House of Commons - National Policy Statement on National Networks

National Policy Statement on National Networks - Transport Committee Contents

2 Does the NPS achieve its aims?

6. The Minister told us that the NPS "provides in one place clarity and certainty on Government policy on the need for nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the way in which these developments will be assessed". As such, it "addresses a key concern of scheme developers and promoters, and it demonstrates this Government's commitment to deliver the infrastructure and investment the economy needs for continued growth, by making the planning system easier to navigate".[4]

7. Most witnesses considered that the draft NPS was a potentially significant document which could make the process for gaining approval for major road and rail projects easier.[5] Inclusion in the document of strategic rail freight interchanges-distribution centres linked to the strategic road and rail networks-was particularly welcomed by the rail industry,[6] Maggie Simpson of the Rail Freight Group said that the NPS could "only help" promoters of strategic rail freight interchange schemes by providing more clarity about the approval process.[7]

8. However, Quod and the Kilbride Group argued that:

· Aside from Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges, the document does not identify the types of national network infrastructure which the Government thinks is needed; and

· The NPS should more explicitly acknowledge the adverse consequences of major transport schemes, particularly where they infringe on Green Belt land, and set out the principles which should be used to decide whether or not schemes should go ahead.

Quod and Kilbride Group argued that without these changes, the NPS could make it more difficult to secure permission for major transport schemes.[8]

9. Some other witnesses also suggested that the draft NPS was insufficiently clear about the type of transport schemes which the Government thinks is necessary.[9] For example, the Royal Academy of Engineering said:[10]

The statement is … non-specific in its reference to the new infrastructure that could be built to enhance the strategic road network. In order to develop a more compelling strategic vision for that network, the Academy feels that specific proposals should be laid out by the government as soon as possible, and discussed in terms of their ability to reduce congestion

Naomi Luhde-Thompson of Friends of the Earth said "It would not be clear what sort of projects would be appropriate and what projects would be considered as the ones that should be coming forward, because there is no clear test as to what sort of projects should be coming forward".[11]

10. The Minister emphasised the importance of the NPS in terms of preventing planning inquiries into specific projects becoming dominated by discussion of broader Government policy, particularly in relation to the environment. He said:[12]

Let's say we are going to build a bypass around a market town in north Lincolnshire, and a number of groups are against it. While it is absolutely important that local considerations about air quality and the effect on habitats are taken into account, there should not be an opportunity posed by the planning inquiry to open up the whole debate on the emissions strategy for trucks, the overall issues about how the country addresses its CO2 obligations and the forecasts that have been made for overall traffic and other demand for transport in the country. In my view, it means that you will be able to focus on the local planning considerations at that inquiry, and not allow a wider discussion. It is very important that we stop the ice caps melting and that we protect polar bears, but a planning inquiry on a bypass round a small market town in north Lincolnshire is not the place for it. That should be for this statement, which looks at our overarching planning considerations and our forecast for transport. Therefore, that can be taken out of the process to allow the local planning inquiry to look at the local issues that are most pertinent to that inquiry

11. We have sympathy with the Minister's wish to ensure that planning inquiries focus on the local impacts of a scheme. However, it will be difficult in practice to keep broader issues off the agenda. For example, the NPS includes the DfT's forecasts for future car usage to 2040, which envisage that "growth in traffic nationwide is likely in any conceivable scenario".[13] We comment in the next chapter on whether the Government should aim to meet, rather than manage, this demand. However, there is a lively academic debate about whether these assumptions are right.[14] The Minister and John Dowie, Director of Strategic Roads and Smart Ticketing, defended the quality of the DfT's modelling but Mr Dowie conceded that the modelling of road traffic in London needed to be reconsidered.[15] Basing the need for additional road infrastructure on predictions where are contested may not succeed in keeping these matters out of the planning process for major schemes.

12. Some witnesses argued that the DfT's demand forecasting underplayed the importance of new technologies in radically changing travel patterns.[16] Martin Heffer, Technical Director, Rail Transit and Aviation, from planning consultancy Parsons Brinckerhoff said:[17]

The [DfT] forecasts have been proven right to date, and the basic connection between output, population, economic growth and trip making has been seen to be robust up to now. We are on the verge of technology changes in the next two or three generations that may challenge some of those relationships. What we would like to see are forecasts that can look at sensitivities about what those changes might bring.

