Planners recommended against nuclear plant in 2019 over Welsh language and cultural concerns
Planning inspectors recommended against a Hitachi-built nuclear power plant in Anglesey on the basis that it could dilute the island's Welsh language and culture, it has emerged.
Hitachi scrapped plans to build a £20bn nuclear power plant at Wylfa in 2020 over cost concerns after failing to reach a funding agreement with UK ministers.
Keir Starmer's government has vowed to make it easier to build major infrastructure projects by reforming the planning system and stopping campaigners from launching 'excessive' legal challenges.
The prime minister unveiled plans for a historic expansion in nuclear power this week, vowing to 'push past nimbyism' and make new sites across the country available for new power stations.
Nuclear industry figures believe that the fate of Hitachi's proposed plant at Wylfa demonstrates the problems with the UK's planning system.
Planning inspectors appointed by the UK government recommended that the project be rejected in 2019, warning of its impact on biodiversity, the local economy, housing stock and the Welsh language.
The inspectors' 906-page report said the additional workers required by the project would put pressure on local housing and schools and that 'given the number of Welsh speaking residents, this could adversely affect Welsh language and culture'.
Hitachi carried out a Welsh language impact assessment as part of its application, which found that the project would need to bring 7,500 workers from outside the area. Anglesey has 70,000 residents and one of the highest concentrations of Welsh speakers in the country.
The impact assessment concluded the extra workers 'could have a major adverse effect on the balance of Welsh and non-Welsh speakers' in the area and 'could adversely affect the use and prominence of the Welsh language within communities'.
However, the assessment also found that by creating high-skilled jobs for young people, the project would also help preserve the Welsh language on the island. It would have created more than 2,000 local construction jobs for nine years, and around 85% of the plant's workforce would be local under the plans.
However, the inspectors' report concluded that 'the matters weighing against the proposed development outweigh the matters weighing in favour of it' and that despite planned mitigations the project could 'adversely affect tourism, the local economy, health and wellbeing and Welsh language and culture'.
It also found that the developers had not put forward enough evidence to demonstrate that the Arctic and Sandwich tern populations around the Cemlyn Bay area, where the plant was going to be built, would not be disturbed by construction. There were fears that the birds would abandon the area as a result.
Dan Tomlinson, the Labour MP for Chipping Barnet and the government's growth mission champion, said: 'It's no wonder we've gone from a world pioneer in new nuclear to lagging at the back. Now we've got a government that's willing to back the builders not the blockers, we can stop the delays so the UK can be at the forefront of new nuclear with more jobs and cheaper bills.'
Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said: 'It is absolutely symptomatic of how planning processes for significant infrastructure projects can disappear down a cwningar – the Welsh for a rabbit warren.'
The last Conservative government revived plans for a large-scale nuclear power station at Wylfa and bought the site from Hitachi for £160m. In its election manifesto, Labour pledged to 'explore the opportunities for new nuclear at Wylfa'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
32 minutes ago
- The National
Lesley Riddoch: The SNP's usual attack lines won't work now
Joani Reid must possess steely determination to be Labour MP for East Kilbride and Strathaven. But then she is grand-daughter of the shipyard legend and independence campaigner Jimmy Reid. And he must have been birling in his grave yesterday as his lass contemptuously stuck it to the SNP during Prime Minister's Questions. 'Can I ask the Prime Minister, has he seen calls from within the SNP for John Swinney to resign? And does he agree with me that a leader who's only ever lost elections to the Labour Party should stay put?' This prompted gales of laughter from the Labour front bench. And that hurt. There wasn't even a cutaway showing a furious Stephen Flynn. With just nine MPs, the SNP is now treated as a spent force at Westminster (even though they have a bigger parliamentary group than Reform UK). And as a friend of mine observes, 'no-one kicks a dead dog'. So, the fact a Labour MP saw fit to take game at a recent moment of weakness, suggests they know fine well the SNP is still tipped to become the biggest party in the 2026 Holyrood elections. Yet it felt as if she had just kicked sand in nobody's face. Hard to watch. But then mockery is just one of the things that come your way when you lose. And defeat in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election was certainly a loss, no matter how much the SNP dresses it up otherwise. The other thing that happens is public questioning of the man in charge and his suitability to lead. READ MORE: SNP minister responds to 'secret meeting to discuss John Swinney leadership' reports This was turbo-charged by news that 25 'senior SNP figures' held a secret meeting on Monday where the removal of John Swinney as party leader was discussed. According to this paper: 'Attendees said the First Minister has two weeks to come up with a new strategy on independence or face a 'bloodbath' at the SNP conference.' For those of us bemoaning the indy-free nature of the Hamilton by-election campaign, such straight-talking and muscular movement within the party is long overdue. And it's tempting to join the ranks of those commenting on Swinney's leadership. But there's a more important question that needs greater focus. What will boost support for independence through the 