Extracts below from the Daily Hansard record of the House of Lords debate 9th March 2010, Lord Hunt, the DECC minister responsible for the draft National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy, replied to re-assure Baroness Wilcox that, with 20GW of new power generation consented/under construction/recently completed, the lights will not go out .............
[BARONESS WILCOX]
"........The Government’s indecision on nuclear power will have huge consequences. Last year, figures were released showing that the Government were predicting power cuts from 2017, starting with a shortfall of 3,000 megawatt hours a year and rising to 7,000 megawatt hours by 2025. We seem to be back in the 1970s. We have an enormous government deficit, public sector strikes and, now, government-sanctioned power cuts. I hope that the Minister will tell uswhether this assessment still stands. Are the Government still expecting power cuts between 2017 and 2025?........"
[LORD HUNT OF KINGS HEATH]
".......Two issues have been put forward by noble Lords. First, it is said that we face severe energy issues over the next 10 years and, secondly, there is a criticism that we are putting too much emphasis on renewable energy. I shall respond, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the noble Baroness, LadyWilcox, about the so-called question of the lights going out. Of course, I read the reports produced by Ofgem with interest. Ofgem is an economic regulator; it is not charged with energy policy. Sometimes I think that Ofgem needs to reflect on what it is there to do, rather than produce rather speculative reports from time to time. It is the Government’s responsibility to establish policy in relation to energy and it is our job to ensure that there is security of supply. We will do that. Plenty of energy generation is due to go out of commission over the next 10 or 15 years but, even taking on board the impact of the emission standards legislation from Europe and the natural decommissioning of many of our nuclear power stations, the fact is that over 20 gigawatts of energy supply have just been constructed, are in construction or have received all planning consents, and more gigawatts are coming along in the pipeline. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, raised the question of UKCS. I know that we disagree about the amount of gas that will be required in 2020, and it is really a question of the calculation made about reduced demand, but our best estimate is that in 2020 UKCS could still provide about 50 per cent of our gas requirement. We have seen a big increase in our import capacity. There are many storage projects in the pipeline.When people talk about blackouts in 2017, they sometimes refer to an appendix in a document produced by my department. That appendix refers to outages which happen at the moment—short-term, temporary outages. That is very different from suggesting that suddenly our whole energy supply will collapse at some time in the next decade. That is simply not going to happen
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Green Party to launch "Oldbury Nuclear Expansion and Your Safety--The risks to the people of Gloucestershire
We will be launching our report, The Right to Know: Oldbury Nuclear Expansion and Your Safety – the risks to the people of Gloucestershire , at Thornbury Leisure Centre at 10am on Thursday 29th April. The BBC will be covering the story and we also hope to have coverage from ITV. We will be sending the report on Monday next week, with a strict embargo for Thursday morning.
We would very much like to have a number of people there to witness the launch (although the point is really the TV, of course). So I hope for those of you who can sneak out of work - or away from your computer - we will be able to see you there.
You can find the report on :- http://www.gaianeconomics.org/
The report has now been launched and BBC TV carried out an with Martin Whiteside of the Green Party.
The report will be featured on BBC local news during the day.
Banners and plackards from Sanes stock were used!
SANEs" Response to Public Feedback"---Issued by Horizon Nuclear Power
This is a copy of our reply to Horizon following their recent "Response to Public Feedback"
If anybody requires this by email please contact oldburynuclear@btinternet.com
EIA SCOPING REPORT: ‘RESPONSE TO PUBLIC FEEDBACK’ ISSUED BY HORIZON NUCLEAR POWER MARCH 2010
Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy has considered the above document (which is attached to this document for reference) and comment on the responses provided by Horizon Nuclear Power below:
Waste
The Government‟s MRWS programme (referred to in Horizon‟s response), and in particular its identification of a suitable site for a national deep geological disposal facility for waste is not at all advanced and there is much uncertainty as to whether this will ever happen. We highlight the following comments from CoRWM*‟s response to the Government‟s draft National Policy Statement for energy (NPS) consultation on the question of whether they agreed that effective arrangements exist or will exist to manage and dispose of waste that will be produced by new nuclear power stations in the UK:
“CoRWM considers that the Government should take into account when making this judgement that, while the current UK process for siting a geological disposal facility (GDF) for HAW is sound, it is at an early stage. Its success depends on finding a combination (or combinations if more than one GDF is needed) of a willing host community and a site that is technically suitable to hold enough HAW. At present, it is uncertain whether the appropriate combination (or combinations) of community and site can be found in this country. This uncertainty applies to existing and committed HAW, as well as to new build HAW, and is likely to persist for many years.”
In their response CoRWM go on to give their reasons for the above statement and in particular we draw your attention to the following:
“It is assumed in the draft NPS documents that spent fuel from new nuclear power stations will be disposed of by emplacement in a GDF. In order to establish a GDF it is necessary to find a site that is technically suitable in an area where the local community is willing to host a GDF. The current siting process in the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme is designed to achieve this combination of willing community and technically suitable site (Defra et al., 2008). The process is sound but it is at an early stage (CoRWM doc. 2550). Only one part of the country has expressed an interest in entering the siting process and it has not yet taken a “Decision to Participate”. If and when it does so, there is no guarantee that a technically suitable site can be found in the area, either for a GDF to hold existing and committed HAW and new build HAW, or for two or more GDFs each of which would hold some of these wastes. Surface-based investigations must be carried out to identify potentially suitable sites. If one or more such sites are found, it will only be after underground investigations that will take many years that a decision can be taken as to whether to construct a GDF (or GDFs) (CoRWM doc. 2543).
Government has encouraged other parts of the country to express an interest in entering discussions about hosting a GDF but so far none has done so.”
In the light of this uncertainty, this community‟s concerns can not be re-dressed by Horizon‟s response.
*CoRWM is the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management set up by the UK Government in November 2003 and advises Government on Radioactive Waste Management etc.
Health Risks
The COMARE* reports to which Horizon refer in their response statement are out of date and have been superceeded by the more recent and more comprehensive German KiKK study, commissioned by the German government, which looked at all German nuclear power stations and found that children living near to nuclear power stations in Germany have a significantly increased risk of cancer and leukaemia.
COMARE are currently undertaking a review of the KiKK study, as it throws doubt upon their previous research. This review is still in progress and until this has been completed and their report been made available for scrutiny, neither Horizon nor the Government are in a position to confirm that there is “no evidence for unusual aggregations of childhood cancers in populations living near nuclear power stations”. Indeed the most recent evidence suggests quite the opposite.
*COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment) is the independent Government advisory group advises the Government on medical aspects of radiation in the environment.
Uranium Supplies
The question of how long the world‟s resources of uranium will last has been a matter of considerable debate, although Horizon‟s suggestion that this is “250 years based on double current production” seems to be off the scale compared to many recent studies including:
Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich “The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction” September 9, 2009, which issues a warning to:
“all Western European countries, Japan and South-Korea which depend to almost 100% on stable uranium deliveries from far away. These countries should take one particular paragraph from the Red Book 2007 NEA press declaration very seriously: “At the end of 2006, world uranium production (39 603 tonnes) provided about 60% of world reactor requirements (66 500 tonnes) for the 435 commercial nuclear reactors in operation. The gap between production and requirements was made up by secondary sources drawn down from government and commercial inventories (such as the dismantling of over 12,000 nuclear warheads and the re-enrichment of uranium tails). Most secondary resources are now in decline and the gap will increasingly need to be closed by new production. Given the long lead time typically required to bring new resources into production, uranium supply shortfalls could develop if production facilities are not implemented in a timely manner.”
A government report from the year “A Technological Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems” points out that the known conventional uranium resources will only last between 30-50 years. Thus, a new conventional nuclear power plant which might be operational in 2020 might only obtain uranium fuel up to sometime between 2040 and 2050.
The IAEA report “Analysis of uranium supply to 2050”. The authors of this report quantify the uranium deficit with respect to the RAR numbers and for different scenarios about the future use for nuclear energy. The estimated deficit is given in units of million of tons of uranium. Many details about the potential contributions of uranium from a large number of unconventional resources are presented in this report and the remarks about sea water uranium are of particular significance to your response:
“Research on extracting uranium from sea water will undoubtedly continue, but at the current costs sea water as a potential commercial source of uranium is little more than a curiosity.”
However, our concerns are not only over whether the world‟s uranium resources are sufficient to support a programme of nuclear new build, but also:
The fact that nuclear energy will leave this country heavily reliant on supplies of uranium from other countries. Whereas a programme of renewable energy would mean we become totally self-reliant.
The carbon intensive process of mining and transporting uranium. Which seems to be a matter not being given proper consideration in the decision making process to proceed with this nuclear new build programme. This is a very serious and material consideration which should be taken into account. This, particularly when added to the total carbon footprint of the construction, waste management and decommisioning process, calls into question the whole claim that nuclear power is actually „low carbon‟.
Requirement for cooling towers at Shepperdine, Nr Oldbury
It is clear that the requirement for cooling towers is of serious concern to many many people in this area. Many peoples views on this have been made at various stages, in particular see for example the statement made by Lord John Cope in the House of Lords on the 9th March 2010*.
It is vital that Horizon complete their “studies” to clarify their design options as soon as possible and we question why this is taking so long. Based on the information provided thus far it is obvious to us that neither solution proposed is acceptable.
The natural draft towers will be amongst the highest of their kind in the world and the highest structure in the UK outside London! Against their back drop they will heavily dominate this area spoiling every view across the Severn Vale, spoiling 2 separate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (The Wye Valley and The Cotswolds). No amount of landscaping can possibly mitigate the devastating damage of these hugely dominant structures and the sooner Horizon accept this the better. We can not understand why Horizon have not already ruled this option out for this reason. It is not really necessary for any further detailed assessment; it is blatantly obvious to everyone in the area that the size of these towers will be visually unacceptable!
The forced draught towers will, we understand be significantly less efficient and significantly more expensive. So much so we believe they will call into question both the sustainability and economics of the project. From the public meeting held by Horizon last month we all learned that this is not their preferred option for financial reasons. Horizon need to get on with their “studies”, decide whether or not this option is sustainable/viable and be open on this issue as soon as possible.
Furthermore we also maintain that the noise impact generated by the forced tower fans on the residents of Shepperdine and other communties close by will be unacceptable.
We note that you will be fully assessing the effects of the water vapour plumes and look forward to seeing this assessment in the near future.
*http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100309-gc0001.htm#10030975000024
Cumulative Impact of Other Infrastructure Projects for the Area
We note that the decommissioning of the existing site and the possible Severn Barrage scheme will be considered as a part of your EIA studies. Although we consider that it does not need much further study to see that the combination of the decommissioning and the Horizon new build schemes alone will give rise to impacts that will be completely intolerable to the local community.
Furthermore, with regard to any Severn Barrage scheme, it is difficult to see how this can be done effectively until the details of such a scheme are known. We consider that any proposal for Oldbury should be delayed until the picture is clearer on this nationally significant project.
Previous end state consultation carried out by the existing power station
We find Horizon‟s dismissive comment on the 2006 End State Consultation quite strange, particularly the suggestion that:
“The consultation was on the "end state‟ of the land and not on what should happen to the land once the „end state‟ had been reached. This means that it was focused on getting the land to a desired state that could be reused for any purpose deemed suitable in the future.”
In this consultation local residents living within a 5 mile radius of the site were asked to decide on their preference from the following options:
“Option A - A Landscaped site; involving the removal of all buildings and structures to 1m below ground level, the removal of all materials, land remediation for unrestricted use, landscaping and sowing the site to grass (potential for recreational or agricultural future use)
Option B - Site left to nature; involving the removal of all buildings and structures to 1m below ground level, the removal of all materials, land remediation for unrestricted use and leaving the site to be reclaimed by nature (potential for recreational or agricultural future use)
Option C - Site left for redevelopment; possibly leaving some buildings, the removal of all materials, the remediation of accessible land as required for unrestricted use and leaving the site bare for subsequent development (potential for commercial, educational, leisure/ mixed development)
Option D - Leaving the site under partial institutional control; possibly leaving some buildings for reuse, removing some materials and leaving part of the site for the disposal of waste or non-fossil fuel power generation resulting in some restrictions on access and/or use (non controlled areas left with the potential for a range of future uses)
Option E - Leaving the site under full institutional control; leaving some buildings, leaving some/ most materials resulting in limited or no access (implied future-use such as material/ waste storage and/ or non-fossil fuel power generation)”
This gave the respondents a choice between different end states and detailed future uses for each end state scenario. It is obvious that the respondent would choose the end state on the basis of the acceptability to them of the specified future use for each end state! By definintion the survey therefore resulted in a clear representation of local opinion on how they wished to see the land used in the future. We can not see how Horizon can possibly consider this survey in any other way.
