Christopher Chope
Main Page: Christopher Chope (Conservative - Christchurch)
Conor Burns
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The development company was given a vast area to put the wind farm and my hon. Friend will remember that in our initial meetings with its representatives, we told them that we would not oppose it if it was not visible from the shore, if its visual impact did not deter visitors and if it did not damage the world heritage site. All the company had to do was push it further out within the area given to it by the Crown Estate, but it did not do that.
I want to turn to some of the criticisms of the submission process, starting with the independence of the environmental impact assessment. I agree with the IUCN that it would have been more appropriate for DCMS to have commissioned an independent environmental impact assessment, rather than use one prepared by the proponents of the scheme—the Navitus Bay development company. In the words of IUCN,
“this raises questions on the credibility and objectivity of the assessment.”
I have heard some of the arguments made by Navitus Bay to discredit IUCN’s comments, including that they were merely interim and are not aligned with other impact assessments. Could that be because other impact assessments have been provided or commissioned by Navitus Bay itself? Is this a case of, “We’re right, because the documents we have written say so”?
Then there is the question of the appropriateness of the guidance used. The IUCN notes that the guidance used by Navitus Bay for its assessment was not the most appropriate possible. Rather than using the IUCN world heritage advice note on environmental assessment, Navitus Bay used the International Council on Monuments and Sites “Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties”, which is adapted to cultural heritage. According the IUCN, it did so despite being aware of the IUCN guidance, which is referred to in the environmental impact assessment.
IUCN claims that by adopting the other guidance rather than the IUCN advice note, Navitus Bay failed to adhere to all eight world heritage impact assessment principles. Notably, IUCN believes that Navitus Bay failed to adhere to the principle that
“reasonable alternatives to the proposal must be identified and assessed with the aim of recommending the most sustainable option to decision-makers, including”—
crucially—
“the possibility of the ‘no project’ option”.
Why did the DCMS not commission an independent environmental impact assessment?
Did the Minister or any of his current or previous colleagues in the Department approve the letter to UNESCO of 17 February—sent by Leila Al-Kazwini, the DCMS head of world heritage—that takes for granted the evidence provided by Navitus Bay regarding the impact of the proposal on the Jurassic coast while dismissing the concerns of, among others, the steering group for the world heritage site itself?
Sixthly, given those criticisms, does the Minister have confidence in the environmental impact assessment submitted by his Department but created by the Navitus Bay development company?
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this important debate. Does he share my concern that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport did not issue a formal response to the UNESCO letter of 2 May? That letter contains some powerful arguments. Surely they merited a response from my hon. Friend the Minister. Instead, according to a parliamentary answer I received from him on 23 June, that letter was passed to the planning authorities as part of a process. Is that not most unsatisfactory?
Conor Burns
My hon. Friend makes a very important and valid intervention. One reason why I attempted to secure the debate was so that the Minister has the opportunity to explain the Department’s thinking. He also has the opportunity to explain to the House that this is not simply a matter for the Department of Energy and Climate Change or the planning inspector in Bristol, but a matter for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has a vital, and indeed legally binding, obligation to do all it can to protect that world heritage site, and, as it says, to pass it on intact to future generations. I look forward to his response in a moment.
I conclude as I began. This is not about the Government’s energy policy, renewable energy or subsidy. Hon. Members have different views on those. The debate is about a proposal that my constituents and those of my hon. Friends fundamentally believe is the wrong proposal in the wrong place. Its demerits vastly outweigh its merits. The Government can achieve all their energy ambitions and still say no to the application. My hon. Friend the Minister of State now has an opportunity to tell us what he is prepared to do to assist us. It does not just affect us in Dorset. As things develop, it could affect Hampshire Members—I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) is sitting on the Front Bench. The New Forest would be torn up to allow energy to get into the grid.
This is very serious. I say without exaggeration that it is possibly the most significant issue in Bournemouth and the conurbation, and Dorset more widely, in a generation. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, can assure us and our constituents that he is with us and will do what he can to protect that fantastic bit of England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am grateful for the chance to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) and thank him for promoting me to Minister of State ahead of the reshuffle. I hope that the Whip in the Chamber will pass on that recommendation. My hon. Friend mentioned the Local Government Association conference in Bournemouth, so I shall use this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir Merrick Cockell, who is standing down as chairman of the LGA. He has been a fine servant to the LGA as well as to Kensington and Chelsea council.
Let me respond to the pertinent points my hon. Friend has made about the Jurassic coast, the world heritage site and the potential impact of the Navitus Bay development. It is important to note that several colleagues are in the Chamber—my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Poole (Mr Syms), and for Christchurch (Mr Chope), and the Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne), who may well wish to involve himself in the debate in future, given what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West said about the potential impact of the wind turbines on the New Forest West constituency.
As I have said, my hon. Friend has made a number of important points. Let me try to deal with them as effectively as I can. He asked six direct questions, and I shall try to answer them in the course of my speech. I will start with the letter from Kishore Rao from the International Union for Conservation of Nature, but let me first set out the framework of my remarks. It is important to state that a process has to be gone through in considering the planning application for Navitus bay. That approach is effectively quasi-judicial, which means that one’s personal opinion must necessarily come second to the opinion of experts and to the process itself.
