Latest news with #SamDumitriu
Telegraph
a day ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Why the Government doesn't want you to have aircon
It's been a long, hot summer in Britain. Three official heatwaves have been declared so far, and June was the warmest on record. It followed what the Met Office said was the driest January-to-June period since 1976. With a summer of back-to-back heatwaves, is this the new normal? Sweltering nights have left many longing for air conditioning, but just 5pc of British homes have it, according to a government report. This is far lower than the European average of 20pc and nothing compared to the US, where nine in 10 homes have AC. British government policy discourages built-in air conditioning at every level, argues Sam Dumitriu, of the think tank Britain Remade. Obtuse planning rules mean new-build developers must exhaust all methods of so-called 'passive cooling' before considering AC, and those in older homes risk torpedoing their home's energy rating if they install it. 'Nozzle Britain' Planning laws force new-build developers to demonstrate that 'all practicable passive means of removing excess heat have been used first' before installing AC. For the most part, this means new-builds have tiny prison-style windows that let in little sunlight and are not much help when the air outside is already warm. The Government is still weighing up responses to a consultation run by the Tories in 2023 to change the rules. In the meantime, many households rely on portable AC units. It is not uncommon, Dumitriu says, to walk around new-build estates and see 'lots of little tubes poking out of windows', dubbed by some online as 'Nozzle Britain'. Christian Deilmann, of smart energy firm Tado, says demand for portable units is soaring. But, he warns, 'they can be some of the most energy-intensive appliances in the home'. The issue is at its most acute in London, adds Dumitriu, 'where instead of recognising the policy is bad, they double down'. This is largely because of Mayor Sadiq Khan's London Plan, which ultimately warns against installing AC units as they 'have significant energy requirements' and expel hot air, making the surrounding area even more stifling in hot weather. It also says that London homes must maximise 'dual-aspect' before considering AC. In layman's terms, that means improving airflow with windows on different walls. The so-called 'urban heat island effect' means flats and offices that do have air conditioning make life worse for those who don't, says David Hilton, of consultancy Heat and Energy Ltd. He adds: 'The mass of the other buildings means that ventilation cooling is even more problematic, as the outside air is hot.' EPC penalties Most people switching their gas boiler for a heat pump opt for an air-to-water model, which extracts the heat from the air and uses it to heat the water in radiators. The lesser-known air-to-air heat pump can reverse this process, heating homes in winter and cooling them in summer. But it does not create hot water, meaning you would have to have a regular boiler or other heater installed alongside. And, crucially, it is currently excluded from the £7,500 boiler upgrade scheme (BUS) grant. Ed Miliband's energy department is poised to allow households to install air conditioning with these taxpayer-funded grants. Bean Beanland, of the Heat Pump Federation lobby group, says policymakers are leaning towards bringing air-to-air heat pumps, which are much cheaper than other systems, into scope for the BUS. 'It's very mature technology,' Beanland explains. Some 160,000 are installed every year, mostly in commercial properties – but it's not caught on with homeowners yet, mostly because it's not supported by the subsidy. But installing an air-to-air heat pump could backfire on homeowners by tanking their energy performance certificate (EPC) score. Dumitriu says: 'EPCs are based on primary energy use, which naturally discourages electricity. In the case of air-to-air heat pumps, if you've not ripped your boiler out and you've kept it for hot water, the EPC treats the heat pump as a secondary heating system, so that hurts your score.' Dropping an EPC band can hit your house price and can limit the availability of cheaper mortgages. A landlord whose property drops from a C to a D will be banned from letting it to tenants from 2030 under laws proposed by Miliband and Angela Rayner, the Housing Secretary. 'A lot of the data we use to grade the efficiency of a heat pump is completely out of date and inaccurate,' says Dumitriu. While domestic air conditioning remains a pipe dream in Britain, some believe it is the ideal solution to meet the surplus energy supply from increased solar generation. 'You'd effectively be able to power the AC with just solar. With a variable tariff, you get an hourly price that drops when we have an abundance of solar energy that we'd otherwise have to sell to France,' says Dumitriu. 'We need this kind of solution, because if you don't use AC to mop up the extra energy, we will be in a situation like in Scotland, where they have to pay to turn off wind farms.'