The report published on this consultation clearly showed that a far greater proportion of respondents favoured options A and B than options D or E. It is quite clear that the results of this consultation, which respresented the clear views of local residents, have been totally ignored. Horizon‟s comments dismissing this earlier consultation are unacceptable and merely serve to demonstrate that no one is genuinely listening to the concerns of this community.
Impact of temporary workers on this community during construction
Whilst it is noted that Horizon will be looking into the options for workers‟ accomodation and transport during the construction of the proposed development, this does nothing to alleviate the concerns of this community.
It is impossible to fully mitigate the effects of such a large influx of workers to the area and our concerns remain unabated by the comments made.
Impact on local transport infrastructure
We also note that Horizon are currently carrying out a Transport Options Study which is looking at a range of options, including road, river and rail transport for bringing in materials and construction workers to site. However, again this does little to alleviate our concerns.
Groud Investigation Studies
We note the brief comments made which confirm that the recent investigations have revealed similar ground conditions to the existing station. However, this does not alleviate our concerns particularly bearing in mind the long history of ground subsidence problems experienced at the existing station.
It would be more helpful to the community if the ground investigation report could be provided.
Connection to the National Grid
The response provided provides us with no new information.
These works will have a significant impact on the countryside and will add to the huge disruption to this area. Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the many residents living along these power line routes have yet been consulted on this matter, despite the fact that the increased capacity will have a serious impact on their health.
Although Horizon‟s response states that “National Grid… will be carrying out their own consultation process in due course”, this has given rise to further confusion as we all learned from Horizon‟s public meeting last month that they seem to believe that consent is not required for these works and therefore public consultation will not be necessary. Clarity on this matter is required urgently.
Flood Risks
We note that there is a requirement to protect the site from a 1 in 10,000 year flood event. Given that the site carries clear evidence of historic flood damage from the effects of catastrophic tsunami flooding from the early 1600s, it is difficult to imagine what flood protection measures can be provided to protect the new power station from a tsunami.
Not withstanding this, the site is in a high level risk flood zone and we have serious concerns that the extensive flood defence measures required to protect the new station and its road access will significantly add to the devastating impacts of this proposal.
Furthermore, the risk of collateral flooding resulting from the flood defences required at the site preventing effective drainage of surface water from further inland needs to be fully assessed. The implications of this can not be overstated.
National interest outweighs other considerations in the siting of the new nuclear power stations in the draft NPS statement
The response from Horizon does not respond to the concerns expressed on this issue. It would be more helpful if they could explain how they believe that the draft NPS allows the IPC sufficient means to decide whether Visual Impacts (for example) will over ride the National Interest.
Site Access
The site access is already an issue. Horizon are using Shepperdine Road as access to the site compound currently located beyond Job‟s Green Farm. They have recently applied for planning permission to keep this compound for a further 4 years. We feel that they should be constructing a new access road from the existing power station road immediately to reduce the number of lorries and heavy plant from using Shepperdine Road, which is totally unsuitable for such traffic. April 2010
You can see Horizons original responses at http://www.horizonnuclearpower.com/downloads/horizon-env-ecoping-report.pdf
If anybody requires this by email please contact oldburynuclear@btinternet.com
EIA SCOPING REPORT: ‘RESPONSE TO PUBLIC FEEDBACK’ ISSUED BY HORIZON NUCLEAR POWER MARCH 2010
Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy has considered the above document (which is attached to this document for reference) and comment on the responses provided by Horizon Nuclear Power below:
Waste
The Government‟s MRWS programme (referred to in Horizon‟s response), and in particular its identification of a suitable site for a national deep geological disposal facility for waste is not at all advanced and there is much uncertainty as to whether this will ever happen. We highlight the following comments from CoRWM*‟s response to the Government‟s draft National Policy Statement for energy (NPS) consultation on the question of whether they agreed that effective arrangements exist or will exist to manage and dispose of waste that will be produced by new nuclear power stations in the UK:
“CoRWM considers that the Government should take into account when making this judgement that, while the current UK process for siting a geological disposal facility (GDF) for HAW is sound, it is at an early stage. Its success depends on finding a combination (or combinations if more than one GDF is needed) of a willing host community and a site that is technically suitable to hold enough HAW. At present, it is uncertain whether the appropriate combination (or combinations) of community and site can be found in this country. This uncertainty applies to existing and committed HAW, as well as to new build HAW, and is likely to persist for many years.”
In their response CoRWM go on to give their reasons for the above statement and in particular we draw your attention to the following:
“It is assumed in the draft NPS documents that spent fuel from new nuclear power stations will be disposed of by emplacement in a GDF. In order to establish a GDF it is necessary to find a site that is technically suitable in an area where the local community is willing to host a GDF. The current siting process in the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme is designed to achieve this combination of willing community and technically suitable site (Defra et al., 2008). The process is sound but it is at an early stage (CoRWM doc. 2550). Only one part of the country has expressed an interest in entering the siting process and it has not yet taken a “Decision to Participate”. If and when it does so, there is no guarantee that a technically suitable site can be found in the area, either for a GDF to hold existing and committed HAW and new build HAW, or for two or more GDFs each of which would hold some of these wastes. Surface-based investigations must be carried out to identify potentially suitable sites. If one or more such sites are found, it will only be after underground investigations that will take many years that a decision can be taken as to whether to construct a GDF (or GDFs) (CoRWM doc. 2543).
Government has encouraged other parts of the country to express an interest in entering discussions about hosting a GDF but so far none has done so.”
In the light of this uncertainty, this community‟s concerns can not be re-dressed by Horizon‟s response.
*CoRWM is the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management set up by the UK Government in November 2003 and advises Government on Radioactive Waste Management etc.
Health Risks
The COMARE* reports to which Horizon refer in their response statement are out of date and have been superceeded by the more recent and more comprehensive German KiKK study, commissioned by the German government, which looked at all German nuclear power stations and found that children living near to nuclear power stations in Germany have a significantly increased risk of cancer and leukaemia.
COMARE are currently undertaking a review of the KiKK study, as it throws doubt upon their previous research. This review is still in progress and until this has been completed and their report been made available for scrutiny, neither Horizon nor the Government are in a position to confirm that there is “no evidence for unusual aggregations of childhood cancers in populations living near nuclear power stations”. Indeed the most recent evidence suggests quite the opposite.
*COMARE (Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment) is the independent Government advisory group advises the Government on medical aspects of radiation in the environment.
Uranium Supplies
The question of how long the world‟s resources of uranium will last has been a matter of considerable debate, although Horizon‟s suggestion that this is “250 years based on double current production” seems to be off the scale compared to many recent studies including:
Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich “The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction” September 9, 2009, which issues a warning to:
“all Western European countries, Japan and South-Korea which depend to almost 100% on stable uranium deliveries from far away. These countries should take one particular paragraph from the Red Book 2007 NEA press declaration very seriously: “At the end of 2006, world uranium production (39 603 tonnes) provided about 60% of world reactor requirements (66 500 tonnes) for the 435 commercial nuclear reactors in operation. The gap between production and requirements was made up by secondary sources drawn down from government and commercial inventories (such as the dismantling of over 12,000 nuclear warheads and the re-enrichment of uranium tails). Most secondary resources are now in decline and the gap will increasingly need to be closed by new production. Given the long lead time typically required to bring new resources into production, uranium supply shortfalls could develop if production facilities are not implemented in a timely manner.”
A government report from the year “A Technological Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems” points out that the known conventional uranium resources will only last between 30-50 years. Thus, a new conventional nuclear power plant which might be operational in 2020 might only obtain uranium fuel up to sometime between 2040 and 2050.
The IAEA report “Analysis of uranium supply to 2050”. The authors of this report quantify the uranium deficit with respect to the RAR numbers and for different scenarios about the future use for nuclear energy. The estimated deficit is given in units of million of tons of uranium. Many details about the potential contributions of uranium from a large number of unconventional resources are presented in this report and the remarks about sea water uranium are of particular significance to your response:
“Research on extracting uranium from sea water will undoubtedly continue, but at the current costs sea water as a potential commercial source of uranium is little more than a curiosity.”
However, our concerns are not only over whether the world‟s uranium resources are sufficient to support a programme of nuclear new build, but also:
The fact that nuclear energy will leave this country heavily reliant on supplies of uranium from other countries. Whereas a programme of renewable energy would mean we become totally self-reliant.
The carbon intensive process of mining and transporting uranium. Which seems to be a matter not being given proper consideration in the decision making process to proceed with this nuclear new build programme. This is a very serious and material consideration which should be taken into account. This, particularly when added to the total carbon footprint of the construction, waste management and decommisioning process, calls into question the whole claim that nuclear power is actually „low carbon‟.
Requirement for cooling towers at Shepperdine, Nr Oldbury
It is clear that the requirement for cooling towers is of serious concern to many many people in this area. Many peoples views on this have been made at various stages, in particular see for example the statement made by Lord John Cope in the House of Lords on the 9th March 2010*.
It is vital that Horizon complete their “studies” to clarify their design options as soon as possible and we question why this is taking so long. Based on the information provided thus far it is obvious to us that neither solution proposed is acceptable.
The natural draft towers will be amongst the highest of their kind in the world and the highest structure in the UK outside London! Against their back drop they will heavily dominate this area spoiling every view across the Severn Vale, spoiling 2 separate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (The Wye Valley and The Cotswolds). No amount of landscaping can possibly mitigate the devastating damage of these hugely dominant structures and the sooner Horizon accept this the better. We can not understand why Horizon have not already ruled this option out for this reason. It is not really necessary for any further detailed assessment; it is blatantly obvious to everyone in the area that the size of these towers will be visually unacceptable!
The forced draught towers will, we understand be significantly less efficient and significantly more expensive. So much so we believe they will call into question both the sustainability and economics of the project. From the public meeting held by Horizon last month we all learned that this is not their preferred option for financial reasons. Horizon need to get on with their “studies”, decide whether or not this option is sustainable/viable and be open on this issue as soon as possible.
Furthermore we also maintain that the noise impact generated by the forced tower fans on the residents of Shepperdine and other communties close by will be unacceptable.
We note that you will be fully assessing the effects of the water vapour plumes and look forward to seeing this assessment in the near future.
*http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100309-gc0001.htm#10030975000024
Cumulative Impact of Other Infrastructure Projects for the Area
We note that the decommissioning of the existing site and the possible Severn Barrage scheme will be considered as a part of your EIA studies. Although we consider that it does not need much further study to see that the combination of the decommissioning and the Horizon new build schemes alone will give rise to impacts that will be completely intolerable to the local community.
Furthermore, with regard to any Severn Barrage scheme, it is difficult to see how this can be done effectively until the details of such a scheme are known. We consider that any proposal for Oldbury should be delayed until the picture is clearer on this nationally significant project.
Previous end state consultation carried out by the existing power station
We find Horizon‟s dismissive comment on the 2006 End State Consultation quite strange, particularly the suggestion that:
“The consultation was on the "end state‟ of the land and not on what should happen to the land once the „end state‟ had been reached. This means that it was focused on getting the land to a desired state that could be reused for any purpose deemed suitable in the future.”
