2nd Report - Gridlock or growth? Avoiding energy planning chaos

We find it immensely frustrating that the Government chose to act in a way which appeared to acquiesce to our requests for additional time to consider its draft National Policy Statements on Energy but only after we had compressed our schedule and carried out two oral evidence sessions on the same day. Obviously, had we been afforded the courtesy of notification of the arrangements in advance, we could, and would, have waited until the end of the public consultation period before commencing using the information arising from that process to inform our oral evidence sessions and create the added value, by test and challenge, that the process was designed to encourage. In the event, the additional time, while it allowed a less rushed consideration of the evidence before us, did not provide significant opportunity to broaden, or deepen, the scrutiny we could bring to bear as it came too late for us to change the questions that we were able to put to our witnesses. (Conclusion, Paragraph 6)

The Government has failed to respect the value of Parliamentary scrutiny in this process. It refused to listen to our concerns with its initial timescales until it was too late for us to utilise additional time effectively. The issues considered in the Report would have been better, and more comprehensively, examined and put to the test had the Government been open about the arrangements and told us, from the very start, that the deadline for producing our findings was to be 21 July, rather than 24 June. (Conclusion, Paragraph 7)

These statements are very important in determining how energy infrastructure will be developed for the foreseeable future. The process was established, by the last Labour government, to provide Parliament with a voice and time to determine what to say. It is disappointing that the current Government has failed to create sufficient space in which an effective and helpful Parliamentary process could take place. (Conclusion, Paragraph 8) 50

Given that the Government, in its Planning and Infrastructure Bill, is seeking to disapply the current requirement for the Secretary of State to respond to any resolutions made by a committee in either House of Parliament, we recommend that the Government, in future, ensures that: a. Select Committees are provided with at least ten sitting weeks in which to consider future National Policy Statements and proposed amendments to an existing NPS, b. this period should never commence before the conclusion of the department’s related public consultation process, and c. Parliament has a period of at least ten sitting days, in which consideration of the recommendations of a Select Committee can take place, before the NPS or amended NPS is designated by the relevant Secretary of State. (Recommendation, Paragraph 9) The new strategic framework for energy infrastructure planning

We welcome the new strategic framework for energy infrastructure planning which the Government proposes to endorse in the National Policy Statements. However, even with these changes, the National Policy Statements do not sufficiently reflect the highly important role that strategic plans are intended to have in guiding future energy infrastructure development to achieve the Government’s 2030 and 2050 targets. The relationship between the plans and the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime is far from clear. (Conclusion, Paragraph 23)

The Government’s new strategic framework for energy infrastructure planning represents a significant departure from the existing market-led approach to development by industry. The National Policy Statements should define what is set centrally and what is expected from industry plainly and transparently, to give certainty and avoid ambiguity. (Conclusion, Paragraph 24)

The Government should amend the National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure to clarify the precise relationship and hierarchy between these documents and the strategic plans which the proposed updates endorse. (Recommendation, Paragraph 25)

It seems to us that this would be inconsistent. The availability and prospects of securing a grid connection are issues that should cut both ways, weighing for, or against, the grant of development consent depending on the circumstances. (Conclusion, Paragraph 30) 51

We acknowledge the concern that strategic plans should not predetermine the outcome of any application for development consent. However, neither should the planning system be blind to the very existence of such plans and, most importantly, to their possible impact on the prospects of a project securing a grid connection. It would undermine the purpose of strategic plans if the Secretary of State were unable to take them into account in the planning balance. • The National Policy Statements should clearly recognise, as a material consideration, the regional and zonal capacities for different technologies specified in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan. • The National Policy Statements should clearly recognise, as a material consideration, the optimal areas for different technologies identified in the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan. (Recommendation, Paragraph 32)

There needs to be more coordination between the application processes for development consent and a grid connection, given that each is highly relevant to the other and both will be influenced by the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan, and the Land Use Framework. It is essential that developers are not left stuck in a situation in which they cannot progress planning consent without more certainty in relation to the prospects of securing a grid connection and vice versa. • The Government and the National Energy System Operator (NESO) should review how the application processes for development consent and a grid connection will interact, to achieve greater coordination between them. (Recommendation, Paragraph 33)

The National Policy Statements should give significant weight to the availability of a grid connection, as a paramount consideration in determining where electricity generation projects can be located. However, by the same token, where a project has not yet secured a grid connection, the prospects of doing so should also be a material consideration weighing for or against the grant of development consent. NESO may need to provide the Secretary of State with information to ensure that this question is considered accurately, fairly and efficiently within the development consent process. • The Government should strengthen the existing guidance in the National Policy Statements to clarify that the Secretary of State should give significant weight to the availability of a grid connection. • The National Policy Statements should clarify how the Secretary of State should assess the future prospects of a project obtaining a grid connection, with reference to NESO’s recent reforms to this process. 52 • The Government and NESO should assess whether, and in what circumstances, NESO may need to provide the Secretary of State with information about the prospects of a project obtaining a grid connection and how far it is aligned with strategic plans. (Recommendation, Paragraph 34)