However, John Rhodes said "technology will impact at the margin … the need for an infrastructure network is still a bigger driver of where investment should be going".[18]

13. The Minister's view that planning decisions should not generally include consideration of Government policy on reducing carbon emissions is also controversial.[19] The draft NPS states that a road-building programme on the scale currently envisaged would account for under 0.1% of average annual carbon emissions.[20] It also argues that there will be a switch to ultra-low emission vehicles over the next decade.[21] However, opponents of a scheme may well wish to argue that a major road project could induce additional traffic and undermine national carbon emissions targets, particularly if a number of major road projects are being pursued simultaneously, carbon emissions targets are being missed and Government predictions of take-up of ultra-low emissions vehicles are not met.

Conclusion

14. We welcome the Government's decision to bring forward the draft NPS on National Networks, albeit after some delay.[22] It will help ensure that major projects to upgrade the road and rail networks come forward and gain approval. However, it is not clear why strategic rail freight interchanges are the only type of transport scheme specifically mentioned in the NPS. We recommend that the NPS specify other types of scheme which the Government thinks are needed—such as enhancements to the rail network to promote east-west connectivity and better road and rail connections to ports and airports and to parts of the country which are currently not well served by those networks. In particular, schemes to promote regional economic development should be specified.

15. The DfT's road and rail demand projections are both disputed, for different reasons.[23] The NPS should more explicitly address these criticisms, in order to minimise opportunities for planning inquiries to become fora for fresh debate about the forecasts.

16. We recommend that the NPS include an estimate of the impact on UK carbon emissions of meeting projected demand for growth in road traffic by building more road infrastructure.

17. The Minister told us that there were a number of "exciting new technologies in the pipeline" which could increase the capacity of the road and rail networks and which could also affect demand for transport.[24] These issues are briefly acknowledged in the draft NPS but there is scope for the Government to say more.[25] We recommend that the NPS include an assessment of how road and rail demand forecasts could be affected by new technologies and require scheme promoters to show how they will use new technologies to maximise the capacity of the infrastructure they wish to build.

18. The NPS should be more candid about the adverse impacts of major transport schemes on localities and provide clearer guidance about when the benefits arising from a scheme justify such impacts.[26]

19. Balfour Beatty and Parsons Brinckerhoff told us of a potential ambiguity in the relationship between the NPS and EU directives which scheme promoters must follow:[27]

Various European Directives (e.g. Environmental Impact Assessment, Habitats & Water Framework) require alternatives to be considered as part of the assessments/appraisals needed to comply with the Directives, and to date these have included strategic alternatives. Does the NPS have a status which limits the alternatives which have to be considered for individual projects without exposing those projects to the risk of a successful legal challenge on the grounds of non-compliance with EU Directives?

The DfT has accepted that more thought needs to be given into how promoters can meet the requirements of EU law without having to consider strategic alternatives to their schemes which could result in broad aspects of Government policy being the subject of debate at planning inquiries.[28] The NPS must give scheme promoters clarity about how they should interpret EU requirements for alternatives to schemes to be appraised as part of the planning process. The Government should consider what further steps it might need to take to establish the primacy of the NPS, including, if necessary, legislation.

4 Q87. Back

5 For example, Civil Engineering Contractors Association (NPS0002), British Chambers of Commerce, paragraphs 5 and 18-19 (NPS0011), Royal Town Planning Institute (although with reservations) (NPS 018), and the Institution of Civil Engineers (NPS0037). Back

6 For example, Rail Freight Group, paragraph 3 (NPS0008), DB Schenker paragraph 3.1.4 (NPS0019), Freight on Rail (NPS0022) and Freightliner Group (NPS0023). Back

7 Q19. Back

8 Quod and the Kilbride Group (NPS0029) and Qq 50-53. Back

9 For example, Royal Town Planning Institute (NPS0018) and National Infrastructure Planning Association (NPS0031). Back

10 NPS0014 paragraph 11. Back

11 Q56. Back

12 Q88. Back

13 Draft NPS paragraph 2.7. Back

14 For example, see Dr David Metz (NPS0005) and WSP paragraphs 3.3-3.4 (NPS0021). Back

15 Qq 92-93. Back