1. New power stations are often contentious due to their scale and their environmental and visual impacts. The Government has recently reformed how we plan for nuclear and conventional power stations, renewables, electricity transmission lines and other major infrastructure. This has been one of the most controversial changes to planning in over 60 years and these changes will come into force next week.

2. CPRE believes that these reforms risk undermining public engagement in planning, threaten our finest countryside with pylons and new power stations, and represent a missed opportunity to help planning deliver the infrastructure we need in a democratic and fair manner.  

3. The Planning Act 2008 established a new planning system for major infrastructure projects such as power stations, airports, reservoirs and waste treatment works. The legislation introduces National Policy Statements (NPSs) and a new quango called the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). Three key events next week mean it is an important time for the future of energy generation and the countryside. CPRE is concerned that unless significant changes are made to the NPSs and the Government keeps to its promises the negative environmental impact of new energy infrastructure will be great.

Last opportunity to influence planning framework for energy?
Consultation deadline Monday, 22 February

4. The draft National Policy Statements on energy set out in detail the responsibilities of applicants, and set strict limits on what the IPC is empowered to consider. Although the IPC can take existing planning policies and regional and local plans into consideration, NPSs will take precedence in the case of contradictions. Six energy NPSs are currently being consulted on; the deadline for submitting responses to all of these is next Monday 22 February.

5. CPRE supported the development of NPSs in principle on the basis that they would be developed through genuine public debate. This has not been the case. The energy NPSs consultation and scrutiny process has taken place at a pace dictated by the Government’s desire to deliver economic growth, rather than by engaging the public and securing a degree of public consent over the way forward. This is evidenced by the very short notice given for public meetings on the proposed nuclear sites which resulted in low turnout at the meetings . Only 34 people attended the consultation meeting in Hartlepool, for example, which was held only four days after the draft nuclear NPS was published. The public consultation period also coincided with both the Christmas holidays and Copenhagen climate negotiations; and an accelerated timetable was set for parliamentary scrutiny.

6. CPRE believes that the lack of effective public engagement will result in public opposition when major energy developments are considered by the IPC, possibly leading to judicial review and even direct action.

7. On top of the lack of public consultation, CPRE’s consultation response identifies the following issues that will need to be rectified before the documents are finalised:

• NPSs should not assert an unlimited need for new energy generation. Integrating and reconciling different demands to achieve the best use of land – the proper role of planning – is impossible if infinite need is considered against finite environmental resources such as wildlife, tranquillity and natural beauty. NPSs should be redrafted to establish how much of each technology the Government believe is needed in relation to security of supply and emissions targets.
• NPSs are unlikely to work effectively as Planning Policy Documents. The draft NPSs are little more than simple regulatory checklists, which lack the coherent spatial vision that could help to deliver sustainable development. NPSs should give a stronger steer on spatial criteria to decision-makers, and the Government should clarify how NPSs will fit into the existing town and country planning framework.
• The guidance in the draft NPSs on how the IPC should consider local impacts is totally insufficient. Getting the right balance between national need and local adverse impacts will be one of the IPC’s biggest challenges. At present, it is difficult to imagine how negative local impacts could ever outweigh national need as currently expressed in the NPSs.

Future of Britain’s electricity networks
- Parliamentary report to be published Wednesday, 23 February 2010

8. As part of its role, the IPC will determine planning applications for major new electricity transmission lines. A report on the future of Britain’s electricity networks is expected to be published by the Energy and Climate Change Parliamentary Select Committee on 23 February. Existing networks need to adapt in response to future changes in the generation mix with huge implications for the countryside.

9. CPRE’s written evidence to the inquiry highlighted concerns that the Committee’s emphasis on addressing renewable energy targets, security of supply and climate change goals, risked ignoring other environmental goals, such as minimising damage to our finest countryside. CPRE would like to see an integrated vision which addresses both the urgent need to upgrade the grid and the need to protect the countryside from intrusive pylons.

