Commons and Lords opine on National Policy Statement
This entry reports on the publication of a report and a debate on the National Policy Statement for National Networks.
National Policy Statements (NPSs) are the cornerstone of the Planning Act 2008 regime for planning and authorising nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). They set out the need for each type of infrastructure and the impacts that project promoters should assess and inspectors should examine when applications are made.
Nine NPSs have been adopted (or 'designated') so far - five for different types of energy infrastructure plus an overarching one, and one each for ports, waste water and hazardous waste. The long-awaited draft NPS for 'national networks' i.e. not electricity lines but roads, railways and rail freight interchanges, was published in December 2013, after having been first promised in November 2009. You can find it here.
Commons
The Transport Select Committee of the House of Commons (which I saw described as 'Transcom' yesterday, I suppose that is its email address) conducted an inquiry into the NPS earlier this year, holding a single evidence session, reported here.
On Wednesday it published its report, which can be found here. What does it say, for those not inclined to read it? Read on.
Unlike some previous select committee reports on draft NPSs, this one doesn't call for any fundamental changes to the draft. It makes three main recommendations:
- the NPS should provide more examples of the types of project the government would like to see come forward;
- it should provide more guidance about building transport projects on the Green Belt;
- it should integrate planning by route or region across modes (i.e. road, rail etc.) rather than looking at them separately.
One of the criticisms of the NPS in the public consultation was that it is not location-specific, i.e. it doesn't say where it thinks new and improved roads, railways and rail freight interchanges should go - an important feature of a transport project, one might think. The select committee has only taken this point up in a limited way, recommending 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."
That is certainly helpful, the government could simply lift that text and put it straight into the NPS.
Building on the Green Belt is a sensitive subject at the best of times, but do transport links on it keep it open and help keep communities apart or make them more likely to coalesce? Based on evidence from planning consultancy Quod and infrastructure developer the Kilbride Group the report recommends more guidance on when building transport projects on the Green Belt and other sensitive areas will be allowed.
The NPS does not cover HS2, a rail project of some significance (and whose petitioning deadlines are fast approaching - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.!), conveniently assuming that HS2 will happen (paragraph 1.6). Nevertheless, the select committee recommends 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".
Although many submissions to the committee were that the carbon (i.e. CO2) emissions should be given more prominence, the committee did not endorse projects having to assess their own carbon emissions.The report does, however, call for the government to include in the NPS an estimate of the overall impact on UK emissions from building the road infrastructure it wants to see.
The committee has called for a debate on the final draft NPS (which will certainly happen as it has in every other case so far) but also thinks it will have a say on the final draft (which I don't think it will, although committee members, especially chair Louise Ellman MP, would be likely to be called to contribute to the general debate).
Incidentally, the same day, Transcom published a report on the strategic road network, saying that it didn't think the Highways Agency should have its status changed but would still benefit from five year rather than annual planning.
Lords
The very next day, yesterday, the House of Lords (which doesn't have departmental select committees) held a debate on the NPS. The debate can be found here.
Somewhat oddly, rather than the government introducing the NPS, the motion that was debated was in the name of Lord Berkeley, that the NPS is 'not fit for purpose' because, and I paraphrase, the Department for Transport forecasts it is based on are unreliable and it does not take an integrated approach (echoes of the commons report there).
Having tabled that critical motion, Lord Berkeley (Chairman of the Rail Freight Group) made the opening speech and said: "I generally support and very much welcome it, as it has been a long time coming."
Submissions were then made by a grand total of three other peers:
- Lord Bradshaw, whose main bugbear was that small journey time savings were given too much importance, and he also called for road pricing;
- Lord Marlesford, who was annoyed that Suffolk had been cut off from the map on page 86 of the NPS and managed to insert some criticisms of the proposed Sizewell nuclear power station;
- Lord Rosser, former general secretary of transport union the TSSA, who said that the NPS had been described as a 'predict and provide' document and did raise the issue of locations for development.
Baroness Kramer then responded for the government. She apologised for the cropping of Suffolk. She said that on traffic forecasts the model was accurate, it was the inputs that were wrong, so a range of inputs had been used and even the most conservative showed considerable pressure on the transport network. She agreed that the government needed to 'dethrone' (i.e. reduce the status of, I think) benefit cost ratios and traffic forecasts to the status of mere tools. She mentioned that Professor Tony Venables of Oxford University had been commissioned by the government to look at evidence for the growth impacts of nationally significant infrastructure and programmes of expenditure - I'd like to see that. She said that the NPS was not a 'predict and provide' document but it "is not just about numbers; it needs judgment as well". She said that road pricing wasn't on the agenda.
Lord Berkeley withdrew the motion at the end of the debate, rather than pressing for a vote, so the Lords has not formally expressed a view on the NPS.
Next steps
The government will take the general responses to the consultation, the Transport Select Committee's report and the Lords debate into account in producing a revised NPS in the autumn. I wouldn't expect it to change very much but it may well have some more text in it as called for by the select committee. There will then be a general debate and vote in the Commons on the final draft, which will lead to its designation by the end of the year.