Transcript Slide 1

Developments in planning…
How can we work more effectively
to deliver a sound approach?
Guy Robinson, 24 Oct 2012
Somerset backdrop
•
•
•
•
•
Waste Issues and Options 2007
Waste Issues and Options 2011
Waste Topic Paper 6: v1 June 2011, v2 march 2012
Pre-submission consultation: 31 Oct 2011 to 06 Jan 2012
Submission: March 2012
Also the team became increasingly involved in considering
HPC proposals in late 2011 / early 2012
Proposed radioactive waste policy
DM9: radioactive waste management
Planning permission for the treatment and interim storage of radioactive
waste generated at Hinkley Point may be granted within the licensed area
subject to the applicant demonstrating that the proposed development:
•
•
•
is consistent with national strategy for radioactive waste management;
and
is located and designed to mitigate adverse impacts on the environment
and local community or, as a last resort, proportionately compensate for
or offset such impacts; and
is supported by robust economic and environmental assessments.
Only radioactive waste generated at Hinkley Point shall be treated or stored at
Hinkley Point.
Somerset backdrop
•
•
•
•
Written representations on Pre-submission Strategy from
EDF Energy, Cumbria CC, Northamptonshire CC,
Sedgemoor DC, West Somerset C…
Initial exchange with Inspector: March/April 2012
Inspector also invites Magnox & NDA to participate in
hearings: May 2012
Hearing session on radioactive waste: 18 July 2012
Testing soundness
NPPF (para 182)… Plans must be:
•
•
•
•
Positively prepared
Justified
Effective
Consistent with national policy
Positively prepared
Treatment / storage
Disposal
NuLeAF evolving guidance on policy advises against silence.
SOMERSET: silent on disposal? Make approach more explicit.
Value of solid evidence base to make clear what is needed e.g.
LLWR assessment of capacity versus need. More clarity on
site-by-site needs will help WPAs to plan more positively.
Justified
“The plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when
considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on
proportionate evidence”
SOMERSET: Preference for on-site only restriction reaffirmed
in 2011 consultation results. But…
Evidence of local opposition insufficient justification to
support proposed restriction. NDA need to retain flexibility.
Effective
“The plan should be deliverable over its period and based on
effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities”
Timelines: planning for radioactive waste management
stretches far beyond conventional plan periods
Duty to Cooperate
SOMERSET: Duty to Cooperate not pursued by the Inspector. But
DtC was a line of enquiry that the Inspector still could have pursued
regarding restriction on importation.
DtC has become a critical part of planning process. LAs have to
be very aware of impact on others. Who to consult?
Consistency with national policy…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PPS10
NPPF
Policy for the long term management of solid LLW in the UK
(2007)
Waste Strategy for England 2007
UK Strategy for the management solid LLW from the nuclear
industry (2010)
Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: a framework for
implementing geological disposal (June 2008) WHITE PAPER
National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation, vols I
and II
Strategy for the management of solid low level radioactive waste
from the non-nuclear industry in the United Kingdom: Part 1 –
Anthropogenic radionuclides (2012)
NDA Strategy: Somerset hearings
“The NDA has a wider range of human resources and physical
assets across its estate and we will make better use of these in
delivering our mission. For example, this may include encouraging
workforce mobility, or moving materials and waste from one site
to another where the facilities exist to best manage them.”
“We will also investigate opportunities to share waste
management infrastructure across the estate.”
“There may be areas where greater cooperation between our
sites could yield benefits and we expect sites to work with other
waste producers and local authorities to engage with local
waste management planning activities.”
NDA Strategy (Effective April 2011)
Inspector’s comments…
“The question to answer then is whether or not NDA strategies are
national policy for the purposes of s20(5) of the 2004 Act which
refers back to s19 and, in this regard, s19(2)(a) in particular. Having
regard to the guidance in PPS10, Planning for Sustainable Waste
Management, my view is that they are.”
s19)(2)(a)
IN PREPARING A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT THE
LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY MUST HAVE REGARD TO
— (A) NATIONAL POLICIES AND ADVICE CONTAINED IN
GUIDANCE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
Experience elsewhere…
Quoting Inspector’s report on Augean/King’s Cliffe appeal (Feb 2011):
“There are two categories of ‘National Policy’: National ‘planning’
policy, and ‘other’ national policy dealing with the management of
LLW. There is no national planning policy dealing with LLW, but
PPS10 and PPS23 both contain relevant guidance.
‘Other’ national policy is now contained in the Defra 2007 LLW Policy
(PP2); the NDA UK Strategy (Nuclear Industry) 2010 (NS17); and the
DECC UK Strategy (Non-Nuclear Industry) 2010 (NS18 of August
2010 and NS18A of October 2010).”
“Is the distinction between national ‘planning’ policy and ‘other’
national policy of any significance? The appellant appears to believe
so (NCC10 p20).
In short, the ‘other’ policy documents are directed principally at
the industries when making their waste management decisions but
are also to be used by planning authorities as guidance when
preparing their planning strategies for waste management. The UK
Strategy (Nuclear Industry) also makes separate reference (NS17
pg31 p3.1.1) to UK planning policy.
In contrast, the principal planning guidance to WPAs, so far as
the content is applicable, remains that in the PPSs.
There may be a tension between the two, and operators might
well come forward with proposals that are apparently in compliance
with the ‘other’ policy documents but are not acceptable when tested
against ‘planning’ policy, which should prevail where forward
planning or development control decisions have to be made by
planning authorities.”
Back to Somerset: revised policy
DM9: radioactive waste management treatment and storage
Planning permission for the treatment and/or interim storage of radioactive
waste generated at Hinkley Point may will be granted within the licensed
area subject to the applicant demonstrating that the proposed
development:
•
•
•
is consistent with national strategy for radioactive waste management;
and
includes adequate measures is located and designed to mitigate adverse
impacts on the environment and local community or, as a last resort,
proportionately compensate for or offset such impacts; and
is supported by robust economic and environmental assessments.
Only radioactive waste generated at Hinkley Point shall be treated or stored at
Hinkley Point.
Ideas to consider (1)
•
•
•
Need for clearer more consolidated national planning policy.
Opportunity for inclusion in Waste Management Plan for England?
Could NDA Strategy be presented differently to help planning
authorities use the Strategy? E.g. Should planning be a “critical
enabler”? Also, the LLW Strategy (2010) has a section on interaction
with planning authorities; include something similar in NDA Strategy?
Should the distinction be more clearly made between radioactive
waste treatment, storage and disposal? What does that mean for
planning? Is storage for 100 years disposal?
Ideas to consider (2)
•
•
•
Could NDA monitor more closely waste planning policy
progress in WPAs that include a nuclear power station?
Could NDA respond to planning consultations and/or work
more closely with SLCs in any responses if monitoring
suggests that local policy is deviating from NDA Strategy?
Who is best placed to facilitate this? NDA? LLWR?
NuLeAF?
Final thoughts…
1.
Need clarity / consolidation in national policy if WPAs are to write
sound local policy. [What is the (potential) role of the Waste
Management Plan for England? Also, note approach taken by
government on “Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development”]
2.
Co-operation between WPAs and NDA is crucial. Opportunity for
changes in NDA Strategy 3?
3.
4.
Co-operation also vital with SLCs. Need for co-ordination
In this very technical area, it’s vital to get to the essence of what is
relevant to planning