NPS Response: South Glos Council

South Gloucestershire Council

NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS: CONSULTATION BY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE (DECC)

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

This is the first section only, for the full document, please click here.

The consultation by DECC is set out as a series of questions to which the Council are asked to respond. The consultation responses below are set out in three sections and cover the following NPSs :

i) EN-1 Overarching Energy, and EN-6 Nuclear Power;

ii) EN-3 Renewable Energy Generation;

iii) EN-2 Fossil Fuel Power Stations, EN-4 Gas supply Infrastructure, EN-5 Electricity Networks.

i) EN-1 Overarching Energy, and EN-6 Nuclear Power;

5.1 Overview

At present South Gloucestershire Council cannot agree in principle with the decision to include Oldbury on the list of sites for new nuclear power stations in EN-6. It is considered that there are a number of fundamental issues relating specifically to Oldbury that are currently unknown and which could potentially render the proposal unacceptable. The significance of this is due to the way in which the draft NPS effectively confers a presumption in favour of development; the NPS only offers guidance on mitigation, rather than acknowledging that some impacts would be so serious that mitigation would not be able to sufficiently reduce them and could be grounds for refusing development consent. The Council’s key matters of concern are set out below, and following this, these issues (with additional detail where necessary) are covered in the detailed responses to specific consultation questions.

5.2 Key matters of concern

1. Cooling Towers

1.1 There are concerns that the issue of the visual impact of the cooling towers necessary for Oldbury has not been given sufficient weight in the government’s assessment of the potential suitability of the site. The towers, which would be up to 200m in height (currently the height of the tallest cooling towers in the world) and their plumes will significantly extend the visual envelope of land affected by the development. The Government considers that the site is potentially suitable despite the likely impacts on the AONB because ‘ the nature scope and scale of the effects is currently uncertain and dependent on the detailed design of the development . ‘ The NPS does not acknowledge that this impact would be so serious that mitigation would not be able to sufficiently reduce the impact. The considerable impact of the cooling towers is shown on the attached photomontage at Appendix 1 with sketch projection to indicate the general proportions of 200 m high natural draft hyperbolic cooling towers which would have a diameter at the base of 147m. The projection is based on information from Magnox North that the current reactor building is approximately 54m high, 150m long and 48m wide. This sketch projection has been carried out to a considerable degree of accuracy and is a view from Grovesend, on the east side of Thornbury, from a height of 92m AOD.

1.2 The NPS offers little support for landscape issues, so that if Oldbury is on the final list of sites, it would not be possible to refuse development consent on landscape grounds on the basis of the adverse impact of the cooling towers and raised roads in the flood cell. In stating that neither local landscape designations or policies, (for example Policy L1 of the adopted South Gloucestershire Local Plan) nor visibility from a nationally designated areas (such as AONB)should be reasons for refusing consent, the NPS as it stands effectively selects a site with no serious consideration of the potential visual impact. It is considered therefore that if Oldbury remains on the list of sites, that EN-1 and EN-6 should state that impact on the landscape as well as views from AONBs could potentially be reasons for refusal.

1.3 The noise generation from cooling towers could have a significant adverse impact on nearby villages and towns, and is an issue that is unlikely to be adequately mitigated due to the extremely low existing background noise levels in the areas surrounding the site. Noise issues arising from cooling towers at Oldbury are not properly dealt with in the NPS. It is submitted therefore that both EN-1 and EN-6 should be revised to make it clear that even with mitigation, the IPC may conclude that the scale of adverse impacts on landscape, visual amenity and noise is such that consent should not be granted.

1.4 There are concerns regarding the effect on migrating birds in the area from the volume and erratic nature of noise from construction of the power station. Advice from Natural England is that disturbance to birds caused by construction is a concern, particularly over the lengthy timescales that will be involved. There will be a need to demonstrate that this will not have an adverse effect on designated species - alone and in combination with other projects developing along the estuary.

