---

Energy: National Policy Statements

My noble friend tempts me. I am not going to go down that path but may come on to this matter in a moment because he used the word "paramount". I worry about that because we have clearly set out the hierarchy of decision-making that has to take place. However, if my noble friend is asking whether this is a blanket mechanism to allow our beautiful countryside to be ploughed up for masses of concrete infrastructure, the answer is no because the whole point about the national policy statement is that we have set out the need. It sets out how the IPC has to take into account the various factors, but the document is entirely consistent with other current policy mechanisms issued by the Government. A number of comments have been made, and I will look at this and double-check that we have got this absolutely right, but this has been the subject of extensive work across Whitehall to make sure that there is consistency. For instance, EN-1 is intended to be consistent with existing policy as set out in PPS7, including the policy on the protection of nationally designated landscapes, such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I turn to spatial planning. The intention is that the different planning consenting regimes for large-scale and smaller-scale energy developments are consistent. Specifically, the renewable energy NPS is intended to be consistent with planning policy statement 22 on below-threshold renewable developments dealt with under the town and country planning regime. However, the NPSs being intentionally clear statements of the latest government policy on energy infrastructure should be regarded as material considerations by local planning authorities that are considering smaller-scale infrastructure and could be expected to influence their decisions. That is why the NPS states that the principle set out in the NPS should, where relevant, be applied to local decisions. The matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, of spatial issues and the input of the regional bodies and local authorities takes us to the issue of locational-specific work which is suggested and which we have done in relation to the 10 potential nuclear sites for development by 2025. We did that work on new nuclear power stations because in 2007 we said that we should do it. Given the special characteristics of nuclear power sites and given the fact that the number of sites will inevitably be very limited, we thought it right to do that work. If one thinks of doing that for the whole of the energy sector, there would potentially be no limit to the detailed work that would need to be undertaken to consider every possible site for all types of energy infrastructure. One has to think of the potential of blight, of cost, of the inhibition in terms of development in order to realise that it would not be a straightforward process at all. On local impact reports, I want to make it clear that Section 104(2) requires the IPC to have regard to any such reports submitted to the IPC in its decision. I can also reassure noble Lords that guidance is being prepared by the Government for local planning authorities on their role in the process. The question of need is very interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has said that he will propose a Motion on need and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has made it clear that she will oppose that Motion. We can clearly see that there is a very lively debate to be had about the way in which we have worded this and the kind of approach that the IPC will have to making decisions. I refer noble Lords to Section 104(7) of the Planning Act which says that the IPC must decide for an application only if the adverse impacts do not outweigh the benefits. The IPC will be taking that role of balancing the impacts with benefits very much to heart. It goes to the core of its decision-making process. It seems to me that it would not lightly turn down applicants in the sense that they will have to see whether the balance is right. Clearly, if the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits, they will not agree to the application. I make it clear that the IPC can consent to new infrastructure only if it is in accordance with the NPS. However, it can refuse consent to the infrastructure, even though it is in accordance with the NPS, if it finds factors to be important or relevant or if they would be illegal, for example, under the habitats directive. At some stage, it must be up to the IPC to make those individual decisions, but that is how we think the balance should be drawn. Of course, biodiversity is important; of course, my noble friend Lord Judd is right to proclaim the outstanding beauty of Cumbria. The NPS sets out how an applicant should undertake detailed assessment of the impact on landscape bioversity and geodiversity. Applicants are required to submit environmental statements, which would include an environmental impact assessment or similar information. It would set out what the significant impacts of the proposal would be and how the applicant would mitigate or avoid them. In some cases, neither mitigation nor avoidance may be possible and the applicant will be required to show how the impacts will be compensated for. If that is not possible, the IPC can refuse consent for the project. That seems to get the balance right. My noble friend Lord Judd raised interesting points about Cumbria. On the one hand, it is clear that Cumbria is a beautiful county—he is absolutely right; on the other hand, it has been home to the nuclear industry for many years and it is clear that there is a lot of support in that county for continuing to support it. I have been interviewed by local newspapers and local media on this issue, and we will take very careful account of it. Is it not a microcosm of the balance that has to be drawn? I know that concern has been expressed about having three potential sites in Cumbria alongside geological disposal. There is also a very strong viewpoint around the whole idea of the "energy coast", which sees Cumbria as being the engine room of investment in energy, with huge potential for jobs. All I can say at this stage is that these are matters that we will consider and deal with as sensitively as possible. I have taken rather a long time to comment on this issue. I assure noble Lords that if there are matters that I have missed I will write to them, and we will certainly take them into account. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked why there is no NPS for marine energy. It is because wave and tidal are such new technologies. At the moment, we are still talking about trials and prototypes. When the situation has matured, we would expect to bring forward proposals in relation to a national policy statement. We do not think that we are quite there, although I agree with the noble Lord that there is enormous potential. He mentioned the Pentland Firth. In terms of the work that the Crown Estate has done there on licensing areas to be exploited for wave and tidal, I agree with him that there is great potential for the future. This has been a very good debate. All noble Lords have made important points which will be considered carefully. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that, although we have been given a relatively limited number of days to undertake scrutiny, we will not allow an election to get in the way of those due days. This is a rigorous process to which the Government will give very careful consideration. Motion agreed.