In this consultation local residents living within a 5 mile radius of the site were asked to decide on their preference from the following options:
“Option A - A Landscaped site; involving the removal of all buildings and structures to 1m below ground level, the removal of all materials, land remediation for unrestricted use, landscaping and sowing the site to grass (potential for recreational or agricultural future use)
Option B - Site left to nature; involving the removal of all buildings and structures to 1m below ground level, the removal of all materials, land remediation for unrestricted use and leaving the site to be reclaimed by nature (potential for recreational or agricultural future use)
Option C - Site left for redevelopment; possibly leaving some buildings, the removal of all materials, the remediation of accessible land as required for unrestricted use and leaving the site bare for subsequent development (potential for commercial, educational, leisure/ mixed development)
Option D - Leaving the site under partial institutional control; possibly leaving some buildings for reuse, removing some materials and leaving part of the site for the disposal of waste or non-fossil fuel power generation resulting in some restrictions on access and/or use (non controlled areas left with the potential for a range of future uses)
Option E - Leaving the site under full institutional control; leaving some buildings, leaving some/ most materials resulting in limited or no access (implied future-use such as material/ waste storage and/ or non-fossil fuel power generation)”
This gave the respondents a choice between different end states and detailed future uses for each end state scenario. It is obvious that the respondent would choose the end state on the basis of the acceptability to them of the specified future use for each end state! By definintion the survey therefore resulted in a clear representation of local opinion on how they wished to see the land used in the future. We can not see how Horizon can possibly consider this survey in any other way.
The report published on this consultation clearly showed that a far greater proportion of respondents favoured options A and B than options D or E. It is quite clear that the results of this consultation, which respresented the clear views of local residents, have been totally ignored. Horizon‟s comments dismissing this earlier consultation are unacceptable and merely serve to demonstrate that no one is genuinely listening to the concerns of this community.
Impact of temporary workers on this community during construction
Whilst it is noted that Horizon will be looking into the options for workers‟ accomodation and transport during the construction of the proposed development, this does nothing to alleviate the concerns of this community.
It is impossible to fully mitigate the effects of such a large influx of workers to the area and our concerns remain unabated by the comments made.
Impact on local transport infrastructure
We also note that Horizon are currently carrying out a Transport Options Study which is looking at a range of options, including road, river and rail transport for bringing in materials and construction workers to site. However, again this does little to alleviate our concerns.
Groud Investigation Studies
We note the brief comments made which confirm that the recent investigations have revealed similar ground conditions to the existing station. However, this does not alleviate our concerns particularly bearing in mind the long history of ground subsidence problems experienced at the existing station.
It would be more helpful to the community if the ground investigation report could be provided.
Connection to the National Grid
The response provided provides us with no new information.
These works will have a significant impact on the countryside and will add to the huge disruption to this area. Furthermore, it should be noted that none of the many residents living along these power line routes have yet been consulted on this matter, despite the fact that the increased capacity will have a serious impact on their health.
Although Horizon‟s response states that “National Grid… will be carrying out their own consultation process in due course”, this has given rise to further confusion as we all learned from Horizon‟s public meeting last month that they seem to believe that consent is not required for these works and therefore public consultation will not be necessary. Clarity on this matter is required urgently.
Flood Risks
We note that there is a requirement to protect the site from a 1 in 10,000 year flood event. Given that the site carries clear evidence of historic flood damage from the effects of catastrophic tsunami flooding from the early 1600s, it is difficult to imagine what flood protection measures can be provided to protect the new power station from a tsunami.
Not withstanding this, the site is in a high level risk flood zone and we have serious concerns that the extensive flood defence measures required to protect the new station and its road access will significantly add to the devastating impacts of this proposal.
Furthermore, the risk of collateral flooding resulting from the flood defences required at the site preventing effective drainage of surface water from further inland needs to be fully assessed. The implications of this can not be overstated.
National interest outweighs other considerations in the siting of the new nuclear power stations in the draft NPS statement
The response from Horizon does not respond to the concerns expressed on this issue. It would be more helpful if they could explain how they believe that the draft NPS allows the IPC sufficient means to decide whether Visual Impacts (for example) will over ride the National Interest.
Site Access
The site access is already an issue. Horizon are using Shepperdine Road as access to the site compound currently located beyond Job‟s Green Farm. They have recently applied for planning permission to keep this compound for a further 4 years. We feel that they should be constructing a new access road from the existing power station road immediately to reduce the number of lorries and heavy plant from using Shepperdine Road, which is totally unsuitable for such traffic. April 2010
You can see Horizons original responses at http://www.horizonnuclearpower.com/downloads/horizon-env-ecoping-report.pdf
Gordon and Andrew Brown....Any link with the PM and the nuclear industry?
Following yesterdays description of Gillian from Rochdale as a bigot its worth highlighting this article from The Times about Andrew Browns (Gordons Brother) involvement as a frontrunner in the nuclear industry.
We should all form our own views how nuclear suddenly became the major way forward in electricity in 2006? Any coincidence?
We should all form our own views how nuclear suddenly became the major way forward in electricity in 2006? Any coincidence?
Business big shot: Andrew Brown
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Prof Steve Thomas Says Confirms Offshore Wind is a Cheaper Option Than Nuclear
Professor Stephen Thomas spoke at a SANE meeting in Oldbury in September 2009 when he explained to an astonished audience how expensive nuclear power is to generate.
This is a letter from the FT
Nuclear’s cost advantage over wind is suspect
Published: April 28 2010 03:00
Last updated: April 28 2010 03:00
From Prof Steve Thomas.
Sir, I am surprised that your editorial “The doubts about the Lib Dems” (April 23) claims that offshore wind is “is roughly three times as expensive as nuclear to build”. A recent survey funded by the European Commission (“Wind Energy – The Facts”) under its Intelligent Europe programme found the average construction cost in 2008 money of the five offshore wind farms completed in the UK from 2003 to 2008 was about €2,200 (about £1,900) per kilowatt of installed capacity.
The UK government, in its 2008 white paper on nuclear power, “Meeting the Energy Challenge”, assumed nuclear plants would cost £1,250/kW. So, if we take the UK government's nuclear cost estimate, offshore wind is only 50 per cent more expensive than nuclear. However, if we look at the reported prices bid at various calls for tender in the past two to three years for nuclear capacity in, for example, Canada, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates, this figure is highly suspect.
The nuclear vendors competing in the UK are offering prices of at least $5,000/kW or £3300/kW. This is in line with forecast costs from US utilities planning to build nuclear plants in the US. If we compare these more soundly based estimates of nuclear with out-turn costs for offshore wind, offshore wind is only two-thirds the cost of nuclear power.
This comparison is of pre-construction estimates for nuclear with actual costs for offshore wind. Given that it would be a rarity for a nuclear project to come in on cost, the likelihood is that the cost advantage of offshore wind over nuclear would be even larger.
Steve Thomas,
Professor of Energy Policy,
Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU),
Business School,
University of Greenwich,
London SE10, UK
This is a letter from the FT
Nuclear’s cost advantage over wind is suspect
Published: April 28 2010 03:00
Last updated: April 28 2010 03:00
From Prof Steve Thomas.
Sir, I am surprised that your editorial “The doubts about the Lib Dems” (April 23) claims that offshore wind is “is roughly three times as expensive as nuclear to build”. A recent survey funded by the European Commission (“Wind Energy – The Facts”) under its Intelligent Europe programme found the average construction cost in 2008 money of the five offshore wind farms completed in the UK from 2003 to 2008 was about €2,200 (about £1,900) per kilowatt of installed capacity.
The UK government, in its 2008 white paper on nuclear power, “Meeting the Energy Challenge”, assumed nuclear plants would cost £1,250/kW. So, if we take the UK government's nuclear cost estimate, offshore wind is only 50 per cent more expensive than nuclear. However, if we look at the reported prices bid at various calls for tender in the past two to three years for nuclear capacity in, for example, Canada, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates, this figure is highly suspect.
The nuclear vendors competing in the UK are offering prices of at least $5,000/kW or £3300/kW. This is in line with forecast costs from US utilities planning to build nuclear plants in the US. If we compare these more soundly based estimates of nuclear with out-turn costs for offshore wind, offshore wind is only two-thirds the cost of nuclear power.
This comparison is of pre-construction estimates for nuclear with actual costs for offshore wind. Given that it would be a rarity for a nuclear project to come in on cost, the likelihood is that the cost advantage of offshore wind over nuclear would be even larger.
Steve Thomas,
Professor of Energy Policy,
Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU),
Business School,
University of Greenwich,
London SE10, UK
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
BBC Radio 4 Interview with Reg Illingworth os SANE and Tim Proudler of Horizon Nuclear Power
Yesterday I was interviewed by Ed Prenderville of the Today programme of BBC Radio 4.
It was featured on the programme today along with an interview with Tim Proudler of Horizon.
The link to the feature is http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8645000/8645834.stm
The interviews about Oldbury start at about 4 minutes. into the clip.
It was featured on the programme today along with an interview with Tim Proudler of Horizon.
The link to the feature is http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8645000/8645834.stm
The interviews about Oldbury start at about 4 minutes. into the clip.
Saturday, 24 April 2010
In an online article yesterday Dr Paul Dorfman explains further why nuclear "Justification" isnt enough and calls for an Indepedent Inquiry
"Why nuclear "Justification" isn't enough
Posted online by Paul Dorfman - 23 April 2010
New build nuclear reactors will escape proper Parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot be right.
The nuclear industry want to build over ten new nuclear reactors in the UK. Each of these reactors will have 2.5 times the radiological inventory of Sizewell B, the biggest reactor in the UK.
Government figures state that a substantial new nuclear re-build will provide 4 per cent of our energy, and so halt only 4 per cent of our CO2 emissions. The estimated cost to taxpayers of decommissioning our current reactors and dealing with our present nuclear waste has mounted from £50bn to £73bn over the last five years.
The actual costs will be over £100bn.
Nuclear "Justification" is a high level assessment about whether the benefits of new nuclear build outweigh the health detriments. Justification is a legal regulatory requirement under EU law - it must be done before reactors can be approved. Once the Justification decision has been taken it will be all but impossible to re-open nuclear policy.
This will not be subject to any Parliamentary scrutiny until after a decision has been made. However, if you don't know the reactor design and can't prove you can dispose of the radioactive waste, how on earth can you know the release?
And if this is so, which it is, how can you expect to be in compliance with the law? Unfortunately this is the position that the Office of Nuclear development at the Department of Energy and Climate Change find themselves.
This means that government is about to take a decision on the "Justification" of more nuclear power when significant "what if" issues that are tied to health impact - such as reactor design and siting, vulnerability to attack, radiation waste, radiation risk, reactor decommissioning - have not been resolved.
Failure to do this leaves the government open to legal challenge and leads to hostility and mistrust of any future energy policy decision.
At this politically sensitive and strategic time for UK energy futures, whether you are for, against, or haven't made your mind up about new nuclear reactors on the UK - this critical decision must be dealt with openly and fairly to get a better result for everyone by generating public trust in the outcome.
Because the Justification of new nuclear power in the UK represents a key issue for trust in government energy policy and the control of nuclear risk, we believe the Government should hold an Independent Inquiry, as allowed for under the regulations governing Justification: The Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004 (No. 1769), Regulation 17.
Join us.
Dr Paul Dorfman is Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Energy Policy Research Fellow, facilitates the Nuclear Consultation Group, Member of MOD Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) Steering Group (MSDPSG), Steering Group Member SAFEGROUNDS (Safety and Environmental Guidance for Remediation of Nuclear and Defence Sites), and served as Secretary to the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE)."
Posted online by Paul Dorfman - 23 April 2010
New build nuclear reactors will escape proper Parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot be right.
The nuclear industry want to build over ten new nuclear reactors in the UK. Each of these reactors will have 2.5 times the radiological inventory of Sizewell B, the biggest reactor in the UK.
Government figures state that a substantial new nuclear re-build will provide 4 per cent of our energy, and so halt only 4 per cent of our CO2 emissions. The estimated cost to taxpayers of decommissioning our current reactors and dealing with our present nuclear waste has mounted from £50bn to £73bn over the last five years.
The actual costs will be over £100bn.
Nuclear "Justification" is a high level assessment about whether the benefits of new nuclear build outweigh the health detriments. Justification is a legal regulatory requirement under EU law - it must be done before reactors can be approved. Once the Justification decision has been taken it will be all but impossible to re-open nuclear policy.
This will not be subject to any Parliamentary scrutiny until after a decision has been made. However, if you don't know the reactor design and can't prove you can dispose of the radioactive waste, how on earth can you know the release?
