting on 1 March 2010. Seven National Policy Statements were published on 9 November and are open to public consultation until 15 February 2010 (for the Ports NPS) and 22 February 2010 (for the six energy NPSs). The Parliamentary scrutiny process that is running in parallel with this has taken a surprising amount of research to establish.

9 November 2009

Seven National Policy Statements published in draft. Public consultation opens. Comments on the Ports NPS can be made to the Department for Transport (DfT) via this link, and comments on the six energy NPSs can be made to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) via this link. Comments made by 15 January 2010 will be forwarded on to Parliament.

The Secretary of State for Transport announces in a written statement that Parliamentary consideration must end by 6 May 2010.

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change makes an oral statement to the House and writes to the Chair of the Liaison Committee to say that the same date will apply to the six energy NPSs.

The National Policy Statement Sub-Committee of the Liaison Committee of the House of Commons (made up of the Chairs of the CLG, Transport, EFRA and ECC Select Committees) decides to appoint the Transport Select Committee to consider the Ports NPS, and the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee to consider the six Energy NPSs. Obvious, you might think, but they also had the option to appoint an ad hoc committee made of members of more than one departmental Select Committee.

10 November 2009

The Transport Select Committee issues a press release inviting comments to be made to it by 15 January 2010.

11 November 2009

The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee issues a press release inviting comments to be made to it by 15 January 2010.

15 January 2010

The date by which consultation responses sent to the DfT and DECC will be forwarded on to the relevant Select Committee. The departments will not forward any responses received between 15 January and the end of the public consultation.

This is also the date by which consultation responses should be sent directly to the Select Committees.

15 January - 28 March 2010

The period within which the Commons Select Committees are likely to hold oral hearings into the NPSs, with witnesses, although the hearings could start earlier. The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee has said it will hold them; the Transport Select Committee is also likely to do so.

The eighth NPS - the National (road and rail) Networks NPS - is likely to be published in draft during this period, in which case a similar procedure will kick off for it.

1 March 2010

The date when the IPC will open to receive applications for energy and transport projects. This will happen whatever stage the NPSs have got to, and will apply to road, rail, rail freight interchange and airport projects as well.

28 March 2010

The date by which the Select Committees must make their reports to the government for them to be taken into account. This is earlier than the 6 May deadline because the Commons amended its standing orders to make the effective deadline 39 days before the published deadline. This is so that any debate on the floor of the House that is called for can be timetabled before the published deadline.

28 March - 6 May 2010

The period within which the government will hold a debate on the floor of the House of Commons if either Select Committee recommended it. The debate will not end with a vote on the NPS(s).

Meanwhile, in the House of Lords, the government has pledged to hold a four-hour debate in the Lords' Grand Committee before the end of this period. It is not quite clear if there will be seven four-hour debates (one per NPS) or fewer, but the minimum is probably two (ports, energy). Lords Committees and individual members are also free to table motions for resolutions of the House, in which case the government has pledged to organise a debate on the floor of the House.

6 May 2010

The date by which Parliamentary scrutiny must end. It is also the bookies' favourite date for the next general election.

May - June 2010

Possible approval (or 'designation') of the first NPSs. If the Conservatives win the general election, they have pledged to introduce a vote in both Houses on the NPSs, which may delay this.

67: Overview of the Planning Act 2008 - summary up to date to 30 November 2009

30th November 2009

Today’s entry is an up-to-date summary of the provisions of the Planning Act 2008.

This is the third summary, which I plan to reissue to include recent developments every two months. For more information, you can get hold of our free 16-page brochure on the Act - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to obtain one. For a complete picture of the new regime, Bircham Dyson Bell has written a book on it, published by Butterworths at the end of July. Click this link for more details.

There are four new abbreviations to get used to when talking about the new regime, which neatly cover the four main new concepts it involves. The vast majority of tha Act is geared towards speeding up the authorisation of major infrastructure, mainly in England, some types in Wales and one type in Scotland. The remainder of the Act tweaks the existing planning system and also introduces the Community Infrastructure Levy, more on which later.

The first abbreviation is ‘NPS’ – National Policy Statement. There are going to be 12 of these: the first seven were published in draft earlier this month and the remaining five will be published over the next two years. These will set out national policy on a particular area of national infrastructure in a single accessible document, and will state to a greater or lesser degree what infrastructure is needed over the next 15-20 years, sometimes where it should go, sometimes who should build it, and sometimes what it should look like.

The 12 NPSs proposed are to have the following titles (with clickable links to the seven that have been published already): Overarching Energy (i.e. energy of all types, to sit above the other energy NPSs); Nuclear Power; Fossil Fuels; Renewable Energy; Electricity Networks; Gas and Oil Infrastructure; Ports; National Networks (i.e. railways, motorways, trunk roads and rail freight interchanges); Airports; Water Supply; Waste Water and Hazardous Waste. Blog entries in the last three weeks have summarised those that have been issued already, and the others will be considered in more detail as they are published. Consultation on the energy NPSs is open until 22 February 2010 and on the Ports NPS until 15 February. Public consultation meetings on them are also being held over December and January.

The point of NPSs is to avoid debates about policy when applications are under consideration – nearly a quarter of the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry was taken up with debating whether it was needed, for example. Now, the commissioner will just be able to say ‘It says it is needed in the Airports NPS – when that came out in draft, that was your chance to debate that issue. Next, please!’

The second abbreviation is ‘NSIP’ – Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. This should not be confused with NPS, and is already being pronounced ‘ensip’, which helps to distinguish it. The new regime will only apply to NSIPs, and the Act sets out, for each type of project, how big it needs to be for it to become an NSIP.

The 16 NSIPs are: generating stations; overhead electric lines; underground gas storage; LNG facilities; gas reception facilities; gas pipelines; other pipelines; highways; airports; harbours; railways; rail freight interchanges; dams/reservoirs; water transfer facilities; waste water treatment plants and hazardous waste facilities.

For each type of project, the Act sets out a threshold above which it becomes an NSIP. For example, a new airport would be an NSIP if it is expected to be able to handle at least 10 million passengers per year, or 10,000 air cargo movements per year. Expansions of existing facilities can also be NSIPs - if an airport is to expand by those same amounts, it would be an NSIP. The brochure I mentioned gives the threshold for all the 16 types, and whether they must be in England, Wales or Scotland.

It will be compulsory for a new NSIP to use the new regime – indeed illegal to build an NSIP without having used it (although a scheme authorised by an Act of Parliament could override this). The new regime will become compulsory for energy and transport NSIPs from 1 March 2010, and for water and waste NSIPs in 2011. It is generally forbidden for a project below the threshold to use it, although the government can decide that a below-threshold project or cluster of projects should be considered an NSIP. Note that this date of 1 March 2010 is independent of whether the relevant NPS is ready or not.

