Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies: a planning vacuum? - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents


Written evidence from Rail Freight Group (ARSS 29)

SUMMARY

Rail Freight Group is concerned that the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies will damage the rail freight sector's ability to grow.

A greater use of rail freight is a key part of sustainable freight transport, but will require new terminals and interchanges to be developed. Regional planning has been helpful in making the case for such facilities where the benefits are measured regionally and nationally.

To avoid a planning vacuum, or a policy that prevents appropriate development of such facilities, there should be:

A strong National Policy Statement with clear guidance on the national and regional need for rail freight terminals;

A clear role for National Policy Statements in the planning process for schemes below the threshold level;

The "duty to co-operate" extended to clarify the areas which must be covered by such co-operation and the outputs which are expected;

Clarity on the legal status of documents produced by Local Enterprise Partnerships in consideration of planning applications; and

Incentives given to Local Authorities to plan for "unpopular" developments such as rail freight terminals in their areas, akin to the recent announcement of incentives for house building.

INTRODUCTION

1.  Rail Freight Group (RFG) is pleased to submit evidence to the Inquiry by the Communities and Local Government Committee into the Abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSSs).

2.  RFG is the representative body for rail freight in the UK. Our aim is to grow the volume of rail freight where it is economically and environmentally sound to do so. We represent around 120 member companies operating in all sectors of rail freight, from train operators, ports and shipping lines to customers and suppliers.

3.  Amongst our members are the operators and developers of rail freight terminals across the UK. These member companies are often deeply involved in the planning process, for major new sites and also for modifications and developments of smaller facilities. They have expressed their concern to us regarding the abolition of regional planning, and more generally with aspects of the proposed reforms. This submission seeks to capture these concerns.

4.  We note that the primary focus of the Inquiry is the implications for house building of the decision to revoke RSSs. RFG has no opinion on this matter. This submission is therefore concerned with the impact on rail freight of this policy.

RSSs and Rail Freight

5.  In order for rail freight to grow its share of the logistics market, new and expanded rail terminals and interchanges are needed. This ranges from smaller facilities through to major sites with rail linked warehousing. These facilities need to be located next to rail lines, and also have excellent road links. This tends to limit the number of locations which are suitable for such facilities.

6.  Rail freight is acknowledged as offering significant benefits to the UK, through reduced carbon and other emissions, and by reducing road congestion. The benefits are measurable on a national and regional basis, but are less tangible at a local level where there may be specific disbenefits of road and rail traffic. The planning framework therefore needs to enable these national and regional benefits to be balanced against the local disbenefits which occur.

7.  RSSs were a key document in setting out the framework under which such judgements could be made. They provided a long term framework for land use and transport planning which would then guide the preparation of local authority development plans and local transport plans. As they were statutory documents, they had significant status in the planning system.

8.  In some regions, supporting documentation was also established, such as the Regional Freight Strategy produced by the West Midlands Regional Assembly. Such documents have been particularly helpful for developers of potential schemes, and for the rail freight industry overall, as well as for the local authorities within the region.

9.  This was particularly important as there is no up to date national strategy for the development of rail freight terminals which a planning inspector could rely on. Under the Planning Act 2008, larger rail freight facilities will be included in the scope of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (until its abolition) and covered in the National Policy Statements (NPS) for National Networks. However this has not yet been produced.

10.  Overall therefore the RSSs provided a coherent regional framework against which particular rail freight facilities could be assessed. With their abolition, there is now a vacuum of planning policy for rail freight, which will exist at least until the NPS is available, and beyond for smaller facilities.

The Proposals to replace RSSs

11.  Government has suggested that a "duty to co-operate" should be placed on local authorities to cover matters formally included in the RSSs. It is unclear what such a duty will mean in practice. For example, if a group of local authorities decide jointly not to produce any transport planning guidance, would this be acceptable? It is unclear that the "duty to co-operate" will facilitate the development of appropriate sub regional strategies.

12.  Local Enterprise Partnerships may have a role to play in considering regional strategies for transport. However, whilst they are being encouraged by central Government they are neither funded, nor steered by them, and we would therefore expect that the various Partnerships will vary significantly in scope and outputs. It is therefore doubtful that they could be relied upon fulfil a planning function. The current proposals for LEPs do not give full coverage across England.

13.  Any studies or plans produced by a Local Enterprise Partnership would not have the same legal status as an RSS. In planning terms therefore, it could not be given the same weight of consideration as, for example, a Local Development Plan. As such, its value for rail freight and transport schemes would be limited.

14.  We consider that to facilitate the development of rail freight there must be strong guidance on a "greater than local" level to help planning inspectors assess the case for new facilities. We consider that, as a minimum, this will therefore require:

(a)  A strong National Policy Statement with clear guidance on the national and regional need for rail freight terminals;

(b)  A clear role for National Policy Statements in the planning process for schemes below the threshold level;

(c)  The "duty to co-operate" extended to clarify the areas which must be covered by such co-operation and the outputs which are expected;

(d)  Clarity on the legal status of documents produced by Local Enterprise Partnerships in consideration of planning applications; and

(e)  Incentives given to Local Authorities to plan for "unpopular" developments such as rail freight terminals in their areas, akin to the recent announcement of incentives for house building.

September 2010



 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 31 March 2011