10. To achieve this, CPRE believes that the remit of Ofgem should be widened to consider the most sustainable methods of developing the network to address both climate change and landscape impacts. We hope that this is addressed in the Committee’s report. We also believe that there needs to be more support for undergrounding, both of new lines and of the 200km or more of high voltage overhead lines that pass through some of our most important landscapes, such as the Peak District and South Downs National Parks.

CPRE, working in partnership with the Campaign to Protect Rural Wales, Campaign for National Parks and National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, is campaigning for the visual impacts of transmission lines to be minimised wherever possible. The existing situation could be worsened by transmission reinforcement plans being considered by National Grid and supported by the draft NPSs. This could lead to at least twelve new lines of overhead pylons, altogether stretching over at least 170 miles of countryside.

Infrastructure Planning Commission begins to accept planning applications
Monday, 1 March 2010

11. The IPC was launched in October 2009 but to date it has not been able to accept and consider any planning applications. From 1 March developers will be able to submit applications for planning permission to the IPC who will only be able to make recommendations to Ministers regarding whether or not to grant planning permission until the NPSs are finalised.

12. No NPS has yet been finalised, leaving the IPC to base its recommendations on existing national guidance, which may be out of date and will need to be found from a wide range of sources; and draft NPSs, which may contain significant flaws. Until the NPSs are finalised, the IPC will operate without coherent guidance on Government policy, which may lead to damaging or inconsistent recommendations. The energy NPSs are closest to being finalised, but are unlikely to be designated prior to the General Election. Other NPSs, including the airports NPS and national networks NPS, which will cover rail and trunk roads, have yet to be consulted on, leaving a lengthy period between when the IPC begins to consider applications and when it receives guidance on how to consider these.

13. The IPC's role is to weigh national need against local impact. Local impact reports, which should be prepared by local authorities and submitted to the IPC, will be essential in aiding the IPC in its decisions. It is of great concern to CPRE that the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) does not intend to publish guidance on local impact reports, despite commitments from Ministers to do so.

14. In response to a Parliamentary Question by Paul Truswell MP on 21 January, the Minister, Ian Austin MP, stated that ‘It is for local authorities to decide what is relevant for inclusion in a local impact report and Government do not intend to publish guidance on what they should contain.’ Yet, during the passage of the Planning Act 2008, the then Minister in the Lords, Baroness Andrews, made a commitment that guidance would be published. The Earl of Caithness asked Baroness Andrews to advise on how the Government will help local authorities with the preparation of this report, and whether there would be guidelines so that the reports will be consistent. In response, she said: ‘…[W]e will certainly put out guidance and take early action with local authorities to ensure that they understand the process. This is an important question, because so much will rest on their understanding of what this offers their planning procedures.’

15. CPRE believes that the Government should work with local authorities to publish guidance on minimum standards for local impact reports as a matter of urgency to ensure that local environmental, social and economic impacts are fully considered by the IPC when considering planning applications.

• NPSs should not assert an unlimited need for new energy generation. Integrating and reconciling different demands to achieve the best use of land – the proper role of planning – is impossible if infinite need is considered against finite environmental resources such as wildlife, tranquillity and natural beauty. NPSs should be redrafted to establish how much of each technology the Government believe is needed in relation to security of supply and emissions targets.
• NPSs are unlikely to work effectively as Planning Policy Documents. The draft NPSs are little more than simple regulatory checklists, which lack the coherent spatial vision that could help to deliver sustainable development. NPSs should give a stronger steer on spatial criteria to decision-makers, and the Government should clarify how NPSs will fit into the existing town and country planning framework.
• The guidance in the draft NPSs on how the IPC should consider local impacts is totally insufficient. Getting the right balance between national need and local adverse impacts will be one of the IPC’s biggest challenges. At present, it is difficult to imagine how negative local impacts could ever outweigh national need as currently expressed in the NPSs.