The third abbreviation is ‘IPC’ – Infrastructure Planning Commission. This is the new body that will consider applications for NSIPs, and, controversially, decide them. There are expected to be about 35 Commissioners - six have been appointed to date, and applications close for the remainder on 7 December. One commissioner, or a panel of three or more, will consider the evidence on an application (depending on its complexity). If the relevant NPS is in place, the panel will decide it, but if it was a single Commissioner considering the evidence, a ‘Council’ of Commissioners will then decide the application. If no NPS is in place, the IPC will refer its recommendation to the Secretary of State for decision.

Everything about the IPC is geared to speeding up the process: the IPC deciding applications will cut out the often lengthy wait for the government to make a decision after a planning inspector has reported on an inquiry. The IPC will have (fairly) fixed timescales to work to – around three months from the application being made to sort itself out procedurally, six months to consider evidence and three more months to make a decision. Oral examination is discouraged (although will probably still happen more often than not). Applicants will have to do a great deal of consultation before they even apply to the IPC, in an attempt to front-load the process and identify areas that could be changed before things get too entrenched and expensive.

The Conservatives have said that if they win power in 2010 they will require Parliamentary approval of NPSs and reinstate the approval of the Secretary of State for NSIPs. They will officially abolish the IPC, but it seems that it will remain in all but name. The Lib Dems would abolish the IPC too, but it is not clear if they would leave the regime intact otherwise.

The final abbreviation is 'CIL' or Community Infrastructure Levy. This is a separate innovation to the new regime for authorising NSIPs outlined above. It is designed to formalise a tariff system for developments (consisting of buildings) getting planning permission to contribute to the infrastructure burden that they will create. It is up to each local authority to decide whether to introduce it. It won't happen anywhere for a good 18 months, though, because the authority must have completed the first iteration of its local development framework, must then publish a 'charging schedule' for its CIL and hold an examination into it if there are any objections.

Only then can it start to charge CIL. Income from CIL is ring-fenced and must be spent on 'infrastructure' - which for this purpose has a wider meaning than in the rest of the Act.

66: Two further nuclear plants added to Infrastructure Planning Commission list and consultation details

26th November 2009

Today's entry reports on additions to the official list of forthcoming nationally significant infrastructure projects.

Applications for nationally significant energy and transport projects will have to be made to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) from 1 March 2010. Although the IPC is only legally required to publish a register of applications once they have been formally applied for, it has decided to maintain a list of prospective applications that have been notified to it and that have the permission of the applicant to make public.

With much fanfare it announced the first 11 projects on its list last month, the subject of an earlier blog post. The 11 projects were eight 'generating stations' (further broken down into four onshore wind farms, one offshore wind farm, two nuclear power stations and one biomass plant), two overhead electric lines and one highway scheme. The list remained static since then, until this week, when two new projects have appeared, bringing the number of nuclear power station projects to four.

The nuclear plants already on the list are Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk, both being promoted by EDF Energy. The two new projects are both being promoted by Horizon Nuclear Power, a joint venture between energy companies E.On and RWE npower. The first is at Oldbury in Gloucestershire, and is being led by E.On, and the second is at Wylfa on the Isle of Anglesey, and is being led by RWE npower. All four sites are adjacent to existing nuclear power stations and are in the list of ten sites included in the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement (NPS).

In the diagram below, the ten nominated sites are shown, with the four on the IPC project list in green. In other news, EDF has put its site at Bradwell up for sale, according to Reuters.

Three of the four nuclear sites currently have consultations running. Here are full details:

Hinkley Point C

EDF's consultation website is here. General consultation on the proposals is running until 11 January 2010. A series of local meetings is being held between 28 November and 14 December - full details are in this press release. The government's own consultation meeting on the inclusion of Hinkley Point in the Nuclear NPS took place last Saturday, 21 November. A Statement of Community Consultation was published on EDF's website on 11 November (and can be found here), although I have not yet found evidence of it being published in a local newspaper.

Sizewell C

Sizewell consultation is not as advanced as Hinkley Point - only a holding page is currently available with a phone number on it - here. The government's consultation meeting on the inclusion of Sizewell in the Nuclear NPS is on 5 December.

Oldbury B

E.On has published an environmental impact assessment 'scoping report' for comment. Its webpage is here. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the process required by EU law where the environmental impacts of a project must be assessed by its promoter and details of the predicted impacts and how they will be dealt with are submitted with the application (in a so-called environmental statement, or ES) for others to comment on and the decision-maker to take into account. Nuclear power stations are one type of project where EIA is compulsory. Scoping is a definition of the areas that the ES should cover, and can be asked of the decision-maker, in this case the IPC. The IPC will take a look at E.On's scoping report and issue its own 'scoping opinion' setting out what the ES should contain. Consultation on the scoping report lasts until 31 December.

E.On is holding a series of public meetings about their proposals between 21 November and 3 December around Oldbury. Details can be found here. The government's consultation meeting on the inclusion of Oldbury in the Nuclear NPS is on 6 February 2010.

Wylfa-3

RWE has also published an EIA scoping report, which can be found here (warning - this file is 36MB). Again, comments are invited until 31 December.

RWE is holding a series of public meetings about their proposals between 24 and 30 November in the area. Details can be found here. The government's consultation meetnig on the inclusion of Wylfa in the Nuclear NPS is on 9 January 2010.

65: The Ports National Policy Statement summarised

25th November 2009

Today's entry summarises the draft Ports National Policy Statement.

On Monday 9 November, the government published in draft for consultation the first seven of an eventual 12 National Policy Statements (NPSs). When finalised, these will form the basis for the consideration of applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). If you are looking for the National Networks (road and rail) NPS, it has been further delayed until spring 2010.

The draft Ports NPS is here. It has a similar format to the energy NPSs, with need and other issues addressed at the beginning, followed by an analysis of particular impacts that an applicant for port infrastructure should deal with in the application and how the IPC should consider them.

Need – paragraph 1.11.12. You may think that a lot of port capacity has been consented recently, but:

"There is a compelling need for substantial additional port capacity over the next 20-30 years, to be met by a combination of development already consented and development for which applications have yet to be received."

Purpose – paragraph 1.12.1. Having said that, a particular application can bolster its need case by:

Catering for the long-term forecast of growth in imports and exports set out by MDS Transmodal, supporting offshore renewable energy, matching expected trade, ship call and inland distribution patterns, ensuring effective competition and resilience between ports, and/or contributing to local and regional economies.

