Despite the 2011 Fukushima disaster happening more than 6,000 miles away, it continues to have a lasting (and continually evolving) influence on planning decisions in Berkshire. Lichfields’ Mark Battersby (left) and Nick Kirby (right) provide an update to previous analysis, which addressed how planning applications for residential development in proximity to Atomic Weapons Establishments (AWE) sites were being addressed. A key consideration is the Detailed Emergency Planning Zones (DEPZ) designated around the AWE sites (at Burghfield and Aldermaston).
Since Lichfields reported on how applications were being assessed with a greater examination of the science underpinning the specific impacts of a nuclear event and some councils being willing to challenge, and ultimately defy, relevant statutory bodies, a key update can be reported.
A recent (and revisited) appeal over ‘Land to the rear of The Hollies Nursing Home, Burghfield Common for 32 homes’ has become the latest decision affected by the Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Public Information Regulations (REPPIR19) which came into force in May 2019.
Here, we set out what this decision tells us about how decision makers (including Planning Inspectors) are balancing the need for housing, against public safety and the future operation of AWE Burghfield, and how this might affect future development within its vicinity.
Background
The REPPIR19 was introduced in response to lessons from events such as Fukushima, instigating a more precautionary approach to how developments near nuclear licensed sites (including the AWE sites) are assessed. These regulations prompted a reassessment of the DEPZs, which are the areas designated around nuclear licensed facilities where special planning considerations apply, to safeguard public safety.
The AWE Burghfield (AWE B) DEPZ addresses an area surrounding AWE B where the local authority develops an Off-Site Emergency Plan (OSEP). This plan outlines the protective measures to be taken in response to a radiological emergency at AWE B. The REPPIR19 resulted in a considerable widening of the DEPZ boundaries. This sought to increase restrictions on development in proximity to the AWE sites due to concerns that additional housing in these areas could strain emergency response capabilities in the event of a nuclear event and put new residents at risk of exposure to radiation.
The circumstances of the recent appeal…
The appeal was made by TA Fisher against refusal of planning permission by West Berkshire Council for a proposal including 32 homes within the DEPZ of AWE B. One of the reasons for refusal related to the site’s location within the Inner Consultation Zone (ICZ) of the DEPZ, and the council’s concerns that the proposals would compromise ‘future public safety’, because of the potential strain on ‘blue light services’ and operational risk to AWE B.
The council’s refusal was appealed, and a public inquiry was held in June 2023, with the decision (allowing the appeal) following in August 2023. However, the High Court later quashed the 2023 decision on grounds that the reasons for the Planning Inspector disagreeing with the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) as a statutory consultee, with regard to the OSEP, were not legally adequate.
The case was therefore referred back to the Planning Inspectorate for redetermination and, following a further public inquiry, this appeal was allowed in November 2024. Both the Ministry of Defence (MOD)/AWE and the ONR participated in the inquiry and the conclusions of the appeal provide an insight into the following four key issues:
- Interpretation of relevant local policies relating to the DEPZ;
- Assessing risk and safety for new residents in the DEPZ;
- The potential for constraints on operating capacity of the AWE; and
- The extent to which this decision sets a new direction of travel for development in the DEPZ.
Interpretation of relevant local policies relating to the DEPZ
The council’s adopted spatial strategy policy directs growth towards existing settlements including Burghfield Common where the appeal site is located – indeed the site was allocated for residential development in the Core Strategy (2012) (prior to the expansion of the DEPZ in 2020). Setting aside the impacts relating to the DEPZ, the inspector considered the site represented a suitable location from a land use planning perspective.
Alongside the overarching spatial strategy, West Berkshire’s local policies seek to control development by reference to the ONR’s land use planning consultation zones which include an inner, middle and outer zone.
Local policies see residential development within the inner zone as most sensitive, stating this is likely to refused. However, within the middle and outer zones, residential development can be permitted, subject to consultation with the ONR and consideration of issues including the scale of development proposed, its location, population distribution of the area and the impact on public safety, to include how the development would impact on ‘blue light services’.
