Calls to ease planning rules for all net-zero projects

More net-zero projects must be classed as critical national infrastructure if the government is serious about accelerating the transition, Energy UK has insisted.

The trade body wants a wider definition of grid developments and more low-carbon technologies, such as hydrogen and carbon capture, to be fast-tracked through the planning process.

In its response to the government’s consultation on its recently published suite of draft energy national policy statements (NPSs), which concluded last week, the industry umbrella body welcomes the designation of offshore wind farms as well as connected network infrastructure and reinforcements as critical national projects (CNPs).

This designation means that the urgent need for such projects will generally trump the impacts of development, which cannot otherwise be mitigated, when planning applications are being weighed up.

The revisions are the first changes to the energy NPS, which govern applications handled by the centralised Planning Inspectorate because they are deemed to be nationally significant, since it was first published a decade ago.

However, Energy UK raises concerns that there is uncertainty around the scope of projects that can benefit from the CNP designation and more clarity is required.

The response also highlights a “lack of focus” in the NPSs on the wider system benefits of building onshore transmission networks.

The definition of CNP should be expanded to include all “enabling” electricity grid infrastructure works required to “efficiently construct, operate and connect” an offshore wind farm to the national transmission system, it says: “National Grid is a holistic infrastructure and as such all new or reinforcement grid serving any type of net zero technology should be made a CNP. It is essential that this enabling infrastructure is considered a priority, as the lack of timely grid works can be a great barrier to delivering net zero.

“The government needs to take a whole system approach in grid connectivity as the energy system does not stand in isolation.”

The response also points to a “lack of consistency” between the language used in draft EN-3 and EN-5, which cover renewable energy and electricity networks respectively, adding that the case outlined in the latter for why infrastructure is needed is not strong enough.

The response says the scope of CNPs should also be extended to all technologies that contribute towards achieving the net zero target, including hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.

Excluding low-carbon onshore technologies from the definition of the CNP could slow down deployment of energy nationally significant infrastructure projects, it adds.

Limiting the definition does not future proof the NPSs because there should be a mechanism to update the scope of CNPs without having to waiting for a review, which may take five years or longer, because the case for other low-carbon technologies will grow significantly during that period.

The response says local planning authorities are making “overly stringent” requests for carbon capture plant developers for assessments of the environmental impacts of associated pipeline infrastructure for transporting CO2, which it claims adds both cost and time to applications while adding “no genuine value”.

As a minimum, the response calls for a predefined process to enable other technologies to be classified as CNPs in the future.

Energy UK also expresses concern that the government’s post-Brexit overhaul of the environmental impact assessments (EIAs) could cause “massive delays” for new projects.

Under the Levelling Up and Reintegration Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, EIAs are being streamlined and replaced by a new system of Environmental Outcome Reports.

Guidance will be needed in the NPS to reduce uncertainty during the transition from EIAs to EORs for developers and stakeholders.

In addition, the response repeats previous concerns expressed by Energy UK that the government’s ongoing review of its National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) will not help the deployment of onshore wind in England.