Report

National
Infrastructure
Embedding sustainable development
in decision making
March 2011
Acknowledgements
Drafting team

This report was written by Jaime Blakeley-Glover.

With special thanks to:

Jayne Ashley, Shirley Rodrigues, Andrew Lee, Ian Fenn, Tamar Bourne, Andy Long, Alice Owen, and
Mariam Saleemi.

We would also like to extend our thanks to the SDC Commissioners and all the government officials who
participated in our research.

 
Executive Summary
The planning regime has often been criticised • The SDC supports the
for lacking a joined-up and coherent approach recommendation taken by the Energy
to delivering much needed nationally significant and Climate Change Committee that
infrastructure projects. These qualities need to Government should, as a minimum,
be essential elements of a regime that the publish a list of criteria against which
Department of Energy and Climate Change has a decision contrary to the advice of
tasked with delivering £200 billion of the IPC or MIPU could be taken by a
investment in energy infrastructure alone by Secretary of State.2 Furthermore, the
2020. At this time of economic challenge, the reasons underlying a specific decision
UK’s current and future population deserves to should also be clearly set out.
maximise the economic, environmental and
social benefits from such investment. For this to • In addition to the Committee’s
happen, the reforms of the Planning Act 2008 recommendation for the “Secretary of
and outlined in the Localism Bill, National State being aware of the volume and
Infrastructure Work Plan and the much kind of capacity already consented and
anticipated “simple and consolidated national under construction”, we recommend
planning framework covering all forms of that Government sets out a clear
development” need to be joined up with a view process for monitoring and reporting
to delivering sustainable development, not just the cumulative impacts of the totality
development. of all the infrastructure projects.

This report sets out recommendations to • The SDC has devised a series of tests to
Government that will help rectify some key assess the sustainability of infrastructure
issues with the reforms and help the planning projects. We recommend that these
system deliver holistically on its primary stated tests be used to question or
aim of sustainable development. These challenge the sustainability of future
recommendations are supported by a series of NSIP applications and that the IPC,
tests to assess the sustainability of nationally and its successor, ensures this
significant infrastructure projects. The tests approach is adopted.
relate to managing impacts and ensuring long
term resilience, both critical to ensure our long
term future.

Recommendations

• The SDC endorses the recommendation

of the Energy and Climate Change
Committee that “the Government has
set out on important, but potentially
disruptive or even conflicting,
reforms of the planning system in
relative isolation from each
other....The various changes to the
planning system should be
complementary. We therefore
recommend that the development of
the National Planning Framework
and the National Infrastructure Plan,
and the enactment of the Localism
Bill, should be coordinated.”1

 
Introduction
National infrastructure is a central part of the This was enshrined within the Planning Act
lives of each and every one of the UK’s 60 2008 which established:
million citizens. Whether it be for energy, clean
water, management of waste or transport, • A suite of National Policy Statements
every person within the UK is to a greater or (NPSs)5 setting out government policy
lesser extent dependent on the services our relating to new energy, water, waste,
national infrastructure provides. The UK’s waste water and transport infrastructure
infrastructure is central to the nation’s social • A single planning regime under which
progress and economic prosperity and the applications for new infrastructure could
manner in which it is provided has the potential be made
to greatly influence the natural and historic • A new duty placed on developers to
environment and in turn our ability to live ensure they achieve stronger
within environmental limits. Whilst a new community engagement prior to
planning regime for nationally significant submission of an application
infrastructure has been established through the • A new independent body, the
Planning Act 2008 and subsequent Infrastructure Planning Commission
restructurings by the Coalition Government, it (IPC) to assess proposals
still falls short of being a regime that will
deliver sustainable development according to The Planning Act 2008 provides a policy regime
its stated intention. The lack of spatial planning for national infrastructure that sets out to
incorporated into the current system together deliver sustainable development. In order to
with the reliance on the market to determine achieve this, the projects need to work towards
the distribution and phasing of projects means fostering a strong, healthy and just society
that it is unlikely that new national within environmental limits. However, with the
infrastructure will deliver the maximum benefit exception of the Nuclear NPS and Waste Water
for England’s population now and in the future. NPS, the NPSs have been designed such that
the delivery of nationally significant
The Policy Framework for infrastructure is shaped predominantly by the
market. The market certainly has an important
Nationally Significant
role to play in delivery however the regulatory
Infrastructure Projects framework within which it is operating needs to
be robust enough to ensure that environmental
In recent decades, the country’s strategic and social impacts are not subverted in the
infrastructure has suffered from a lack of decision making processes. Such an issue could
investment3 and strategic planning. In addition, manifest itself if, for example, the Imperative
an all too common problem has been the Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI)
length of time taken to process infrastructure test was successfully reached in relation to
planning applications and the considerable impacts under the Habitats Directive. It is not
associated cost. One of the major reasons for yet clear whether the current policy regime and
such delays in the delivery of infrastructure accompanying regulation is robust enough to
projects was an absence of ‘joined up’ deliver new strategic infrastructure that places
government policy which creates uncertainly for economic, environmental and social impacts
developers and inhibited the delivery of and benefits as equally important
projects.4 In an attempt to overcome this considerations.
problem, the previous Government established
a new policy regime, aiming to make the The National Infrastructure Plan published in
planning process for Nationally Significant October 2010 and the new National Planning
Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) less costly, Framework expected in 2012 will provide an
quicker, more certain and more sustainable. important context for nationally significant
infrastructure delivery. Whilst it is the NPSs that
will govern NSIPs, it is crucial that the policy set
3

