The Government’s energy National Policy Statements (NPS) set out its policy for the delivery of major energy infrastructure and provide the legal framework for planning decisions. This blog, written by Carl Bunnage (Head of Nature Policy -England) and Pooja Kishinani (Campaigner-England), summarises our response to the Government’s consultation on energy NPS.
In March, the Government opened a public consultation to invite views on the revised energy National Policy Statements (NPS). Here, we provide an overview of our key concerns in relation to offshore wind, strategic planning for electricity infrastructure, and biodiversity net gain. We welcome a transition to cleaner energy but in the face of the nature and climate emergency this must not be to the expense of nature. A fit for purpose and strategic system of planning is required to ensure that new infrastructure is delivered in places that pose least harm to nature, so why are we concerned about the draft energy NPS…
We are worried about the implications for nature that might arise from the Government’s proposal to introduce a new Critical National Priority (CNP) status for offshore wind. This could trump other considerations. Healthy natural ecosystems are critical to reaching net zero, and therefore before granting CNP status for offshore wind, the Government must better consider the implications for nature - especially marine ecosystems - which are under pressure from a range of sources. However, we see no evidence of that having robustly taken place.
There is a risk that the CNP policy could lead developers to override environmental concerns, owing to the broad and vague definition of CNP Infrastructure. Whilst we do not agree with the wholesale removal of requirements by simply introducing a new policy status that over-rides them, if it goes ahead then CNP Infrastructure must be truly exceptional to justify the policy and their removal. There must be a narrower and more precise definition, and the Examining Authority must have the power to decide parts of an NSIP that do not meet the criteria.
Another concern is that the CNP status of offshore wind may lead to development applications not receiving sufficient scrutiny, and therefore that requirements for mitigating and/or compensating for harm to nature arising from l avoidable “residual impacts” may not be properly addressed. For us, this would be unacceptable.
To avoid significant damage to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and other nationally important sites requires a strict application of the mitigation hierarchy to ensure that impacts on these are avoided in the first instance. At present we are not confident that the mitigation hierarchy is applied for energy infrastructure projects in a way that provides sufficient confidence that such impacts would be avoided. To ensure that healthy ecosystems are intact, applicants must demonstrate how all legal and policy requirements have been met, and in particular how the mitigation hierarchy has been applied, for example through consideration of alternative routes or designs.
We support the National Infrastructure Commission’s (NIC) report, ‘Delivering net zero, climate resilience and growth’ (April 2023) in its call for spatial plans for infrastructure, where they exist, to be designated as spatial planning documents subject to public consultation and accompanied by the necessary environmental assessments, including ‘Appropriate Assessments’ under the Habitats Regulations. In sectors where clear spatial planning frameworks do not exist, such as energy generation, we recommend that they should be urgently developed.
We need a fit for purpose strategic spatial planning approach, subject to proper public consultation and the assessment of alternative solutions, and allowing for the most environmentally positive choices to be made for energy infrastructure deployment. We accept that in cases where the infrastructure is private sector rather than public funding led, such as offshore wind, this is more difficult. However, offshore wind should be guided by an effective and fit for purpose marine spatial planning system which we currently lack.
Draft EN-5 (Electricity Networks Infrastructure) includes a strong starting presumption for overhead lines for electricity distribution outside nationally designated landscapes such as National Parks. Whilst such presumptions may be helpful as a starting point, there is still a need for these decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis. Overhead lines and underground cables have differing impacts on ecological features, often depending on the habitat and/or species in question. For example, the process of constructing underground cables may disturb species, require the removal of hedgerows or have effects on the ability to manage wetland habitats through restricting future activity, whilst overhead lines may require ongoing control/cutting of vegetation beneath them, which can be particularly damaging if passing through woodlands. It is therefore important that routing is considered carefully as a means of minimising impacts as well as the type of cabling proposed.
The RSPB agrees that nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) should be required to deliver biodiversity net gain, but given their scale and design life, it is important that the requirement shows greater ambition, and therefore should be at least 20%, as well as being genuinely additional to the mitigation hierarchy and not conflated with compensation measures. It is also important that rapid progress is made in developing a robust and ambitious biodiversity net gain system for the marine environment.
The energy NPS does include some positive measures, including more clearly requiring the creation and preservation of carbon stores and sinks including through woodland creation, peatland restoration and other natural habitats, and the ruling out of new coal or large-scale oil-fired electricity generation as being consistent with the transition to net zero.
However, we are concerned that operational carbon emissions, such as from gas-fired electricity generation, are not to be assessed for individual NSIPs, and that their contribution to carbon budgets, net zero and international climate commitments will be managed only in an economy-wide manner. This means that harmful impacts from individual development proposals may be overlooked as long as it is considered that broader economy-wide measures in the round will have an overall positive effect.
In whatever way the policy frameworks that underpin the roll-out of new energy infrastructure are drawn-up, it is critical that they reflect the severity of the nature and climate emergency that we are in. We cannot deliver net zero infrastructure at the cost of nature, and vice-versa. Through proper planning we need win-win solutions that benefit people, the economy and the environment. We are concerned that measures in the draft energy NPS, particularly the introduction of a new Critical National Priority status will miss the mark in achieving this.
Main image credit: David Palmar (rspb-images.com)