This is how the BBC website is reporting today's commencement of consultation on the National Policy Statements for new nuclear power stations:
"The government has approved 10 sites in England and Wales for new nuclear power stations, most of them in locations where there are already plants."
You, and other members of the public might well assume that the decision is taken and there's nothing else to do. Just wait for them to be built. And that is probably what the Government wants us to think. The truth however is that this just the beginning of the process. Whatever you think about nuclear power or any other infrastructure project, there is some serious democratic and legal process before the development consent can be given, and if the publicity from the Infrastructure Planning Commission is to be believed, it is not going to be a rollover on these matters.
But first there is extensive public consultation, and individuals, NGOs and local government all have a right to try to influence the national policy statement during the consultation process. Parliament also has a role, and the Government has pledged to allow each draft NPS to be examined in a Select Committee or National Policy Statement Committee. Parliamentary committees take evidence, so if you want to, you can apply to do that. You might also want to lobby your MP. Or any suitable peers. But it's worth bearing in mind that MPs are busy people, so pithy, well argued statements are probably as important as serious amounts of factual evidence. A new breed of lawyer is emerging to do this.
The process is also subject to strategic environmental assessment, a European law requirement. Where European designated habitats (European Sites) are likely to be affected (and the threshold is low) the Habitats Directive applies.
Even when the NPS is adopted, the development consent still has to be obtained. That's done by an application to the IPC who must decide it in accordance with the NPS unless adverse impacts outweigh benefits or if there would be a breach of the law. My guess is that this is a significant hurdle for objectors, but the IPC has promised to approach its task without flinching. So there is a proper opportunity to make one's case, for, against or for but with qualifications which might be about practical issues,such as the routeing of power lines, construction accesses, hours of working, effects on ecology. Ecology of course makes one think of the environment and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. That has caused problems for a number of developments over the years. For those who want to stop or delay a development it is probably a happy hunting ground. But it will not be easy; promoters' lawyers may have been objectors' lawyers and even if they haven't, we all have access to the same material.
Of course the IPC procedures are new, and they will no doubt be strict in the application of time limits. There is no public inquiry, just an "open-floor" session. It's mainly done on paper, so again clearly argued cases are going to be what is needed.
No application has yet been made for a development consent. There are still plenty of opportunities to try to influence the decision on any infrastructure project. And the government has certainly not approved the sites yet. (Or of it has, it is not approaching the consultation with an open mind, which is a legal requirement, which could lead to the quashing of the NPS.)