 
out within them is integrated with the reforms The legislative framework for these changes is
to the planning regime outlined in the Localism included within the Localism Bill which was
Bill and the new National Planning Framework. published in December 2010. Prior to these
In the absence of such integration, it is less changes, the IPC was required to assess
likely that government policy will combine to applications against NPSs put in place by the
form a comprehensive, joined-up planning Government. The new requirement for the NPSs
regime for all types of development. If this is to be placed before Parliament is an important
the case, the new system could well create an step forward and ensures that the NPSs have
environment that is no more certain for democratic accountability. That said, the
developers than the previous planning regime. additional change meaning the relevant
The need to deal with this issue was also Secretary of State now determines individual
outlined by the Energy and Climate Change applications raises a concern. Rather than an
Committee and we endorse their independent body (the IPC) determining
recommendation that “the Government has applications against democratically agreed
set out on important, but potentially NPSs, Secretaries of State could now be in a
disruptive or even conflicting, reforms of the position whereby they are required to exercise
planning system in relative isolation from independent judgement on infrastructure
each other....The various changes to the projects that directly relate to their political
planning system should be complementary. agenda for example fossil fuel fired power
We therefore recommend that the station. Whilst it is noted that the Major
development of the National Planning Infrastructure planning reform work plan7 sets
Framework and the National Infrastructure out that the decisions should be taken in line
Plan, and the enactment of the Localism Bill, with the relevant NPS, it is not clear in what
should be coordinated.”6 circumstances the Secretary of State is
permitted to take a decision contrary to the
This is currently not the case, and indeed the advice of the IPC or MIPU or whether such a
Coalition Government is instituting some new decision can be challenged.
changes to the Planning Act 2008. The major
proposed changes to the current regime are the To ensure this process is transparent, the SDC
requirement for NPSs to be discussed in supports the recommendation taken by the
Parliament and a decision to abolish the IPC and Energy and Climate Change Committee that
establish a Major Infrastructure Planning Unit Government should, as a minimum, publish
(MIPU) in the Planning Inspectorate within the a list of criteria against which a decision
Department of Communities and Local contrary to the advice of the IPC or MIPU
Government (CLG). This latter decision means could be taken by a Secretary of State.8
that the final sign off for each project will now Furthermore, the reasons underlying a
sit with the Secretary of State for the relevant specific decision should also be clearly set
departments as follows: out.

