2 Clarity and scope of the NPS guidance
to decision makers
7. A key purpose of the scrutiny process is to determine
whether the draft NPS requires amendment prior to designation
by the Secretary of State. Most of the evidence we received endorsed
the broad approach of this draft NPS. However, evidence from a
wide range of sectors including the water and sewerage industry
and its customers; planning bodies and local communities; and
professional and environmental bodies highlighted specific concerns
on the clarity of the draft NPS's guidance and recommended amendments
prior to designation. For example, the Infrastructure Planning
Commission (IPC) flagged up concerns with the general description
of the NPS's relationship with statutory provisions. It considered
that the draft should be reviewed to avoid repeating or re-interpreting
the Planning Act 2008 "in different terms" which had
no value as the provisions of the Act took precedence.[17]
The IPC also noted factual inaccuracies in the draft NPS, such
as wrongly identifying the Commission as the designated Hazardous
Substance Authority.[18]
8. A range of witnesses had reservations about the
sections covering two specific projects, the replacement of the
Deephams Sewage Treatment Works and the Thames Tunnel. We examined
their specific concerns as well as assessing the logic and value
to decision makers of including site-specific sections in this
NPS.
9. Ofwat, the economic regulator of the water and
sewerage sector, took issue with the inclusion of a project in
an Asset Management Plan as demonstrating that it is needed.[19]
Thames Water requested a fuller description of the drivers for
new infrastructure projects and the timescales over which they
are required.[20] We
consider these issues further below.
Completeness of NPS
10. The Government has not set out definitively the
extent to which an NPS should be a self-contained document. In
the debate on the Planning Bill in 2008, the then Communities
and Local Government Minister stated that an NPS would set "the
complete policy framework relevant to decision making, integrating
all the important and relevant environmental, social and other
aspects of policy".[21]
However, the Planning White Paper, published in 2007, stated that
the NPS would not be the "only consideration":
It will [...] not be possible for National Policy
Statements to identify and address how individual projects would
take account of the wide range of relevant EC and domestic law
provisions which will apply—including for example obligations
arising from the Habitats and Air Quality Directives, the rights
of individuals under the European Convention on Human Rights,
or obligations arising from UK commitments in relation to climate
change.[22]
11. The draft NPS states that it sets out Government
policy for the provision of major waste water infrastructure but
it is a brief document. It does not cover in any great detail
the policy issues it addresses, although the associated documents
published with the draft NPS, such as the Appraisal of Sustainability,
do provide considerably more detail. For example, decentralisation
of waste water treatment infrastructure as an alternative to new
large projects is covered in the main NPS document in one paragraph,[23]
and air quality and emissions are dealt with in less than one
page.[24] There is one
footnote referring the reader to the Department's Air Quality
Strategy but no description of what this contains, even in outline.
The Institution of Civil Engineers was concerned that the 'Factors
for Examination' section,[25]
referenced "only a few regulations and guidelines,"
despite many of the factors being subjective, making it difficult
for the IPC to be consistent in its assessment of applications.[26]
12. The Minister considered that the draft offered
"just the right balance: not going into too much detail,
not being too prescriptive but providing the IPC with the information
they need".[27]
He added that he would allow IPC members to use their judgement
as professional planners but he would also give a clear steer
as to how to they should apply the NPS.[28]
Nonetheless, the draft NPS falls between two stools, providing
neither a succinct check-list for decision makers nor a fully
descriptive resource. Clearly it will not be practicable for the
NPS to be fully self-contained given the breadth of issues it
covers, but it is hard to see the value of including brief references
to issues without then providing details as to their source and
explaining where further information can be found.
13. We recommend that the draft NPS be revised
to provide comprehensive and effective sign-posting to assist
decision makers in accessing the full sources of policy advice
to which the document refers.
Definition of terms
14. The draft NPS uses ill-defined terms such as
'maximise',[29] and 'good
architecture'.[30] Ofwat
was concerned that terms such as 'good design' or 'as aesthetically
pleasing as possible' were a "bit vague",[31]
and the Environment Agency also thought that references to visual
amenity were unclear.[32]
However, the EA noted that some terms which were not defined within
the NPS, such as 'reasonable,' were well established in planning
circles.[33]
15. The NPS is the primary basis for IPC decision
making on 'associated development,' such as roads, pumps and ancillary
buildings, and the Secretary of State has issued guidance on what
the IPC must have regard to in deciding whether development accompanying
a waste water project constitutes 'associated development'.[34]
However, the IPC considered that it would help applicants if the
NPS itself could include this guidance.[35]
The Minister conceded that Defra would be able to provide a "sentence
or two" within the main document.[36]
16. We recommend that the NPS be revised to define
more clearly those terms whose interpretation is subjective so
as to provide decision makers with clarity on their meaning in
the context within which they are used. The NPS should also be
amended to include guidance on the definition of what constitutes
'associated development' for waste water infrastructure purposes.
17 Ev w1 Back
18
As above. Back
19
Ev 42 Back
20
Ev 53 Back
21
HC Deb, 2 June 2008, Col 571. Back
22
Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning for
a Sustainable Future, May 2007, p 49. Back
23
Draft NPS, p 12, para 2.4.13. Back
24
Draft NPS, pp 67 and 68, paras 6.11.1-6.11.4. Back
25
Draft NPS, Chapter 5. Back
26
Institution of Civil Engineers, Submission to Defra NPS Consultation,
February 2011. Back
27
Q 157 Back
28
Q 166 Back
29
Draft NPS, p 50, para 6.5.14. Back
30
Draft NPS, p 30, para 5.5.3. Back
31
Q 8 Back
32
Q 43 Back
33
As above. Back
34
Draft NPS, p 4. Back
35
Ev w2 Back
36
Q 167 Back
| 
