Representation by Lawrence Haas
- Date submitted
- 25 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
My registration comment is made in association with Protect Coastal Sussex (PCS) which is a voluntary affiliation of community organisations and residents along the south coast and project-affected inland areas who will register separately as Interested Parties. The consideration of within-project alternatives is a requirement of EIA Regulations (2017). It is appreciated that Applicants are under no obligation to assess alternatives outside their scoping area - except as required by National Policy Statements (NPS). The policy requirement to consider alternatives in Rampion 2 Examination in fact is triggered by relevant NPS (2011) EN-1 provisions and NPS (2023 revisions, proposed) because Rampion 2 infrastructure is within the South Downs National Park (SDNP). Moreover, it encroaches on other designated areas of Special Scientific Significant Interest (SSSI) . Specifically, under the NPS (2011) section on Developments Proposed within Designated Landscapes: ? EN-1. para 5.9.10 , “… may grant development consent in these areas in exceptional circumstances. The development should be demonstrated to be in the public interest and consideration of such applications should include assessment of: - the cost of, and scope for, developing all or part of the development elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way, taking account of the policy on Alternatives set out in Section 4.4; and” ? The SDNP Authority has objected to Rampion 2. This is also important as the NPS (2023, EN-1) para 5.10.31 maintains the same stipulations for developments that encroach a National Park, and states further that the views of the Boards responsible for the Park (i.e., the SDNPA in the Rampion 2 case) “… should be given substantial weight by the Secretary of State in deciding on applications for development consent in these areas”. NPS (2011) under EN-1 Part 4.4 Alternatives (as referred to in para 5.9.10 above), and in Section 4.2 of NPS (2023, provisional) EN-1 under Environment Principles state that: ? Para (4.4.3) “The consideration of alternatives in order to comply with policy requirements should be carried out in a proportionate manner”, and “only alternatives that can meet the objectives of the proposed development need to be considered.” ? “The Secretary of State should be guided in considering alternative proposals by whether there is a realistic prospect of the alternative delivering the same infrastructure capacity (including energy security, climate change, and other environmental benefits) in the same timescale as the proposed development”. ? Otherwise, we noted that the consideration of alternatives in the Rampion 2 case complies with all stipulations in NPS (2011) under Part 4.4 Alternatives and similarly NPS (2023, proposed); namely policy conditions in EN-1 paras 4.2.21 through 4.2.29. ? For example, alternatives can be demonstrated as having been proposed in the statutory pre-Application consultations where there was no response, or even mention of that in the Applicant’s Consultation Report filed along with the Application 10 August 2023. ? In that respect it is also noted that NPS (2011) EN-1 para 4.4.3 concludes, “Therefore where an alternative is first put forward by a third party after an application has been made, the IPC may place the onus on the person proposing the alternative to provide the evidence for its suitability as such and the IPC should not necessarily expect the applicant to have assessed it.” There is a clear policy requirement for the Rampion 2 Examination to consider alternatives and it is in the public interest to do so. The importance and relevance of this issue was reinforced by the High Court Decisions on NSIPs (Energy) in January 2023 to dismiss a DCO decision where alternatives were not properly taken into account in the DCO process. That will be cited in a Written Representation to follow during the Examination. In a practical manner the NPS (2011) EN-1 provides the policy priority as to which alternatives are reasonable to consider in the Rampion 2 Examination; namely as follows: Para 3.5.6 "New nuclear power therefore forms one of the three key elements of the Government’s strategy for moving towards a decarbonised, diverse electricity sector by 2050: (i)I renewables; (ii) fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage (CCS); and (iii) new nuclear." It is suggested that the NPS (2011) and today’s context guide that proper and practical consideration of reasonable alternatives in the Rampion 2 Examination would: - In the case above of (i) renewables, mean a location for offshore wind turbines that respects strategic environmental advice, as well as efficiency and value for money principles; - In the case of (ii) above, carbon capture means retrofit of new or existing high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines which comprise the bulk of the UK’s dependable power supply, already have transmission and gas supply networks, and are close to load centres including in the south. - In the case of nuclear (iii) above, in today’s context especially, it means small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) starting with co-locating them at decommissioned large nuclear sites and in parallel with new large nuclear, where the necessary infrastructure and transmission is already in place and available to evacuate power and fast track planning approvals and deployment – as is consistently proposed by UK industry. It is further noted that the Planning Act (2008) and NPS (2011) state that authorities, “… must decide an application for energy infrastructure in accordance with the relevant NPSs except to the extent it is satisfied that to do so would … result in adverse impacts from the development outweighing the benefits” (EN-1, 1.1.2). And also that it is important for the Examination, “To consider the potential effects, including benefits, of a proposal…” (EN-1, 4.2.2) In summary: Given the opportunity and synergy in assessing the benefits of Rampion 2 together with the policy requirement for the consideration of reasonable alternatives, and in the interest of examination efficiency for this proposed £3-4 billion project - it is suggested that: (1.) This warrants a topic-specific hearing within the Examination schedule to understand the full extent of benefits of Rampion 2 to discuss and make the key judgements (such as adverse impacts outweighing the benefits) along with its comparison with reasonable alternatives across relevant policy metrics, as stated in the NPS; (2.) To better inform the consideration (make it less subjective) the ExA may wish to invite or request power system value analysis of Rampion 2 and reasonable alternatives to be performed by a competent authority (Ofgem or National Grid) applying the system value model developed and used recently in the Net-Zero Teesside DCO Examination, of a gas turbine scheme with carbon capture (expected in 2026) or similar power system modelling (as provided also on the PINS and Net-Zero proponents websites). (3.) The hearing may be held in conjunction with the ExA taking due diligence evidence on both the Applicant’s claims of benefits and the consideration of alternatives along with reporting on the system value analysis in (2) above. (4.) The ExA may also wish to call for expert testimony on benefits of selected alternatives as reflected in technology-specific NPSs, specifically for abated gas turbines (CCGT-CC) and small modular reactors (SMRs) in the south, so as to align with the NPS policy priorities and to benefit from knowledgeable, highly informed industry views on matters such as timing, affordability and contribution to decarbonisation of the power sector by 2035. It is suggested the above steps are timely and strongly in the Public Interest in light of the recent failure of the UK’s latest offshore bid round. A detailed Written Representation on Reasonable Alternatives will be shared with the ExA and other IPs. We will ask the ExA to give it substantial weight in the public interest.