And if this is so, which it is, how can you expect to be in compliance with the law? Unfortunately this is the position that the Office of Nuclear development at the Department of Energy and Climate Change find themselves.
This means that government is about to take a decision on the "Justification" of more nuclear power when significant "what if" issues that are tied to health impact - such as reactor design and siting, vulnerability to attack, radiation waste, radiation risk, reactor decommissioning - have not been resolved.
Failure to do this leaves the government open to legal challenge and leads to hostility and mistrust of any future energy policy decision.
At this politically sensitive and strategic time for UK energy futures, whether you are for, against, or haven't made your mind up about new nuclear reactors on the UK - this critical decision must be dealt with openly and fairly to get a better result for everyone by generating public trust in the outcome.
Because the Justification of new nuclear power in the UK represents a key issue for trust in government energy policy and the control of nuclear risk, we believe the Government should hold an Independent Inquiry, as allowed for under the regulations governing Justification: The Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004 (No. 1769), Regulation 17.
Join us.
Dr Paul Dorfman is Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust Energy Policy Research Fellow, facilitates the Nuclear Consultation Group, Member of MOD Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) Steering Group (MSDPSG), Steering Group Member SAFEGROUNDS (Safety and Environmental Guidance for Remediation of Nuclear and Defence Sites), and served as Secretary to the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE)."
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Latest News - Our chairman is stuck abroad but dont worry SANE works on
You may have noticed the blog has been somewhat quiet for a week. This is because our Chairman went away on a business trip last week to China just before the Volcanic Ash cloud hit the UK and has been stuck in China ever since, unable to google or access the blog.
Rest assured SANE is still working in the back ground and the normal blog service should be resumed early next week when Reg returns.
We are delighted to see that Eon / RWE / Horizon have recognised the problems with their proposals for Shepperdine, Oldbury and have therefore delayed their IPC application for this site until 2014. This has at last now formally been confirmed on the IPC website.
We are working on our response to their comments on the responses received during their consultation before Christmas and hope to publish this in the next few weeks.
We are now planning our post election strategy for the next government. Our aim being to ensure that Shepperdine is removed from the National Policy Statement prior to designation. We assume this will be debated in parliament after the election, as was recommended by the Parliamentary Scrutiny Report on the NPS last month. It is vital that the views expressed by our group and individuals in the area together with those expressed by the local parish councils and South Glos Council during the DECC consultation earlier this year are properly taken into account by the next government before the NPS is designated. We will therefore do all we can to ensure that the next government are aware of these views and therefore recognise that the site is totally unsuitable for this massive scale proposal.
Keep watching this space for further news and updates.
Rest assured SANE is still working in the back ground and the normal blog service should be resumed early next week when Reg returns.
We are delighted to see that Eon / RWE / Horizon have recognised the problems with their proposals for Shepperdine, Oldbury and have therefore delayed their IPC application for this site until 2014. This has at last now formally been confirmed on the IPC website.
We are working on our response to their comments on the responses received during their consultation before Christmas and hope to publish this in the next few weeks.
We are now planning our post election strategy for the next government. Our aim being to ensure that Shepperdine is removed from the National Policy Statement prior to designation. We assume this will be debated in parliament after the election, as was recommended by the Parliamentary Scrutiny Report on the NPS last month. It is vital that the views expressed by our group and individuals in the area together with those expressed by the local parish councils and South Glos Council during the DECC consultation earlier this year are properly taken into account by the next government before the NPS is designated. We will therefore do all we can to ensure that the next government are aware of these views and therefore recognise that the site is totally unsuitable for this massive scale proposal.
Keep watching this space for further news and updates.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Community Upset by Horizons Sponsorship of Oldbury Fun Run
There is growing disquiet at Horizons sponsorship of The Oldbury Fun Run!
We are awaiting a comment from Keith Sullivan the Chairman of The Fun Run Committee to post on this blog and to send to the communities membership by email.
Surprisingly, we are still awaiting a comment from the CLIC Sargent Charity---We assume that they will not want their charity associated with Horizon Nuclear Power.
There is going to be ian article in a local newspaper very soon!
Further to our telephone conversation yesterday, I am also very shocked and disappointed with the decision taken by the fun run organisers to accept sponsorship from Horizon for the fun run, particularly given the problems with the massive scale of the project Horizon have proposed and the controversy this has now created locally. I accept that the fun run committee should not be participating in the debate locally. However, it should at least pay some respect to the concerns expressed by many of its fellow community members together with the local councils etc over this contentious proposal and not be seen to accept Horizon in the same way as Magnox or any other employer/ business in the area.
To treat Horizon as if they are no different to any other local business is quite wrong. Horizon are not yet operating in the area, they are no where near to operating in the area and may never be. There are many approval processes they have to go through yet, not least being the designation of the site by the government, yet to be debated in the House of Commons after the next election. The government have not even yet approved the NPS and a planning application will not be submitted for several years!
Horizon are proposing a scheme for a plant on such a massive scale that it will destroy the beauty of this area for ever. Many local people are very upset about this and for the fun run to accept Horizon as an operator in the area just like any other company here is an insult. It will also be seen as a political statement of acceptance of Horizon and their monster proposal by the fun run committee. The sponsorship money being offered by Horizon is tantamount to a bribe given to the people of Oldbury for accepting their proposal. Accepting this is therefore a political statement by the fun run organisers and they really should seek an alternative sponsor for this reason alone.
If the committee would like some help in locating an alternative sponsor, I am sure our members would be happy to assist in any way we can? How much is it exactly?
Hope you agree and can persuade the fun run committee to re-think this one!!
Kind regards
We are awaiting a comment from Keith Sullivan the Chairman of The Fun Run Committee to post on this blog and to send to the communities membership by email.
Surprisingly, we are still awaiting a comment from the CLIC Sargent Charity---We assume that they will not want their charity associated with Horizon Nuclear Power.
There is going to be ian article in a local newspaper very soon!
Further to our telephone conversation yesterday, I am also very shocked and disappointed with the decision taken by the fun run organisers to accept sponsorship from Horizon for the fun run, particularly given the problems with the massive scale of the project Horizon have proposed and the controversy this has now created locally. I accept that the fun run committee should not be participating in the debate locally. However, it should at least pay some respect to the concerns expressed by many of its fellow community members together with the local councils etc over this contentious proposal and not be seen to accept Horizon in the same way as Magnox or any other employer/ business in the area.
To treat Horizon as if they are no different to any other local business is quite wrong. Horizon are not yet operating in the area, they are no where near to operating in the area and may never be. There are many approval processes they have to go through yet, not least being the designation of the site by the government, yet to be debated in the House of Commons after the next election. The government have not even yet approved the NPS and a planning application will not be submitted for several years!
Horizon are proposing a scheme for a plant on such a massive scale that it will destroy the beauty of this area for ever. Many local people are very upset about this and for the fun run to accept Horizon as an operator in the area just like any other company here is an insult. It will also be seen as a political statement of acceptance of Horizon and their monster proposal by the fun run committee. The sponsorship money being offered by Horizon is tantamount to a bribe given to the people of Oldbury for accepting their proposal. Accepting this is therefore a political statement by the fun run organisers and they really should seek an alternative sponsor for this reason alone.
If the committee would like some help in locating an alternative sponsor, I am sure our members would be happy to assist in any way we can? How much is it exactly?
Hope you agree and can persuade the fun run committee to re-think this one!!
Kind regards
Robin Sharma an Lead Without Title----Learn from a great teacher-------
www.youtube.com
To buy the book go to: http://www.theleaderwhohadnotitle.com I'm asking for your help. I want this video to inspire / uplift many lives. And I want people from every walk of life all over the world to discover that they really can Lead Without a Title! ...
Monday, 12 April 2010
Low Level Radiation and Health Conference in Manchester in June
Please see the draft details of the conference.
DRAFT PROGRAMME
Saturday 19th, 2010 Saturday JUNE 19th, 2010
9.30-10: Registration
10.00 Welcome to Manchester
Session Chair:
Sean Morris, NFLA secretary
ALICE STEWART LECTURE
10.10 Childhood leukemia in the vicinity of German Nuclear Power facilities - results and consequences of the KiKK study. Professor Wolfgang Weiss (German Federal Office for Radiation Protection)
10.55 Questions and Answers
Theme 1: Radiation Risks
11.10 Radiation-induced bystander effects – latest news
Dr Carmel Mothersill (McMaster University, Canada)
11, 30 COFFEE
11.50 Shape of the dose-response relationship and its impact on leukemia risk, Dr Alfred Koerblein (Environmental Institute, Munich)
12.10 Radiation biology of environmental and medical exposures
Professor Eric Wright (University of Dundee)
12.30 Chernobyl and Epidemiology TBC
Professor Richard Wakeford (University of Manchester)
12.50 – 1.10 Questions and discussion
1.15-2.00 LUNCH
2.00: Workshops:
Very low levels of radiation and health effects, John Urquhart, PhD student, Open University
Forgotten Heroes? A Case Study of Britain’s Cold War Atomic Test Veterans and the Burden of Proof. Tracey Morris, University of St Andrews
Third workshop TBC
3.30: TEA
4.0 Theme 2: Managing Radioactive wastes
Session Chair: Pete Roche, Energy and Environment Consultancy Edinburgh
Geological Repository – the holes in the argument
Dr Rachel Western, Former nuclear researcher Friends of the Earth and NIREX
4.20 UK Uranium supplies: health and environmental impacts
Peter Diehl, WISE Uranium website
4.40 -5 Questions and discussion
7.00 Evening meal and social, pub Briton’s Protection, 50 Gt Bridgewater St, Manchester M1 5DL.
Sunday June 20th
11.00 Strategy workshop Briton’s Protection pub
Briton’s Protection pub which is about 8 minutes walk from the Friends Meeting House behind the Bridgewater Concert Hall - 50 Great Bridgewater Street, Manchester, M1 5DL, telephone 0161 236 5895. Lunches £5-£7 a head.
The UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities was established in November 1980 and reaches its 30th anniversary this year. It is the primary local government organisation on nuclear issues. It takes a leading role within local government and lobbying central government on nuclear power, nuclear safety and nuclear weapons proliferation issues. It seeks to build a nuclear weapons free world, and is a close partner of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki led Mayors for Peace. It also opposes expansion of the nuclear fuel cycle - seeing renewable energy, microgeneration and energy efficiency as a cleaner and more sustainable alternative.
The NFLA has taken a continuing interest in the technical, political and scientific debate on the effects of low level radiation on health and has produced many policy briefings and supported considerable independent research on this important issue. It has recently submitted to the Government its concern on the effects of low level radiation around nuclear sites and urged the UK Government to lengthen the consultation on the justification of new nuclear power stations to adequately consider the findings of the COMARE commission into the German government's KIKK report. It campaigns for public safety, health and environmental protection.
The Low Level Radiation and Health Conference was set up in 1985 by members of the public keen to find out more about these issues and so 2010 celebrates its 25th silver anniversary. Since its inception, the conference has been organised by a different voluntary group of members of the public and the event has rotated to different parts of the UK.
The conference is a unique event bringing together members of the nuclear industry, Government organisations, monitoring agencies, Local authorities, medics, academic researchers, health workers, environmental health officers, campaigners and interested lay people. It is an educational event which aims to provide up to the minute research via presentations by a range of people from government, regulators, industry and academics thus making these issues accessible to as broad a range of people as possible by keeping the costs as low as reasonably practicable.