• Energy applications - Secretary of State

for the Department of Energy and
Climate Change
• Transport applications - Secretary of
State for Transport
• Hazardous waste applications -
Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government
• Water supply and waste water
applications - Secretaries of State for
Communities and Local Government and
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

 
The Sustainable Development Commission view on the sustainability of the
current regime
It is the SDC’s view that the current regime still
Sustainable development has been underlined fails to meet these criteria and therefore the
as the intended outcome of projects coming SDC, has been critical of the approach taken in
forward under the NPSs. In our response to the NPS development. The three principal concerns
consultation on the 2007 Planning White Paper, are:
the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC)
set out that sustainable infrastructure would • The weakness of the Appraisals of
need to meet the following principal criteria: Sustainability, particularly as regards the
appraisal of alternatives policy options
• The topics (types of infrastructure) within the NPSs
covered need to be integrated • That, with the exception of the Nuclear
together to achieve a consistent spatial NPS, they are not spatial plans
approach. Effective horizontal • That, whilst required to pay regard to
integration of policy, based on the cumulative impacts of individual
sustainable development principles, is applications, neither the IPC nor its
critical to overcome the potential of successor is explicitly required to assess
‘silo’ delivery the potentially significant damaging
cumulative impacts of all nationally
• Their primary focus must be to deliver
significant infrastructure projects over
whole policy solutions, which would
time.
include both the reduction of demand
and the supply of infrastructure for
In relation to this final point, it is noted that
national needs
“The IPC should ensure it takes account of any
• They must meet other EU and national longer-term adverse impacts that have been
policy objectives such as those within identified and any cumulative adverse impacts.”
the Water Framework Directive, Habitats And: “If the IPC is satisfied that the adverse
Directive etc impacts identified (including any cumulative
adverse impacts) outweigh the benefits of the
• They must address the national
proposed development (taking into account
carbon reduction target
measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for
• They should be subject to Strategic those adverse impacts) consent should be
Environmental Assessment, both refused.”10 It is also noted that the NPSs also
individually and as an integrated whole direct that the Environmental Impact
to assess their cumulative impact, and Assessment (EIA) accompanying an application
unintended chain effects – to include a should provide information on cumulative
‘climate proofing’ test. impacts, in particular how the applicant’s
proposal would combine and interact with the
• They must be subject to full
effects of other development.
consultation, and genuine
engagement and debate, at all levels
The EIA is therefore a critical process to
and with all stakeholders throughout
capturing the cumulative impacts of proposals
the various stages of their development,
within decision making because it has the
in compliance with the Aarhus
potential to pick up important cumulative
Convention.9
impacts of individual and multiple project. That
said, to do so effectively would require impacts
to be assessed at the appropriate spatial scales,
which may be local, catchment or national. In
each case, engagement with the relevant
communities will be an important step in
assessing impacts.
5

 
The SDC welcomes the Government’s These limits could equally be affected by
recognition of the need to assess cumulative NSIPs and the SDC recommends that they
impacts of all major infrastructure projects. should be subject to the same scrutiny.
However, an effective means of tracking Secondly, in addition to the Committee’s
cumulative impacts of infrastructure projects is recommendation that the Secretary of State
important if the planning regime is to fulfil the should be “aware of the volume and kind of
key sustainable development principle of capacity already consented and under
remaining within environmental limits. If such construction”,14 the SDC recommends that
an outcome is to be achieved, information on government must go further and set out a
the cumulative impacts of national clear process for monitoring and reporting
infrastructure needs to be collected and cumulative impacts. In relation to
monitored and the assessment of need for greenhouse gas emissions, this could be
infrastructure adjusted to ensure that carried out through either the Annual Energy
environmental limits are not breached. It is Statement or an alternative mechanism. The
therefore important that the policy regime, central tenet should however ensure that
including the NPSs, is reviewed using this data the process in place enables the needs case
as part of an iterative process that enables for infrastructure within the NPSs to be
transparent changes to be made to the regime updated to reflect sound scientific
that reflect sound science. It is noted that the assessment of cumulative impacts of all
Government has stated that it would “be NSIPs. It is particularly important due to the
watching both the flow of applications for fact that different Secretary of States hold
consent to the IPC and the outcome of those responsibility for different types of
cases to determine whether they are in line infrastructure. Different types of
with the expectations about future infrastructure being developed will combine
infrastructure development on which the NPS to create impacts and therefore it is
policies were based”.11 essential that an overarching view
assessment is made to ensure that the needs
In our view, this is a relatively weak statement case in all NPSs can be updated when
insofar as putting in place a robust and iterative necessary.
process for tracking cumulative impacts of
NSIPs. The SDC again welcomes the Energy and The SDC has repeatedly called for a national
Climate Change Committee’s recommendation spatial plan to co-ordinate land use planning
to government that “the Secretary of State decisions and the delivery of nationally
must take into account the volume and kind of significant infrastructure should be an important
capacity already consented or under consent”12 part of such a plan. In our view a degree of
when considering energy infrastructure central planning should be applied in order to
applications. Such a requirement should help ensure that nationally significant projects
mitigate the potential of missing the UK’s provide the maximum benefit to society and to
renewable energy and greenhouse gas enable their impacts to be managed, including
emissions reduction targets. The SDC does those that are cumulative in nature. We are
however believe that the Committee’s pleased to note that the Energy and Climate
recommendation could go further for two Change Committee has also advocated the need
principal reasons. Firstly, the recommendation is for a greater level of spatial planning, stating
purely climate change focused. The UK’s that “a mechanism is needed for more strategic
greenhouse gas reduction targets are an spatial guidance in the development of
attempt not to breach environmental limits for nationally significant infrastructure....New
greenhouse gases but there are also critical capacity must be able to link up with sufficient
environmental limits relating to water, land transmission networks and both must be
use, biodiversity, air quality, soils, noise and developed in a coherent manner which
light.13 integrates environmental, social and economic
concerns”.15

