1024: Hydrogen barriers, and nuclear progress?

Today’s entry looks at news relating to hydrogen projects and also provides some musings on planning for nuclear.

Hydrogen

I was going to make a joke about sodium and hydrogen, but NaH. The government announced funding for 11 hydrogen projects across the country, but they also published an interesting document called Hydrogen Projects: planning barriers and solutions: research findings (publishing.service.gov.uk) . Here are couple of interesting things in that document.

The document echoes recent lamentations about the speed of projects going through, noting that ‘an average project takes around 18 months to be approved under TCPA and more than 20 months under the DCO regime (in some cases taking up to three years for larger, more controversial projects). Long timeframes were exacerbated by unexpected delays with little warning or updates to other stakeholders (covered in more detail in the barriers section).’

The key ‘problems’ the document comments on are as follows:

• Lack of published guidance for hydrogen planning.
• Challenges around thresholds for planning pathways and regulations.
• Lack of flexibility in the process.
• Inconsistencies across UK nations.

One of the key concerns was the thresholds for DCO projects and a desire to increase these so that developers could avoid the regime altogether. One suggestion considered was to ‘Allow developments to ‘opt-out’ of the DCO (where appropriate and by mutual agreement with the relevant local authority) could help reduce the reported ‘49MW’ ceiling on hydrogen projects.’

This is an interesting idea, and perhaps I’m biased, but I’m not sure it’s necessarily a panacea given the timescales quoted above for the TCPA regime and the added bother that a planning permission wouldn’t necessarily give you all the land powers you need. Perhaps an ‘opt-out’ is a half-way house (bad news for us in the DCO world!). The document sets out the following further concern:

‘Although developers can and do make use of the Rochdale Envelope, some stakeholders have still highlighted the lack of flexibility in the DCO process if a small amendment is needed post-consent.’

This much is obvious, and it’s a problem that has been highlighted again and again. The document notes that in the context of hydrogen, most were concerned about increasing the thresholds rather than this issue.

But it’s an important issue that was also picked up in the Getting Great Britain Building document published by DLUHC. In particular, that document notes that ‘under the status quo, developers are required to apply for additional planning permission if they propose project amendments that have ‘materially new or materially different environmental effects’. They therefore want to ‘make sure that project changes that will deliver positive impacts for projects, communities, and the environment can be approved more quickly’. Hear hear, it’s hoped that attempts to address this issue are accepted given the clear government policy support for it.

Musings on nuclear

We haven’t heard much since the launch of Great British Nuclear, but there has been some positive movement on this front. We had previously suggested that the ‘critical national priority’ should be extended to low-carbon energy generation projects, including nuclear. That has been adopted by the government. What more is to be done?

First is the question of siting. Given that the proposed EN-7 is intended to apply to SMRs and AMRs, our view is there should be no ‘designated sites’ or at least sites should not be exclusively drawn. True enough, EN-6 doesn’t confine nuclear projects to designated sites, but the starting point for SMRs and AMRs (given their lower footprint and the capability of being deployed on brownfield sites) should not place undue burdens on promoting such sites. If a developer can show the site is suitable, it should be allowed to proceed. The Ports nor National Networks NPS set particular sites that have the benefit of presumption in favour of development, and it would reduce barriers for developers to ensure they could promote a project on any suitable site.

Second, given the expansion of the ‘critical national priority’ designation, there is to my mind a strong case for removing the 50 MW threshold for nuclear altogether so that all nuclear projects are caught by the DCO regime. Indeed, does anyone seriously think that most, if not all, nuclear projects—particularly given that new technologies are novel and ground-breaking—below the 50 MW threshold in England wouldn’t face a strong risk of being called in? Bringing all nuclear within the scope of the DCO regime while changes are being made to speed things up will ensure consistent decision-making with the full force of national policy behind the proposals.

Third, given the issues caused by the ‘sunset’ provision of the existing nuclear NPS, and in acknowledgement of the fact that the target for nuclear runs to 2050, it would be wise to avoid a time restriction in EN-7 altogether. Does anyone think, given the current pace, that the need for nuclear is going to decrease between 2030 and 2035 vs. 2025 and 2030? No, so take it out!

Fourth, there should be an explicit acknowledge that ‘standardisation’ carries significant weight in the context of alternatives and good design. We need to be more like France in having a programmatic approach to the delivery of nuclear, and re-inventing the wheel for each fully designed SMR or AMR depending on location will not just slow things down, but hamper and decrease the necessary supply chain to deliver the projects quickly in a fleet approach.

What you should read

This will be the last blog of the year, and whilst you will all inevitably be bereft at what to read, I wanted to recommend a couple of pieces to read over the Christmas break:

1. The Housing Theory of Everything by Ben Southwood, John Myers and Sam Bowman
2. Why Britain Doesn’t Build by Samuel Whatling
3. The back catalogue of Jack Devanney’s Gordian Knot which looks at what is driving increasing burdens on nuclear, this is a good starter post.
4. Why does it cost three times more in Britain to an electrify a railway than it does in Germany? Read this post from Ben Hopkinson to find out.

Christmas competition

Don’t forget to enter Angus’ Christmas Competition! This year’s annual Planning Act 2008 blog Christmas competition takes the form of five Wordle-style puzzles, each of which leads to a geographic word from a DCO project name, as can be found in the ‘Application’ column on this page. You probably already know, but a green square means the letter is correct and in the correct place and a yellow square means the letter is in the answer but not in that position. Find the five words and the message indicated by the grey squares and send your answer to Angus Walker by Monday 8 January 2024. The first correct answer drawn from the virtual hat will win a bottle of champagne. Good luck!