The Herald Scotland
28-06-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Torness ideal for small modular reactor, says Britain Remade
Sam Dumitriu, head of policy at the campaign, said:'Torness has got the expertise, the grid connections, the water supply and everything else that you would need to be a site for one of these new next generation reactors.' Also important, said Dumitriu, is that a site with nuclear history, like Torness, tends to have 'local buy-in'. 'One of the most important local resources at Torness,' he said, 'would be the fact that you've already got that local support, which is a challenge for lots of infrastructure in bits of the country where sometimes see campaigns against new pylons or new turbines or whatever it be. That would not be the case here. You've got some of that infrastructure already, but also you've got some of that local support. 'What we've found with our campaign across the country to make it easier to build the new infrastructure that we need, that those areas that have hosted nuclear power plants before, be that Torness, or Anglesey in North Wales, or Dungeness in Kent, are incredibly supportive of new nuclear because they know the job benefits that come with it.' Britain Remade, which is strongly focussed on campaigning for 'nuclear power alongside the rapid roll-out of renewables' and infrastructure-building to drive growth, hosted a public meeting in Dunbar in April. The event's promotional material asked: 'Will Torness have a future in the next generation of nuclear energy, or will we lose out on jobs, investment, and energy security?' (Image: georgeclerk) READ MORE: The campaign also conducted a poll which found that half of the SNP's voters believe nuclear power should be part of Scotland's mix of clean energy generation. 'Of course we're going to need many more windfarms and solar, and you'll need the pylons to deliver that as well, but you are going to need a reliable source of power for when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shing and for a long time in Scotland, that source has been nuclear. But it won't be able to play that role if the Scottish government ban remains in place.' But many in Scotland still maintain a strong objection to nuclear. Pete Roche, who campaigned against Torness in the 1970s, founding the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace, said: 'The last thing Scotland needs at Torness is more reactors, whether large or small. Incidentally Rolls Royce's so-called small reactors at 470MW are only slightly smaller than Torness's two 660MW reactors.' Britain Remade was launched in Yorkshire in 2022. The campaign's main objective, he said, is 'getting the economy going by making it easier to build the homes that we need, the new transport links that we need and the new sources of clean power that we need'. Previously Dumitriu worked for the free-market Adam Smith Institute. The group also campaign against environmental regulations which they say are 'crippling the building of new homes, infrastructure, and the clean energy sources Britain needs'. 'As things stand,' Dumitriu said, 'at the end of this decade, Torness is set to close. The lights on nuclear energy will go out in Scotland. Obviously just ten years ago, Scotland was producing about 40% of its power from clean and safe and reliable nuclear energy. 'Scotland, a country with a proud nuclear heritage, should be looking to build a next generation of reactors and clearly the sites that make most sense for that are those that already have lots of infrastructure, already are clearly good sites for power plants, already have a local buy-in and local expertise.' Nuclear power, Dumitriu also pointed out, could be key in powering the giant, electricity-gobbling datacentres needed for artificial intelligence. 'For the datacentres that you need for AI, you need a constant supply of cheap electricity and there's a reason why a lot of the developers in Silicon Valley are signing memorandums of understanding with nuclear developers because they know that this is a way for them to have constant 24/7 reliable power. Earlier this month, the UK Government announced its selection of Rolls-Royce SMR as the preferred bidder 'to develop small modular reactors, subject to final government approvals and contract signature – marking a new golden age of nuclear in the UK'. Dumitriu said: 'SMRs are already being deployed in Canada. The idea behind them is that because you build them in a factory and 90% of the construction of them is done in a factory, you're rolling them off a production line and because of that you get all of the cost reductions of economies of scale, of learning by doing and you're able to build them a lot cheaper than the current design.' But that cost reduction remains much debated and one of the criticisms levelled by the Scottish Government, and others, is that nuclear power is very expensive. Dumitriu blamed some of that high price on 'the cost of environmental regulations'. He also maintained that SMRs will come down in price over time. 