 
To some extent the Government has will represent the full extent of planning
acknowledged the need for some central guidance issued by central government. In the
planning through the publication of revised intervening period there is some detailed
NPSs. However, in their current state, the NPSs guidance relating to land use planning issues
rely on the market to determine the spatial such as climate change adaptation that is
distribution of infrastructure projects without currently available to Local Planning Authorities.
any overview of how these various elements of
infrastructure fit together operationally. In this Many of the most notable statutory consultees
era of austerity, this Government must ensure under the Planning Act 2008, including the
the amount of capital likely to be invested in Environment Agency, Natural England, Forestry
infrastructure delivers the maximum benefit to Commission and English Heritage are currently
society in both the present and future times undergoing major restructuring. At this stage it
whilst planning for the unavoidable impacts of is unclear as to the role and capacity of these
climate change. It is doubtful that the current organisations to scrutinise individual
market determined approach will achieve this applications. With regard to NPSs it has been
as developers are more likely to pursue projects indicated that the Government intends
with the least risk and greatest financial Parliament to have a more prominent scrutiny
advantage than those which are in the national role over the planning process itself through the
interest. debate on the NPSs.

The following series of tests represents an

As the Government’s independent adviser on
indicative approach to formulating a framework
sustainable development, and as a prescribed
that could be used to assess how far
consultee under the regulations to the Planning
applications for nationally significant
Act 2008 on all proposed applications for NSIPs,
infrastructure deliver on the five principles of
we have developed a series of tests which,
sustainable development. It sets out two key
when combined, represents a high-level
tests for each principle together with an
approach to assessing whether or not
indication of the criteria that a sustainable
infrastructure projects coming forward
infrastructure project should fulfil based on
demonstrate a sustainable development
current best practice – these are split between
approach. In future this role will have to be
managing impacts and ensuring long term
undertaken by others such as NGOs, consultees,
resilience. Both are critically important given
applicants and decision-makers. We
the scale of the projects and the length of the
recommend that these tests be used to
time they will be in situ.
question or challenge the sustainability of
future NSIP applications and that the IPC,
and its successor, ensures this approach is
adopted.

Tests for assessing the

sustainability of infrastructure
projects
Planning policy is currently undergoing a major
review, with the National Planning Policy
Framework, which needs to set the context for
the NPSs, due to be operational by April 2012.
DCLG have made a clear statement that this will
be a simple and consolidated framework that
covers all forms of development and sets out
national economic, environmental and social
priorities. It has also been made clear that this

