Memorandum submitted by the Royal Town
Planning Institute
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) is
the leading professional body for spatial planners in the UK.
It is a charity with the purpose to advance the art and science
of town planning for the benefit of the public as a whole. It
has over 22,000 members who serve in government, local government
and as advisors in the private sector.
While the evidence provided in this submission focuses
on the draft energy national policy statements (NPS), many of
the issues will apply to the draft ports NPS, and the emerging
NPSs for other infrastructures.
The briefing supplied to the Select Committee
on the 16th December 2009 is also included at the end of this
submission for information.
This paper has been prepared as evidence for the
assistance of the Select Committee only and should not be taken
as representing the Institute's final observations on the draft
NPS consultations.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
OF THE
DRAFT ENERGY
NATIONAL POLICY
STATEMENTS
1. There is generally a lack of clear spatial
guidance in the NPSs, particularly in translating the national
need for infrastructure into the need to provide a particular
type of infrastructure in a particular locality: this makes a
robust assessment balancing need with local impacts very difficult.
A national spatial planning framework could assist with giving
locational guidance for investors, and this could be assisted
by a sequential approach to site selection embedded in the NPSs.
2. Interpretation of the NPSs is hindered by
their structure, which does not clearly distinguish between what
is policy and what is guidance, or evidence/background. Lessons
could be learned from the "new style" Planning Policy
Statements (PPSs). Similarly, the NPSs should provide guidance
for the preparation of policies and proposals for Nationally Strategic
Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) to come through development plans
at the regional and local level.
3. Consideration needs to be given to the
relationship between each of these NPSs and between them and subsequent
NPSs to further reduce the potential for repetition, conflict
and the constant review of established principles. This would
also contribute toward greater understanding of the NPSs amongst
stakeholders and the community.
SELECT COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS (AS
SUPPLIED ON
4 JANUARY 2010)
GENERAL
Do you think that the Government should formally
approve ("designate") the draft Overarching Energy National
Policy Statement?
4. The points raised above highlight the
key issues that require amendment in the current consultation
drafts or to include in future national policy statements. Therefore
the RTPI do not endorse the current form of energy national policy
statements for formal approval.
Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy
Statement provide the Infrastructure Planning Commission with
the information it needs to reach a decision on whether or not
to grant development consent?
5. The draft NPSs does provide sufficient information
for the IPC to assess proposals however the RTPI is concerned
that in their current form, and without a national spatial strategy,
the IPC is considering proposals in isolation of the wider spatial
implications of other national policy.
6. The proposed assessment criteria are constrained,
and the focus on the application stage means that it is difficult
to assess proposals strategically, taking cumulative effects and
alternative options properly into account.
Does the draft Overarching Energy National Policy
Statement provide suitable information to the Infrastructure Planning
Commission on the Government's energy and climate policy?
7. he RTPI is satisfied that the energy and climate
policy is accounted for in the draft NPS however, it does not
translate these policies into locational principles.
The RTPI mentions that in parts the NPSs are the
same but with different wording. Can you give an example of where
the NPSs are repetitive?
8. One such example relates to references to
landscape impact in EN-1, 2 and 3 (see EN-1 4.24.18: landscape
and visual impact mitigation of energy projects generally, EN-2
2.6.7: visual impact reduction of fossil fuel electricity generating
schemes, and c.f. EN-3 2.7.32: impact of onshore wind farms on
national landscape designations etc).
9. This example demonstrates slightly different
approaches taken to landscape impact in three circumstances (however
this does not include every reference to landscape impacts). There
is no indication as to why there should be a different approach
taken for the different types of energy infrastructure, nor why
the approach should be different for any type of NSIP, or, indeed,
any type of development at all. Existing PPSs provide much of
this information and should either be referred to, or be directly
translated into the NPS to avoid conflicts when interpreting existing
government policy. Where the NPS departs from existing application
of national policy for a particular type of infrastructure (from
a PPS or any other national policy), the NPS should highlight
the reasons for the diversion.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
What are witnesses concerns with the adequacy
of the process?