Conference Organising Group:
Contact: Janine Allis-Smith janine@core.furness.co.uk
Sean Morris, Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretary
Email: s.morris4@manchester.gov.uk
Jill Sutcliffe, 01403 700395, jillandmark@lineone.net
Silver Anniversary
21st Low Level Radiation and Health Conference
1985-2010
Nuclear energy – new build and new radiation paradigm
Nuclear Free Local Authorities
1980-2010
Low Level Radiation
Low Level Radiation
and Health Conference
1985-2010
Manchester Quaker Meeting Hall, 6 Mount St, Manchester
Jointly held by Low Radiation and Health Conference and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA)
DRAFT PROGRAMME
Saturday 19th, 2010 Saturday JUNE 19th, 2010
9.30-10: Registration
10.00 Welcome to Manchester
Session Chair:
Sean Morris, NFLA secretary
ALICE STEWART LECTURE
10.10 Childhood leukemia in the vicinity of German Nuclear Power facilities - results and consequences of the KiKK study. Professor Wolfgang Weiss (German Federal Office for Radiation Protection)
10.55 Questions and Answers
Theme 1: Radiation Risks
11.10 Radiation-induced bystander effects – latest news
Dr Carmel Mothersill (McMaster University, Canada)
11, 30 COFFEE
11.50 Shape of the dose-response relationship and its impact on leukemia risk, Dr Alfred Koerblein (Environmental Institute, Munich)
12.10 Radiation biology of environmental and medical exposures
Professor Eric Wright (University of Dundee)
12.30 Chernobyl and Epidemiology TBC
Professor Richard Wakeford (University of Manchester)
12.50 – 1.10 Questions and discussion
1.15-2.00 LUNCH
2.00: Workshops:
Very low levels of radiation and health effects, John Urquhart, PhD student, Open University
Forgotten Heroes? A Case Study of Britain’s Cold War Atomic Test Veterans and the Burden of Proof. Tracey Morris, University of St Andrews
Third workshop TBC
3.30: TEA
4.0 Theme 2: Managing Radioactive wastes
Session Chair: Pete Roche, Energy and Environment Consultancy Edinburgh
Geological Repository – the holes in the argument
Dr Rachel Western, Former nuclear researcher Friends of the Earth and NIREX
4.20 UK Uranium supplies: health and environmental impacts
Peter Diehl, WISE Uranium website
4.40 -5 Questions and discussion
7.00 Evening meal and social, pub Briton’s Protection, 50 Gt Bridgewater St, Manchester M1 5DL.
Sunday June 20th
11.00 Strategy workshop Briton’s Protection pub
Briton’s Protection pub which is about 8 minutes walk from the Friends Meeting House behind the Bridgewater Concert Hall - 50 Great Bridgewater Street, Manchester, M1 5DL, telephone 0161 236 5895. Lunches £5-£7 a head.
The UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities was established in November 1980 and reaches its 30th anniversary this year. It is the primary local government organisation on nuclear issues. It takes a leading role within local government and lobbying central government on nuclear power, nuclear safety and nuclear weapons proliferation issues. It seeks to build a nuclear weapons free world, and is a close partner of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki led Mayors for Peace. It also opposes expansion of the nuclear fuel cycle - seeing renewable energy, microgeneration and energy efficiency as a cleaner and more sustainable alternative.
The NFLA has taken a continuing interest in the technical, political and scientific debate on the effects of low level radiation on health and has produced many policy briefings and supported considerable independent research on this important issue. It has recently submitted to the Government its concern on the effects of low level radiation around nuclear sites and urged the UK Government to lengthen the consultation on the justification of new nuclear power stations to adequately consider the findings of the COMARE commission into the German government's KIKK report. It campaigns for public safety, health and environmental protection.
The Low Level Radiation and Health Conference was set up in 1985 by members of the public keen to find out more about these issues and so 2010 celebrates its 25th silver anniversary. Since its inception, the conference has been organised by a different voluntary group of members of the public and the event has rotated to different parts of the UK.
The conference is a unique event bringing together members of the nuclear industry, Government organisations, monitoring agencies, Local authorities, medics, academic researchers, health workers, environmental health officers, campaigners and interested lay people. It is an educational event which aims to provide up to the minute research via presentations by a range of people from government, regulators, industry and academics thus making these issues accessible to as broad a range of people as possible by keeping the costs as low as reasonably practicable.
Conference Organising Group:
Contact: Janine Allis-Smith janine@core.furness.co.uk
Sean Morris, Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretary
Email: s.morris4@manchester.gov.uk
Jill Sutcliffe, 01403 700395, jillandmark@lineone.net
Silver Anniversary
21st Low Level Radiation and Health Conference
1985-2010
Nuclear energy – new build and new radiation paradigm
Nuclear Free Local Authorities
1980-2010
Low Level Radiation
Low Level Radiation
and Health Conference
1985-2010
Manchester Quaker Meeting Hall, 6 Mount St, Manchester
Jointly held by Low Radiation and Health Conference and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA)
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Welsh Assembly Has Nuclear Doubts............
Assembly Governments energy policy raises doubts
Apr 10 2010 by Chris Kelsey, Western Mail
Comment (1)
Recommend (2)
AS we struggle to move towards a low-carbon economy, nothing is more important than the way we produce energy. To achieve the UK Government’s target of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions by 80% on 1990 levels by 2050 will require a massive change in the way we source energy, particularly electricity.
So there was excitement last month when the Welsh Assembly Government issued its Energy Policy Statement, particularly among environmentalists and the renewable energy industry.
The statement drew on a series of strategy documents and action plans over recent years, on renewable energy, energy efficiency, green jobs and bio-energy.
At its heart was a three-tier proposal to maximise energy savings, switch to renewable energy production and maximise the opportunity for green jobs.
Energy efficiency was highlighted as of critical importance, because of the large number of hard-to-heat, solid-walled and rural properties in Wales.
But the statement assumed that far more of our energy needs in the future will be met from electricity, particularly in transport and heating. And it claimed that by 2025 Wales would produce twice as much electricity from renewable sources as it currently consumes.
One problem is that large elements of energy generation policy in Wales remain out of the Assembly Government’s control.
In particular, this means that planning consent for onshore electricity generating stations larger than 50MW lies with the Infrastructure Planning Commission, and for offshore ones greater than 1MW it is shared with the IPC and the Marine Management Organisation.
The most obvious area where this conflicts with the Assembly Government’s energy policy aspirations is in nuclear power, where the launch of the Energy Policy Statement was swiftly followed by the announcement of Horizon’s plans to build a 3GW nuclear power station next to the Wylfa plant on Anglesey.
The Assembly Government reacted swiftly to Horizon’s announcement by saying it would push for a public inquiry.
In the Energy Policy Statement the Assembly Government said: “the high level of interest in exploiting the huge potential for renewable energy reduces the need for other, more hazardous, forms of low-carbon energy.”
It also supported the call for a public inquiry into dealing with the waste from new nuclear power stations, saying: “We have a way to go in justifying to the public what must be done in dealing with future nuclear waste.”
In its preference for a future without nuclear power, the Assembly Government is supported by most environmentalists.
Gordon James, director of Friends of the Earth Cymru, said: “Building a large nuclear power station at Wylfa on Anglesey would do nothing to address the challenge of climate change.
“It would be a dangerous distraction, diverting political attention and scarce resources.”
Mr James cited the Energy Policy Statement as showing that there was no need for new nuclear build in Wales.
“We have an abundance of renewable energy resources that, along with improved energy efficiency, can easily provide our energy needs.”
Others disagree. Leighton Jenk- ins, CBI Wales head of policy, said his organisation agreed the best way of delivering Wales’ energy security and climate change targets is by developing a balanced and cost-effective mix of energy sources.
“This must, however, include other renewable sources like nuclear power, which should be incorporated into the Assembly Government’s renewable energy plans,” he said.
It’s not just in nuclear policy that the Assembly Government’s plans could come into conflict with Westminster.
Exploiting the tidal range in the Severn estuary could make up a substantial part of the renewable energy programme, but not if the UK Government decides not to go ahead with a Cardiff-Weston barrage, for environmental or financial reasons.
Add to that the poor record in getting onshore wind farms through the planning process in Wales, and the difficulties the Assembly Government will face in achieving its aim of a fully renewable electricity generation sector by 2025 mount up.
Friday, 9 April 2010
Tenner Films Produces Short Films on Nuclear Power
Hi All....check out this website and give Abby your comments..........
I hope you don't mind me contacting you. I got your email address from the Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy blog and thought you may be interested in a film project I am involved in. Tenner Films is an interactive film and online project that is looking at the human stories behind the issues surrounding nuclear power. We are making thirteen short films to entertain and encourage debate. With eight now completed we would love some feedback from those involved in nuclear research.
If you have some spare time please check out the films and the rest of the project at www.tennerfilms.com and let us know what you think. You can feedback on-line or directly to my email. If you would like to hear more about the project as it develops you can also join our email list - drop me a line if you would me to add your name. You can also join our Facebook group. If possible, would you be able to add us as a link to your website - we have added a link to your site from ours?
Finally, please pass this to anyone who you think may be interested. Thanks for reading.
Best wishes,
Abby
Abby Allen
Tenner Films
I hope you don't mind me contacting you. I got your email address from the Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy blog and thought you may be interested in a film project I am involved in. Tenner Films is an interactive film and online project that is looking at the human stories behind the issues surrounding nuclear power. We are making thirteen short films to entertain and encourage debate. With eight now completed we would love some feedback from those involved in nuclear research.
If you have some spare time please check out the films and the rest of the project at www.tennerfilms.com and let us know what you think. You can feedback on-line or directly to my email. If you would like to hear more about the project as it develops you can also join our email list - drop me a line if you would me to add your name. You can also join our Facebook group. If possible, would you be able to add us as a link to your website - we have added a link to your site from ours?
Finally, please pass this to anyone who you think may be interested. Thanks for reading.
Best wishes,
Abby
Abby Allen
Tenner Films
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Ian Fairlie Writes to CLIC Sargent about Leukaemia caused in the vicinity of Nuclear Power Stations
Dear Mr Banting
We have not met, but I wish to support Mr Illingworth's comments about the increased risks of child leukemia near all nuclear power stations.
Sincerely
Dr IAN FAIRLIE
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: reg illingworth
To: chris.banting@clicsargent.org.uk
Sent: Tuesday, 6 April, 2010 14:28:23
Subject: Fw: PRESS RELEASE----CHILDHOOD LEUKAEMIA CHARITY ACCEPTS SPONSORSHIP FROM HORIZON NUCLEAR POWER-------PRESS RELEASE
Dear Chris Banting,
We are a group of residents from the Severn Vale who have formed a group called Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy who are concerned about the environmental and health factors of a new nuclear power station proposed by Horizon Nuclear Power.
We are upset to see that Horizon are sponsors of the Oldbury Fun Run.
I am sure you are aware of the KiKK study in Germany which shows an increased incidence of leukaemia and cancers in children under 5 years old who live close to all nuclear power plants.
We recently held a lecture in Oldbury with Dr Ian Fairlie and the mother of a child that died of leukaemia and lived close to Sellafield and raised £92 for your charity---Where should we send it to?
We request you speak to Oldbury Fun Run Organisers and ask them to remove Horizon as a sponsor.
We have not met, but I wish to support Mr Illingworth's comments about the increased risks of child leukemia near all nuclear power stations.
Sincerely
Dr IAN FAIRLIE
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: reg illingworth
To: chris.banting@clicsargent.org.uk
Sent: Tuesday, 6 April, 2010 14:28:23
Subject: Fw: PRESS RELEASE----CHILDHOOD LEUKAEMIA CHARITY ACCEPTS SPONSORSHIP FROM HORIZON NUCLEAR POWER-------PRESS RELEASE
Dear Chris Banting,
We are a group of residents from the Severn Vale who have formed a group called Shepperdine Against Nuclear Energy who are concerned about the environmental and health factors of a new nuclear power station proposed by Horizon Nuclear Power.
We are upset to see that Horizon are sponsors of the Oldbury Fun Run.
I am sure you are aware of the KiKK study in Germany which shows an increased incidence of leukaemia and cancers in children under 5 years old who live close to all nuclear power plants.
We recently held a lecture in Oldbury with Dr Ian Fairlie and the mother of a child that died of leukaemia and lived close to Sellafield and raised £92 for your charity---Where should we send it to?
We request you speak to Oldbury Fun Run Organisers and ask them to remove Horizon as a sponsor.
Simon Hughes Lib Dems Spokesperson for Environment and Climate Change
This is an article from the New Statesman featuring Simon Highes.
If the Lib Dems hold any sort of power after the next election the future for nuclear looks a lot weaker!
If the Lib Dems hold any sort of power after the next election the future for nuclear looks a lot weaker!
RSS
TwitterThe Lib Dems can keep the lights on
Simon Hughes responds to Mark Lynas and defends his call for an independent inquiry into nuclear power.
