Another shot at AQUIND
Martin Silman
Our letter from the forum and ALL of our councillors sent to the Planning Inspectorate on Tuesday 25th February, 2025:
Unique Reference 20025182
Further to our e-mail to PINS of 30th March 2023 (see below) we submit the following comments explaining why HM Government should not support the granting of a Development Consent Order (DCO) to AQUIND for rights to use Portsmouth as an Interconnector "Landfall" option.
The first attachment shows the grant of Nationally Important Infrastructure Project (NSIP) status to AQUIND on 30th July by the Dep't for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The second, is a Joint Statement by Ofgem and CPRE dated 13th February 2025 indicating the Interconnector demand in France to be only 1GW and that Ofgem had rejected AQUIND's rights to a "Cap and Floor" regime.
Ofgem's assessment of November 2024:- https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/Window_3_IPA_Decision.pdf at Para 5.33 says "NESO’s analysis suggests that the introduction of AQUIND into the system would generate significant constraint costs. We consider the modelled increase in constraint costs generated by AQUIND is disproportionate and represents a risk to consumers..." It rejects AQUIND out of concerns with the potential negative effect it has on the UK system.
If there is no benefit to the UK "system" from AQUIND, the "opinion" in July 2018 they be given NSIP status was a misunderstanding, ultimately leading to a misapplication of process.
As seen in the BEIS letter, energy related NSIPs were intended for generation projects and not for Interconnectors. The grant of AQUIND's NSIP appears to be for reasons of streamlining the consenting process (which the DCO regime allows). That misunderstanding narrowed the opportunities for proper stakeholder engagement (including with the likes of the Marine Management Organisation) and quite probably the MoD. That's because the Examining Authority is primarily concerned with ensuring NSIP's comply with National Policy Statement EN-1. EN-I is an "Overarching" Statement for delivering major energy infrastructure:- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65bbfbdc709fe1000f637052/overarching-nps-for-energy-
It is our view that had the usual Planning process been applied, the impracticality and unsuitability of Portsmouth as a landfall option, would have been obvious from the start.
Notwithstanding the use of the DCO regime, the MoD explained in their Statement of 22nd August, the AQUIND route impeded the capability of HMNB Portsmouth to operate functionally:-
https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN020022/EN020022-005270-Ministry%20of%20Defence.pdf. In addition, the MoD expressed national security concerns.
For obvious reasons we can't comment on national security matters but, as there are alternative routes to mitigate those threats, it makes no sense to persevere with Portsmouth as a landfall option.
It seems to us as if the Herbert Smith Freehill's response of 14th October 2024 to PINS:-
https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN020022/EN020022-005280-AQUIND%20Interconnector%20-%20Applicant's%20Response%20to%20MoD%20Open%20Submissions%20-%2014.10.24.pdf
is directing the Attorney General's attention toward "planning related" Issues rather than national security. Firstly, the unimpeded operation of HMNB Portsmouth must be "planning related" as otherwise, why is the UK planning system designed to engage with, and accommodate, stakeholder's reasonable concerns and interests? Secondly, any assumption he should adjudicate on the primacy of whether EN-1 "rules", override those of national security is flawed. If the Project neither benefits the UK or France, EN-1 "rules" are irrelevant.
It is unacceptable in any case for the commercial interests of Private Companies to assume they're "entitled" to primacy over "Defence of the Realm" interests in the UK.
AQUIND should not have been "entitled" to withhold commercially sensitive information in UK Courts either. In her Judgement of 23rd January 2023 Mrs Justice Lieven at the High Court (in response to AQUIND's challenge to DESNZ's rejection of their scheme), commented in paragraph 11, that neither the Court nor the Sec of State had sight of the National Grid Electricity Transmission's Feasibility Study "which had been treated as confidential throughout the process":- https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Aquind-v-SSBEIS-2023-EWHC-98-Admin-24.1.2022-Lieven-J.pdf
The Milton Neighbourhood Forum has already provided clear and substantive grounds to REFUSE the DCO. Nothing has changed. However, to ignore the MoD's request for REFUSAL is critical. The UK Government would, in effect, be failing in its duty to respect not just local concerns, but national interests too.
AQUIND's application for a DCO granting an Interconnector "Landfall" at Portsmouth should be REFUSED.
Rod Bailey, Milton Neighbourhood Planning Group &
Martin Silman, Chair of Milton Neighbourhood Forum
Representing the 14,000 residents of Milton, Portsmouth
With the full support & approval of all 6 Ward Councillors:-
Cllr. Gerald Vernon Jackson CBE
Cllr. Steve Pitt
Cllr. Kimberley Barrett
Cllr. Abdul Kadir
Cllr. Darren Sanders
Cllr. Leonie Oliver
25th February 2025