2026 election and beyond? When that is answered, we can see who is right for the tough task of inspiring a new, more engaged and more combative SNP. First Minister John Swinney is facing unrest within the SNPJust challenging the current leader with no clear vision of what lies ahead, risks upending the boat without a canny new captain and prompting more barbed remarks at Swinney's expense. And that actually helps no-one but his Unionist opponents. As it is, the terrain leading to 2026 brings to mind the Battle of Flodden Field, fought in 1513, where the Scots were exposed on all sides and suffered heavy losses, including the death of their king. Let's be clear, it's not going to come to that. But the SNP finds itself politically outflanked on all sides. And it'll take energy, purpose, dynamism and a clear unapologetic strategy for independence to fight clear, and as Jonathan Shafi notes, that means more than occasionally intoning the I-word. Why? Because after years and even decades in the doldrums, Labour is out confidently gunning for the SNP. And if they don't hit their mark, there's every chance Reform will. READ MORE: 'Everything for Keir Starmer is England': Brian Cox calls for Scottish unity The polls still suggest the SNP will be the largest party in 2026 and many supporters will feel there's no need to panic. But a year is a very long time in politics. And it's been ages since the SNP faced challenge from two parties 'on the rise'. Let's take Labour first. In yesterday's spending review, the Chancellor pledged defence spending cash for the Clyde and Rosyth and finally gave the thumbs up to the Acorn carbon capture project near Peterhead, thus pledging jobs for the oil and gas-focused Grampian area while also stealing one of the SNP's biggest grievances about the Westminster Labour Government. Scottish Finance Secretary Shona Robison was right to tell Radio Scotland she fears that 'only development and not delivery costs are being covered. If there was a big figure to come, I think they'd be giving it now'. That's a fair point, but right now it can easily look carnaptious. The SNP have got what they wanted and are still not happy. You can see Ian Murray's script already. Scottish Secretary Ian MurrayOf course, there IS a critical position on Acorn but the CCS-supporting SNP can't make it. According to Oil Change International: 'CCS (carbon capture) has been failing for half a century and its only significant success has been the billions pocketed by industry in public subsidies. 'With the decision to grant funding for the Acorn and Viking carbon capture projects, Rachel Reeves has added to that track record. Instead of funding real transition policies like training for workers, port upgrades and investments in the UK wind industry, the Chancellor chose to funnel more money to the oil and gas industry's latest distraction tactic. 'The Government still has an opportunity to get serious about a just transition and put money where it is really needed, which is not the pockets of oil and gas bosses.' I'd say that is very fair comment. But it's not a defence line the SNP can use unless they get real about the very marginal part CCS can play in a future without fossil fuels. Other SNP attack lines were also closed down by yesterday's review. READ MORE: UK Government announces funding for Acorn carbon capture project in Scotland Scotland will now host the UK's most powerful supercomputer following a U-turn on the University of Edinburgh project. It was selected to host the project years ago by the Tories who promised £800m. But last August, Labour scrapped that plan claiming it was an 'unfunded commitment'. Cue academic fury. But now that faux pas has been corrected. So, like the Winter Fuel Payment U-turn which lets the brass-necked Scottish Secretary accuse the SNP of failing pensioners (breath-taking cheek), so the new £750m 'landmark' investment is being larged up by Labour as 'placing Edinburgh at the forefront of the UK's technological revolution'. Which means SNP complaints will sound like sour grapes. That is the intention. Ditto £250m for the Faslane nuclear base which fits into Murray's Radio Scotland pledge on nuclear power in the wake of Rachel Reeves' £14 billion to complete Sizewell C. 'If Labour wins in 2026, we'll reverse the SNP's veto on nuclear energy.' Now nothing nuclear would be needed in Scotland if we could develop our own energy mix. But we don't. And more engineering jobs pleases unions like the GMB. It works for substantial nuclear industry and pressure groups. And it works for some climate change activists willing to overlook the facts of exorbitant cost, decade-long delays, Fukushima-like safety concerns and Dounreay-like radioactive contamination. The Faslane nuclear base will undergo a major renovation (Image: PA) Yip, it's crazy, but if the Scottish Government wants to maintain its nuclear veto, it must make the arguments instead of resting on CND laurels and fight for its right to party. It needs a wholesale critique of a UK energy system that was privatised to within an inch of its life by Thatcher 30 years ago. A system that doesn't work for Scotland. But we don't hear a peep. Without some coherent attack lines, Scots may think the hardware piling up in our landscape extracting energy for southern shareholders is done at the behest of the Scottish Government, since they are last in the food chain giving planning consent. It's not true. Energy, grids, pylons, cables and turbines are all reserved to Westminster. But if the SNP does no serious work to reallocate responsibility, the underwhelming jobs and tiny income boosts of the green transition will all be blamed on the SNP. And if people don't come to that conclusion themselves, you can bet your bottom dollar Nigel Farage will be there to help them. So, the SNP's old attack lines are almost gone. Claims of success belong largely to the old glory days. There's the problem. Who in the SNP has the courage, energy and collaborative spirit needed to unravel it?