'Because they are modular,' he said, 'and they can build 90% of them in a factory, you get those economies of scale. And all the projections are that the costs will come down significantly to the point where it is significantly cheaper than the large scale nuclear we are building now, cheaper than new gas, and when you take into account the intermittency costs, even cheaper than renewables as wells.' Artist's impression of a design for an SMR for Western Gateway in Gloucestershire (Image: Western Gateway) However a recent analysis of the technology in the United States said that SMR are projected to be the most expensive of all electricity technologies per KW. The report by management consultancy firm ICF found that they would cost more than any other source of electricity, including battery energy storage systems, solar, wind, combustion turbines and gas. Campaigner Pete Roche said: 'There is no evidence that small modular reactors will be cheaper, because almost none have ever been built. In fact it is beginning to look like small reactors will be even more expensive than large reactors because they won't benefit from economies of scale.' Energy Secretary Gillian Martin said: 'The Scottish Government is focussed on supporting growth and creating jobs by capitalising on Scotland's immense renewable energy capacity rather than expensive new nuclear energy which takes decades to build and creates toxic waste which is difficult and costly to dispose of. 'However we recognise the significant value that Torness and its workforce has contributed to Scotland's economy and local community. 'Decommissioning Scotland's nuclear sites will take decades and will require the retention of a highly skilled workforce. Meanwhile, the significant growth in renewables, storage hydrogen, carbon capture and decommissioning are key opportunities for our future energy workforce in Scotland – with independent scenarios from Ernst and Young (EY), showing that with the right support, Scotland's low carbon and renewable energy sector could support nearly 80,000 jobs by 2050.'
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
The 14-mile Thames crossing delayed by 66 miles of paperwork
On Monday, there were plenty of congratulatory pats on the back as the Silvertown Tunnel welcomed London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) vehicles along its short route under the Thames. But, for a moment, set aside the Teslas, e-Transit vans, and even the bus carrying bicycles speeding through the new 0.8 mile tunnel between Newham and the Greenwich Peninsula. Consider this: the last time a brand new crossing of the capital's river in east London was celebrated by personal vehicle owners, the Ford Model T was still months away from being launched. It was 1908, and the Rotherhithe Tunnel had just opened. It wasn't until nearly 60 years later, in 1967, that an additional parallel tunnel was opened at the Blackwall crossing (a Victorian-era project still in use today). Even then, the new eastern tunnel was quickly deemed inadequate, with traffic tailbacks soon crippling the area. It shouldn't have been this difficult to cross the Thames, surely. Yet, nearly 60 years after the Blackwall debacle, you would have been forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the painfully slow progress in developing critical infrastructure. Further downstream, another classic Thames controversy made headlines last month when plans for the £9 billion Lower Thames Crossing – potentially Britain's largest road-building project – were finally given formal Government approval. A relief route east of the Dartford Crossings was first mentioned in Parliament a staggering 36 years ago, as part of a 'Roads for Prosperity' white paper. In 2011, it was recognised by the Conservative government as a 'top 40 priority project' in its National Infrastructure Plan. The first public consultation was held 12 years ago. And yet here we are. The latest estimate from National Highways suggests the Lower Thames Crossing won't open to traffic until 2032. If so-called priority projects take 21 years to materialise, it's no wonder no one's holding their breath. 'The Lower Thames Crossing is such a powerful symbol of how seriously wrong the system is,' says Sam Dumitriu, head of policy at campaign organisation Britain Remade. 'A billion pounds has already been spent on this project before a single spade has got into the ground. The planning application alone cost more than Norway spent on actually building the longest road tunnel in the world. It's bonkers.' Yes, there are some obvious engineering issues crossing over or under the Thames, not least that once you get out towards the estuary it's relatively wide. The project's two tunnels, which will go between the villages of Chalk, in Kent, and East Tilbury, in Essex, are designed to be 2.4 miles long, making them the longest road tunnels in Britain. But it has been the continued lack of joined-up strategy, combined with colossal paperwork, red tape, and endless judicial, environmental and planning reviews, that has effectively scuppered any prospect of anything getting built quickly. The Silvertown Tunnel is another classic example of what happens when governments get stuck in a directionless mire. It had been clear since at least the 1980s that London needed more river crossings – especially in the east – yet it wasn't until the mid-1990s that a route was finally safeguarded across the Thames from the Greenwich Peninsula to Silvertown (in other words, prioritised