Let me make it absolutely clear that the letter was from the IUCN, which is a UNESCO advisory body—IUCN advises on natural heritage sites, but it is not UNESCO—so the letter does not give UNESCO’s opinion on the world heritage status of the Jurassic coast. The proposed wind farm development has not to date been examined by the world heritage committee, so neither the world heritage committee nor UNESCO has an official view on the potential impact of the Navitus bay site on the world heritage site. Currently, the world heritage property is not considered by UNESCO to be under threat, and it is not in immediate danger of losing its world heritage status.
My Department, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is responsible for acting as the UK state party on all world heritage matters and for liaising with the UNESCO world heritage centre. The IUCN submitted its comments to UNESCO, and they were forwarded to the DCMS on 2 May. It is our responsibility not to respond to the IUCN, but to ensure that the Planning Inspectorate is made aware of its comments, and we passed on the IUCN’s comments to the Planning Inspectorate on 7 May.
The IUCN letter referred to the effect of the wind farm on the world heritage property and its setting, and such views will be taken into account by the Planning Inspectorate alongside those of English Heritage, which is a statutory consultee.
Mr Chope
Is it not correct that the letter that arrived on 2 May was deliberately sent in advance of the Government’s decision to refer this application to the Planning Inspectorate, and that the letter urged—and, indeed, pleaded with—the Government not to refer the application to the Planning Inspectorate because it had not passed the first hurdle?
Mr Vaizey
It is not the IUCN’s role to say whether a letter should be passed on to the Planning Inspectorate. My reading of the letter is not the same as my hon. Friend’s, but I will re-read it to double-check his point, and I will respond to him by letter if necessary. As I have said, our responsibility is to pass the letter on to the Planning Inspectorate so that the IUCN’s views are taken into account.
As well as the views of the IUCN, the Planning Inspectorate will take into account those of English Heritage, Natural England, and of course the world heritage site steering group, plus all other representations made to it as part of the planning process. Natural England has made representations about the effect of the proposals on the natural beauty of the coast, as has English Heritage about the effect of the wind farm’s setting on listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments.
It is important to stress that the Jurassic coast is a world heritage site not on the basis of its natural setting, but on that of its unique geological interest. In addition to the world heritage site, there are two areas of outstanding natural beauty and two stretches of heritage coast. The need to protect the natural beauty of those areas and the effect of the wind farm on them will be considered as part of the planning process, as indeed will the cultural heritage. All such representations are publicly available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website.
I will touch briefly on the UK marine policy statement, which is the framework for preparing marine plans and taking decisions that affect the marine environment that is required by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The marine policy statement identifies the social, economic and environmental factors that should be considered in the preparation of marine plans. Those include the seascape.
This proposal is classed as a major infrastructure proposal under the terms of the Planning Act 2008. Its determination is subject to the overarching energy national policy statement and the renewable energy infrastructure national policy statement. The Planning Inspectorate has to assess the wind farm proposal in relation to those provisions and under the national planning policy framework and other relevant planning policies.
It is important to stress that heritage protection policies and nature conservation policies are reflected in that guidance. It includes the recognition that heritage assets can be affected by offshore wind farm development, either directly through the physical siting of the development or indirectly through the impact on the marine environment. The guidance includes a presumption in favour of the conservation of designated heritage assets. The more significant the heritage asset, the greater the presumption in favour of conservation. The setting of heritage assets can contribute to their significance. National planning policy is clear that applications for renewable energy schemes should be approved only if the impact on the local environment is or can be made acceptable. The guidance states that local concerns should be listened to.
Perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to talk about the environmental impact assessment. My understanding is that it is normal practice for the developer to pay for the environmental impact assessment. However, it is still an independent environmental impact assessment. It is not the job of the DCMS or any other Department, as far as I am aware, to pay for the impact assessment or to commission another one if it has not been paid for adequately by the developer. There is no suggestion that the environmental impact assessment is not independent. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West made his point effectively.
Mr Vaizey
I hear what my hon. Friend says. As I said, I am not close to the planning application itself and do not know the technical considerations that Navitus has made. Clearly money, and the return on capital that it hopes to achieve, will be a factor, but as I understand it the Crown Estate is the landlord. It should be encouraged to enter a dialogue with my hon. Friends, who represent their constituents’ and the nation’s interests so ably on the matter, and I hope it will do so.
Mr Vaizey
The Crown Estate is free to grant planning permission for individual developments, and I am sure that it will take into account its wider responsibility and its relationship with local communities and stakeholders in deciding how it wishes its estate to be developed. I believe that it should sit down with my hon. Friends and local stakeholders and discuss the merits or otherwise of the proposal.
To return to my role and that of the DCMS, I hope that I have emphasised that we are not shy in coming forward when we think a world heritage site is under threat, even if it involves disagreeing with colleagues in other Departments, because we put the interests of world heritage sites first. As I understand it, the professional advice from English Heritage and English Nature is that although they have some concerns about the impact on some historic buildings, they do not state that the current proposal for the offshore—