Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Chorley (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 March 2010. It occurred during Debate on Energy: Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6).


Energy: Draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6)

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I find that my theme today very much follows his line of thought in some parts of his authoritative contribution. When we discussed the overall issue of energy policy two weeks ago, I said that I have no hang-ups on nuclear energy as a major source of our electricity supply, provided it is economic. The French have been pretty successful with nuclear and there is no reason why we should not have a healthy proportion of electricity supplied from it. The important thing is to get on and do it. All that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said reinforced that, and it remains my position. The document that we are discussing today is straightforward. Ten potential sites are suggested, and that, I note in parenthesis, is surprising. Are there really only 10 sites in the whole country? The noble Lord spoke about Dungeness with great authority. Surely it should be included as another site. Of the 10, seven seem straightforward. My concerns are with the remaining three: Braystones, Sellafield and Kirksanton. They are clustered close together on the Cumbrian coast, sandwiched between the Irish Sea and the Lake District National Park. I emphasise that it is a national park. I shall take them together. My first question is whether it is really the case that, in the whole of England, almost one-third of the potential sites that the Government can identify are clustered together in a remote and sensitive corner of England. At this stage I must declare an interest as a vice-president of the Friends of the Lake District. I was going to say that it is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, cannot be with us today, but he is here in his place. He is the distinguished president of the friends. I very much welcomed his contribution on nuclear when he spoke in this Room two weeks ago. I hope that he will speak today in the gap, if we have such a thing. It remains to be seen. Although each of the three sites is discussed separately—that is a matter of course—one might have thought that the cumulative effect of having three sites in connection with the national park should have warranted some discussion, certainly rather more discussion than the brief reference to them at paragraph 5.7.124, which deals with Braystones. The effects were dismissed two paragraphs later as not being, ""sufficient in themselves to justify excluding Braystones or the other West Cumbrian sites"." That is extraordinary. One might also think that there should have been discussion of the sea defence works that might be required—how unsightly those would be—and any other structures and their visual effect. We do not know how big each station will be or how many reactors each will have. Large-scale maps are provided, but there is no single map showing how the stations relate to each other or—and this is of great importance—how they relate to the topography and the national park boundary. For example, it would appear that Kirksanton station is only a few hundred yards from the park boundary and, moreover, that it is in a particularly sensitive part of the park, with its tremendous views from Black Combe summit across the Irish Sea to the Isle of Man and, on a good day, to the mountains of Mourne. Black Combe, the mountain, is immediately above the power station. Paragraph 5.11.82 of the NPS says that, ""the site offers local opportunities for screening through the use of landscaping, vegetation and tree planting"." One wonders whether either the nominator of the site or the author of the report appreciates that you cannot conceal a site with plantation of trees when you are looking down on it from the summit of Black Combe or the surrounding fell-side. One wonders whether they have actually been there. I am bound to say that I found the discussion of amenity, cultural heritage and the landscape-value aspects of the three sites as superficial, to put it politely. It is appalling. In the case of Kirksanton, the conclusion that the site is acceptable and passes the tests can scarcely be concluded, even from the superficial analysis in the report. At a public inquiry, the lawyers would have had a field day. Then again, while the need for grid connection for each of these stations is recognised, there is no indication of what route or routes it would take. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised some serious questions about grid connections.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c53-4GC 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Decommissioning Cumbria Environment protection Infrastructure Planning permission Planning Radioactive waste Nuclear power Nuclear power stations Training Sustainable development Waste management Research Sellafield Infrastructure Planning Commission National policy statements Oldbury power station Dungeness B power station
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk