§ Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham)I have to tell the House a cautionary tale of an event that has occurred in a beautiful part of my constituency, called Five Oaks, which lies between Billingshurst and Slinfold. It is an example of what can happen under existing planning legislation through expansion, by stealth in this case, by the utilities.
Without warning, in an attractive rural area, but close to a number of residential properties, a substantial diesel-fired 10 MW power generating station has been added to the three transformers and small brick shed that previously stood on the site.
The site itself has expanded, and the character of the undertaking has totally changed. The five new diesel generators, with tall gleaming chimneys, together with two massive oil storage tanks and associated pipework, completely dwarf the original set of buildings. The oil tanks and the associated pipework lie outside the fenced enclosures that formed the original transformer station.
The new installation is quite unprotected against vandalism. No proper precautions were taken against the leakage of oil and chemicals into the site and thence into the adjoining watercourse. That is exactly what has happened, with neat diesel being discharged from a field drain from the site.
Mr. Kelly, the clerk of Slinfold parish council, has told me that the council was given no notice of the development. He also told me that a fire has occurred, and a spillage of ethylene and 100 litres of diesel oil, which have polluted the river. That river is next to the watercourse, which flows into the Adur river, a short distance to the south. It is clear from what has happened that the development is a major potential hazard.
The other environmental consequence to consider is the damage caused by noise and the smell of diesel as a result of the plan to operate the generator for three hours every day. The five new generators and chimneys are visually obtrusive in the rural landscape, and it amounts to an industrial eyesore in one of the most beautiful parts of West Sussex.
The local community was offered no notice or opportunity to comment on that industrial intrusion. When I heard about it, I naturally took it up with the company concerned, Southern Electric. Mr. Wilson, the chairman, replied that the reliability of electrical supply to the area had given cause for concern since the storms of 1987. The generators were necessary to improve reliability. He did not just stress the reliability of supply, because he said:
In addition, small generating sets will be operated whenever pool prices of electricity is greater than the cost of generation. This is expected to be in the region of 3 to 4 hours on a winter's week day, and electricity wholesale prices have reached record levels recently.He went on to describe the efforts taken to minimise the effects of noise and emissions as well the visual impact of the development. It seems to me that the best way to minimise them is not to build the plant in the first place.The project was apparently discussed with the planning department of Horsham district council, which confirmed that it was a permitted development under conditions set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1988.
957 I wrote to the Minister for Industry and Energy and asked him why those units, if they had to be built in the first place, could not have been built in an existing industrial zone. I wrote to the chairman of Southern Electric and asked him why he had not consulted local people. I asked him how he would like to wake up one morning to see a large diesel-fired 10 MW power generating station erected outside his office in Littlewick Green. I never had a reply to that point.
I also wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, asking him to call in the application, because I could see no reason why that type of development could not occur piecemeal all over the country. I wonder whether that is what the Government are prepared to see. Of course electricity companies want to make the best use of technology, but that natural desire should be measured and weighed against environmental issues in the normal planning process.
The Secretary of State replied to me on 19 January and said that he understood that Southern Electric constructed the station under permitted development rights comprised within part XVII of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. My right hon. Friend told me that, notwithstanding that statutory undertakers were not required to submit a formal planning application, they had agreed to consult the local planning authority and to publicise their intentions locally well in advance of work starting. In the case of Five Oaks, that, regrettably, was never done. Horsham district council says that Southern Electric's contact was informal, and quite unrelated to whether there would be any significant effect on the environment.
It is possible, apparently, for local planning authorities to make directions under article 4 of the general permitted development order to bring specific cases of permitted development within the scope of the development control system. That is possible, however, only in advance of the development, and depends, of course, on the planning authority being told exactly what the electricity company has in mind.
In any event, any such direction must be cleared subsequently by the Department of the Environment. The record to date shows that the Department seldom overturns the judgment of the local authority. So not only does the local authority require the endorsement of the DOE, but it may find that it is necessary to pay compensation for any development that is not carried out.
There then followed a meeting between Southern Electric and local residents, which should have been held long before, during which the company admitted that there had been just one failure on the 33 KW line during the past three years. There was therefore no need for undue excitement on its part to build the extra plant.
I then heard from Lord Crickhowell, who hon. Members will know is the chairman of the National Rivers Authority. He wrote to me saying that the installation of such a generating station falls outside the control of the planning authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Why should that be? After all, pollution is pollution wherever it occurs and whatever the size of the development.
Moreover, it appeared from the meeting with local residents that the plant is on call to the grid and Southern Electric's supply company. That demonstrates not only that 958 it was intended that the plant should generate extra power for distribution, but that assurances about operating hours were without meaning. So the plant can be called upon whenever commercial logic informs the generating company that it would be wise to use that extra power rather than to rely on the grid. That was never revealed to Horsham district council. It is therefore not merely a plant erected to cover shortages of supply, but a commercial undertaking.
Residents were told that, in an emergency, staff would be summoned from Petersfield, which is about 45 minutes away. They discovered that no arrangement had been made with the fire brigade. It was at that point that the Council for the Protection of Rural England became interested, and lent its support, mentioning not least the fact that, if such a development were to be allowed at Five Oaks under the permitted development legislation, there would be no reason why such developments should not occur in other parts of the country as often as generating companies wanted them.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy told me that the procedures under the general development order would not apply where a station had a capacity of more than 50 MW. There lies the beginning of a solution. If that is the case, why do we not reduce the limit from 50 MW to a much lower figure? Southern Electric is planning a 40 MW station near Reading, and perhaps four or five others.
If Southern Electric is planning to do that, what about all the other electricity generating companies? Under existing legislation, they may find it possible to use the latest technology to put up such generators all over the country in the most beautiful rural areas—including yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a matter of great importance.
What is to be done? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not call in the application, because it is impossible to do so when permission has been granted by the local authority. He says that he is satisfied that the present system whereby the statutory undertakers consult local planning authorities and publicise proposals which would have a significant effect on amenities and the environment works well. He is not persuaded that he should amend the general development order in respect of the permitted development rights of statutory undertakers.
However, this is a case in which the existing system has not worked as intended. I was therefore pleased to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends shortly to seek tenders for a research programme on the use of permitted development rights by statutory undertakers as part of the Department of the Environment's planning research programme for 1996–97.
I understand that the project would, among other things, establish the extent to which statutory undertakers rely on permitted development rights to carry out their activities—here is evidence for them—consider the scope for those rights to be altered, and examine the operation and effectiveness of the non-statutory consultation arrangements.
I hope that this short debate may be drawn to the attention of the researchers and amenities societies, which may have an interest in the matter. The case has shown that the statutory undertakers do not always conform with what is expected of them. They do not always tell planning authorities all they should about their intentions, nor do 959 they consult local people when they should. The result is that electricity generating stations can spring up all over the country, without heed to environmental considerations and without consultation with local people.
One idea might be to limit developments under the existing legislation to, say, 30 MW, and to limit them to existing industrial areas. Why should it be necessary to generate electricity in the most beautiful rural parts of the country when so many industrial zones are available where less objection would be made? Surely it is desirable to do that rather than to have such developments in beautiful countryside like Five Oaks; otherwise, there will be much more invasion of the countryside as power generation technology improves.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise what could be a nationwide problem, and I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say.
§ The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones)I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply to the debate, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), in all his years in the House, has managed something rare—a reputation both for the breadth of his knowledge on key national and international issues, and for being an assiduous constituency Member. On this issue, as on others, he has been tireless in representing his constituents' concerns. He has put his case today with characteristic fairness and accuracy, and so thoroughly that he has almost taken the words of my reply out of my mouth.
My right hon. Friend knows that some Horsham district councillors raised the matter with me on my recent visit to Horsham, and I recognise the concerns that it has aroused. Before I reply, I should like to say how much I was impressed by the town centre development in Horsham, and I congratulate all those who were involved with it. It is encouraging to see a thriving town centre into which a lot of thought has gone, and some fine new buildings.
I have listened carefully to the points made by my right hon. Friend. I hope that he will find it helpful if I first explain the legislation that controls the sort of development carried out at Slinfold, and our role, and that of the local planning authority.
Electricity supply companies, like other statutory undertakers, have permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or GPDO. Those rights enable them to carry out certain developments that are necessary for them to perform their day-to-day activities without having to make planning applications.
The rights were given to statutory undertakers because they provide a service to the public and because it was felt that it would be unreasonable and inefficient to require them to make a planning application for routine development on every occasion. Part XVII, class G of the GPDO sets out the permitted development rights for electricity undertakings in connection with the generation, transmission or supply of electricity. Any development beyond the permitted rights as set out in part XVII requires planning permission in the normal way.
In exceptional circumstances, as my right hon. Friend said, a local planning authority may consider that the permitted development rights granted by the GPDO 960 should be withdrawn. In such cases, they may make a direction under article 4 of the general development order, withdrawing the permitted development rights and requiring specific planning permission. Permitted development rights have been approved by Parliament, and consequently should not be withdrawn unless the circumstances are exceptional and the planning grounds for doing so compelling. Such a direction requires the approval of the Secretary of State before it can come into force.
Measures were introduced in June 1995 relating to permitted development and environmental assessment. They mean that, under certain conditions, development under permitted development rights, which normally does not require a planning application, will need formal planning approval if environmental assessment of the project is required.
The measures include a provision for developers to seek an opinion from the local planning authority, with a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, as to whether a particular permitted development project should be subject to environmental assessment, and hence whether a planning application, accompanied by an environmental statement, is required.
Development that is covered by the permitted development order does not require statutory consultation or publicity. However, it is considered desirable for there to be arrangements for advance publicity for individual proposals where appropriate. Arrangements for consultation are explained in paragraph 33 of the Department's circular 15/92, "Publicity for Planning Applications", and in paragraphs 9 to 12 of circular 9/95, "General Development Order Consolidation 1995".
The circular states that, although not governed by statutory provisions for publicity, statutory undertakers exercising their permitted development rights should inform both local planning authorities and the public of developments likely to have a significant effect on the amenity and environment well in advance of work starting. Where a proposal is notified to the local planning authority, adequate time should be allowed for it to consider whether it should advertise the proposal, and for discussion of ways in which the proposal might be amended to overcome any planning objections.
It has been suggested—both by those who feel that it could be extended and by others who consider that it needs to be restricted further—that the scope of the rights of statutory undertakers contained in the GPDO need to be reviewed. We have therefore, as my right hon. Friend said, approved a research project into the use of permitted development rights by statutory undertakers that will form part of the planning research project in 1996–97. It is expected that that will take place this autumn.
In the case of the Five Oaks sub-station, local residents have asked whether the Secretary of State could intervene in some way, but I have to tell my right hon. Friend that there is no scope for that where a development has already been carried out under permitted development rights. It is not possible to call in an application for which permission has been granted, in this case under the general development order, and the development completed.
As I have said, in exceptional circumstances it is possible to make a direction under article 4 of the general development order, withdrawing permitted development rights. However, as my right hon. Friend is aware, the 961 district council maintains that it was given little information on the appearance and potential visual impact of the plant; nor did it have any indication from Southern Electric that the company considered the proposal to have the potential for a significant effect on amenity and the environment.
A consultant's report, commissioned by the company and made available to the council, advised that the development would not affect groundwater or, air quality, or create noise nuisance. In those circumstances, the district council considered it unlikely that it could have persuaded the Secretary of State that the circumstances of the case were so exceptional and the planning grounds so compelling that a direction would be justified.
I understand local concerns that the development has taken place apparently without informal consultation by the statutory undertaker with those most likely to be affected by its impact in terms of amenity and the environment. I was told by Horsham district council that consultation with Southern Electric in advance of the works being undertaken was solely to determine whether permitted development rights applied. Again, on the basis of the information provided by the company, the district council took the view that the generators would be permitted development, and would not therefore require a specific application for planning permission.
In view of the considerable concern about the size of the generators subsequently installed on the site, the council took advice, which confirmed its earlier view that the development benefited from permitted development rights. As I understand it, the critical point is that the generators, flues and tanks that have been installed are regarded as plant and machinery, and can be installed as permitted development without the need for prior approval of design and appearance. Those decisions were matters for the local planning authority as part of its responsibility for the development control system.
It is not for me to comment on the merits of the development, but perhaps wider consultation than that apparently undertaken in this instance might have allayed some of the fears about the operation of the generators and provided an opportunity for negotiation about the visual impact of the development. It is unfortunate that some local residents became aware of the development only when test running of the plant commenced, and certain incidents at the plant gave cause for alarm. I commend the parish council and other residents for their prompt action in pursuing their concerns with Southern Electric and with my right hon. Friend.
Southern Electric has stressed that the generators were placed at the location to improve the service provided to the locality, which should reduce the cost of providing electricity to its customers. Those commercial decisions 962 are, of course, entirely for the company to make. However, it has recognised that the delay in commissioning the plant, spillage and the temporary failure of the generators to meet the noise specification have, unfortunately, caused local residents some distress.
I am pleased that the company has been able to give certain assurances about improvements in the operation of the plant, which should ensure that the effect on the locality is minimal. It has acknowledged that it may be some time before local residents can accept that the site will have minimal impact, but it has assured them that that is its intention.
When Horsham district council mentioned the matter to me, I suggested that representations from my right hon. Friend direct to Southern Electric might assist in achieving some remedial measures to resolve any outstanding problems. His intervention would appear to have had some good effect, because I understand that the metal flues have now been painted green, which has reduced the impact of the development in the locality.
Furthermore, the district council's chief environmental health officer is currently trying to resolve complaints about noise disturbance with the company. It has been suggested that that may be achieved only by erecting a building over the generators. To do that, Southern Electric would have to give the planning authority precise details of the design and external appearance of the building.
I very much hope that negotiations will continue, and that the problems will be resolved to the satisfaction of the local community. In the longer term, the research that we have commissioned can examine the question whether the permitted development rights of statutory undertakers should be restricted or amended in some way. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend's concerns are drawn to the attention of my colleagues who have jurisdiction over the non-planning issues. I also confirm that the debate will be drawn to the attention of those involved in the research project, as my right hon. Friend requests.
I hope that I have set the concerns in context. I understand why my right hon. Friend's constituents are worried about the issue, and I assure him that he has done a great service in raising it today.
§ It being seven minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.