A warning sign at Heysham Nuclear Power Station, Lancashire. Photograph: Getty Images
Delusion is not a necessary consequence of becoming a Conservative supporter. Yet in Mark Lynas's case this seems to have been one of the results. Lynas's attack piece on Liberal Democrat energy policy was one of the most delusional pieces of writing I have read in a long time, and utterly lacking in foundation.
Lynas accuses me of ignoring the "science" and laments my comments on BBC Radio 4 on the health effects of nuclear power. According to him, there is no plausible scientific case for this.
I presume he refers to my call for an independent inquiry into the "justification" for nuclear power. "Justification" is the process of assessment of the health effects of nuclear power and is a legal requirement before any new nuclear plant can operate in the UK. One of the means by which it can be carried out is through a public inquiry.
The purpose of my call was precisely so that scientific evidence could be examined in the open, and that nuclear scientists, other experts and the public can participate in the decision-making process for new nuclear power in a meaningful way. This call was supported by roughly 80 leading research academics and nuclear scientists in the UK.
If Lynas is so convinced that the health detriments of nuclear are simply an urban myth as he claims, he too should have no problem with a public inquiry. He may however also know that the nuclear power lobby is worried that since the publication of the KiKK study by the German government in 2008 "justification" may not survive more detailed scrutiny.
The KiKK study found that there was a doubling of the incidence of childhood leukaemia within five kilometres of every single German nuclear power station. The study is considered to be one of the best and most complete scientific examinations carried out into the effects of nuclear reactors on public health. It clearly passes the plausibility test.
Perplexing preference
The Lynas article also makes the alarmist and unfounded claim that if Liberal Democrats are in government and nuclear power is dropped, the lights will go out. This is not just a difference of opinion; it is objectively untrue. With the best will in the world there will not be a new nuclear power station built in this country within seven years.
The power stations coming offline over the next decade meant that we need new power generation to come online to replace them before that. With the huge capital costs of nuclear (current estimates are that each reactor will cost not less than £5bn), and the investment this would take away from other sources, nuclear power could actually hinder our chances of bringing the necessary new sources of energy online.
Lynas commends Conservative energy policy and criticises Labour for dragging its feet. I find this perplexing. Lynas has been involved in and written about energy issues for many years now. He therefore must know that in 2006 David Cameron was criticising Labour's commitment to nuclear power as irresponsible. He must also know that as recently as six months ago Zac Goldsmith was saying that no new nuclear power stations would be built under a Tory administration.
If the industry is looking for political stability, it would do a lot better than to look to the Conservative Party.
Need for action
I could go on. I could talk about Lynas's use of the somewhat distasteful phrase "closer to normal mortality rates" to describe the many cancer victims recorded in the vicinity of Chernobyl, or the huge economic and safety concerns surrounding nuclear waste, or the fact that nuclear power is the least cost-effective way of reducing carbon emissions.
But the real problem with his article is that polemics of this kind are exactly what has eroded public confidence in the need to combat climate change. I and others who are fully convinced of the necessity of action on climate change need to get out and about more, engage with the public and make the case.
We need to demonstrate that the decisions that we make are based on the strongest possible evidence and foundations of scientific inquiry. We are not helped by people like Lynas, who claim to be the guardians of "science" while making personal attacks on anyone who dares to disagree. In the end, the only people they discredit are themselves.
Simon Hughes is the MP for North Southwark and Bermondsey. He is the Liberal Democrat shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change.
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Todays Discussion on Nuclear Waste on BBC Radio 4
Heres todays R4 discussion between Richard Waite (NDA Divisional Director Strategy & Technology), Professor Bill Lee (deputy Chair Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) and me. 37 mins into the programme, lasts about 15 mins:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/listenagain/wednesday.shtml
Paul
Dr Paul Dorfman
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick
Tel: +44 07972 385303
paul.dorfman@wbs.ac.uk
--
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/listenagain/wednesday.shtml
Paul
Dr Paul Dorfman
Warwick Business School
University of Warwick
Tel: +44 07972 385303
paul.dorfman@wbs.ac.uk
--
IPC Commissioners Announced............
6 Apr 2010 : Column 1216W
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which commissioners have been appointed to the Infrastructure Planning Commission to date; and what criteria he used in deciding on each appointment. [325401]
John Healey: 26 Commissioners, including the Chair and two Deputy Chairs have been appointed to the Infrastructure Planning Commission, the majority of whom are on call-off contracts. These appointments have been made following an open and transparent recruitment process and represent a range of expertise. A list of the appointees with attached biographies has been placed in the Library of the House, along with details of the selection criteria employed. The IPC website also contains details of all those appointed.
We also anticipate announcing the appointment of a further 13 Commissioners, again on a call-off contract basis, shortly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/?page_id=2002
![Sir Michael Pitt, Chair]( "Sir Michael Pitt, Chair")
Mike graduated from University College London with a first class honours degree in Engineering. During the first half of his career he was involved in the planning, design and construction of transport and other infrastructure in this country and abroad, working for the private and public sectors. He has held senior posts in a variety of local authorities, including Director of Property and Director of Technical Services at Humberside. From 1990 to 2005 he was Chief Executive of Cheshire and Kent County Councils.
More recently, he has worked on a wide range of consultancy assignments, including a year long appointment as independent Chair of the Government’s review of the 2007 floods. He has been Chair of a number of other organisations including NHS South West, the General Medical Council’s National Revalidation Programme Board, two companies and a charity.Back to top
![Dr Pauleen Lane, CBE, Deputy Chair]( "Dr Pauleen Lane, CBE, Deputy Chair")
Pauleen is a civil engineer by training and has taught on the Geotechnics Masters programme at the University of Manchester School of Engineering. She is an elected member of Trafford Council and a board member of the Tenants Services Authority. She is a Trustee of the New Local Government Network and of the Theatres Trust. She is a board member of the Coal Authority and of the Football Licensing Authority.
Pauleen was previously Deputy Chair of English Partnerships, a board member of the North West Development Agency and an Audit Commissioner. She was awarded a CBE in 2005 for services to local government.Back to top
![Robert Upton, CBE, Deputy Chair]( "Robert Upton, CBE, Deputy Chair")
Robert Upton was in the Administrative Service of the Hong Kong Government from 1972-1991. His work included New Towns policy, Country Parks designation, infrastructure development and urban renewal. As Hong Kong’s first Director of Planning he sponsored major reform of the statutory planning system.
On return to Britain Robert was appointed Chief Executive of Rushmoor Borough Council in 1992. In 1996, he became Secretary General of the Royal Town Planning Institute. He initiated the RTPI’s New Vision programme, governance reform and the Institute’s Education Commission. He has served on numerous government task forces and sounding boards associated with the development of planning policy and practice.
Robert is also a Visiting Professor at Sheffield University, Department of Town and Regional Planning and a Council Member of the Academy of Social Sciences. He was awarded a CBE in the 2009 New Year’s Honours List for public service.Back to top
![Gideon Amos, Commissioner]( "Gideon Amos, Commissioner (Photo: Paul Groom)")
Gideon joined the IPC from his position as Chief Executive of the Town and Country Planning Association.
A qualified urban designer and a chartered architect, he joined the TCPA, after four years as Director of Planning Aid for London. At the TCPA he co-authored “A Programme for Sustainable Communities” and edited the report “Connecting England – A Framework for Regional Development”. He was a member of the Department for Communities and Local Government Planning Advisory Group and until recently co-chair of the government Eco-development Group. His early career included designing and managing housing and Listed Buildings developments in the private sector and a four year term as an elected councillor serving on a planning committee.
In his spare time he is a non-executive Board member of Swan Housing Association in east London. In December 2008 Gideon received an OBE for services to sustainable development.Back to top
Kate’s experience on the MPC means that she is well-placed to consider complex decisions which require the assimilation of large amounts of information. In addition, her business background and economic skills will be particularly valuable in assessing the business case for some developments.Back to top
He is currently a Non-Executive Director of the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust hospital, a Non-Executive Director of a company producing water quality monitoring equipment, a Charity Trustee and an independent Business Consultant.
He was awarded the OBE in 2002 for services to the water industry.Back to top
![Jan Bessell, Commissioner]( "Jan Bessell, Commissioner")
Jan joins the IPC from her role as Head of Town and Country Planning and a Partner (equivalent) with law firm Dickinson Dees LLP. She is a Member of the General Assembly and Planning Policy and Practice Committee of the Royal Town Planning Institute Nationally, for the Institute’s North East Regional Management Board, Regional Activity and Policy Committee and Planning Aid Volunteer. She is a Practitioner Member of the Partnership Board of Newcastle University. She previously worked as a planner progressing to partner at Anthony Walker and Partners, planner at the British Coal Corporation’s Opencast Executive North East Region and Planner at the British Coal Corporation Operational Research Executive HQ.Back to top
Gas Pipelines; CCGT/CHP Power Plant; Thermal Nuclear Power Plant; Chemical Plant; Oil & Gas Exploration & Production onshore and offshore; Ports & Harbours; Telecoms; Commercial Developments; Underground Gas Storage, deep geological disposal and mining.
This has involved dealing/negotiating with National and Local Government, Community Engagement and having a detailed understanding of Environmental and Planning issues. Martin is a Specialist Lecturer in EIA at Oxford Brookes University and is also a registered Principal EIA Practitioner at the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). Martin has worked in academia (Bristol and Southampton Universities), industry (National Grid and NDA) and in environmental consultancy (WSAtkins, Arup, ERM, Halcrow and Golder).Back to top
![Katharine Bryan, Commissioner]( "Katharine Bryan, Commissioner (Photo: Paul Groom)")
On graduating from Durham University with a degree in Botany and Geography, Katharine went on to complete an MSc in the Biology of Water Management at Aston University in Birmingham.
Her career has spanned both the water industry and environment sectors, starting with Severn Trent Water Authority and on privatisation, taking senior management roles in the National Rivers Authority and Environment Agency in the Midlands and South West England. After working as Chief Executive of North of Scotland Water, she moved to Northern Ireland as CE of Water Service and to transform it from a Civil Service agency into a fully regulated government owned company, Northern Ireland Water.
Her non executive experience included chairmanship of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Currently, she is a non executive director of Defence Estates (MoD).Back to top
Richard is an Honorary Member of the British Council and a visiting Professor at the University of Glamorgan. He was a Nuffield Leverhulme Fellow in 1990 pursuing research on public service improvement in the United States, Canada and France. He undertakes non executive or lay roles for HM Courts Service (Wales), the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the General Medical Council, the RICS and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. He is a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation, Carnegie (UK) and Regent’s College London. He is also a Member of the IOD and a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, the College of Teachers and the Royal Society of Arts.Back to top
Back to top
John brings to the IPC considerable knowledge of the nature and impacts of major projects on local communities. His research and consultancy over 30 years has focused in particular on the local socio-economic impacts of major energy projects over their construction, operational and decommissioning stages. He has also led important research projects for UK government, EC Directorates and other agencies, on policy review and development of guidance, particularly for Environmental Impact Assessment. He is an author of several key books in EIA and Regional Planning and has been a peer reviewer for major project assessments in both the UK and Australia.Back to top
From 2001-2004 he was the Director of Regulation and Public Affairs with Edison Mission Energy, and since 2005 he has been a Managing Consultant with Europe Economics where he cites achievements in advising CLG on the cost benefit analysis for energy efficiency requirements for new buildings.Back to top
He was President of the Royal Town Planning Institute in 2004 and is a member of its Executive Board. In 2006 he was a member of the Panel of Experts supporting Kate Barker in her review of the English planning system commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects and an Honorary Member of the Chartered Institute of Housing and was appointed Commander of the British Empire for services to local government and the voluntary sector in 2008.Back to top
![Paul Hudson, Commissioner]( "Paul Hudson, Commissioner")
Paul was Director of Thames Gateway in the Homes and Communities Agency, on secondment from the Department for Communities and Local Government where he was Director of Delivery and formerly Chief Planner. Prior to joining the Department in 2006, he held a variety of posts including Executive Director of Development and Infrastructure with the South East of England Development Agency, Chief Executive of Locate in Kent, City Technical Director with Rochester upon Medway City Council, Divisional Director Travers Morgan Consulting Group and Assistant Director of Economic Development at Kent County Council.Back to top
Eira has a background in planning roles in local Government. She was a Senior Planner with Manchester City Council, and Deputy Chief Planning Officer with Arfon Borough Council. From 1991-1996 she was Head of Conservation Policy and Chief Planner with the Countryside Council for Wales, advising all local authorities in Wales on planning issues. From 1996-2002 she was Director of Planning, Environment and regional Policy Co-ordination for the Government Office of North West responsible for major casework such as Manchester Airport, Liverpool Airport expansion.