above other proposed developments). An actual tunnel cropped up in the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone's transport strategy in 2001, and in Transport for London's Thames Gateway River Crossings strategy published a few years later, the suggestion was that it would directly follow the opening of a new 'Thames Gateway Bridge' between Beckton and Thamesmead. Imagine – two new river crossings! You might also be thinking: 'What Thames Gateway Bridge?' And you'd be right. It was cancelled in 2008 by then Mayor of London Boris Johnson – too expensive, too environmentally damaging, too unpopular locally. This was after the project had first been proposed back in the 1970s, in a previous guise as the 'East London River Crossing'. Not that Johnson was averse to expensive Thames crossings. Under his mayoralty, Transport for London drew up proposals for 'a bridge or tunnel' at Gallions Reach and another between Rainham and Belvedere, both of which were eventually ditched by Johnson's successor, Sadiq Khan, who concentrated on the Silvertown Tunnel. (Johnson was also a big fan of the Garden Bridge project, a proposal for a pedestrian crossing between Waterloo and Blackfriars, whose price eventually spiralled out of control.) The Silvertown Tunnel was finally designated a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and given the go-ahead by the Department of Transport in 2018. That wasn't the end of the story, though. It took another 18 months to award the contract to the Riverlinx consortium to design, build, finance, and maintain the tunnel – and construction didn't begin until spring 2021. When you considered it, it had taken a ridiculous 30 years to properly connect Silvertown with Greenwich, and four years of construction didn't sound so bad. That is, until you remember that other countries were building tunnels at least 10 times the length for a fraction of Silvertown's £2.2 billion price tag. The Lower Thames Crossing, meanwhile, still has a number of hoops to jump through despite receiving planning permission last month. Ominously, Matt Palmer, National Highways executive director for the Lower Thames Crossing, has said that while they are 'shovel ready' with their delivery partners to build one of the UK's most important infrastructure projects, the decision still only allows them to 'work with the Government on funding and start the detailed planning.' All of which begs the question: what more detailed planning could they possibly need to do with government? Britain Remade did the maths – if you put all the pages of the interminable documents involved in this project end to end, they would stretch 66 miles, five times longer than the road itself. National Highways declined to comment on specifics, but Dumitriu is certain there'll be more legal challenges to the planning approval decision, which will end up going to the High Court, and possibly the Court of Appeal. 'The Lower Thames Crossing has had eight separate consultations, and one of the things we're calling for is looking at whether all these legal requirements are appropriate,' he says. 'Part of the reason you end up with a 360,000-page planning application is because there is so much legal risk you end up having to gold plate every aspect of the project. 'Yes, we should look at what the environmental impact is,' he says. 'Yes, we should consider what locals think. But we also have to fundamentally accept that there is a trade off here in terms of getting growth back up in the UK for the long term. All this gold plating has speed and cost implications; this was once a £4 billion project which is now more like £10 billion – and as we heard just this month, the Government doesn't have a huge amount of cash to splash.' Which is why there's still an element of frustration that Labour's much-heralded Planning and Infrastructure Bill – a critical piece of legislation aimed at easing major projects through – is now stuck in red tape itself, as the Bill shuttles between committee stages, report stages, House of Lords approval, and eventually, maybe, Royal Assent. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government – the department sponsoring the Bill – was asked when there might be a puff of white smoke from Whitehall. A spokesperson simply replied that the planning reforms needed to become law 'as quickly as possible.' The builders agree – and are just as impatient. Last week, senior executives from 13 UK Tier 1 contractors penned an open letter to MPs urging them 'to grasp the scale of this opportunity and support the Planning and Infrastructure Bill without diminishing its ambition.' And it's this ambition that actually excites bodies such as the National Infrastructure Commission. Many of the recommendations in its National Infrastructure Assessment of 2023 have made it into the Bill. 'Everybody, I think, would argue that one of the big constraints in this country is consistent policy and strategy,' says its chair Sir John Armitt. 'If you take the Lower Thames Crossing decision, it's very good news. This, to my mind, is a relatively straightforward piece of transport infrastructure which is of critical national importance – and that was recognised some 15 years ago. So it's taken a long time.' But why so long? 