Benefits – paragraph 2.2.2. It might be thought that it was the job of the NPS to outline the benefits, but that is not the whole picture:

"Benefits could include those identified in the NPS at the national or regional level as well as local benefits identified at the project specific level."

Impacts – paragraph 2.6.1 onwards. The following impacts should be dealt with by an applicant for port infrastructure and considered by the IPC:

Economic impacts: general, commercial, competition, tourism;

Environmental impacts: EIA, pollution control, biodiversity and geological conservation, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, flooding, coastal change, transport, waste generation and resource use, water, air quality, ‘dust, odour, artificial light, smoke, steam and insects’ (i.e. things that can cause a nuisance), noise, landscape and visual amenity, historic environment; and

Social impacts: open space, green infrastructure, sport and recreation.

One impact worth mentioning specifically is onward transport (paragraph 2.17.5):

Where domestic access is proposed to be wholly or largely by road, the applicant should specifically demonstrate why it is not considered feasible to use laternative modes for domestic distribution.

64: Infrastructure Planning Commission looks for Commisioners and non-executive directors

23rd November 2009

Today's entry reports on the Infrastructure Planning Commission's search for members and staff.

The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which will handle applications for 12 types of nationally significant infrastructure project from 1 March 2010, is advertising for up to 30 part-time commissioners, and two non-executive directors from the private sector. According to the recruitment website the deadline for applications is 10 a.m. on Monday 7 December.

The commissioner posts will pay £450 per day. The idea is that these commissioners will be appointed ad hoc to deal with individual applications to the IPC.

Although it was originally proposed to have about 11 full-time commissioners and the remaining two dozen or so part-time, appointed to consider particular applications, it seems that they are sticking with the six who have been appointed already with a further 30 part-timers. Having said that, there are rumours that Gideon Amos, Chief Executive of the Town and Country Planning Association, has been appointed as a commissioner, which might mean that some more full-time commissioner announcements are imminent. As these 30 are asked to have experience of transport and energy projects in particular, this suggests that further commissioners may be appointed once the last four project types are brought within the new regime (dams and reservoirs, water transfer, waste water and hazardous waste).

The non-executive director posts will pay £12,000 a year for 2-3 days per month. The description of the role is given as:

Board Members have a corporate responsibility for ensuring that the IPC fulfils the overall aims and objectives set out in legislation and the priorities determined by the Secretary of State. Board Members will also have responsibility for ensuring that the IPC complies with any statutory or administrative requirements for the use of public funds

The non-execs will join the Board of the IPC. This body is not mentioned in the Planning Act 2008, but is referred to on the IPC's website. Its chair is the Chair of the IPC, Sir Mike Pitt.

The Board is not to be confused with the Commission - the IPC itself, comprised of commissioners (presumably to total 36 by 1 March 2010) - or the Council, a subset of the IPC that will decide applications when a single commissioner considered the evidence. Sir Mike is setting up three Councils of five to nine commissioners each, one for energy applications, one for transport and one for water/waste.

The principal officers serving the IPC have also been appointed over the last few months. The interim Chief Executive is Kevin Williamson, previously Chief Executive of the National Planning and Housing Advice Unit. On 1 January 2010 Kevin will relinquish his role to the permanent Chief Executive, John Saunders OBE, who was most recently Chief Executive of the Security Industry Authority and also CIPFA.

The Director of Case Management is Jonathan Bore, previously of Urban Initiatives; Director of Legal Services is Douglas Evans, previously of law firm Addleshaw Goddard; Director of Strategy is Ian Gambles, author of Making the Business Case; and Director of Finance and Corporate Services is Anne Moore, formerly of the Sustainable Development Commission.

The six commissioners appointed to date are referred to in an earlier blog post.

63: Summary of the Overarching Energy National Policy Statement

20 November 2009

Today's entry summarises the draft Overarching Energy National Policy Statement (EN-1).

On Monday 9 November, the government published in draft for consultation the first seven of an eventual 12 National Policy Statements (NPSs). When finalised, these will form the basis for the consideration of applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects by the Infrastructure Planning Commission. The draft NPS is here. This NPS deals with more strategic matters and features that are common to all energy infrastructure, and there are then five infrastructure-specific energy NPSs dealing with the particular features of that type of infrastructure (e.g. gas pipelines or biomass plants). The five subsidiary energy NPSs have been summarised in the past week on this blog.

Demand

The graph on page 18 seems to suggest that currently consented electricity supply will offset the closure of older plants between 2008/9 and 2023/24, as demand is expected to remain constant at around 60GW. From this, one might infer that further electricity generation is not needed. This is not the case, although the NPS could make this clearer. I am not sure where the flat demand figure comes from as it is at odds with the graph in the Redpoint/Trilemma report (figure 79 on page 105) on which DECC bases its assumptions, although DECC may be making further assumptions. In that graph, demand rises from 63-66GW between 2009 and 2020, and then more sharply from 66-73GW between 2020 and 2030.

The demand capacity figure also masks the fact that windfarms generally produce a much lower proportion of their advertised capacity than conventional power plants (so a greater capacity will be needed to produce the same amount of electricity). Furthermore, EU targets for renewable energy generation overall by 2020 (15% of all energy, not just electricity) and for transport (10%) and a desire for greater energy security (and so less dependence on fossil fuels) will both mean a shift in the balance of types of energy production, which will mean a greater shift towards renewables and hence greater capacity.

Supply

(From the box on page 6) of the 60GW (60,000MW) of new electricity generation that is needed by 2025, about 35GW of this will need to come from renewables and the rest from other sources, of which nuclear power should take up as much as possible.

Need

Given these figures, the Overarching Energy NPS declares that it can be taken as read that energy infrastructure of all kinds (or at least those that are the subject of the five other energy NPSs) is needed (paragraphs 3.7.1, 3.8.10, 3.9.8 and 3.10.8). This will have the important effect that objections to applications for infrastructure projects will be ignored where they claim that the infrastructure is not needed.

Energy mix

The box on page 14 states that the IPC does not need to consider the relative advantages of one technology over another (e.g. it can't say it prefers wind farms to coal-fired power plants). Given the declaration that all infrastructure is needed, it shouldn’t need to in any event.

Alternatives

From paragraph 4.4.3, the NPS seeks to limit the consideration of alternatives to the absolute minimum in line with legal requirements (which include environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment).