10. RTPI is here to assist the committee
with the content of the NPSs and how they will be applied, rather
than examine consultation on the NPSs. We note that:
— different types of people respond to
consultations in different ways and will have different experiences
of the process: we do not consider that there are concerns about
the consultation process from the point of view of professional
stakeholders, such as our members, other than with the volume
of documentation for these consultations; and— our views
with regard to community consultation accord with those of Planning
Aid.
What are the challenges of good public engagement
in consultation?
11. The particular challenge is in engaging
"ordinary people" with abstract concepts of national
policy for which they cannot be expected to envisage an immediate
impact on their life or neighbourhood.
12. Given the lack of site designations (other
then the nuclear NPS), it is particularly difficult to engage
people when there is very limited idea of what type of development
is likely to happen where.
How might the consultation process be improved
at this stage?
13. The RTPI endorses the Planning Aid submission
with respect to this question.
We know that PAE have been helping to retrospectively
improve the process. What have we been doing?
14. The RTPI has not been involved with the consultation
process.
Does the consultation meet government guidance
on good consultation?
15. The RTPI have not identified a particular
failure, but support Planning Aid suggestions for enhancements.
What are the risks if the consultation is seen
as being inadequate?
16. Primarily the concern is that decisions based
on policy are delayed at application stage and/or challenged through
the courts.
CASE FOR
SITE SPECIFICITY
What is the potential impact of a lack of site
specificity for the five non nuclear NPSs?
17. It is recognised that site-specific
policies are easier to determine for some project types than others,
and it is appropriate for there to be a spectrum ranging from
actual site designation (eg with nuclear plants), through locality-specific
policies and "areas of search", to non-specific criteria-based
policies.
18. There are examples in national, regional
and local planning policies that could assist. For example:—
the sequential approach to site identification for housing (PPS3)
and retail (Planning Policy Statement 6 Planning for Town Centres—now
Planning Policy Statement 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic
Growth);
— identification of towns suitable for urban
extensions (without necessarily dictating a site, or even direction
of growth), common to many Regional Spatial Strategies; and
— areas of search for minerals extraction
in minerals plans.
19. Being site-specific, or narrowing the
field of search, enables investors to make more informed decisions,
and makes consultation easier and more meaningful.
20. It would be appropriate for non-site
specific NPSs to give more detailed guidance on identifying appropriate
sites to meet needs, either through development plans (sub-national
or local) or, perhaps, through subsequent locationally specific
NPSs.
What might a National Spatial Strategy consist
of? What would the benefits of this approach be?
21. The main purpose of a National Spatial
Planning Framework (NSPF)[271]
is to enable the alignment, in an open and transparent way, of
strategic investment decisions on housing and economic growth
with the infrastructure needed to support them.
22. A NSPF would include broad expectations (not
necessarily targets) for growth in different areas, and would
enable a translation of the national need for infrastructure to
target the locations for delivery to meet local/sub-national need.
Do you feel the approach to the SSA process will
lead to open and effective decision making by the IPC?
23. There is a need to keep the sites selected
through the SSA under review: as contexts and technologies change,
and as local impacts are considered through the NSIPs process,
different sites may be considered more or less appropriate. The
SSA process has been an effective starting point for this, and
it is important to ensure that the selection of sites for nuclear
power continues to be undertaken in a holistic and strategic manner,
presumably now through reviews of the nuclear NPS based on the
SSA methodology (refer to our response).
ACCOUNTING FOR
CUMULATIVE CARBON
EMISSIONS
What do you think of the government's rationale
for not making explicit reference to the carbon profile of new
energy infrastructure in the NPSs? What is the potential impact
of this?
24. The RTPI has supported the Low Carbon
Transition Plan, and have no further comments to make on these
issues.
JUSTIFYING NEED
Does the NPS adequately set out the need for new
nuclear and fossil fuel generating capacity?
