Developments in planning… How can we work more effectively to deliver a sound approach? Guy Robinson, 24 Oct 2012

Waste Issues and Options 2007 Waste Issues and Options 2011 Waste Topic Paper 6: v1 June 2011, v2 march 2012 Pre-submission consultation: 31 Oct 2011 to 06 Jan 2012 Submission: March 2012 Also the team became increasingly involved in considering HPC proposals in late 2011 / early 2012 Somerset backdrop

DM9: radioactive waste management Planning permission for the treatment and interim storage of radioactive waste generated at Hinkley Point may be granted within the licensed area subject to the applicant demonstrating that the proposed development: is consistent with national strategy for radioactive waste management; and is located and designed to mitigate adverse impacts on the environment and local community or, as a last resort, proportionately compensate for or offset such impacts; and is supported by robust economic and environmental assessments. Only radioactive waste generated at Hinkley Point shall be treated or stored at Hinkley Point. Proposed radioactive waste policy

Written representations on Pre-submission Strategy from EDF Energy, Cumbria CC, Northamptonshire CC, Sedgemoor DC, West Somerset C… Initial exchange with Inspector: March/April 2012 Inspector also invites Magnox & NDA to participate in hearings: May 2012 Hearing session on radioactive waste: 18 July 2012 Somerset backdrop

NPPF (para 182)… Plans must be: Positively prepared Justified Effective Consistent with national policy Testing soundness

Treatment / storage Disposal NuLeAF evolving guidance on policy advises against silence. SOMERSET: silent on disposal? Make approach more explicit. Value of solid evidence base to make clear what is needed e.g. LLWR assessment of capacity versus need. More clarity on site-by-site needs will help WPAs to plan more positively. Positively prepared

“The plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence” SOMERSET: Preference for on-site only restriction reaffirmed in 2011 consultation results. But… Evidence of local opposition insufficient justification to support proposed restriction. NDA need to retain flexibility. Justified

Effective “The plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities” Timelines: planning for radioactive waste management stretches far beyond conventional plan periods Duty to Cooperate SOMERSET: Duty to Cooperate not pursued by the Inspector. But DtC was a line of enquiry that the Inspector still could have pursued regarding restriction on importation. DtC has become a critical part of planning process. LAs have to be very aware of impact on others. Who to consult?

Consistency with national policy… PPS10 NPPF Policy for the long term management of solid LLW in the UK (2007) Waste Strategy for England 2007 UK Strategy for the management solid LLW from the nuclear industry (2010) Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: a framework for implementing geological disposal (June 2008) WHITE PAPER National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation, vols I and II Strategy for the management of solid low level radioactive waste from the non-nuclear industry in the United Kingdom: Part 1 – Anthropogenic radionuclides (2012)

“The NDA has a wider range of human resources and physical assets across its estate and we will make better use of these in delivering our mission. For example, this may include encouraging workforce mobility, or moving materials and waste from one site to another where the facilities exist to best manage them.” “We will also investigate opportunities to share waste management infrastructure across the estate.” “There may be areas where greater cooperation between our sites could yield benefits and we expect sites to work with other waste producers and local authorities to engage with local waste management planning activities.” NDA Strategy (Effective April 2011) NDA Strategy: Somerset hearings

“The question to answer then is whether or not NDA strategies are national policy for the purposes of s20(5) of the 2004 Act which refers back to s19 and, in this regard, s19(2)(a) in particular. Having regard to the guidance in PPS10, Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, my view is that they are.” s19)(2)(a) IN PREPARING A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY MUST HAVE REGARD TO — (A) NATIONAL POLICIES AND ADVICE CONTAINED IN GUIDANCE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE Inspector’s comments…

Quoting Inspector’s report on Augean/King’s Cliffe appeal (Feb 2011): “There are two categories of ‘National Policy’: National ‘planning’ policy, and ‘other’ national policy dealing with the management of LLW. There is no national planning policy dealing with LLW, but PPS10 and PPS23 both contain relevant guidance. ‘Other’ national policy is now contained in the Defra 2007 LLW Policy (PP2); the NDA UK Strategy (Nuclear Industry) 2010 (NS17); and the DECC UK Strategy (Non-Nuclear Industry) 2010 (NS18 of August 2010 and NS18A of October 2010).” Experience elsewhere…

“Is the distinction between national ‘planning’ policy and ‘other’ national policy of any significance? The appellant appears to believe so (NCC10 p20). In short, the ‘other’ policy documents are directed principally at the industries when making their waste management decisions but are also to be used by planning authorities as guidance when preparing their planning strategies for waste management. The UK Strategy (Nuclear Industry) also makes separate reference (NS17 pg31 p3.1.1) to UK planning policy. In contrast, the principal planning guidance to WPAs, so far as the content is applicable, remains that in the PPSs. There may be a tension between the two, and operators might well come forward with proposals that are apparently in compliance with the ‘other’ policy documents but are not acceptable when tested against ‘planning’ policy, which should prevail where forward planning or development control decisions have to be made by planning authorities.”

DM9: radioactive waste management treatment and storage Planning permission for the treatment and/or interim storage of radioactive waste generated at Hinkley Point may will be granted within the licensed area subject to the applicant demonstrating that the proposed development: is consistent with national strategy for radioactive waste management; and includes adequate measures is located and designed to mitigate adverse impacts on the environment and local community or, as a last resort, proportionately compensate for or offset such impacts; and is supported by robust economic and environmental assessments. Only radioactive waste generated at Hinkley Point shall be treated or stored at Hinkley Point. Back to Somerset: revised policy

Ideas to consider (1) Need for clearer more consolidated national planning policy. Opportunity for inclusion in Waste Management Plan for England? Could NDA Strategy be presented differently to help planning authorities use the Strategy? E.g. Should planning be a “critical enabler”? Also, the LLW Strategy (2010) has a section on interaction with planning authorities; include something similar in NDA Strategy? Should the distinction be more clearly made between radioactive waste treatment, storage and disposal? What does that mean for planning? Is storage for 100 years disposal?

Ideas to consider (2) Could NDA monitor more closely waste planning policy progress in WPAs that include a nuclear power station? Could NDA respond to planning consultations and/or work more closely with SLCs in any responses if monitoring suggests that local policy is deviating from NDA Strategy? Who is best placed to facilitate this? NDA? LLWR? NuLeAF?

Final thoughts… 1. Need clarity / consolidation in national policy if WPAs are to write sound local policy. [What is the (potential) role of the Waste Management Plan for England? Also, note approach taken by government on “Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development”] 2. Co-operation between WPAs and NDA is crucial. Opportunity for changes in NDA Strategy 3? 3. Co-operation also vital with SLCs. Need for co-ordination 4. In this very technical area, it’s vital to get to the essence of what is relevant to planning