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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 40)

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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 41)

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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42)

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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 46) 53

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. (Conclusion, Paragraph 48)

The Government should review whether some types of electricity distribution infrastructure should be removed from the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime and instead consented under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, to speed up delivery critical to Clean Power by 2030. These may include 132kV wood poles. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49) The role of community engagement in building public support for strategic plans

The complex judgments involved in evaluating different options for electricity network infrastructure not only raise a strong argument for settling these strategic considerations at an earlier stage, but also heighten the need for affected communities to be involved in those decisions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 53)

It would be regrettable if this timeline meant that public engagement activities taking place towards the end of the consultation period have less, or even no, impact on the final outcome. (Conclusion, Paragraph 58)

The Strategic Spatial Energy Plan (SSEP), the Centralised Strategic Network Plan (CSNP) and the Land Use Framework (LUF) are valuable opportunities to build greater public understanding of the need for energy infrastructure and the trade-offs involved in choosing between different options and locations, at an early stage of the development process. (Conclusion, Paragraph 60)

We welcome the National Energy System Operator (NESO)’s ambition for meaningful and comprehensive engagement with diverse communities, economic interests and societal groups throughout the development of the SSEP and the CSNP. At the very least, we expect the use of surveys, focus groups, roundtables, stakeholder meetings, events and webinars to engage with people directly. It is imperative that public consultation over these plans includes targeted engagement with communities who will see large volumes of infrastructure, clusters of projects, or energy infrastructure in their locality for this first time, as set out in the SSEP methodology. Engagement with these communities should raise awareness of the infrastructure which they are likely to see in the years to come. (Conclusion, Paragraph 61) 54

At this early stage, we have yet to see sufficient evidence of NESO’s ambitions for societal engagement and public consultation being put into practice in the development of the SSEP and the CSNP. In the autumn, we expect to hear further details of: (i) NESO’s consultation strategy; and (ii) how the societal forums and stakeholder working groups have been contributing to the development of these plans. (Conclusion, Paragraph 62)

To protect the time allocated for public engagement and consultation on the draft SSEP, without compromising NESO’s deadline to publish the final SSEP in December 2026, there can be no delay to: • NESO’s presentation of the SSEP pathway options to the Secretary of State; • The Secretary of State’s selection of a pathway option; or • NESO’s preparation for the consultation and community engagement activities. The draft SSEP should be published for consultation by the end of February 2026 at the very latest and earlier if possible. The Secretary of State should decide upon the chosen SSEP pathway in sufficient time to enable this. (Recommendation, Paragraph 63) Nature positive approaches to energy infrastructure

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)

National planning policy for CNP infrastructure should strongly encourage innovative strategies to reduce environmental impacts and, where appropriate, adjustments to site boundaries, layouts or the volume of electricity generation in specific areas for this purpose. (Conclusion, Paragraph 69)

The Government should review whether the following sentence in EN-1, paragraph 4.2.24, is consistent with its own domestic and international biodiversity commitments, as well as those of the devolved administrations: 55 “Measures that result in a material reduction in generation capacity for CNP infrastructure are unlikely to be considered to be appropriate as mitigation.” (Recommendation, Paragraph 70)

We welcome a more strategic approach to energy infrastructure planning that integrates the pursuit of climate and biodiversity goals and enables the early consideration of nature protection on a habitat-wide basis. We are encouraged to see this ambition reflected in the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan (SSEP) Methodology, the Land Use Framework (LUF) and the National Energy System Operator (NESO)’s high-level methodology principles for the Centralised Strategic Network Plan (CSNP). We recognise that these plans are still in development. However, the decision to subject the SSEP and the CSNP to detailed environmental assessments strengthens our conclusion that, if they realise this ambition, these strategic plans should be given weight in the determination of applications for development consent. (Conclusion, Paragraph 77)

Scientific evidence presented to us shows that, if well-planned and well- managed specifically to benefit nature, solar farms can increase biodiversity by creating mixed habitats for birds and other wildlife. (Conclusion, Paragraph 78)

The Government should consider how guidance in the National Policy Statements could respond to such findings by positively encouraging such practices. (Recommendation, Paragraph 78)

The Government should require developers to avoid building on land that has high ecological and climate value, such as peat and saltmarsh. (Recommendation, Paragraph 79)

Effective marine spatial planning will be essential to balance the protection of marine and coastal habitats with the accelerated development of offshore energy infrastructure. (Conclusion, Paragraph 80)