25. Generally, the need for this capacity
is adequately set out in the draft NPS, but the need is not necessarily
translated adequately into geographic areas.
26. Some aspects about the relationship between
the need for different types of generation are not entirely clear,
and we believe there is a case for keeping need under review as
technologies and other contexts change.
The overarching NPS states that the IPC should
not address technical or financial feasibility proposals. Do witnesses
agree with the government's approach?
27. It is the RTPI's general view that normal
planning practices should apply, and that technical or financial
feasibility of a particular proposal should not be assessed by
the IPC. However, there may be a case for considering feasibility
when comparing alternative schemes, or when monitoring delivery
against meeting the need for generation capacity.
IMPLICATIONS FOR
THE REST
OF PLANNING
What should the relationship be between the NPSs
and the rest of the planning system?
28. The structure of NPSs needs to be aligned
more carefully with the "new style" PPSs, in which policy,
guidance, background and assessment criteria are carefully separated,
and which provide distinct policy/guidance for making decisions
on consents and for local policy-making. The latter is disappointingly
lacking in the NPSs as they are currently drafted.
29. In many respects, it is in the overlaps
and variances between the policies and processes of the town and
country planning and NSIP regimes that potential weaknesses may
surface. A National Spatial Planning Framework that sets out the
broad principles for both NPSs and PPSs is in our view the best
immediate and long-term remedy.
30. The NPSs disappointingly repeat and
reinterpret established planning policy in PPSs/PPGs—particularly,
for example, PPG2 on Green Belts and general principles on design
etc in PPS1, when it may have been more straightforward simply
to specify that the IPC should make decisions in accordance with
PPGs/PPSs—unless directly and explicitly superseded by an
NPS.
Should the NPSs have any bearing on applications
that fall outside the NSIP criteria?
31. The RTPI believes that this approach
seems reasonable, particularly where a non-NSIP development similar
to an NSIP, or which supports an NSIP, is determined with a NPS
as at least a material consideration. The primacy of an up-to-date
development plan should not be over-ruled, however.
Do you believe that the energy NPSs should each
contain separate assessment proposals for the impacts of new developments
or should they focus primarily on policy?
32. Both. They should focus on policy, and contain
separate assessment criteria related to the policies.
What would the benefits be of a simple overarching
NSIP process document as suggested by the RTPI?
33. Primarily, the benefits would include the
reduction of repetition and the risk of conflict in the interpretation
of policy, establishing overarching principles that would apply
to all types of infrastructure, and reducing the burden of consultation
on later NPSs. Where a specific case can be made that a particular
infrastructure type should be treated differently, this can be
done through the NPS consultation. It should also be possible
to make amendments to such an overarching NPS if necessary as
the result of consultation on an NPS for a particular infrastructure
type that is more broadly applicable.
SUBMISSION TO
THE ENERGY
& CLIMATE CHANGE
COMMITTEE SELECT
COMMITTEE
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) is
the leading professional body for spatial planners in the UK.
It is a charity with the purpose to advance the art and science
of town planning for the benefit of the public as a whole. It
has over 22,000 members who serve in government, local government
and as advisors in the private sector.
While the evidence provided in this briefing focuses
on the draft energy national policy statements, many of the issues
will apply to the draft ports NPS, and the emerging NPSs for other
infrastructures. The following represents the key headlines of
evidence that the RTPI is intending to present in the oral evidence
session on the 6th January 2010 at the Select Committee for energy
NPSs. A subsequent submission prior to the session will give more
detailed information on these and, potentially, additional issues.
National Spatial Strategy
1. The draft national policy statements
(NPSs) only consolidate existing Government policy and outline
a framework for assessing development proposals. As a result they
lack the spatial element of policy necessary for meaningful and
informed decisions to be made about the location and/or routing
of the envisaged infrastructures. A pre-requisite for this is
a national spatial strategy to co-ordinate the appropriate location
and timing of infrastructure with the broader growth, development
and conservation needs of the nation.