'Well, we pointed out to the government three years ago that the planning process has severely deteriorated since 2010,' he says. 'Back then, you could get an NSIP through in just over two years. Now it's over four on average, with some – like the Lower Thames Crossing – taking even longer. At the same time, the number of judicial reviews on NSIPs has gone up from 10 per cent to 56 per cent.' Britain Remade say there are 1,800 pages on newts in the Lower Thames Crossing planning document. It's this kind of red tape, combined with legitimate local concerns, which makes multiple legal challenges and consultations inevitable. (Even existing crossings have been put out of action by officialdom. The 138-year-old Hammersmith Bridge was closed six years ago following the discovery of cracks, but its future remains in limbo amid wrangling between three tiers of government – central, city and local.) 'The whole process has to be reviewed,' agrees Armitt. 'One of the reasons it takes so long and costs so much is because of the environmental challenges and assessments that have to be made, the mitigations that have to be made and the sheer amount of statutory authorities who have to be consulted. 'There should be the ability, for example, to look at a more strategic, spatial area where a developer can put forward money to compensate communities on a broader environmental basis. That's potentially a very significant step forward.' That's why the Environmental Delivery Plan and Nature Restoration Fund has been prepared alongside the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and will be operational for developers to use shortly after Royal Assent. Yet the Government does concede that streamlining the NSIP regime still has some way to go. Housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook says that during the Bill's first and second readings in Parliament, several MPs called for further consideration of how long pre-application periods are taking for infrastructure projects, due to the way statutory procedures are being applied. 'This is an issue to which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have already given a significant amount of thought,' he says, 'and I commit to giving further consideration to the case for using the Bill to address statutory requirements that would appear to be no longer driving good outcomes. I can assure those honorary Members that the Government will not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area.' Acting boldly, many would argue, would mean addressing those statutory requirements now. After all, aren't the experiences of the Silvertown Tunnel and the Lower Thames Crossing compelling cases for reform? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
08-04-2025
- Automotive
- Telegraph
The 14-mile Thames crossing delayed by 66 miles of paperwork
On Monday, there were plenty of congratulatory pats on the back as the Silvertown Tunnel welcomed London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) vehicles along its short route under the Thames. But, for a moment, set aside the Teslas, e-Transit vans, and even the bus carrying bicycles speeding through the new 0.8 mile tunnel between Newham and the Greenwich Peninsula. Consider this: the last time a brand new crossing of the capital's river in east London was celebrated by personal vehicle owners, the Ford Model T was still months away from being launched. It was 1908, and the Rotherhithe Tunnel had just opened. It wasn't until nearly 60 years later, in 1967, that an additional parallel tunnel was opened at the Blackwall crossing (a Victorian-era project still in use today). Even then, the new eastern tunnel was quickly deemed inadequate, with traffic tailbacks soon crippling the area. It shouldn't have been this difficult to cross the Thames, surely. Yet, nearly 60 years after the Blackwall debacle, you would have been forgiven for thinking otherwise, given the painfully slow progress in developing critical infrastructure. Further downstream, another classic Thames controversy made headlines last month when plans for the £9 billion Lower Thames Crossing – potentially Britain's largest road-building project – were finally given formal Government approval. A relief route east of the Dartford Crossings was first mentioned in Parliament a staggering 36 years ago, as part of a 'Roads for Prosperity' white paper. In 2011, it was recognised by the Conservative government as a 'top 40 priority project' in its National Infrastructure Plan. The first public consultation was held 12 years ago. And yet here we are. The latest estimate from National Highways suggests the Lower Thames Crossing won't open to traffic until 2032. If so-called priority projects take 21 years to materialise, it's no wonder no one's holding their breath. 'The Lower Thames Crossing is such a powerful symbol of how seriously wrong the system is,' says Sam Dumitriu, head of policy at campaign organisation Britain Remade. 