2. Flooding

2.1 The Council is concerned that the issue of flood risk for the Oldbury site has been underestimated. It is noted that apart from Bradwell and Hartlepool, none of the other sites are wholly within Flood Zone 3. However, Oldbury appears to be the only listed site where the Environment Agency has outstanding concerns. Paragraph 5.12.14 states that the Environment Agency has advised that mitigation of flood risk to the Oldbury site could have an adverse impact on flood risk in the surrounding area by reducing the capability of the area to absorb and disperse flood water. The possible solution suggested involves upgrading coastal defences throughout the flood cell, however the matter is not addressed as to how measures required on land outside the application site might be secured. Further, the impact on the local rhine network is not known and should be considered. In addition there are outstanding EA concerns regarding the knock on effect on coastal processes due to improving the flood defences. It is considered premature for the NPS to designate Oldbury prior to proper detailed investigation of these issues.

2.2 A map of the Flood Zone 3 cell around the site is attached at Appendix 2

(dark blue shaded area) to indicate the extent of the flood cell and the large area of land below the level of the power station site which the EA indicate could be more susceptible to flooding through ensuring that the site itself is fully protected from flooding. Further, the knock on effects on the coastal processes would impact on the mudflats, saltmarsh and coastal floodplain field habitats all protected by the European designations along the Severn: the Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar sites.

2.3 In the same way that PPS25 sets out a sequential approach which aims to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from area of highest risk, it is not considered that the Government has had sufficient detailed evidence to date to be able to reach its conclusion that the sequential test for Oldbury has been met.

3. Cumulative Effects

3.1 The socio- economic effects on communities hosting a national resource have been given insufficient weight. It is difficult to see how a new power station at Oldbury, in close proximity to one of the two shortlisted Severn Tidal barrages within South Gloucestershire, could be constructed at the same time without serious transportation, ecological, hydrological, social and community impacts that could be fully mitigated. The DTZ report associated with the Severn Tidal Power phase 1 feasibility study identifies the potential for 7,000 workers on site at the peak of construction. To this figure a further 6,200 workers could be added by the construction of the new Oldbury power station (Scott Wilson Transport Options report, September 2009 for Horizon)

3.2 As well as concerns regarding the cumulative visual impact of National Grid connections to these two projects, other projects in the area such as the decommissioning of the existing Oldbury power station and the permission for new super-tanker berths at the Bristol Port Deep Sea Container Terminal at Avonmouth have the potential for unacceptable cumulative effects.

3.3 The promoter for Oldbury estimates that due to the need to raise the site to avoid flood risk, 9.12 million tonnes of material will need to be delivered to the site at the start of site preparation, and this will involve 1,500 HGV movements per day for the first 14 months on site, assuming all material is delivered by road. This significant effect on the minor local roads and communities cannot be overestimated and it is submitted that there should have been detailed studies to ascertain the practicality of constructing a wharf at the Oldbury site prior to its inclusion in the NPS. Even if a wharf were constructed the promoter has envisaged that it would be used for abnormal loads and some bulky materials only, i.e. not all of the 9.12 million tonnes of material. The promoters’ Scoping Report envisages pressure on junction 14 of the M5 motorway, with capacity issues and length of queuing to be further investigated. Beyond this junction, the Highways Agency have pointed out that junction 15-17 of the M5 is the most congested section of motorway in the south west and it is predicted that by 2026 the peak hour will last all day. The impact on the M5 however, will also be significantly affected by where the main employment base is located, and this could impact on junctions 18/20. In summary, therefore, the potential impact of the proposal at Oldbury on both the local and motorway network appear to have been seriously underestimated.

3.5 In addition there is concern that there has been inadequate consideration of this fundamental issue of amount of material for site raising, in terms of supply chains. The amount likely to be required is over and above the normal annual production for quarries in South Gloucestershire Council, there are implications for pressure on existing quarries to extend and the need to find further supplies, as well as the need for longer working hours at quarries and the impact of this on the local community.

3.6 The ecological and hydrological effects of the Severn Tidal barrage, the Bristol Deep Sea Container Terminal, a new nuclear power station at Hinkley, and a new power station at Oldbury are currently not known and the NPS does not indicate how these issues could be meaningfully assessed given a presumption in favour of development consent for Oldbury.