A key conflict occurred within this appeal when the council and ONR argued that, due to changes to the size of the DEPZ, the appeal site should be treated as falling within the ICZ and on this basis permission should be refused.
The inspector however, disagreed with this argument, considering Local Plan policies require proposals outside the inner zone to be considered on a case by case basis. The inspector felt that substituting the DEPZ for the ICZ would change the meaning and intent of local policies, greatly expand the area where development proposals would likely be refused and lead to considerable uncertainty as to the approach the council is likely to take to development within the DEPZ.
Assessing risk and safety for new residents in the DEPZ
A second key issue dealt with in the appeal was the potential impacts on new residents in terms of safety and wellbeing, both through direct exposure to radiation from a potential plutonium plume and placing additional burden on the OSEP and emergency services during a nuclear event.
In terms of direct impacts, critically the inspector concluded the risk of a nuclear emergency to be low. Acknowledging that if an event did occur the possibility of exposure of the proposed development’s future residents to inhalation and external radiation from a plutonium plume from AWE B cannot be ruled out – this was not dissimilar to the risks faced by any other residents within Burghfield Common. The inspector made the fundamental distinction that the changes introduced by REPPIR19 had not increased the actual risk to future residents or anyone else within the DEPZ, from that present at the point the site had been allocated in 2012. Rather it was the appetite for risk that had changed.
In respect of indirect impacts on the OSEP, it was considered that the development would only lead to an additional 77 residents living in the DEPZ. Whilst this would put an increased burden on emergency responders during a nuclear event and subsequent recovery period, the inspector felt that the quantifiable effect would be limited in a context of “a permanent population of around 22,000, the transient population as well as a potential crowd of 24,000 at the nearby stadium” – the latter, a figure that could increase in the future.
Whilst based on current assessments the inspector emphasised that the OSEP is not infinitely scalable, and that incremental, unplanned development could, over time, erode effective emergency responses to a degree that is detrimental to public safety.
The operational capacity of AWE Burghfield: a key consideration
As the UK’s only site capable of handling the complex processes of assembling, disassembling, and storing nuclear warheads, AWE B plays a critical role in national security. Accordingly, the proposal’s potential impacts on the future operational viability and capacity of AWE B were a key consideration within the appeal – and underpinned the ONR and MODs involvement in this appeal.
Ultimately, whilst the inspector noted the possibility of the proposals leading to future curtailment of AWE B’s operation, again given the small number of residents in question, concluded “the proposed development would result in very limited harm to the operational capability and capacity of AWE B.”
Final thoughts: a new direction of travel?
Overall, the changes arising from the enlarged DEPZs continue to influence planning for new development in certain locations not previously within it, including sites allocated for development. Importantly the appeal discussed highlights that these restrictions on this site are in the form of a planning ‘material considerations’ rather than an ‘embargo’.
The appeal underscores the importance of planning decisions, including those relating to the DEPZ being considered on a case by case basis, whilst emphasising the benefits to developers of rigorously evidencing and quantifying potential for, or absence of, adverse impacts of developing within the DEPZ during the planning process.
The appeal represents another decision where planning inspectors have disagreed with the council, MOD/AWE and ONR and concluded that the impacts from residential development on public safety and the operation of AWE B should not prevent the delivery of much-needed housing on a site within the DEPZ.
Overall this appeal is likely to form another ‘staging point’ rather than the final word on the matter. Whilst allowing the appeal, and emphasising that in these circumstances the DEPZ did not form a ‘moratorium on development’ the inspector was keen to emphasise:
- The appeal was for a ‘relatively modest development’;
- The appeal site was the only “remaining allocated site within the DEPZ, and as such the circumstances of this appeal are unlikely to be repeated elsewhere in the DEPZ”; and
- The forthcoming West Berkshire Local Plan contains a draft policy which reflects the updated DEPZ and is more restrictive
Given the efforts and resources that the MOD/AWE and ONR have put into this appeal, the possibility of another legal challenge (and potentially another Lichfields explanation) can’t be ruled out.
© Thames Tap (powered by ukpropertyforums.com).
Sign up to receive our weekly free journal, The Forum here.