Future of Britain’s electricity networks
- Parliamentary report to be published Wednesday, 23 February 2010

8. As part of its role, the IPC will determine planning applications for major new electricity transmission lines. A report on the future of Britain’s electricity networks is expected to be published by the Energy and Climate Change Parliamentary Select Committee on 23 February. Existing networks need to adapt in response to future changes in the generation mix with huge implications for the countryside.

9. CPRE’s written evidence to the inquiry highlighted concerns that the Committee’s emphasis on addressing renewable energy targets, security of supply and climate change goals, risked ignoring other environmental goals, such as minimising damage to our finest countryside. CPRE would like to see an integrated vision which addresses both the urgent need to upgrade the grid and the need to protect the countryside from intrusive pylons.

10. To achieve this, CPRE believes that the remit of Ofgem should be widened to consider the most sustainable methods of developing the network to address both climate change and landscape impacts. We hope that this is addressed in the Committee’s report. We also believe that there needs to be more support for undergrounding, both of new lines and of the 200km or more of high voltage overhead lines that pass through some of our most important landscapes, such as the Peak District and South Downs National Parks.

CPRE, working in partnership with the Campaign to Protect Rural Wales, Campaign for National Parks and National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, is campaigning for the visual impacts of transmission lines to be minimised wherever possible. The existing situation could be worsened by transmission reinforcement plans being considered by National Grid and supported by the draft NPSs. This could lead to at least twelve new lines of overhead pylons, altogether stretching over at least 170 miles of countryside.

Infrastructure Planning Commission begins to accept planning applications
Monday, 1 March 2010

11. The IPC was launched in October 2009 but to date it has not been able to accept and consider any planning applications. From 1 March developers will be able to submit applications for planning permission to the IPC who will only be able to make recommendations to Ministers regarding whether or not to grant planning permission until the NPSs are finalised.

12. No NPS has yet been finalised, leaving the IPC to base its recommendations on existing national guidance, which may be out of date and will need to be found from a wide range of sources; and draft NPSs, which may contain significant flaws. Until the NPSs are finalised, the IPC will operate without coherent guidance on Government policy, which may lead to damaging or inconsistent recommendations. The energy NPSs are closest to being finalised, but are unlikely to be designated prior to the General Election. Other NPSs, including the airports NPS and national networks NPS, which will cover rail and trunk roads, have yet to be consulted on, leaving a lengthy period between when the IPC begins to consider applications and when it receives guidance on how to consider these.

13. The IPC's role is to weigh national need against local impact. Local impact reports, which should be prepared by local authorities and submitted to the IPC, will be essential in aiding the IPC in its decisions. It is of great concern to CPRE that the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) does not intend to publish guidance on local impact reports, despite commitments from Ministers to do so.

14. In response to a Parliamentary Question by Paul Truswell MP on 21 January, the Minister, Ian Austin MP, stated that ‘It is for local authorities to decide what is relevant for inclusion in a local impact report and Government do not intend to publish guidance on what they should contain.’ Yet, during the passage of the Planning Act 2008, the then Minister in the Lords, Baroness Andrews, made a commitment that guidance would be published. The Earl of Caithness asked Baroness Andrews to advise on how the Government will help local authorities with the preparation of this report, and whether there would be guidelines so that the reports will be consistent. In response, she said: ‘…We will certainly put out guidance and take early action with local authorities to ensure that they understand the process. This is an important question, because so much will rest on their understanding of what this offers their planning procedures.’

15. CPRE believes that the Government should work with local authorities to publish guidance on minimum standards for local impact reports as a matter of urgency to ensure that local environmental, social and economic impacts are fully considered by the IPC when considering planning applications.

- END -

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. See the response to Mark Williams' question on the attendance figures for the nuclear consultation events, HC Deb, 13 January 2010, c1049W
2. CPRE has made a map of these threats:
> Campaigns: Electricity pylons and overhead wires: Campaign update
3. Planning Bill, House of Lords 3rd Reading,  18 Nov 2008 : Column 1019