'A billion pounds has already been spent on this project before a single spade has got into the ground. The planning application alone cost more than Norway spent on actually building the longest road tunnel in the world. It's bonkers.' Yes, there are some obvious engineering issues crossing over or under the Thames, not least that once you get out towards the estuary it's relatively wide. The project's two tunnels, which will go between the villages of Chalk, in Kent, and East Tilbury, in Essex, are designed to be 2.4 miles long, making them the longest road tunnels in Britain. But it has been the continued lack of joined-up strategy, combined with colossal paperwork, red tape, and endless judicial, environmental and planning reviews, that has effectively scuppered any prospect of anything getting built quickly. The Silvertown Tunnel is another classic example of what happens when governments get stuck in a directionless mire. It had been clear since at least the 1980s that London needed more river crossings – especially in the east – yet it wasn't until the mid-1990s that a route was finally safeguarded across the Thames from the Greenwich Peninsula to Silvertown (in other words, prioritised above other proposed developments). An actual tunnel cropped up in the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone's transport strategy in 2001, and in Transport for London's Thames Gateway River Crossings strategy published a few years later, the suggestion was that it would directly follow the opening of a new 'Thames Gateway Bridge' between Beckton and Thamesmead. Imagine – two new river crossings! You might also be thinking: 'What Thames Gateway Bridge?' And you'd be right. It was cancelled in 2008 by then Mayor of London Boris Johnson – too expensive, too environmentally damaging, too unpopular locally. This was after the project had first been proposed back in the 1970s, in a previous guise as the 'East London River Crossing'. Not that Johnson was averse to expensive Thames crossings. Under his mayoralty, Transport for London drew up proposals for 'a bridge or tunnel' at Gallions Reach and another between Rainham and Belvedere, both of which were eventually ditched by Johnson's successor, Sadiq Khan, who concentrated on the Silvertown Tunnel. (Johnson was also a big fan of the Garden Bridge project, a proposal for a pedestrian crossing between Waterloo and Blackfriars, whose price eventually spiralled out of control.) The Silvertown Tunnel was finally designated a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and given the go-ahead by the Department of Transport in 2018. That wasn't the end of the story, though. It took another 18 months to award the contract to the Riverlinx consortium to design, build, finance, and maintain the tunnel – and construction didn't begin until spring 2021. When you considered it, it had taken a ridiculous 30 years to properly connect Silvertown with Greenwich, and four years of construction didn't sound so bad. That is, until you remember that other countries were building tunnels at least 10 times the length for a fraction of Silvertown's £2.2 billion price tag. The Lower Thames Crossing, meanwhile, still has a number of hoops to jump through despite receiving planning permission last month. Ominously, Matt Palmer, National Highways executive director for the Lower Thames Crossing, has said that while they are 'shovel ready' with their delivery partners to build one of the UK's most important infrastructure projects, the decision still only allows them to 'work with the Government on funding and start the detailed planning.' All of which begs the question: what more detailed planning could they possibly need to do with government? Britain Remade did the maths – if you put all the pages of the interminable documents involved in this project end to end, they would stretch 66 miles, five times longer than the road itself. National Highways declined to comment on specifics, but Dumitriu is certain there'll be more legal challenges to the planning approval decision, which will end up going to the High Court, and possibly the Court of Appeal. 'The Lower Thames Crossing has had eight separate consultations, and one of the things we're calling for is looking at whether all these legal requirements are appropriate,' he says. 'Part of the reason you end up with a 360,000-page planning application is because there is so much legal risk you end up having to gold plate every aspect of the project. 'Yes, we should look at what the environmental impact is,' he says. 'Yes, we should consider what locals think. But we also have to fundamentally accept that there is a trade off here in terms of getting growth back up in the UK for the long term. All this gold plating has speed and cost implications; this was once a £4 billion project which is now more like £10 billion – and as we heard just this month, the Government doesn't have a huge amount of cash to splash.' Which is why there's still an element of frustration that Labour's much-heralded Planning and Infrastructure Bill – a critical piece of legislation aimed at easing major projects through – is now stuck in red tape itself, as the Bill shuttles between committee stages, report stages, House of Lords approval, and eventually, maybe, Royal Assent. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government – the department sponsoring the Bill – was asked when there might be a puff of white smoke from Whitehall. A spokesperson simply replied that the planning reforms needed to become law 'as quickly as possible.' The builders agree – and are just as impatient. Last week, senior executives from 13 UK Tier 1 contractors penned an open letter to MPs urging them 'to grasp the scale of this opportunity and support the Planning and Infrastructure Bill without diminishing its ambition.' And it's this ambition that actually excites bodies such as the National Infrastructure Commission. Many of the recommendations in its National Infrastructure Assessment of 2023 have made it into the Bill. 'Everybody, I think, would argue that one of the big constraints in this country is consistent policy and strategy,' says its chair Sir John Armitt. 'If you take the Lower Thames Crossing decision, it's very good news. This, to my mind, is a relatively straightforward piece of transport infrastructure which is of critical national importance – and that was recognised some 15 years ago. So it's taken a long time.' But why so long? 'Well, we pointed out to the government three years ago that the planning process has severely deteriorated since 2010,' he says. 'Back then, you could get an NSIP through in just over two years. Now it's over four on average, with some – like the Lower Thames Crossing – taking even longer. At the same time, the number of judicial reviews on NSIPs has gone up from 10 per cent to 56 per cent.' Britain Remade say there are 1,800 pages on newts in the Lower Thames Crossing planning document. It's this kind of red tape, combined with legitimate local concerns, which makes multiple legal challenges and consultations inevitable. (Even existing crossings have been put out of action by officialdom. The 138-year-old Hammersmith Bridge was closed six years ago following the discovery of cracks, but its future remains in limbo amid wrangling between three tiers of government – central, city and local.) 'The whole process has to be reviewed,' agrees Armitt. 'One of the reasons it takes so long and costs so much is because of the environmental challenges and assessments that have to be made, the mitigations that have to be made and the sheer amount of statutory authorities who have to be consulted. 'There should be the ability, for example, to look at a more strategic, spatial area where a developer can put forward money to compensate communities on a broader environmental basis. That's potentially a very significant step forward.' That's why the Environmental Delivery Plan and Nature Restoration Fund has been prepared alongside the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and will be operational for developers to use shortly after Royal Assent. Yet the Government does concede that streamlining the NSIP regime still has some way to go. Housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook says that during the Bill's first and second readings in Parliament, several MPs called for further consideration of how long pre-application periods are taking for infrastructure projects, due to the way statutory procedures are being applied. 'This is an issue to which the Deputy Prime Minister and I have already given a significant amount of thought,' he says, 'and I commit to giving further consideration to the case for using the Bill to address statutory requirements that would appear to be no longer driving good outcomes. I can assure those honorary Members that the Government will not hesitate to act boldly if there is a compelling case for reform in this area.'
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
UK 'ripping up archaic rules' on nuclear plants
The UK government announced plans to approve more nuclear reactors Thursday, including giving developers freedom to build new plants anywhere in England and Wales and scrapping expiry dates on projects. 'This is the latest refusal to accept the status quo, with the government ripping up archaic rules and saying no to the NIMBYs [Not In My Back Yard], to prioritise growth,' Downing Street said in a statement. Britain's nuclear industry has been 'suffocated by regulations,' Downing Street wrote, and analysts tend to agree: The Hinkley Point C plant currently under construction uses the same design as existing French reactors, but regulators required 7,000 design changes. As a result, it is running vastly over budget and years behind schedule, partly thanks to onerous planning rules and ongoing disputes with the Environment Agency and local authorities, Sam Dumitriu argued in his Notes on Growth Substack. The problems are self-perpetuating: The UK hadn't switched on a nuclear reactor since 1995 when Hinkley was announced, meaning EDF Energy, which is building the plant, faced an 'uphill battle' finding skilled workers and was forced to spend around £120 million ($148.6 million) on training colleges, The Times of London reported. The UK isn't unique in finding it difficult to get nuclear projects off the ground: Long-time market leaders such as the US and France have also struggled with project delays and cost overruns, with the vast majority of new construction now in China and Russia, the International Energy Agency wrote in a recent report. That said, Western countries may also be mishandling projects by trying to complete them too fast, the head of nuclear reactor maker AtkinsRéalis told the Financial Times last year: 'Really we should probably slow things down a bit, spend more time on the planning phase and get the execution phase [done],' he said.
