The Guardian Suddenly Realises There is Oppositon to Eons Plans---A bit Slow?

Bradwell and Oldbury reactors face oppositionLocal councils say government's Infrastructure Planning Commission ignore local people's concerns

Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 February 2010 21.12 GMT Article history

Bradwell, home to one Britains first nuclear power stations, is not keen for another. Photograph: Uppa

Local councils have opposed two of the 10 proposed new nuclear reactor sites in England and Wales, accusing the government of trying to railroad them through under its new planning regime.

The councils will make the first challenge to the controversial new Infrastructure Planning Commission, which was established to speed up the planning process for large projects and starts handling planning applications next month.

Bob Neill, shadow minister for planning, told the Guardian the government's national policy statements, which shape the IPC's decisions on questions such as the proposed reactor sites, amounted to a "diktat". The Conservatives have pledged to abolish the planning quango.

The government closed its consultation on the planning statements yesterday. In its submission, South Gloucestershire council, which is opposing the planned E.ON and RWE reactor at Oldbury, said the risk of flooding had been underestimated. It also said councils did not have the resources to fully assess the applications for nuclear companies. It added: "The draft [national planning statement] effectively confers a presumption in favour of development."

The Guardian has also learned that Colchester borough council and West Mersea town council are objecting to the nomination of Bradwell, which is owned by EDF, as a new reactor site. Essex county council has yet to make a decision. Professor Andy Blowers, a former government adviser on nuclear waste, said: "What is the point of the IPC or any consultation if you are going to have the nomination rammed down your throat?"
A planning officer involved said: "I do not believe either the energy companies or the government have engaged with the general public that are the most affected by new energy infrastructure as much as they could. There is a moral duty to provide a more personal and embracing form of engagement."

The objections of the local authorities are unlikely to block the nominations, but they underline the strength of feeling against the new planning regime. The IPC rather than the government will have the final say on any large infrastructure project, and it is guided by national rather than local considerations. Under the Conservatives, the secretary of state would make the decision. The party claims this is more democratic.

"Labour's national policy statements will not be ratified by parliament, but merely issued by diktat of the secretary of state," Neill said. "Our proposals will strengthen the role of parliament and ensure a vital democratic check and balance on controversial matters of national energy policy."

A government spokesman insisted that the IPC would take into account local objections. "The new system will be faster and fairer with fuller public scrutiny.

"Local authorities will set out the effects of proposed infrastructure on the local area, and people will be able to make their case at every stage of the application and decision making process and speak at open-floor hearings."