Not in your back yard? Committee calls for evidence on national energy infrastructure planning policy
|
From the Energy Security & Net Zero Committee The Government is
launching an update to its National Policy Statements for energy
infrastructure, aiming to give greater clarity about the weight
planners should give to the competing interests - economic,
ecological, energy supply and security, and even aesthetic
considerations - that can severely slow or even halt infrastructure
planning decisions in their tracks. It is opening the
draft updated Statements...Request free trial
From the Energy Security & Net Zero Committee The Government is launching an update to its National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure, aiming to give greater clarity about the weight planners should give to the competing interests - economic, ecological, energy supply and security, and even aesthetic considerations - that can severely slow or even halt infrastructure planning decisions in their tracks. It is opening the draft updated Statements to public consultation but has given the Committee just 8 weeks to input. The Committee is now launching its own quick call for evidence, by May 12, to report back to Government on that timeline (see notes). And time is of the essence: Government's Clean Power 2030 target will require most new electricity transmission and offshore wind projects to secure planning consent by next year, and most large-scale onshore projects will need that consent by 2028. NESO predicts that demand for electricity will grow by 11% in just the next 5 years as the UK switches away from gas and we approach the Government's Clean Power 2030 target - and double by 2050. But siting the infrastructure needed to generate and carry electricity is a hotly contested political, cultural and community issue. The Government has indicated that it wants to remove planning ‘blocks' to the infrastructure development needed for its energy, industrial and growth strategies – but will these updates to the National Policy Statements fit the bill? Can they really help balance the thorny issues around the competing, legitimate aims and interests of national energy needs, local communities and the natural environment? A key example is electricity cabling: it can cost up to ten times as much to bury power cables as to run them on pylons overhead. But strong community objections to pylons on mainly aesthetic grounds can hold up the necessary planning consents - time that national energy needs, targets and strategy now do not have. Ofgem has a remit to minimise the total cost of energy to consumers and wants to see justification of any variation from the least cost option – potentially in conflict with the interests of local objectors who might argue that, in respect of a particular network development proposal in their area, an additional cost even of £1 billion would translate into only another £3 or £4 a year on each electricity bill payer's bill. While the least cost option may not always be the ‘best', Government faces a fundamental challenge in ensuring that the wishes of local residents are balanced against costs to all consumers, and crucially against ongoing delays to essential infrastructure. This conflict was illustrated when incoming energy secretary Ed Miliband greenlit 3 major and long-contested solar installations in the East of England last year. One of these, the Mallard Pass solar farm, is expected to provide clean energy to power about 92,000 homes over the next 60 years - but was opposed by 3,000 people arguing that prime farmland should not be repurposed to generate electricity. Where should the balance lie? Do the policy statement updates do enough to help planners decide? The Committee is now seeking evidence submissions by May 12th (see notes below) on any or all of the following questions. Because of the short timeline, stakeholders are welcome to submit “highlights” or outline versions of submissions they may be making to the Government's consultation. Find more information and submit your evidence here: ESNZ Committee inquiry on national planning for energy infrastructure Clean Power 2030 The Government's Clean Power 2030 Action Plan stated that, to achieve this target, most new electricity transmission and offshore wind projects will need to secure planning consent by 2026, and most large-scale onshore renewable projects will need to do so by 2028. Do the draft updated energy National Policy Statements provide clear enough guidance to planning decision-makers, to allow them to prioritise nationally significant infrastructure projects that must secure development consent within these timescales? Strategic planning How should the National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure interact with the strategic energy and network plans currently being developed by the National Energy System Operator? For example, the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and the Centralised Strategic Network Plan. Is this relationship sufficiently clear? How should the National Policy Statements take account of emerging government policies affecting energy infrastructure projects and spatial management, such as the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the Land Use Framework? Are any issues particularly relevant? The 2024 updates to the National Policy Statements for energy What are the most important changes needed to these National Policy Statements since the last update in 2024 and do the Government's proposed drafts deliver these? How successful were the changes introduced in the last update, including the Critical National Priority policy presumption for low carbon infrastructure? Are any modifications needed? Balancing competing considerations With regards to renewable energy projects and/or the design of electricity network infrastructure, do the draft updated statements allow for sufficient consideration of:
Do the draft statements strike the right balance between reducing delays, consideration of national strategic spatial plans, and detailed scrutiny of individual projects? Electricity network infrastructure Do the draft statements:
Renewable energy infrastructure Is there clear enough guidance on how much weight should be given to the availability of a grid connection in considering the overall benefits and impacts of a proposed project, given the significance of this factor in determining site selection? Do the draft statements provide sufficient clarity on how to manage trade-offs in how land is used and, in particular, when agricultural land grading should (or should not) count against the suitability of a site for renewable energy generation? Should there be any amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework to align it with the updated energy National Policy Statements? /ENDS Notes:
Many stakeholders will be making detailed submissions to the Government consultation on its own short consultation timeline: the Committee would welcome submission of the “highlights” or key elements of these more detailed responses, to be considered by the Committee and synthesised into our own recommendations to feed into the Government's consultation. |