Recommendation 8

HM Government Accepted

12. We welcome the decision to endorse the Centralised Strategic Network Plan (CSNP) in the National Policy Statements. However, we are concerned that the proposed guidance in paragraphs 3.3.78 to 3.3.80 of EN-1 is not clear enough about what, precisely, it is from the CSNP that is being endorsed. This must be unambiguous, to avoid unnecessary argument about the issue during the development consent process. The CSNP will provide strategic level recommendations for transmission infrastructure based on system need and project demand from the SSEP chosen pathway, ensuring that project level details (such as routing) can be explored and consulted on by delivery bodies. The NPS will endorse the strategic parameters of CSNP projects; the exact details of these are to be defined in the CSNP methodology which will be published at early 2026, but are related to location, technology choice, onshore/offshore classification. 13. The government should review and, if necessary, amend the proposed guidance endorsing the CSNP in paragraphs 3.3.78 to 3.3.80 of EN-1, to make the language more consistent, unambiguous, and more in keeping with current understandings of the intended purpose of the CSNP. This may involve: • reviewing the reference to the CSNP displaying “indicative routes” in paragraph 3.3.80; • removing the reference in paragraph 3.3.79 to a “strategic solution”, an undefined term distinct from “strategic parameters”; and/or • replacing “strategic parameters” with “strategic corridors” until the CSNP is complete and a more precise definition can be adopted. We welcome this input and received similar comments in response to the NPS consultation. We have included the following changes as a result: • ‘Indicative routes’ will be maintained in the amendment as it is a term used in strategic network plans to describe potential routes that are displayed on maps for illustrative purposes which are not confirmed and subject to change. Inclusion of this phrase provides clarity in the event they are presented in the CSNP, which is expected to be the case as they were included in both the Holistic Network Design and Beyond 2030 report. • We would agree in relation to ‘strategic solution’ and this term has been removed. • ‘Strategic corridors’ refers to a study area, and this is only one aspect of ‘strategic parameters’, meaning we need to maintain both terms. 14. The National Policy Statements should clarify that adjustments may be made to the “strategic parameters” for new electricity transmission infrastructure set out in the Centralised Strategic Network Plan where this is justified following detailed design development, community consultations or environmental surveys. Whether it is too early to endorse strategic frameworks still in development 15. Endorsement of the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan, the Centralised Strategic Network Plan and the Electricity Transmission Design Principles in the National Policy Statements should not become official until these plans are finalised and have completed public consultation and environmental assessments. At that stage, the government should review the proposed policy wording to do so and should implement any necessary changes through the streamlined procedure for amending the National Policy Statements being introduced in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The proposed amendments to the NPSs mean that the CSNP will only be endorsed when certain steps have been completed, which include completing public consultation and relevant environmental assessments and publication on NESO’s website. Similarly, the reference to SSEP only applies once it is endorsed by relevant governments upon publication by NESO. The amendment includes a reference to the ETDP to ensure that, only once published, developers have regard to the ETDP. Following publication, the government will review if full endorsement of the ETDP within EN-5 is appropriate. This is likely to take place after the 2025 NPS EN-5 update publication. Speeding up electricity distribution infrastructure delivery 16. We have not had the opportunity to consider the issue in detail. However, we believe that there is merit to these arguments, given that electricity distribution infrastructure is strategically important and can be much smaller in scale than transmission infrastructure. See response to