From 2002-2005 she was Executive Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhood Services with Halton Borough Council. She is currently a Consultant with Solace, a CABE Space Enabler and a CABE Accredited ‘Building for Life’ Assessor.Back to top
Since returning to the UK he has worked as a Director of consulting companies specialising in regulatory, economic and environmental policies for government bodies, regulatory agencies, the World Bank, the EBRD and private clients. He continues to teach and undertake research as a part-time Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh.Back to top
He has extensive knowledge of land use industries and the rural economy having held a number of prominent positions in the nineties with the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, Chairman of the Welsh Advisory Committee to the Forestry Commission and a member of Snowdonia National Park Authority.
He is at present a Non-Executive Member of the Forestry Commission’s National Committee for Wales and a member of the advisory committee of the Rural Economy and Land Use programme set up to foster interdisciplinary research amongst the Research Councils.Back to top
Kelvin was previously the Director of Policy and Research at the RTPI and the Director of ROOM, the National Council for Housing and Planning. He has been a specialist adviser to the House of Commons Communities and Local Government, Energy and Climate Change, and Transport Select Committees. He was Visiting Professor at Westminster University and was a Commissioner on the Westminster Housing Commission. He wrote a monthly column in Planning for 25 years.
He brings a long experience of working at the highest level on issues of national planning policy; of analysing and taking decisions on complex strategic issues; and of communicating complicated subjects clearly and accessibly.Back to top
![Emrys-Parry, Commissioner]( "Emrys-Parry, Commissioner (Photo: Paul Groom)")
Emrys is a solicitor who began his career in Local Government in South Wales before moving to the Land Authority for Wales in 1977 where he was legal adviser for some years before moving to private practice in London in 1985.
He was a partner in a private practice for more than 20 years, heading up the Planning and Regeneration Division of Bond Pearce LLP solicitors where he specialised in property development, town and country planning before joining the IPC. Emrys is an acknowledged expert in compulsory purchase law.
He is a legal associate of the Royal Town Planning Institute and is past chairman and currently Secretary of the Compulsory Purchase Association. Emrys will be joining the IPC from 1 May 2010.Back to top
He previously worked mainly as a Senior Lecturer in Planning and Land Economics (combining teaching and research) at Cambridge University and still lectures on spatial planning at the University of West England (UWE) where he is a Visiting Professor. Other jobs have included work as Senior Planning Executive at the East of England Development Agency, as a Planning Inspector with the Planning Inspectorate, and as Director of the Cambridge Civic Society. Barry is a chartered town planner. His experience covers housing, economic development and heritage issues as well as community involvement. He has also been, among other things, a consultant to the OECD and the Nuffield Foundation, and a local Magistrate.Back to top
Back to top
Iwan, a fluent Welsh speaker from Bangor Gwynedd, has held senior local government positions within Wales, including: The Isle of Anglesey, Rhondda Cynon Taff and Cardiff. He established his own planning consultancy in Cardiff prior to being appointed One Voice Wales’ first Chief Executive, a Welsh Assembly funded local government association. He was also appointed to assist the Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales (Local Government Ombudsman) undertake complex investigations of maladministration and member misconduct. More recently, Iwan has undertaken interim roles in English local authorities, most recently as interim Head of Planning at Erewash Borough Council, Derbyshire.
Iwan served for over 10 years as a member of the Prince of Wales’ Group and currently lives in Ceredigion, Wales.Back to top
![Glyn Roberts, Commissioner]( "Glyn Roberts, Commissioner")
Glyn joined North Staffordshire regeneration partnership in 2005 as development director for the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder and subsequently worked as NSRP’s director of technical services. 1999-2005 he was technical director at Scott Wilson, where he led Manchester and Birmingham teams working on infrastructure, environmental, and planning projects. He was principal at RP3 Consulting subsequent to his role as director of the North Liverpool regeneration partnership. Between 1989 and 1996 Glyn was chief planner for Central Manchester Development Corporation, where he managed major regeneration and infrastructure-related initiatives.Back to top
He joined The Planning Inspectorate in 1991 as a Senior Housing & Planning Inspector and undertook a wide variety of field casework. In 2001, he became a Principal Housing & Planning Inspector and Group Manager for the Development Plan casework of the Inspectorate, assuming responsibility for the work of the Panels handling Examinations in Public. After an interlude in 2004/5 working for the Government of Guernsey on a review of the Island Development Plan and on an Inquiry relating to Bristol Airport, he became Assistant Director responsible for Ministerial and Specialist Casework including Infrastructure Inquiries early in 2005. At the start of 2008 he became Director of Casework for the Inspectorate responsible for the delivery of all non-development plan casework in England. After retiring from his role in the Autumn of 2008, he is currently working as a part-time Principal Housing and Planning Inspector and, having recently completed work as a member of the Panel examining a Review of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and as Chair of the Panel Examining the London Plan Crossrail Alteration, he is currently chairing the Panel for the Examination of the Replacement London Plan.
Peter brings the wealth of experience of quasi-judicial decision making and Examination practice to the IPC and looks forward to playing a full role in carrying through the new procedures to ensure that England and Wales have the right infrastructure in the right place within the context of national policies set by Parliament. He holds no other paid public offices other than the current Inspectorate role referred to . He is involved with a number of aspects of his local Diocese of the Church of England and is currently training as a Lay Minister.Back to top
Lorna was a member of Lord Rogers Urban Task Force, which was at the forefront of UK initiatives in urban regeneration and the reclamation of brownfield land. The UTF published “Towards an Urban Renaissance” in 1999 and “Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance” in 2005. She is a CABE Commissioner and chairs the Sustainable Design Committee among others. She is currently a Visiting Professor in Engineering Design for Sustainable Development, at the University of Sheffield, for which she has been awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Engineering. She is a member of the Industrial Advisory Panel of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at University College London, and a member of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers’ Sustainable Development Task Force. She is a Lead Expert on the BIS Foresight programme, “Powering Our Lives: Sustainable Energy Management and the Built Environment,” the results of which were published in 2008, and are currently being disseminated and influencing UK government policy.
Lorna brings the practical experience she has obtained over the last 30 years as well as an unbridled enthusiasm for creating truly sustainable infrastructure in the UK.
Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which commissioners have been appointed to the Infrastructure Planning Commission to date; and what criteria he used in deciding on each appointment. [325401]
John Healey: 26 Commissioners, including the Chair and two Deputy Chairs have been appointed to the Infrastructure Planning Commission, the majority of whom are on call-off contracts. These appointments have been made following an open and transparent recruitment process and represent a range of expertise. A list of the appointees with attached biographies has been placed in the Library of the House, along with details of the selection criteria employed. The IPC website also contains details of all those appointed.
We also anticipate announcing the appointment of a further 13 Commissioners, again on a call-off contract basis, shortly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/?page_id=2002
Commissioners
Sir Michael Pitt, Chair & Commissioner
More recently, he has worked on a wide range of consultancy assignments, including a year long appointment as independent Chair of the Government’s review of the 2007 floods. He has been Chair of a number of other organisations including NHS South West, the General Medical Council’s National Revalidation Programme Board, two companies and a charity.
Dr Pauleen Lane, CBE, Deputy Chair & Commissioner
Pauleen was previously Deputy Chair of English Partnerships, a board member of the North West Development Agency and an Audit Commissioner. She was awarded a CBE in 2005 for services to local government.
Robert Upton, CBE, Deputy Chair & Commissioner
On return to Britain Robert was appointed Chief Executive of Rushmoor Borough Council in 1992. In 1996, he became Secretary General of the Royal Town Planning Institute. He initiated the RTPI’s New Vision programme, governance reform and the Institute’s Education Commission. He has served on numerous government task forces and sounding boards associated with the development of planning policy and practice.
Robert is also a Visiting Professor at Sheffield University, Department of Town and Regional Planning and a Council Member of the Academy of Social Sciences. He was awarded a CBE in the 2009 New Year’s Honours List for public service.
Gideon Amos OBE, Commissioner
A qualified urban designer and a chartered architect, he joined the TCPA, after four years as Director of Planning Aid for London. At the TCPA he co-authored “A Programme for Sustainable Communities” and edited the report “Connecting England – A Framework for Regional Development”. He was a member of the Department for Communities and Local Government Planning Advisory Group and until recently co-chair of the government Eco-development Group. His early career included designing and managing housing and Listed Buildings developments in the private sector and a four year term as an elected councillor serving on a planning committee.
In his spare time he is a non-executive Board member of Swan Housing Association in east London. In December 2008 Gideon received an OBE for services to sustainable development.
Kate Barker, Commissioner
Kate Barker, CBE has been a member of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) at the Bank of England since June 2001. The MPC is responsible for setting monetary policy to achieve the Government’s inflation target. Prior to that, she was Chief Economic Adviser at the CBI, and before that Chief European Economist for Ford of Europe. In 2003-04 she led a review of housing supply at the request of Government, and led a further review, of Land-Use Planning, in 2006. She is also currently a broad member of the Homes and Communities Agency.Kate’s experience on the MPC means that she is well-placed to consider complex decisions which require the assimilation of large amounts of information. In addition, her business background and economic skills will be particularly valuable in assessing the business case for some developments.
Robert Baty, Commissioner
Bob Baty is a civil engineer and a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. He has held a number of senior posts in the water industry, 10years of which was as Chief Executive of South West Water responsible, amongst other things, for the promotion of some 40 projects designed to ensure that the bathing waters around Devon and Cornwall met the European coastal water standards.He is currently a Non-Executive Director of the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust hospital, a Non-Executive Director of a company producing water quality monitoring equipment, a Charity Trustee and an independent Business Consultant.
He was awarded the OBE in 2002 for services to the water industry.
Jan Bessell, Commissioner
Martin Broderick, Commissioner
Martin has over 20 years multi-sector experience in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), environmental management & planning and managing large multi-disciplinary technical teams for the following range of developments including:Gas Pipelines; CCGT/CHP Power Plant; Thermal Nuclear Power Plant; Chemical Plant; Oil & Gas Exploration & Production onshore and offshore; Ports & Harbours; Telecoms; Commercial Developments; Underground Gas Storage, deep geological disposal and mining.
This has involved dealing/negotiating with National and Local Government, Community Engagement and having a detailed understanding of Environmental and Planning issues. Martin is a Specialist Lecturer in EIA at Oxford Brookes University and is also a registered Principal EIA Practitioner at the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA). Martin has worked in academia (Bristol and Southampton Universities), industry (National Grid and NDA) and in environmental consultancy (WSAtkins, Arup, ERM, Halcrow and Golder).
Katharine Bryan, Commissioner
Her career has spanned both the water industry and environment sectors, starting with Severn Trent Water Authority and on privatisation, taking senior management roles in the National Rivers Authority and Environment Agency in the Midlands and South West England. After working as Chief Executive of North of Scotland Water, she moved to Northern Ireland as CE of Water Service and to transform it from a Civil Service agency into a fully regulated government owned company, Northern Ireland Water.
Her non executive experience included chairmanship of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Currently, she is a non executive director of Defence Estates (MoD).