3.7 The high level assessment of these issues provides inadequate justification for designating Oldbury with a presumption in favour of granting development consent. What further assessment will be required of cumulative and in- combination effects of projects and what body should lead this area of work? The NPS does not explain the significance of UK and international supply chains in order to achieve a better understanding of the socio- economic impacts of a project at a local level and the potential for inward investment. An evidence base is required as without this understanding there may be under-provision in areas like migrant labour accommodation at the local level, or significant additional traffic. Although the Council will be making provision to accommodate future housing needs up to 2026 in its forthcoming Core Strategy , this does not take into account any potential accommodation needs arising from an a substantial increase in construction workers.

4. Need for a wharf

There are considerable uncertainties surrounding the option of constructing a wharf for the delivery of construction materials and bulky loads to the site. Without a detailed wharf feasibility study for Oldbury, it is considered premature to conclude that transportation and estuarial impacts could be properly mitigated.

5. Local Authority role and resources

5.1 There are significant concerns relating to the resourcing and management of these Government promoted energy projects which will result in considerable burdens for affected local authorities. The view that the new Act places no additional costs on authorities is flawed and should be monitored and reviewed urgently. The Local Impact Report to be produced by the relevant Local Authority will be an important consideration for the IPC, but the NPS provides no guidance on how this document should be structured or the expected content, or the weighting given to it. It is unlikely that the LA will be able to resource the production of this report with existing staff, but if it were to, this would result in a degradation of the services to fee paying applicants. The Local Authority will be an integral part of the pre –application process and it is considered that this is a new burden with significant resource implications. The LA will have to deal with the following matters:

- EIA scoping

- Consideration and commenting on draft EIA

- Decisions regarding the applicant’s SOCC – who to consult and how to consult

- Pre application consultation comments

- Local Impact Report by LPA sent to IPC

- Confirmation by LA to IPC that SOCC has been adequately carried out

- Discharge of onerous conditions that could relate to most of the detail of the scheme

- Applicants to enter into Section 106 Agreements with the LA.

- Enforcement of conditions would require considerable resourcing, and could require court action.

- Specialist input for enforcement

- Detailed advice from LA on Emergency Planning

5.2 While ‘pre application’ charges can be sought from the applicant, it is highly unlikely that the fees that would be agreed would go anywhere near covering the costs involved and would create issues of concern for the public about the transparency, independence and impartiality of the Local Authority. Similar concerns are raised in relation to agreeing a Planning Performance Agreement with the applicant. There seems no logical reason why there cannot be a national fee structure for each element of the Local Authority’s work in dealing these proposals which will have national benefit.

5.3 The system has been designed to be ‘front loaded’ whereby developers require significant input from local authorities without considering if the skills and capacity are in place in authorities, or giving assistance to ensure that this is put in place. This has coincided with a recession and a time when local authorities are subject to constant budgetary reductions. This additional burden should be addressed through a local authority area based grant.

5.4 The NPS contains limited information on planning obligations with no guidance on how contributions should be secured. The NPS should make it clear that planning mitigation will be developed through the normal planning tests. In addition there is no mention of a developer’s role in working with local authorities on securing wider community benefit, over and above mitigation of adverse effects. In addition to mitigation, scope for negotiating community benefit is an absolute requirement of the local authorities, in order to secure benefit directly from the operator, to host a national infrastructure facility and to bear the burden of the site and the interim high level waste facility, for up to 100 years in the locality. Precedent exists in waste recycling plants for a community benefit fund to applied for the benefit of communities affected by a proposal, assessed at a minimum of 10% of the build cost. This percentage has also been used in relation to nuclear power stations in America. It is submitted therefore that community benefits, for communities affected by a proposal, on a short –term, medium and long- term basis should be a material consideration that could determine whether consent was granted.

6. Combined heat and power

6.1 There is likely to be considerable resistance from promoters for nuclear power stations to include CHP. DECC have stated that it is technically possible, (DECC public discussion event 6.2.10), therefore it should be a requirement. The NPS should go further and make it a requirement that energy companies ensure that nuclear power stations are, at the very least, combined heat and power ( CHP) –enabled, allowing for potential future district heating schemes for new developments if there is currently insufficient demand. Potential future energy demands should be identified via early consultation with the relevant local planning authority.

If there is currently sufficient demand, the developer should ensure that a district