We endorse the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation that the Government clarify the objectives and timeline for outputs of the Marine Spatial Prioritisation Programme. (Recommendation, Paragraph 80)

There is a clear, recognised need for a more strategically coordinated approach to environmental impact assessments in the offshore wind sector. (Conclusion, Paragraph 81)

The Government should consider how guidance in the National Policy Statements could help to achieve this and confirm what further steps it is taking to reduce unnecessary costs and delays incurred due to the current project-by-project approach. (Recommendation, Paragraph 81) 56

We are gravely concerned by reports that many ecological enhancements and landscape mitigations promised by developers are never delivered in practice. This indicates systemic failings, brings the planning system into disrepute, and questions whether the Government will be able to fulfil its ambitions to build critical infrastructure in a nature positive way. (Conclusion, Paragraph 84)

National planning policy should require developers to identify specific sites, both suitable and available, for offsite landscape and environmental mitigations in their development consent applications. (Conclusion, Paragraph 85)

The Government should establish what proportion of ecological enhancements and landscape mitigations for energy infrastructure are delivered in practice, the most common reasons for lack of enforcement, and potential solutions. This analysis should consider offsite, as well as onsite, mitigations and how national planning policy could put more responsibility on developers for ensuring that such commitments are fulfilled. We would suggest: • Requiring developers to identify specific sites for landscape and environmental mitigations and negotiate with landowners in advance of applying for development consent. • Allowing the compulsory acquisition of sites identified for landscape and environmental mitigations if voluntary agreements are not possible. (Recommendation, Paragraph 86) Renewable energy infrastructure

The Government should, in its response to this Report, provide any evidence which it has that the proposed 100 MW threshold for onshore wind developments to fall under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime will aid in the development of onshore wind projects, or whether the threshold should be lowered. (Recommendation, Paragraph 91)

Building renewable energy infrastructure on peatland is counterproductive to the achievement of net zero if this results in the release of accumulated carbon stores into the atmosphere. Given this context, and the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations for peatland restoration in the Seventh Carbon Budget, it is surprising that the Government’s proposed new guidance for onshore wind in EN-3 does not contain a presumption against building on deep peat, though we recognise that there are areas in which such development would be unavoidable. The weakness in the guidance also appears to undermine efforts of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to protect peatland. (Conclusion, Paragraph 95) 57

The Government should amend the proposed new guidance on onshore wind in EN-3 to: • whilst recognising there are areas in which development on peat would be unavoidable, introduce a presumption against building onshore wind developments on deep peat; and • require the downstream carbon emissions from building onshore wind on peatland to be reported in any environmental statement for this kind of development. (Recommendation, Paragraph 96)

The Government should consider publishing an equivalent to Nature Scot’s 2023 guidance, “Advising on peatland, carbon-rich soils and priority peatland habitats in development management”. (Recommendation, Paragraph 97)

The concerns that we have heard from industry about the Government’s proposed new guidance on inter-array wake effects in EN-3 suggest that this may not have provided the clarity that was intended. This may especially be the case in relation to whether projects might be expected to damage their own business cases when taking “all reasonable steps to minimise” wake effects “as far as possible”. (Conclusion, Paragraph 100)

To provide greater certainty, the Government should amend the guidance to clarify precisely what is expected. (Recommendation, Paragraph 100)

We are concerned that a lack of clear guidance is leading to unnecessary arguments about food security taking up disproportionate time and resources during examinations. We are concerned that the current guidance on agricultural land classification and land type for solar farms, in paragraphs 2.10.20 to 2.10.26 of EN-3, is ambiguous, equivocal and seemingly contradictory, particularly in relation to development on BMV agricultural land. There is a compelling need for the National Policy Statements to contain an unequivocal and evidence-based statement of policy in relation to this issue, including the circumstances where BMV agricultural land should or should not be available for development. (Conclusion, Paragraph 107)

The Government should review and amend this guidance to: • The Government should reaffirm its commitment to developing solar on developed land, brownfield land, contaminated land and industrial land before agricultural land. The Government should also consider innovative ways to develop solar energy without agricultural land. • Clarify more precisely how applicants and decision-makers should assess land type and agricultural land classification, including the use of BMV agricultural land. 58 • Refer explicitly to food security and explain how decision-makers should take this consideration into account. • Clarify when site surveys are necessary to verify agricultural land classification. • Recognise that BMV agricultural land may not all be clustered in one single area but may instead be located in a patchwork of field parcels, mixed with lower-grade land. (Recommendation, Paragraph 108)

The Government should review and update the Agricultural Land Classification, as a matter of urgency, to reflect how factors such as climate change, soil degradation, changes to farming practices and technological advancements might affect productivity. (Recommendation, Paragraph 109) 59