Richard Davies, Commissioner
Richard Davies joined the UK Civil Service after initially teaching at Liverpool University. For several years he dealt with strategic policy, and operational matters in Whitehall and overseas variously at the MOD, FCO, MPO, and the NIO. He then transferred to the Welsh Office, and the country of his birth, where amongst other things he held leadership roles in the fields of housing, regeneration, culture, health, social services and education. He has been responsible for major changes affecting organisational capability in a wide range of public bodies, and has extensive experience in the creation and application of statutory processes. He has led on integration between sectors for better results, on regulation matters, and on public engagement – and latterly had oversight of spatial planning in Wales. He was a member of the Management Board at the Welsh Assembly Government for most of the last decade – helping to deal with all the implications of institution building at a time of substantial constitutional change. In the same period he headed the Department for Training and Education there, and subsequently that for Public Services and Performance.Richard is an Honorary Member of the British Council and a visiting Professor at the University of Glamorgan. He was a Nuffield Leverhulme Fellow in 1990 pursuing research on public service improvement in the United States, Canada and France. He undertakes non executive or lay roles for HM Courts Service (Wales), the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the General Medical Council, the RICS and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. He is a trustee of the Nationwide Foundation, Carnegie (UK) and Regent’s College London. He is also a Member of the IOD and a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute, the College of Teachers and the Royal Society of Arts.
Frances Fernandes, Commissioner
Frances started her career in planning roles in local Government, progressing to Senior Planning Officer as part of the Airports Policy Consortium with Surrey County Council. From 1998-2002 she was a Campaigns Manager with Oxfam. From 2003-2006 she was a Transport Team Leader with West Berkshire Council. Then, after a short spell in a project management role with Vodafone she set up her own consultancy business, Cleary Consulting, and is currently advising clients on eco-town policy. She is also working with the Town and Country Planning Association on the Eco-town Development Group.Professor John Glasson, Commissioner
John Glasson is Professor Emeritus in Environmental Planning, and a Founding Director of the Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD), and the Impacts Assessment Unit (IAU), at Oxford Brookes University. He has previously been Head of the School of Planning and Pro-Vice Chancellor (Research and Consultancy) at Brookes. He is also a Director of the Oxfordshire Economic Observatory, and a Visiting Professor at Curtin University in Perth (Western Australia).John brings to the IPC considerable knowledge of the nature and impacts of major projects on local communities. His research and consultancy over 30 years has focused in particular on the local socio-economic impacts of major energy projects over their construction, operational and decommissioning stages. He has also led important research projects for UK government, EC Directorates and other agencies, on policy review and development of guidance, particularly for Environmental Impact Assessment. He is an author of several key books in EIA and Regional Planning and has been a peer reviewer for major project assessments in both the UK and Australia.
Jonathan Green, Commissioner
An Economist, Jonathan started his career with the DTI, Office of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the Cabinet Office. From 1993-2000 he was Head of the Energy Utilities Directorate at the DTI where he was responsible for consents on overhead lines and power stations.From 2001-2004 he was the Director of Regulation and Public Affairs with Edison Mission Energy, and since 2005 he has been a Managing Consultant with Europe Economics where he cites achievements in advising CLG on the cost benefit analysis for energy efficiency requirements for new buildings.
Michael Hayes, Commissioner
His experience embraces both strategic and operational management and a wide range of planning, regeneration, community and development initiatives. His interests are in spatial planning, regeneration and development projects and developing policy and delivery mechanisms. His particular skills are in strategic analysis, visioning, organisational development, delivery and consultation.He was President of the Royal Town Planning Institute in 2004 and is a member of its Executive Board. In 2006 he was a member of the Panel of Experts supporting Kate Barker in her review of the English planning system commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects and an Honorary Member of the Chartered Institute of Housing and was appointed Commander of the British Empire for services to local government and the voluntary sector in 2008.
Paul Hudson, Commissioner
Eira Hughes, Commissioner
Experienced in corporate management; developing regional policy; assessing and delivering large infrastructure projects/programmes; urban, rural and coastal strategy; all aspects of land use planning and transportation; master-planning and delivering major regeneration projects; major planning casework; urban design and heritage conservation; as well as championing sustainability and ‘green’ issues – in the English and Welsh contexts.Eira has a background in planning roles in local Government. She was a Senior Planner with Manchester City Council, and Deputy Chief Planning Officer with Arfon Borough Council. From 1991-1996 she was Head of Conservation Policy and Chief Planner with the Countryside Council for Wales, advising all local authorities in Wales on planning issues. From 1996-2002 she was Director of Planning, Environment and regional Policy Co-ordination for the Government Office of North West responsible for major casework such as Manchester Airport, Liverpool Airport expansion.
From 2002-2005 she was Executive Director of Regeneration and Neighbourhood Services with Halton Borough Council. She is currently a Consultant with Solace, a CABE Space Enabler and a CABE Accredited ‘Building for Life’ Assessor.
Professor Gordon Hughes, Commissioner
Gordon Hughes studied at the University of Cambridge and Harvard University. He has a Ph.D. in economics and was Professor of Political Economy at the University of Edinburgh. From 1991 to 2001 he was Senior Adviser on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank in Washington DC dealing with projects and policies in the areas of energy, infrastructure and environmental management. He has extensive experience with the economic, financial and environmental evaluation of large infrastructure projects in Europe, Latin America and Asia.Since returning to the UK he has worked as a Director of consulting companies specialising in regulatory, economic and environmental policies for government bodies, regulatory agencies, the World Bank, the EBRD and private clients. He continues to teach and undertake research as a part-time Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh.
John Lloyd Jones, Commissioner
John Lioyd Jones’ tenure as Chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales ended after ten years on the 28 February 2010. CCW is the Welsh Assembly Government’s statutory adviser on Landscape, Access and the Conservation of marine and terrestrial bio-diversity.He has extensive knowledge of land use industries and the rural economy having held a number of prominent positions in the nineties with the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales, Chairman of the Welsh Advisory Committee to the Forestry Commission and a member of Snowdonia National Park Authority.
He is at present a Non-Executive Member of the Forestry Commission’s National Committee for Wales and a member of the advisory committee of the Rural Economy and Land Use programme set up to foster interdisciplinary research amongst the Research Councils.
Kelvin MacDonald, Commissioner
Kelvin MacDonald is a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Department of Land Economy, Cambridge University and runs his own strategic policy consultancy – Spatial Effects Ltd. He is on the Board of Trustees of Shelter. He is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Housing and a Fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute.Kelvin was previously the Director of Policy and Research at the RTPI and the Director of ROOM, the National Council for Housing and Planning. He has been a specialist adviser to the House of Commons Communities and Local Government, Energy and Climate Change, and Transport Select Committees. He was Visiting Professor at Westminster University and was a Commissioner on the Westminster Housing Commission. He wrote a monthly column in Planning for 25 years.
He brings a long experience of working at the highest level on issues of national planning policy; of analysing and taking decisions on complex strategic issues; and of communicating complicated subjects clearly and accessibly.
Emrys Parry, Commissioner
He was a partner in a private practice for more than 20 years, heading up the Planning and Regeneration Division of Bond Pearce LLP solicitors where he specialised in property development, town and country planning before joining the IPC. Emrys is an acknowledged expert in compulsory purchase law.
He is a legal associate of the Royal Town Planning Institute and is past chairman and currently Secretary of the Compulsory Purchase Association. Emrys will be joining the IPC from 1 May 2010.
Barry Pearce, Commissioner
Dr Barry Pearce was until recently Regional Manager of South West Planning Aid, based at the Architecture Centre in Bristol, where he was responsible for helping communities across the region engage with planning issues and decisions.He previously worked mainly as a Senior Lecturer in Planning and Land Economics (combining teaching and research) at Cambridge University and still lectures on spatial planning at the University of West England (UWE) where he is a Visiting Professor. Other jobs have included work as Senior Planning Executive at the East of England Development Agency, as a Planning Inspector with the Planning Inspectorate, and as Director of the Cambridge Civic Society. Barry is a chartered town planner. His experience covers housing, economic development and heritage issues as well as community involvement. He has also been, among other things, a consultant to the OECD and the Nuffield Foundation, and a local Magistrate.
Andrew Phillipson, Commissioner
Andrew is a Civil Engineer by profession and has worked for many years as a consultant in the UK and abroad. He joins the IPC from the Planning Inspectorate, which he had been at since 1996. In recent years he has conducted a number of inquiries into major infrastructure and other projects. He is a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers and a Member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation.Iwan Richards, Commissioner
Iwan Richards has been a Chartered Town Planner for over 35 years and is also a Landscape Architect. He was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple London in 2004 and specialises in environmental and planning law.Iwan, a fluent Welsh speaker from Bangor Gwynedd, has held senior local government positions within Wales, including: The Isle of Anglesey, Rhondda Cynon Taff and Cardiff. He established his own planning consultancy in Cardiff prior to being appointed One Voice Wales’ first Chief Executive, a Welsh Assembly funded local government association. He was also appointed to assist the Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales (Local Government Ombudsman) undertake complex investigations of maladministration and member misconduct. More recently, Iwan has undertaken interim roles in English local authorities, most recently as interim Head of Planning at Erewash Borough Council, Derbyshire.
Iwan served for over 10 years as a member of the Prince of Wales’ Group and currently lives in Ceredigion, Wales.
Glyn Roberts, Commissioner
Peter Robottom, Commissioner
A professional town planner – initially educated in economic geography at Jesus College, Oxford (1st Class Honours) and via a post-graduate Diploma in Town Planning at UCE in Birmingham. 24 years of Local Government Planning began with Staffordshire County Council. From 1973 – 83, he was Head of Planning for Oxford City Council during which time the “Balanced Transport Policy” was adopted and put into practice and between 1983 – 1991 he was Borough Planning Officer and Head of Economic Development for Brighton Borough Council. During these periods he was an External Examiner for RTPI for courses at Oxford Brookes and South Bank Universities, on the technical advisory panels for the Regional Planning Body, the Regional Tourist Board Executives, a member of the Council of the District Planning Officers Society and latterly a Transport Advisor to the Association of District Councils.He joined The Planning Inspectorate in 1991 as a Senior Housing & Planning Inspector and undertook a wide variety of field casework. In 2001, he became a Principal Housing & Planning Inspector and Group Manager for the Development Plan casework of the Inspectorate, assuming responsibility for the work of the Panels handling Examinations in Public. After an interlude in 2004/5 working for the Government of Guernsey on a review of the Island Development Plan and on an Inquiry relating to Bristol Airport, he became Assistant Director responsible for Ministerial and Specialist Casework including Infrastructure Inquiries early in 2005. At the start of 2008 he became Director of Casework for the Inspectorate responsible for the delivery of all non-development plan casework in England. After retiring from his role in the Autumn of 2008, he is currently working as a part-time Principal Housing and Planning Inspector and, having recently completed work as a member of the Panel examining a Review of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy and as Chair of the Panel Examining the London Plan Crossrail Alteration, he is currently chairing the Panel for the Examination of the Replacement London Plan.
Peter brings the wealth of experience of quasi-judicial decision making and Examination practice to the IPC and looks forward to playing a full role in carrying through the new procedures to ensure that England and Wales have the right infrastructure in the right place within the context of national policies set by Parliament. He holds no other paid public offices other than the current Inspectorate role referred to . He is involved with a number of aspects of his local Diocese of the Church of England and is currently training as a Lay Minister.
Lorna Walker, Commissioner
Lorna is a practicing sustainability and environmental consultant with over 30 years experience in built environment issues. She began her career designing and operating water and waste water treatment plants and continued to become an authority in sustainable development, urban regeneration and urban policy. Until 2004 Lorna was a Director of Arup and the leader of their Global Environmental business where she was responsible for over 200 environmental engineers and scientists around the world, and where she worked on some of the UKs biggest infrastructure and built environment developments. Subsequently she started her own business to focus on sustainability issues.Lorna was a member of Lord Rogers Urban Task Force, which was at the forefront of UK initiatives in urban regeneration and the reclamation of brownfield land. The UTF published “Towards an Urban Renaissance” in 1999 and “Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance” in 2005. She is a CABE Commissioner and chairs the Sustainable Design Committee among others. She is currently a Visiting Professor in Engineering Design for Sustainable Development, at the University of Sheffield, for which she has been awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Engineering. She is a member of the Industrial Advisory Panel of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at University College London, and a member of the International Federation of Consulting Engineers’ Sustainable Development Task Force. She is a Lead Expert on the BIS Foresight programme, “Powering Our Lives: Sustainable Energy Management and the Built Environment,” the results of which were published in 2008, and are currently being disseminated and influencing UK government policy.
Lorna brings the practical experience she has obtained over the last 30 years as well as an unbridled enthusiasm for creating truly sustainable infrastructure in the UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