Glasgow Times
35 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Rachel Reeves fails to rule out future tax rises as economy shrinks
The Chancellor has repeatedly said that the cost of Wednesday's spending review is covered by the tax rises she brought in last year, saying departments must now 'live within their means'. But economists have warned that a weakening economy and additional commitments such as reversing much of the cut to winter fuel payments mean taxes are likely to go up again in the autumn. Asked on Thursday whether she could guarantee there would be no further tax rises, Ms Reeves told LBC: 'I think it would be very risky for a Chancellor to try and write future budgets in a world as uncertain as ours.' But she again repeated her promise that she would not need to increase taxes on the same scale as last year, when she put them up by £40 billion. And she rejected the suggestion that she was a 'Klarna Chancellor' who had announced a 'buy now, pay later' spending review. She said: 'The idea that yesterday I racked up a bill that I'm going to need to pay for in the future, that's just not right.' Her comments come as the Office for National Statistics reported that the economy shrank by 0.3% in April – the biggest monthly contraction since October 2023 and worse than the 0.1% fall most economists had expected. In recent days, both Ms Reeves and Number 10 have said the economy is beginning to turn a corner, allowing them to fund the U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. But Thursday's worse-than-expected economic news will make it harder for Ms Reeves to balance her spending commitments with Labour's promises on tax and borrowing. The Chancellor acknowledged that the reduction in GDP was 'disappointing', and blamed 'uncertainty' caused by Donald Trump's announcement of sweeping tariffs at the start of April for much of the fall. But opposition parties have laid the blame squarely with the Government, with Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accusing Ms Reeves of 'economic vandalism'. He said: 'Under Labour, we have seen taxes hiked, inflation almost double, unemployment rise, and growth fall. With more taxes coming, things will only get worse and hard-working people will pay the price.' Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokeswoman, said the figures should act as 'a wake-up call for the Government which has so far refused to listen to the small businesses struggling to cope with the jobs tax' and urged ministers to pursue a 'bespoke UK-EU customs union' to compensate for the impact of US tariffs. The GDP figures come a day after the Chancellor revealed her spending plans for the coming years, including a significant increase in spending on the NHS, defence and schools. The biggest winner was the NHS, which will see its budget rise by £29 billion per year in real terms, leading the Resolution Foundation's Ruth Curtice to say Britain was slowly morphing into a 'National Health State'. But that rise came at the price of real-terms cuts elsewhere, including the Home Office, the Department for Transport and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. On Thursday, Ms Reeves rejected claims that her decision on policing, which will see forces' 'spending power' increase by 2.3% above inflation each year, would mean cuts to frontline police numbers.
South Wales Guardian
35 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Rachel Reeves fails to rule out future tax rises as economy shrinks
The Chancellor has repeatedly said that the cost of Wednesday's spending review is covered by the tax rises she brought in last year, saying departments must now 'live within their means'. But economists have warned that a weakening economy and additional commitments such as reversing much of the cut to winter fuel payments mean taxes are likely to go up again in the autumn. Asked on Thursday whether she could guarantee there would be no further tax rises, Ms Reeves told LBC: 'I think it would be very risky for a Chancellor to try and write future budgets in a world as uncertain as ours.' But she again repeated her promise that she would not need to increase taxes on the same scale as last year, when she put them up by £40 billion. And she rejected the suggestion that she was a 'Klarna Chancellor' who had announced a 'buy now, pay later' spending review. She said: 'The idea that yesterday I racked up a bill that I'm going to need to pay for in the future, that's just not right.' Her comments come as the Office for National Statistics reported that the economy shrank by 0.3% in April – the biggest monthly contraction since October 2023 and worse than the 0.1% fall most economists had expected. In recent days, both Ms Reeves and Number 10 have said the economy is beginning to turn a corner, allowing them to fund the U-turn on the winter fuel allowance. But Thursday's worse-than-expected economic news will make it harder for Ms Reeves to balance her spending commitments with Labour's promises on tax and borrowing. The Chancellor acknowledged that the reduction in GDP was 'disappointing', and blamed 'uncertainty' caused by Donald Trump's announcement of sweeping tariffs at the start of April for much of the fall. But opposition parties have laid the blame squarely with the Government, with Conservative shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride accusing Ms Reeves of 'economic vandalism'. He said: 'Under Labour, we have seen taxes hiked, inflation almost double, unemployment rise, and growth fall. With more taxes coming, things will only get worse and hard-working people will pay the price.' Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokeswoman, said the figures should act as 'a wake-up call for the Government which has so far refused to listen to the small businesses struggling to cope with the jobs tax' and urged ministers to pursue a 'bespoke UK-EU customs union' to compensate for the impact of US tariffs. The GDP figures come a day after the Chancellor revealed her spending plans for the coming years, including a significant increase in spending on the NHS, defence and schools. The biggest winner was the NHS, which will see its budget rise by £29 billion per year in real terms, leading the Resolution Foundation's Ruth Curtice to say Britain was slowly morphing into a 'National Health State'. But that rise came at the price of real-terms cuts elsewhere, including the Home Office, the Department for Transport and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. On Thursday, Ms Reeves rejected claims that her decision on policing, which will see forces' 'spending power' increase by 2.3% above inflation each year, would mean cuts to frontline police numbers.