 
Living within environmental limits
Does the proposal respect the limits of the UK’s environment, resources and biodiversity?
Does the proposal improve the environment and manage the natural resources needed for life
sustainably such that they are unimpaired and remain so for future generations?
A proposal that manages relevant impacts would:
• Meet or exceed national and local policy requirements for protecting the
environment and responding to climate change
• Demonstrate clear and positive action on how any impacts arising are being
managed. This should be done in relation to environmental limits including:
greenhouse gases; biodiversity and habitats; the historic environment; heritage
assets; air quality; water resources; status of soils; land use allocation
• Demonstrate that the project supports relevant sustainable transport objectives and
supports a decarbonised transport infrastructure set out in relevant local and
national policy. This should demonstrate how the application has considered the
four stages of the SDC’s transport hierarchy. This sets out that a sequential approach
of demand reduction, modal shift, efficiency improvements and finally capacity
increases in order to structure thinking in generating and prioritising solutions16
• Meet or exceed relevant best practice guidance on the sustainable procurement of
materials e.g. FSC accredited timber, low CO₂ emissions concrete, materials with a
high recycled content
• Adopt an effective waste management strategy that is based on the waste
hierarchy
• Achieve a high rating in a relevant professional assessment of the project e.g.
CEEQUAL.
A proposal that factored in long-term resilience would:
• Demonstrate that decision making has taken account of the potential impacts of
climate change using the latest UK Climate Projections available at the time. Ensure
the Environmental Statement was prepared to ensure they have identified
appropriate mitigation or adaptation measures that cover the estimated lifetime of
the new infrastructure
• Factor in a level of risk that demonstrates the precautionary principle has been
applied in decisions that relate to environmental impacts.

 
Ensuring a strong healthy and just society
Does the proposal contribute to meeting the diverse needs of all people in existing and future
communities?
Does the proposal promote personal well-being, social cohesion and inclusion, and equal
opportunities?
A proposal that manages relevant impacts would:
• Base decisions on a full assessment of the nature of the directly affected
community in relation to its composition and the different implications it will have
on them – looking at age, gender, ethnicity etc
• Include a clear action plan to engage with all parts of the community, including
those that are the most vulnerable
• Indentify opportunities to contribute to communities through employment, health
and safety and associated infrastructure. Incorporate actions that demonstrate
sufficient weight is being placed on the prosperity of communities in decision
making and opportunities are being maximised
• Sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme or equivalent.
A proposal that factored in long-term resilience would:
• Identify immediate and longer term risks of the project to the local community
and develop a plan with the local community to manage risks into the future.

Achieving a sustainable local economy

Does the proposal support building a strong, stable and sustainable economy which provides
prosperity and opportunities for all?
Does the proposal make efficient use of resources and do any environmental and social costs fall
on those who impose them (polluter pays)?
A proposal that manages relevant impacts would:
• Include actions that contribute to local economic strategy objectives including
supporting new and existing businesses, SMEs and social enterprises
• Be funded in such a way that it minimises current or future pressures on public
finances
• Accurately assess wider costs and benefits (environmental and social) and ensure
these are taken into account in the Value for Money assessment of the proposal
• Clearly identify actions that demonstrate the “Polluter Pays” principle is being
applied within project planning and implementation.
A proposal that factored in long-term resilience would:
• Incorporate actions that improve the local resilience of the economy by
implementing long term training and capacity building programmes or where
possible, include provision in tenders that create opportunities for local SMEs.

 
Promoting good governance
Does the proposal actively promoting effective, participative systems of governance in all levels
of society?
Does engagement with the local community create opportunities for people’s energy and
diversity to influence and improve decisions relating to the proposal?
A proposal that manages relevant impacts would:
• Set out an engagement strategy that includes a high level of on-going community
participation within the planning process
• Demonstrate clear actions that have been taken to engage all groups within the
local community in the planning process e.g. different forms of consultation and
engagement used to respond to the needs of different stakeholders in the
development (to include the Local Authority, community groups, NGOs, age groups,
ethnic groups and vulnerable people).
A proposal that factored in long-term resilience would:
• Adopt an engagement strategy that includes arrangements for stakeholder
involvement post planning permission e.g. with the Local Authority, business,
community groups, NGOs and the community
• Include a management plan for projects that impact the public. This should cover
long term maintenance, ownership and legacy issues.
• Be operated by an organisation that acts as a responsible corporate citizen within
the local community. Actions that deliver this outcome should be included within
an appropriate action plan e.g. corporate responsibility strategy.

