Ed Miliband to deliver nuclear site assessment reports

Government to open new central authority in March to fast-track nuclear applications and avoid red tape
David Teather
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 8 November 2009 19.29 GMT
The government will tomorrow identify further sites around Britain that could be suitable for building a nuclear plant, as part of a scheme to fast track a new generation of reactors.
Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary, will unveil a series of national policy statements setting out the need for new energy infrastructure including renewables, fossil fuels and gas, as well as an overarching energy statement which will include climate change policy. A separate strategy statement on the nation's ports will also be published tomorrow.
Miliband will stress what the government believes to be the importance of a diverse energy supply. But the most detail will given in the nuclear policy statement, which will include a forensic assessment of the 11 sites already nominated by energy firms as well as identifying alternatives. "Because nuclear is controversial, we wanted to make it quite clear where the sites we consider suitable are," said one official.
The policy statements, which run to 3,000 pages, will be open for consultation until early next year and will act as guidelines for the Infrastructure Planning Commission, a new central authority which will start accepting planning applications in March.
The aim is to speed up planning decisions and give answers to developers within one year, to end what one official described as the current "long and tortuous" process of winning approval for schemes. It took six years to steer the Sizewell B power station through the planning process, and officials believe red tape is discouraging investment. The IPC will be kept away from the government in an attempt to remove politics from the planning decision. The official said it was not about "concreting over the countryside" but making the system "less labyrinthine". The IPC would, he added, be "inquisitorial rather than adversarial".
Utility firms keen to build plants in Britain, including EDF and E.ON, have long argued for a more certain planning regime. "We have always said we would simplify nuclear planning," the official added. "We are streamlining decision making by covering off questions in the policy statements such as whether the technology is safe or whether we even need nuclear power. The planning would then be specific to configuation of that site."
Energy firms and industry experts have warned of an impending energy gap in Britain unless more large scale projects are hurriedly built.
The policy statements are expected to be a drawing together of already stated policy. As well as the public consultation, which ends in February, a commons select committee has been formed to scrutinise the statements. Other government departments are set to produce similar policy statements on subjects including the water supply and airports.
But green groups expressed dismay at the prospect of new nuclear power and warned that the government could be open to legal challenge if the statements do not properly consider climate change.
They have also raised concerns that people will not be able to influence decisions on major projects because schemes covered by the statements will not be subject to public inquiry.
But the government insists firms will have to work closely with local regions and show they have consulted widely in order to gain approval.
Robin Oakley, head of the group's climate and energy campaign, said: "Nuclear is a dangerous and expensive irrelevance to tackling climate change and providing real energy security.
"We don't need coal or nuclear, because proven green technologies such as wind and combined heat and power stations can secure Britain's energy needs, create green jobs and slash our emissions."
Andy Atkins, the executive director of Friends of the Earth, said the battle against climate change should be at the "core" of all government decisions in order to meet commitments on reducing emissions.
He added: "Building new nuclear reactors is not the answer to the challenges of climate change and energy security.
"Nuclear power leaves a deadly legacy of radioactive waste that remains highly dangerous for tens of thousands of years and costs tens of billions of pounds to manage.
"And building new plants would divert precious resources from developing safe renewable power, while doing little to bring about the urgent emissions reductions that are desperately needed within the next decade."