Source · Select Committees · Energy Security and Net Zero Committee
Recommendation 24
24
Accepted
New CNP infrastructure policy's impact on biodiversity targets raises significant concerns.
Conclusion
We have concerns about the effect of the proposed new policy, in paragraph 4.2.24 of EN-1, that measures to mitigate the environmental impacts of Critical National Priority (CNP) infrastructure are “unlikely to be considered to be appropriate” if they “result in a material reduction in generation capacity”. The word “material” is ambiguous. We are not persuaded that the Government has sufficiently considered how this change of policy might affect the achievement of biodiversity targets in the UK or those adopted by the devolved administrations. (Conclusion, Paragraph 68)
Government Response Summary
The government has amended the wording in EN-1, paragraph 4.2.24, replacing "material reduction" with "significant reduction" and clarifying that small reductions in generation capacity can be appropriate for significant mitigation benefits.
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
Government response to Recommendations 24 and 26. We have amended the wording in EN-1, paragraph 4.2.24, which now reads as follows: “Measures that result in a significant reduction in generation capacity for CNP infrastructure are unlikely to be considered to be appropriate as mitigation. There may be exceptional circumstances where the mitigation could have a significant benefit and warrant a small reduction in generation capacity and function. In these circumstances, the Secretary of State may decide that the benefits of the mitigation to reduce the effects outweigh the marginal loss of function.” We have amended the wording in EN-1 to make it clear that the focus of Critical National Priority policy is not to maximise generating capacity at the expense of important considerations regarding impacts on the environment. Replacing “material reduction” with “significant reduction” makes it clearer that small scale reductions in generation capacity can be appropriate if they achieve mitigation that has a significant benefit on the receptor being impacted. We have bolstered this change with the new sentence that follows, which aligns with text in EN-1 Section 5.5 (Civil and Military Aviation and Defence Interests) and Section 5.10 (Landscape and Visual) on circumstances where it may be considered acceptable to reduce the function of a proposed development in order to mitigate for an impact.