2. NPSs outline the need for infrastructure,
but then leave it to the market to come forward with proposals
for the location and type of energy infrastructure, effectively
putting at risk the impetus to ensure energy security of supply.
3. The location of such important infrastructure
has a significant impact on the development of the entire country.
Such important location decisions cannot be dealt with adequately
through individual assessments (as proposed in the NPSs), left
to be proposed by the market, or indeed at the regional or local
level, as commercial conflicts may override the national good.
It is, therefore, important that an integrated assessment of the
spatial consequences of major infrastructure projects should be
carried out at the national level.
4. The effectiveness of the planning system
depends on the clarity of the national policy context within which
all plans, whether national, regional or local, must fit. The
relevance of national policies depends on their sensitivity to
the great spatial variation in the needs and opportunities throughout
the country. Against this background, the RTPI has always regarded
a national planning context as an integral part of the hierarchy
necessary for an effective planning service.
5. The national spatial strategy should
be accompanied by a delivery plan that identifies committed and
potential funding, together with the expected timing of development
to enable the transparent and efficient delivery of infrastructures
(including any public private partnerships).
6. NPSs must have a spatial element, and
this implies a connection both between the various energy NPSs
and with other NPSs. However, they do not so far integrate with
policies in the ports NPS. The RTPI believe Government should
undertake a strategic assessment of suitable locations/areas for
all infrastructures based on best practice sustainability and
climate change considerations to ensure NSIPs are delivered to
meet in the right areas the needs of the nation. This will effectively
mean NPSs are all strategic location- if not actually site-specific.
Policy content
7. As drafted, the draft NPSs do not introduce
new policy, as they are only intended to provide a framework for
the IPC to make decisions based on the infrastructure "need"
and how to weigh up impacts. However, the implications for planning
policy will be in how the IPC weigh national policy with existing
regional and local policy when taking decisions on major infrastructures.
8. NPSs are proposed to be taken as material
consideration for lower level planning decisions and this will
have implications for regional and local planning. Local development
frameworks and regional spatial strategies will also need to consider
the implications of each development consent for major infrastructure
and this provides yet another significant basis for Government
to prepare a national spatial strategy.
Structure and Navigation of NPSs
9. The draft NPSs do not clearly articulate
what is actually to be consulted on given the level of existing
policy contained in the document to enable effective consideration
of the issues.
10. There are sections within the NPSs which
are repetitive, and some where they are almost the same but with
slight different wording. This may lead to confusion. This is
particularly evident in the sections relating to weighing impacts
and mitigation measures.
11. The IPC should be afforded a clear policy
statement that reflects Government policy and provides a clear
means of implementation for consistent decision making for each
of the NPSs for different types of infrastructure.
12. The draft NPSs would do well to follow
the approach being applied to new PPSs of producing clear strategic
policies in the actual NPS, backed up by detailed technical guidance
in separate documents. Much of the guidance/advice contained in
the draft energy PPSs, especially the overarching NPS, appears
to have the potential to apply to entirely different infrastructure
types, and consideration needs to be given to whether a single
overarching NSIPs process guidance document may be necessary.
NPS Consultation Procedure
13. Because of the strategic and high-profile
impact of nationally significant infrastructure projects it is
important that consultation procedures meet and exceed basic requirements,
and seek to continuously improve.
14. The RTPI therefore recommends that Government
considers:
— Continuing to seek to draft policies
using clear and accessible language, and supports this by reducing
the volume of documentation where possible and, importantly, providing
accessible summary documentation.
— Improving the clarity of what matters
are being consulted on (see point number 9 of this briefing).
— Ensuring that consultation event venues
are in well-visited locations accessible by a variety of means
of transport, and are publicised in advance through local authorities
and other groups where possible.
— Optimising the effectiveness of consultation
and consultee buy-in by keeping the burden of consultation to
a minimum.
January 2010
271 The RPTI has published research into the key drivers
of national spatial planning which can be accessed here:
http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/748/Uniting-Britain.pdf Back
| 