CHP

From paragraphs 4.6.1-11, the NPS encourages the use of ‘combined heat and power’, where waste heat from a power station is instead used to heat nearby homes and factories (within about 15km), although this is really only relevant to fossil fuel, biomass and energy from waste power stations.
Impacts

From paragraph 4.16 onwards, the draft NPS deals with impacts that are likely to be caused by all the different types of energy infrastructure: how the applicant should deal with them in its application, and how the IPC should consider them. 14 different impacts are considered, from air emissions to water quality and resources. In the five other infrastructure-specific NPSs, some of these are ‘amplified’ if greater impacts are likely for that type of infrastructure (e.g. the visual impact of electricity lines), and there are also additional impacts that are peculiar to that type of infrastructure (e.g. shadow flicker for onshore wind farms).

Next week you should find a summary of the final NPS to be issued in draft, and the only non-energy one - the Ports NPS.

62: The Fossil Fuels NPS in four sentences a consultation and a Bill

This is entry number 62, first published on 19 November 2009, of a blog on the implementation of the Planning Act 2008. Click here for a link to the whole blog. If you would like to receive blog updates by email, click here.

Today's entry summarises the draft Fossil Fuels National Policy Statement (EN-2).

On Monday 9 November, the government published in draft for consultation the first seven of an eventual 12 National Policy Statements (NPSs). When finalised, these will form the basis for the consideration of applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). As well as summarising the NPS, today’s entry contains news of a relevant DECC consultation.

The draft NPS is here. It should be read in conjunction with the Overarching Energy NPS (EN-1), which deals with matters that affect all energy projects. Here are four salient points in the Fossil Fuels NPS.

Need is not dealt with in EN-2 explicitly, but the Overarching Energy NPS (EN-1) states at paragraph 3.7.1:

'The IPC should start its assessment of [electricity generation applications] from a basis that there is a significant need for all types of generation’

Carbon capture readiness - paragraph 2.3.4:

All fossil fuel generating stations of 300MW or more (except energy from waste plants) must be ‘carbon capture ready’ (CCR).

This means that nothing (technically or economically) should prevent CCS technology from being installed once it has been invented. It does not say whether this is for their full net capacity, but presumably that is the case.

Carbon capture and storage - paragraph 2.3.6:

In addition, all coal-fired generating stations must have at least 300MW of their net output subject to carbon capture and storage (CCS) from the outset (or all, if their output is less than 300MW).

Coal-fired power stations vary in their capacity but are typically around 1600-2000MW.

Impacts - paragraphs 2.5-7:

The amplified impacts of fossil fuel generating stations that the IPC should consider (over and above those in EN-1) are air emissions, landscape and visual, and noise; and the additional impacts of coal-fired generating stations that it should consider are that of release of dust and residue management.

The government also confirmed its policy on CCS and issued some guidance for consultation last week that deals with how the CCS requirement should be specified in an application. Of note is that it not only applies to applications made to the IPC once it is established on 1 March 2010, but also applications made between now and then under the existing Electricity Act regime, and even applications that have already been made but not yet given consent. Thus the infamous application for a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent is caught by this requirement. The consultation runs until 1 February 2010 and the documentation can be found here.

Finally, the government introduced an Energy Bill in Parliament today, as heralded in yesterday's Queen's Speech. Among other measures, it gives the government power to levy money from electricity suppliers and spend it on subsidising CCS demonstration projects, reported in the Guardian to be expected to cause a £12 increase in electricity bills and raise £9.5bn.

61: The Renewable Energy NPS in eight sentences and a new Act

18th November 2009

Today's entry summarises the draft Renewables National Policy Statement (EN-3).

On Monday 9 November, the government published in draft for consultation the first seven of an eventual 12 National Policy Statements (NPSs). When finalised, these will form the basis for the consideration of applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). As well as summarising the NPS, today’s entry contains news about a relevant new Act of Parliament.

The draft NPS is here. It should be read in conjunction with the Overarching Energy NPS (EN-1), which deals with matters that affect all energy projects. Here are eight salient points in the Renewable Energy NPS.

The most significant thing about the NPS is at paragraphs 1.7.1-2:

'This NPS covers energy from biomass and/or waste, and onshore and offshore wind. It does not cover other types of renewable energy gneration, such as schemes that generate electricity from tidal or wave power'.

This means that any non-wind or biomass/energy from waste (EfW) projects to generate electricity from renewable sources that are above the 50MW (onshore) or 100MW (offshore) thresholds will still have to be submitted to the IPC from 1 March 2010, but there will be no NPS in place for them.

Need is not dealt with in EN-3 explicitly, but the Overarching Energy NPS (EN-1) states at paragraph 3.7.1 that:

‘The IPC should start its assessment of [electricity generation applications] from a basis that there is a significant need for all types of generation’.

Sustainability/technology - paragraphs 2.5.10-11:

'The IPC does not need to consider the source or sustainability of the proposed biomass fuel to be used in the proposed plant [because Ofgem will] ... or the type of technology used.'

Carbon capture - paragraph 2.5.27:

Biomass (but not EfW) plants with a capacity of over 300MW will have to demonstrate carbon capture readiness.

It occurs to me that a biomass plant using plant matter that is fitted with carbon capture and storage would actually have a negative carbon footprint once operational, as the plants would extract carbon when they grew, and then the carbon would not be released again when it was burned.

Green Belt - paragraphs 2.5.32 and 2.7.33:

The wider environmental benefits of renewable energy projects may be sufficient to override the harm caused by locating them in the Green Belt.

Biomass/EfW impacts - paragraph 2.5.34 onwards:

The amplified impacts of biomass and energy from waste projects that the IPC should consider (over and above those in EN-1) are air quality and emissions, landscape and visual, and local and regional waste management; and the additional impact it should consider is that of residue management.

Offshore wind farm impacts - paragraph 2.6:

The amplified impacts of offshore wind farms that the IPC should consider are biodiversity and the historic environment; and the additional impacts it should consider are considerable: those of fish, intertidal issues, marine mammals, ornithology, subtidal issues, commercial fisheries and fishing, navigation and shipping, oil gas and other offshore infrastructure and activities, the physical environment, and the seascape and visual effects.

Onshore wind farm impacts - paragraph 2.7:

The amplified impacts of onshore wind farms that the IPC should consider are biodiversity and geological conservation, the historic environment, landscape and visual, noise, and traffic and transport; and the additional impact it should consider is that of shadow flicker.

It is also worth mentioning, in relation to offshore wind farms, the enactment of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. This happened on 12 November and means that applications for offshore wind farms below the 100MW Planning Act threshold will need to be made to the new Marine Management Organisation (MMO) when it is set up. In Planning Act guidance the MMO is also recommended as a consultee during the pre-application consultation for above-threshold offshore wind projects, as is the local authority with the nearest coast to the proposed site.

60: The Gas Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines NPS in six sentences

17th November 2009

Today's entry summarises the draft Gas and Oil Infrastructure and Pipelines National Policy Statement (EN-4).

