Greg Dickson explains the importance of a new policy statement for major road and rail projects
Key points
- The NPS is the main source of planning policy for nationally significant road and rail projects and the primary basis for which DCO applications will be considered and determined
- It supports much-needed major investment in improving national networks by establishing the need for and general presumption in favour of nationally significant road and rail projects
- Promoters need to prepare a business case or viability assessment and demonstrate that schemes have been designed to minimise impacts and maximise opportunities for local benefits
- The NPS acknowledges that NSIP projects are likely to have effects on the environment, so they must be accompanied by sufficient evidence to appraise the significance of impacts and define the scope of mitigation
The National Policy Statement (NPS) for National Networks was designated by parliament on 14 January 2015, but to many the significance of the document will not be immediately apparent.
NPSs are produced to provide a framework for planning inspectors to make recommendations to the secretary of state relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIP). This NPS relates to the strategic road network, all railway development exceeding 2km and strategic rail freight interchanges (SRFIs) exceeding 60ha.
Need
For scheme promoters, designation of the NPS removes the requirement for applicants to demonstrate the need for new road and rail infrastructure. The NPS makes it clear that there is a “compelling need” at a “strategic level” for road and rail infrastructure, both as individual networks and as an integrated system. This strategic level of support represents a minor change from the draft NPS and the planning inspectorate and the secretary of state are advised to start their assessment of applications on this strategic basis.
In a move that will disappoint certain members of the transport select committee (TSC), the NPS does not relate to HS2, which is being promoted through parliament by means of a hybrid bill. However, the NPS may be material to the consideration and determination of applications submitted under the traditional regime and it may prove useful to applications which do not meet the threshold for a NSIP under the terms of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).
Central policies
In response to criticisms raised by the TSC, the designated NPS rejects a “predict and provide” approach. The planning inspectorate should expect applicants to deliver schemes which balance the economic benefits against social and environmental effects and value for money considerations.
The document includes a presumption against new roads, road widening schemes and SRFI developments in national parks, the Broads and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Other than in these specific areas, the NPS sets out the presumption in favour of granting a development consent order (DCO) for national network NSIPs that fall within the identified need for infrastructure. DCO applications can be considered with regard to local impact and the extent to which these are outweighed by need and other benefits.
The NPS highlights a compelling need for an expanded network of SRFIs across the regions and, particularly, in areas that are currently poorly served. The NPS states that it is important for SRFIs to be located alongside major rail routes, close to major trunk roads and near to the business markets they serve.
Spatial detail
The NPS expressly avoids the identification of specific locations for new road and rail infrastructure. It does provide context in relation to regional road congestion and deficiencies in SRFI facilities. The need for investment in networks and facilities that improve connections with the country’s ports and airports is identified.
Whilst recognising that most investment will be driven by economic activity, population and the location of existing transport networks, the NPS requires applicants to undertake “proportional option consideration” at the investment decision stage to demonstrate that an appropriate assessment of alternatives has been undertaken. A business case will normally be required for road, rail and rail freight infrastructure schemes but government-funded schemes will not be required to do this, as the viability assessment will have already been carried out to justify funding.
The NPS acknowledges that promoters of SRFIs may find that the only viable sites to meet the identified need may be on green belt land. Where this is the case developers will need to recognise the special protection that such land enjoys and the need for the “very special circumstances” test to be met. The document also provides specific guidance for proposals that would result in the loss of public open space, sports or recreation facilities and for development within minerals safeguarding areas.
Environmental and social effects
Applications are required to evidence the opportunities taken to deliver environmental and social benefits and demonstrate that the development has been designed to be sensitive to potential adverse impacts. However, the NPS does acknowledge that the nature of major infrastructure projects is such that adverse effects may remain, even when allowing for sensitive design and mitigation.
The NPS sets out detailed guidance in relation to the likely main environmental issues which need to be considered for network schemes. Under each issue the document sets out helpful guidance as to what the promoter should be expected to undertake, the key considerations for the decision maker, and the likely thresholds of acceptability. It is accepted under most topic headings that there will need to be a balancing assessment of the adverse impacts against the benefits of the scheme, with need being a key component of the equation.
Greg Dickson is an associate director and head of transport infrastructure at planning consultancy Turley
