Hunterston national development: cracks appearing?

Cracks have appeared in the political endorsement of the Hunterston clean coal power station as a national development.

National developments were designated in the national planning framework (NPF) with the aim of simplifying the planning process for those developments, and giving greater certainty to developers of ultimate success. In terms of planning law, the statement of need for a national development in the NPF has the status of a development plan allocation. This was to be given political backing by Scottish Parliamentary endorsement of the NPF. The NPF was adopted by the Scottish Government, following the Parliamentary procedure, in June 2009.

On 18 March this year, however, following the submission of an application by Peel Group for the Hunterston coal-fired power station together with some carbon capture technology to the Government’s Energy Consents Unit, the Scottish Parliament passed a motion stating that it “opposes new unabated coal power capacity, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to reject plans to build a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston, given that large-scale carbon capture and storage at existing coal or gas plants has never been successfully demonstrated.” Since Ministers were dealing with the Peel Group application, they did not vote on the motion.

In endorsing the NPF in March 2009, Parliament had indicated it opposed the “technology-specific references” in the designation of Hunterston as a national development (it appears what was meant was that Parliament was in favour of new low carbon base-load capacity at Hunterston, but apparently not in favour of the specific reference to “clean coal”). Although the Minister Stewart Stevenson himself voted in favour of this amendment, the Government took the decision subsequently to keep the reference to clean coal in the NPF, in order to give the necessary certainty to the developer.

Hunterston is now an issue in the general election campaign, with members of all parties (LibDem, Labour, Green, SNP, and Tory candidate Philip Lardner) opposing Peel Group’s application. Can Peel Group now be any more certain of obtaining permission than they would have been if their proposed development had not been designated as a national development?

The political process on Hunterston has been unsatisfactory. Parliament opposing a development that is included in the NPF is not exactly the same as a council opposing a development allocated in the development plan: Parliament has not adopted the NPF – it’s the Scottish Ministers’ plan and Parliament has just commented on it - and Parliament is not a decision-maker on the application. However, Parliamentary endorsement is a key part of giving a developer the necessary certainty that the principle of a development is agreed. So, if the designation of national developments is to be a useful process, it is for the Scottish Government to ensure a sufficient Parliamentary consensus for the proposed national developments, and for Parliament when it considers the NPF either to give sufficiently specific backing to the proposals, or reject them.

Peel Group doesn’t have its troubles to seek on the Hunterston application. It has also been facing a legal challenge (see previous article and post). The challenge is also connected to the adequacy of the Scottish Government’s consultation on national developments.