On Monday 9 November, the government published in draft for consultation the first seven of an eventual 12 National Policy Statements (NPSs). When finalised, these will form the basis for the consideration of applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC).

The draft NPS is here and is 28 pages long. It should be read in conjunction with the Overarching Energy NPS (EN-1), which deals with matters that affect all energy projects. Here are six salient points in the Gas Supply and Gas and Oil Pipelines NPS:

The NPS does not address need itself – this is contained in the Overarching Energy NPS at paragraphs 3.9.8 and 3.10.8:

The IPC should assume that ‘there is a significant need for [gas] infrastructure to be provided’ and ‘there is a significant need for [oil pipelines] to be provided’.

Pipeline types - from paragraph 1.7.2:

This NPS does not cover pipelines carrying anything other than gas and oil [so such applications would be decided by the Secretary of State].

The rest of the NPS deals with the impacts that applicants should address for the four main types of nationally significant infrastructure project covered. From paragraph 2.6:

The amplified impacts of underground gas storage that the IPC should consider (over and above those in EN-1) are noise and vibration, and water quality and resources; and the additional impact it should consider is that of disposal of brine.

From paragraph 2.7:

The amplified impacts of LNG facilities that the IPC should consider are noise and vibration, and landscape and visual; and the additional impact it should consider is that of dredging.

From paragraph 2.8:

The amplified impact of gas reception facilities that the IPC should consider is noise and vibration.

From paragraph 2.9:

The amplified impacts of gas and oil pipelines that the IPC should consider are noise and vibration, landscape and visual, and water quality and resources; and the additional impact it should consider is that of soil geology.

This NPS covers the only type of NSIP that extends to Scotland - the rather confused 'gas or oil pipe-line that has one end in England or Wales and one end in Scotland that is constructed other than by a gas transporter'. This will mean gas pipelines constructed by gas suppliers (rather than gas transporters) and oil pipelines.

You might think that this NPS is likely to be the least controversial of the six energy NPSs, but only today the European Court of Human Rights has asked for more details about the risk assessments carried out for the LNG terminal at Milford Haven in south-west Wales. Two activists have asserted that their rights to life have been infringed by the terminals being constructed close to their homes without being properly assessed - see the report in the Guardian here.

59: Low turnout at first public meeting on Nuclear National Policy Statement

15 November 2009

Today's entry reports on the first public meeting held on the draft National Policy Statements.

The first public meeting arranged by the government as part of the consultation on draft National Policy Statements had an attendance of 35 in Hartlepool on Saturday. This low turnout was no doubt due to the five days' notice given for the meeting. Here is a report in the Hartlepool Mail.

The government has arranged three sorts of public meetings so far: one near to each of the ten sites nominated for new nuclear power stations, five on the energy NPSs generally and three on the Ports NPS. The timetable and locations for these as currently known were the subject of a previous blog entry and are being kept updated. The first meeting was on Saturday in Hartlepool and the next will be this Saturday in Bridgwater, near the Hinkley Point site. This second meeting will have the benefit of 12 days' notice and also of relating to one of the two sites for which applications are expected by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in the next year (the other being Sizewell).

Next week sees the first meetings on the energy NPSs in general, in Peterborough on Tuesday and York on Wednesday. Although these meetings will have had more notice, it will be difficult to motivate attendance to discuss documents that do not relate to any particular physical projects. Nevertheless these will be two of only five (currently planned) opportunities for a public discussion of issues such as:

* the declaration that renewable sources should account for about 35GW of the 60GW of new electricity generation needed by 2025 and that new nuclear power should take up as much as possible of the remaining 25GW;
* the requirement for new coal-fired power stations to have at least (or you might say 'only') 300MW of their net output subject to carbon capture and storage (CCS);
* the absence of wave and tidal energy from the Renewables NPS;
* the declaration that the IPC need not consider whether it prefers one type of electricity generation over another; and
* the greater attention given to adaptation to climate change than mitigation of it in the draft NPSs.

This blog will do its bit to increase awareness of the content of the NPSs by continuing to summarise the main points over the next few days.

58: Summary of the Electricity Networks NPS in four sentences and an extra consultation

16th November 2009

This entry summarises the draft Electricity Networks National Policy Statement (EN-5).

On Monday 9 November, the government published in draft for consultation the first seven of an eventual 12 National Policy Statements (NPSs). When finalised, these will form the basis for the consideration of applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). As well as summarising the NPS, today’s entry also highlights a separate and foreshortened consultation relating to electricity networks.

The draft NPS is here and is only 19 pages long. It should be read in conjunction with the Overarching Energy NPS (EN-1), which deals with matters that affect all energy projects. Here are four salient points that summarise the Electricity Networks NPS:

Need - paragraphs 2.3.3-4:

To demonstrate need, the applicant should show that the project is:

* wholly or substantially supported by connection agreements or contracts (i.e. is to connect particular generating stations),
* is based on reasonably anticipated future requirements (i.e. significant extra generation or load are likely), or
* would make a significant contribution to the promotion of renewable energy, climate change objectives or security of energy supply.

Impacts - from paragraphs 2.6.1-2:

The amplified impacts of electric lines that the IPC should consider (over and above those in EN-1) are landscape and visual, and noise; and the additional impact it should consider is that of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs).

Routeing - from paragraph 2.7.3:

‘The IPC should recognise that [the Holford Rules] form the basis for the approach to routeing new overhead lines’.

Undergrounding - from paragraph 2.7.7:

‘The IPC should take into account that the cost of undergrounding electricity cables is between ten and twenty times as much per unit length as for an overhead line’.

In a separate but related development, last week the government launched an additional consultation on overhead electric line projects. This considers whether to exclude certain minor works from the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) consisting of overhead electric lines. Such works are already excluded from the existing Electricity Act regime that the Planning Act will replace, and this was presumably overlooked when NSIPs were defined in the Planning Act. The works that are to be excluded are those such as essential maintenance and emergency repairs – their full descriptions are in these regulations.

The consultation page is here and the consultation closes on 8 December 2009. This consultation, at only four weeks, is therefore considerably shorter than the recommended 12-week minimum. The reason given is so that the regulations can be in force by the date that the IPC will start receiving applications of 1 March 2010 (which may be a reason for the end point, but not the start point!).

57: Summary of the Nuclear Power National Policy Statement in seven sentences

13th November 2009

This entry summarises the draft Nuclear National Policy Statement (EN-6).

On Monday 9 November, the government published in draft for consultation the first seven of an eventual 12 National Policy Statements (NPSs). When finalised, these will form the basis for the consideration of applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Public consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny both started on Monday and will end on 22 February 2010 and 6 May 2010 respectively.