Using sound science responsibly

Are decisions relating to the proposal developed and implemented on the basis of strong
scientific evidence and public attitudes and values?
Does the proposal take account of scientific uncertainty and does it reflect the precautionary
principle?
A proposal that manages relevant impacts would:
• Demonstrate that decisions are based on an evidence base of high quality and
direct relevance. This should reflect current scientific knowledge and understanding
at national, regional and local levels e.g. of climate change
• Adopt a risk management strategy that provides a framework to identify and
manage economic, environmental and social risks. This should include protocols and
procedures that ensure that risk management is an iterative process.
A proposal that factored in long-term resilience would:
• Have clearly identifiable actions that demonstrate the evidence base for decision
making has been sensitivity tested for future and different scenarios i.e. the “what
if”
• Be able to provide evidence of how an appropriate level of risk has been applied to
the evidence base and scenario testing to clearly demonstrate the precautionary
principle has been factored into decision making.

10

 
References
                                                            
1
Energy and Climate Change Committee (2011) Energy and Climate Change - Third Report. The revised draft
National Policy Statements on energy available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenergy/648/64802.htm
2
Energy and Climate Change Committee (2011) Energy and Climate Change - Third Report. The revised draft
National Policy Statements on energy available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenergy/648/64802.htm
3
HM Treasury (2010) National Infrastructure Plan 2010 p3
4
Sustainable Development Commission (2007) Planning for a Sustainable Future: SDC Consultation Response
5
Available at www.nationalpolicystatements.org.uk
6
Energy and Climate Change Committee (2011) Energy and Climate Change - Third Report. The revised draft
National Policy Statements on energy available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenergy/648/64802.htm
7
Available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/mipworkplan
8
Energy and Climate Change Committee (2011) Energy and Climate Change - Third Report. The revised draft
National Policy Statements on energy available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenergy/648/64802.htm
9
Sustainable Development Commission (2007) Planning for a Sustainable Future: SDC Consultation Response

10
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2010) Overarching Energy National Policy Statement (EN-1) p44
available at https://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/home
11
Department of Energy and Climate Change (2010) The Government Response to Parliamentary Scrutiny of the
draft National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure, 4.46 p16 available at
https://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk/home
12
Energy and Climate Change Committee (2011) Energy and Climate Change - Third Report. The revised draft
National Policy Statements on energy available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenergy/648/64802.htm
13
Sustainable Development Commission (to be published 2011) Environmental Limits: A Local Leaders’ Guide
14
Energy and Climate Change Committee (2011) Energy and Climate Change - Third Report. The revised draft
National Policy Statements on energy available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenergy/648/64802.htm
15
Energy and Climate Change Committee (2011) Energy and Climate Change - Third Report. The revised draft
National Policy Statements on energy available at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenergy/648/64802.htm
16
The SDC first proposed an overarching hierarchical approach to transport policy in our consultation response to
the Department for Transport’s Delivering a Sustainable Transport System consultation (2009). We used the
hierarchy again to inform our approach in our Smarter Moves report (2010). It is included in the upcoming SDC
report, Fairness in a Car Dependent Society (2011) 

11

 
 Low Carbon Wales Regional Priorities for Action
The Sustainable Development Commission is the
Government’s independent watchdog on sustainable
development, reporting to the Prime Minister, the First
Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First Minister and
Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.
Through advocacy, advice and appraisal, we help put
sustainable development at the heart of Government policy.

www.sd-commission.org.uk
England
(Main office)
55 Whitehall
London SW1A 2HH

Low
0300 068 6305
[email protected]

Scotland
Osborne House

Carbon
1 Osborne Terrace
Edinburgh EH12 5HG
0131 625 1880
[email protected]
www.sd-commission.org.uk/scotland

Wales
Room 1, University of Wales
University Registry
King Edward VII Avenue
Cardiff CF10 3NS
Wales
029 2037 6956 Regional Priorities for Action
[email protected]
Sustainable Development Commission

www.sd-commission.org.uk/wales

Northern Ireland
Room E5.11, Castle Buildings
Stormont Estate,
Belfast BT4 3SR
028 9052 0196
[email protected]
www.sd-commission.org.uk/northern_ireland