Conclusions and recommendations
Does the NPS achieve its aims?
1. We welcome the
Government's decision to bring forward the draft NPS on National
Networks, albeit after some delay. (Paragraph 14)
2. We recommend that
the NPS specify types of scheme [other than strategic rail freight
interchanges] 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. (Paragraph 14)
3. The NPS should
more explicitly address criticisms [of its road and rail demand
forecasts], in order to minimise opportunities for planning inquiries
to become fora for fresh debate about the forecasts. (Paragraph
15)
4. 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. (Paragraph 16)
5. 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. (Paragraph 17)
6. 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. (Paragraph 18)
7. 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. (Paragraph 19)
Is the policy right?
8. Investment in the
road network will require new funding streams. This is a challenge
that must be addressed. However, a consensus would be required
to introduce any road user charging scheme across the strategic
road network as an alternative to road taxation, and the many
issues involved would have to be resolved. (Paragraph 23)
9. We recommend that
the NPS include specific provision for scheme promoters to assess
and manage the impacts of developments to national networks on
local networks. (Paragraph 25)
10. We recommend that
the NPS make explicit reference to the desirability of connecting
HS2 to the classic rail network, so that people from around the
UK can benefit from the new high speed rail line. (Paragraph 27)
11. We recommend that
section three of the NPS should specifically require promoters
of roads schemes to look to improve road safety, analogous to
the requirement on rail scheme promoters in paragraph 3.10 of
the draft. (Paragraph 28)
Conclusion
12. We look forward
to seeing the NPS in final form later this year and debating its
contents. (Paragraph 31)
13. The NPS is necessary
because it will help guide decision makers in assessing major
road and rail projects by clarifying Government policy. The current
draft requires some improvement and we have made a number of recommendations
which should be taken on board. Most importantly, the Government
must provide more examples of the type of transport scheme it
thinks should be promoted to meet the nation's needs; it should
provide more guidance about how to determine whether a scheme
which interferes with the Green Belt or other sensitive planning
or environmental matters should go ahead; and it should seek to
integrate planning for passenger and freight transport by route
or region, rather than look at each mode individually. (Paragraph
32)
| 