The Nuclear Power Generation NPS is by far the longest of these, at 300 pages for the NPS itself - longer than the other five energy NPSs put together. Futhermore it is accompanied by thousands of pages of reports and other documentation - the full suite of documents can be accessed here. Today’s blog entry should save you reading all that information by summarising the whole lot in seven sentences. I am indebted to Mark Higson, Chief Executive of the Office of Nuclear Development, for providing most of this summary at yesterday’s Westminster Energy, Environment and Transport Forum event, although I have added two further points.

Need - from the box on page 6 of the draft NPS:

There will be a need for 60GW of net new electricity generating capacity by 2025, of which 35GW should come from renewables and the remaining 25GW from other sources.

The government expects as much as possible of that 25GW to come from new nuclear power stations.

All ten sites identified in the draft NPS (Bradwell, Braystones, Hartlepool, Heysham, Hinkley Point, Kirksanton, Oldbury, Sellafield, Sizewell and Wylfa) are needed, and therefore the IPC should assume that need has been demonstrated for these sites and that it has substantial weight.

Waste - from paragraph 3.8.20 of the draft NPS:

The IPC need not consider the question of management and disposal of nuclear waste.

Effect on habitats - from paragraph S.4.34 of the Habitats Regulations Assessment:

The government considers that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) in permitting 25GW of new nuclear power capacity, although Dungeness in Kent was dropped from the list of sites because it did not pass this test.

The only sentence that is not in plain English is the last one. It is dealing with the effect of building new nuclear power stations on or near protected natural habitats and uses the technical term to mean that there are no alternatives to proceeding with these developments. Compensatory measures should still be designed, assessed and put in place, however.

The first additional point is on further applications, at paragraph 3.2.6 of the draft NPS:

If the IPC receives an application for a site that is not one of the ten, it should not refuse it on the grounds that it is not in accordance with the NPS, but should treat it as if there is no NPS in place and send it to the Secretary of State for decision.

The second additional point is on impacts, at paragraphs 4.2-8 of the draft NPS:

The additional impacts in relation to an application for a nuclear power station that the IPC should consider (over and above those set out in the Overarching Energy NPS) are water quality and resources, biodiversity and geological conservation, and landscape and visual; and the additional impacts that it should consider are those of flood risk, coastal change, socio-econmic issues and human health and well-being.

Here endeth the summary. Highlights from the other NPSs published this week will be posted in due course.

56: National Policy Statement consultation - Parliament calls for evidence

12th November 2009

Today's entry reports on two House of Commons Select Committees' announcements about the draft National Policy Statements.

The first seven National Policy Statements were published on Monday 9 November, six dealing with energy and one with transport. These set out the need for energy and port infrastructure, what applicants should do about various impacts in their applications, and how the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) should consider them.

As previously mentioned, there must be public consultation on and Parliamentary consideration of the draft NPSs. The public consultation on the energy NPSs is open until 22 February 2010, and on the Ports NPS is open until 15 February 2010. There is now some news on the Parlimentary consideration.

In June, the House of Commons set up a National Policy Statements sub-committee (of the Liaison Committee) whose job it would be to decide whether each NPS as it came out would be considered by the relevant existing Select Committee or a specially-constituted NPS Committee.

In the last couple of days, both of the relevant Select Committees of the House of Commons have issued calls for evidence on the NPSs. This is apparently because the NPS Sub-Committee has decided to use the existing Select Committee route rather than creating an ad hoc committee route in both cases.

The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee issued a press release yesterday for evidence to be submitted to it before 15 January 2010, although noting that DECC will send it any public consultation responses submitted by the same date - so they don't need to be submitted twice. It also states that oral hearings will be held in the new year.

The Transport Select Committee issued its press release on Tuesday along the same lines calling for evidence to be submitted to it by the same date, and that it will also receive public consultation responses by then. It does not say if it will have any oral hearings.

The Secretary of State for Transport said on Monday that the last date that the Transport Select Committee can issue its report for it to be responded to by the government is 6 May 2010. This gives the Select Committee a generous period of nearly four months to make its report after the deadline for evidence it has published. It is gives us some clues as to when the NPS might be finalised (or 'designated', to use the correct term).

A deadline of 6 May only gives the government four days to submit its response to the report and designate the NPS before the last possible date that Parliament can sit before the next general election. This is 10 May 2010, as it is five years less one day since Parliament first sat after the 2005 election, giving an election date of 3 June. If the general election is on the more likely date of 6 May itself, then clearly the Ports NPS cannot be designated before the election, and I am reasonably confident that Monday's announcement has that effect.

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change did not give a date on Monday, but I have just found out that the same date of 6 May will apply - another blog exclusive! Thus the prospect of any NPSs being designated before the general election is virtually nil.

The House of Lords is also entitled to make a resolution (as a whole) or a recommendation (of one of its committees) on the draft NPSs, but as it does not have an equivalent set of departmental select committees, it is currently unclear how it will deal with them.

It is important not to confuse any delays to the designation of National Policy Statements with the date that applications for energy and transport projects must be made to the Infrastructure Planning Commission. This remains at 1 March 2010 whether the NPSs have been designated or not. The only difference is that if they have not been designated by the time the IPC has finished considering evidence on the application, then the government will decide it rather than the IPC.

55: Imminent public consultation events on National Policy Statements

10th November 2009

For the next few days this blog will provide further details about the consulatation process for the first seven National Policy Statements, which were published in draft yesterday. If you need help in understanding what the documents mean for you, with drafting a response or with getting involved in the Parliamentary side of the process, please see our brochure on these issues - click here.

First up - given its immediacy - the government is having a road show to consult on the National Policy Statements, and the first event is in only two days' time.

There are three sorts of events: events on the energy NPSs in general, events dealing with the Ports NPS, and events dealing with the individual sites nominated for new nuclear power stations. The last of these will take the form of a three-day public exhibition from a Thursday to Saturday and a two-hour public discussion on the Saturday. You have to register to attend the latter by calling 0845 0048 841.

I would guess that publicising the public discussion in Hartlepool with five days' notice, a phone number to call to find out where it is (why can't they just put the address on their website?) and registration required to attend will mean hardly any people turning up, but I hope that I am proved wrong.

[Update 13 November: DECC have now launched a website dealing with the nuclear-specific consultations and you can now register online - click here]

Your intrepid blogger has at least saved you the trouble of finding the addresses that are known so far, and so here is a full list of all the information currently known about the consultation events.

This entry will be amended as further details become known, or you can get in touch if you have any specific questions.

12-14 November - meeting on Hartlepool nuclear site

Exhibition: 12 November 8am - 8pm, 13 November 8am - 7pm, 14 November 9am - 4pm
Public discussion: 14 November 9am - 10am (registration), 10am - 12noon (meeting)

at

Hartlepool Maritime Experience
Maritime Avenue
Hartlepool
TS24 0XZ

19-21 November - meeting on Hinkley Point nuclear site

Exhibition: 19 November 8am - 8pm, 20 November 8am - 7pm, 21 November 9am - 4pm
Public discussion: 14 November 9am - 10am (registration), 10am - 12noon (meeting)

at

The Canalside
Marsh Lane
Bridgwater
Somerset
TA6 6LQ

24 November - Peterborough meeting on energy NPSs in general

10.30am - 11am (registration), 11am - 1pm (meeting), 1pm - 2 pm (lunch)

at

Marriott Hotel
Peterborough Business Park
Lynch Wood
Peterborough
PE2 6GB

25 November - York meeting on energy NPSs in general

10.30am - 11am (registration), 11am - 1pm (meeting), 1pm - 2 pm (lunch)

at

York Racecourse
Knavesmire Road
York
YO23 1EX

26-28 November - meeting on Heysham nuclear site

Exhibition: 26 November 9am - 8pm, 27 November 9am - 8pm, 28 November 9am - 4pm
Public discussion: 14 November 9am - 10am (registration), 10am - 12noon (meeting)

at

Lancaster Town Hall
Dalton Square
Lancaster
LA1 1PJ

2 December - London meeting on energy NPSs in general

10.30am - 11am (registration), 11am - 1pm (meeting), 1pm - 2 pm (lunch)

at

Hilton Kensington
179-199 Holland Park Avenue
London
W11 4UL

3-5 December - meeting on Sizewell nuclear site

Exhibition: 3 December 8am - 8pm, 4 December 8am - 7pm, 5 December 9am - 4pm
Public discussion: 5 December 9am - 10am (registration), 10am - 12noon (meeting)

at

Sizewell Sports and Social Club
King George’s Avenue
Leiston
IP16 4JX
(Thursday and Friday exhibition, Saturday meeting)

Leiston Community Centre
King George’s Avenue
Leiston
IP16 4JX
(Saturday exhibition)

7 December - Cardiff meeting on Ports NPS

Meeting 9.30am - 10am (registration), 10am - 3.30pm (presentations and questions)

at

Port of Cardiff
Queen Alexandra House
Cargo Road
Cardiff
CF10 4LY

10 December - Leeds meeting on Ports NPS

Meeting 9.30am - 10am (registration), 10am - 3.30pm (presentations and questions)

at

Royal Armouries
Armouries Drive
Leeds
LS10 1LT

10-12 December - meeting on Bradwell nuclear site

Exhibition: 10 December 8.30am - 4.30pm, 11 December 8.30am - 6.30pm, 12 December 9am - 4pm
Public discussion: 10 December 11.30am - 12.30pm (registration), 12.30pm - 2.30pm (meeting); 12 December 9am - 10am (registration), 10am - 12noon (meeting)

at

The Mersea Centre
38 High Street
West Mersea
Colchester
Essex
CO5 8QA
(Thursday exhibition and meeting)

Maldon Town Hall
Market Hill
Maldon
CM9 4RL
(Friday exhibition)

Bradwell-on-Sea Village Hall
South Street
Bradwell-on-Sea
CM0 7QJ
(Saturday exhibition)

Maldon Football Club
Maldon Town Function Suite
Wallace Binder Stadium
Park Drive
Maldon
CM9 5XX
(Saturday meeting)

7-9 January 2010 - meeting on Wylfa nuclear site

Exhibition: 7 January 8am - 8pm, 8 January 8am - 7pm, 9 January 9am - 4pm
Public discussion: 9 January 9am - 10am (registration), 10am - 12noon (meeting)

Wylfa Visitor Centre
Wylfa Site
Cemaes
Anglesey
LL67 0DH
(Thursday and Friday exhibition and Saturday meeting)

Cemaes Village Hall
Cemaes Bay
LL67 OHL
(Saturday exhibition)

11-16 January - meeting on Sellafield and Braystones nuclear sites

Exhibition: 11 January 8am - 8pm, 12 January 8am - 8pm, 13 January 8am - 7pm, 14 January 8am - 8pm, 15 January 8am - 7pm, 16 January 8am - 4pm
Public discussion: 16 January 9am - 10am (registration), 10am - 12noon (meeting)

Whitehaven Civic Hall
Lowther Street
Whitehaven
CA28 7SH
(Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday exhibition)

Sellafield Centre
Sellafield
Seascale
Cumbria
CA20 1PG
(Thursday, Friday and Saturday exhibition and Saturday meeting)

14 January - London meeting on Ports NPS

Meeting 9.30am - 10am (registration), 10am - 3.30pm (presentations and questions)

at

Methodist Central Hall
Storey's Gate
London
SW1H 9NH

20 January 2010 - Cardiff meeting on energy NPSs in general

10.30am - 11am (registration), 11am - 1pm (meeting), 1pm - 2 pm (lunch)

at

Novotel
Schooner Way
Atlantic Wharf
Cardiff
CF10 4RT
21 January - Exeter meeting on energy NPSs in general

10.30am - 11am (registration), 11am - 1pm (meeting), 1pm - 2 pm (lunch)

at

The Rougemont Hotel
Queen Street
Exeter
EX4 3SP

21-23 January - meeting on Kirksanton nuclear site

Exhibition: 21 January 8am - 8pm, 22 January 8am - 8pm, 23 January 9am - 4pm
Public discussion: 23 January 9am - 10am (registration), 10am - 12noon (meeting)

at

Millom School and Millom Network Centre
Salthouse Road
Millom
Cumbria
LA18 5AB

4-6 February - meeting on Oldbury nuclear site

Exhibition: 4 February 8am - 8pm, 5 February 8am - 7pm, 6 February 9am - 4pm
Public discussion: 6 February 9am - 10am (registration), 10am - 12noon (meeting)

at

Turnberries Community Centre
Bath Road
Thornbury
Bristol
BS35 2BB

54: Invitation to evening seminar on the Planning Act 2008 on 30 November

9th November 2009

This entry gives details of a forthcoming seminar on the Planning Act, to which blog readers are invited.

Readers of this blog are cordially invited to an event on the implementation of the Planning Act 2008 being held jointly by ourselves (law firm Bircham Dyson Bell) and environmental experts Environmental Resources Management (ERM). This is being held on Monday 30 November 2009 at our offices in Westminster, London. BDB and ERM have worked together on the successful authorisation of many infrastructure projects.

The event will focus on issues for promoters relating to the examination of applications by the IPC and its decision-making. It will be an early chance to see how the consultation on these issues that closed in October is likely to influence the final regulations on the IPC's procedures, due to be confirmed in the new year. It follows an earlier event on the preparation of applications that took place in July - before this blog started - but you needn't have gone to that one to find this one useful.

Starting at 5.30 for 6 p.m., there will be presentations by Nigel Nuttall, who is Interim Director of Planning Operations for the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Transition Team, Steve Purnell, Partner and Head of Impact Assessment and Planning at ERM, and Robbie Owen, Partner and Head of Major Projects at Bircham Dyson Bell. There will then be plenty of opportunity for questions and comments, followed by refreshments from 7.15 until 8.30.

If you are interested in attending, please email my colleague Rebekah Lane by 25 November by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., or you can call her on 020 7783 3756. Spaces are limited, and so the earlier you reply, the more likely you are to be able to attend. I will be there and look forward to meeting some of my readers!

53: Seven National Policy Statements published!

9th November 2009

Today's entry gives details of the publication of seven eagerly-awaited draft National Policy Statements.

Today is the most significant day so far in the world of UK infrastructure planning and one of the few occasions when it will hit the national headlines. This is because the first seven National Policy Statements have just been published in draft for consultation. The public consultation stage will last until 22 February 2010 for the energy NPSs (i.e. in 15 weeks' time) and until 15 February 2010 for the Ports NPS (14 weeks' time), but if you want your representations to be considered by the relevant House of Commons Select Committee, you should submit them by 15 January 2010, which gives less than the recommended 12-week period.

Here are links to the first National Policy Statements:

* EN-1 - Overarching NPS for Energy - 93 pages - £19.15 to buy in hard copy
* EN-2 - Fossil Fuel Electriicty Generating Infrastructure NPS - 19 pages - £7.95
* EN-3 - Renewable Energy Infrastructure NPS - 71 pages - £19.15
* EN-4 - Gas Supply Infrastructure and Gas and Oil Pipelines NPS - 28 pages - £14.35
* EN-5 - Electricity Networks Infrastructure NPS - 19 pages - £7.95
* EN-6 - Nuclear Power Generation NPS - 300 pages - £42.55
* Ports NPS - 75 pages - £19.15

The overall consultation page for the DECC NPSs is here.

The overall consultation page for the DfT NPS is here.

There will now be a short pause in transmission while we take a look at them ...

52: Six energy National Policy Statements to be published in draft on Monday 9 November

6th November 2009

Today's entry gives information about the forthcoming publication of National Policy Statements.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has confirmed that the eagerly-awaited suite of six energy-related National Policy Statements are to be published in draft for consultation in three days' time on Monday 9 November.

Each National Policy Statement (NPS) will set out strategic need for infrastructure in their areas and issues that subsequent applications should deal with before they are likely to be approved. They are a new type of government policy document sometimes likened to a 'super white paper' (see e.g. this quotation by John Healey MP in Hansard). See this previous blog entry for fuller details of what the energy NPSs will contain.

The six energy NPSs and their codenames are EN-1 Overarching Energy, EN-2 Fossil Fuels, EN-3 Renewables, EN-4 Gas storage/pipelines, EN-5 Electric lines and EN-6 Nuclear. The Department for Transport (DfT) may publish its first NPS dealing with ports, which I have codenamed TR-1, at around the same time.

In January, these NPSs were timetabled for 'summer 2009'; in July this was revised to 'autumn 2009'. We had strong rumours that this would mean 28 or 29 October earlier that month, but now it seems that 9 November is the big day - unquestionably still autumnal, so DECC has managed to stick to the July timetable. Watch this blog to see if they really are published on Monday and where to find them.

The public consultation process will kick off once the NPSs are published: the minimum 12-week consultation period would therefore expire on 1 February 2010, and the expected 16-week Parliamentary scrutiny process would expire on 1 March 2010, the very day that the IPC will start receiving applications. There will thus be no NPSs actually designated (finalised) by that date, although they may be designated soon after if DECC moves swiftly. A general election on 6 May 2010 would give the department about a month to designate the statements before the dissolution of Parliament (although they could technically be designated after that).

To find out more about the consultation and how you can participate (and how we can help you), please see our brochure on the subject.

In other news, my mini-campaign to secure more funding for local authorities affected by nationally significant infrastructure projects (the ones that will have to use the new regime from 1 March 2010) is gaining coverage and is again reported in today's Planning Magazine.

51: Planning Act 2008 - correspondence between NPSs and NSIPs

5th November 2009

Today's entry explains the relationship between National Policy Statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects.

The publication of the first National Policy Statements (NPSs) is imminent – according to Ed Miliband, the first six energy NPSs will be published by Wednesday 11 November. For the first time these will set out government policy on the need for infrastructure, and what applications for projects should contain for them to be approved, in terms of siting, design, mitigation of adverse effects and a host of other matters.

There are to be 12 NPSs, and there are 16 types of nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) that they will deal with. Today’s entry looks at which NPS corresponds to which NSIP, as this is not set out in the Planning Act or in any guidance but it is obviously vital for those likely to promote or be affected by projects to make sure they are looking at the right NPS.

The 16 types of NSIP for which applications must eventually be made to the new Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) are set out in the Planning Act 2008. The list can be amended by order of the Secretary of State, as long as the projects remain within the fields of energy, transport, water, waste water and waste. At the moment there are seven energy project types, five transport types and four water/waste types. For each type of project there is a size threshold above which an application must be made to the IPC (e.g. a power station must be over 50MW). These thresholds can also be amended up or down by order of the Secretary of State. I would guess that if any were raised, the first might be the highway and railway thresholds.

On the other hand, the Act does not define which NPSs there may be, or even what fields they should be in - in fact there don’t have to be any at all. Nevertheless the government has announced a programme of 12 NPSs initially as mentioned ad nauseam in previous blog entries. Not surprisingly they are in the same fields that the NSIPs must be in - it would be rather pointless to have an NPS in a field that no project could apply to. Interestingly the Scottish equivalent, the National Planning Framework (Mark II), covers the same areas but includes telecommunications infrastructure as well, but that is not available to this regime without a further Act of Parliament. There are to be six NPSs dealing with energy infrastructure, three with transport, and three with water and waste.

So how do the greater number of NSIPs correspond to the smaller number of NPSs? Read on (or check out the table on pages 37-38 of our book on the new regime).

This should assist the perusal of the NPSs as they are published in draft, but note that some large projects may include infrastructure that is in a different NPS - roads connecting to airports, for example. For a fuller explanation of what you will need to do when an NPS is published, check out our briefing.