National Networks National Policy Statement

The review of the NNNPS was overdue. It was launched to bring the policy framework for major infrastructure schemes up to date, and as a response to legal challenges to schemes prompted by the introduction of significant net zero legislation. The Government should have been proactive and reviewed the NNNPS upon the introduction of net zero targets, and should do so when any changes are made to the net zero target policies.

The Government should introduce five-year review periods for the NNNPS, with a shorter term where changes in policy decisions or policy drivers warrant it. This does not necessarily mean that wholesale revisions should be made to the NNNPS every five years, but the reviews would provide an opportunity for the Department for Transport to consider the wider policy environment and Government priorities. The Government could also consider the modular approach suggested by the National Infrastructure Commission.

The draft revised NNNPS attempts to balance the Government’s 2050 net zero targets with an NSIP regime which could potentially increase greenhouse gas emissions. While the document provides guidance on assessing, mitigating, and approving the greenhouse gas emissions of schemes, these measures could be stronger to align with the pathway to net zero.

The Government should respond to the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation on reviewing the roads programme and explain why this recommendation will or will not be taken forward. The Climate Change Committee’s recommendations do not relate directly to the NNNPS, but acceptance of them would change the policy environment in which the NNNPS operates and, presumably, prompt further review. Obtaining clarity on this issue is important for establishing whether challenges to NSIPs on climate grounds are likely to continue.

The draft NNNPS permits “residual” greenhouse gas emissions from NSIPs, but does not define what “residual” means, nor does it set out a threshold or limits for a level of emissions that would be deemed “residual”. Accordingly, schemes which are likely to cause an increase in carbon emissions may remain vulnerable to legal challenge.

The draft revised NNNPS should be amended to provide a definition of, and clear and comprehensive guidance on, “residual” greenhouse gas emissions. This definition must make it possible to distinguish clearly between “residual” and unacceptable increases in emissions from an NSIP.

The draft revised NNNPS should be amended to explicitly state the Government’s understanding of the legal precedent for permitting major infrastructure schemes which result in an increase in emissions, where that increase is judged as not likely to harm the achievement of a national target.

There is concern from some interested parties that the National Transport Model, which underpins the Statement of Need, does not consider a wide enough range of traffic demand scenarios and that the National Transport Model and congestion forecasts are not published in ways that permit thorough scrutiny of their assumptions. There is also a lack of faith in the options appraisal process for NSIPs before they reach Development Consent Order stage. Finally, there is concern that, while the Department for Transport talks about moving away from ‘predict and provide’, in reality the NSIP regime perpetuates that approach. For promoters of schemes, opponents and the wider public to have confidence in the robustness of the revised NNNPS, greater transparency is needed.

The Department for Transport must do more to provide transparency on its approach to assessment and decision making. Specifically, it should: • publish the National Transport Model so that it can be independently tested and verified, or model and report on a wider range of scenarios where traffic levels on the SRN are a) reduced and b) maintained at current levels and ambition for rail patronage is increased, as we recommended in our report on strategic road investment; • publish its own estimated congestion forecasts for the Strategic Road Network; • be more transparent in the decision-making process for potential alternatives to NSIP scheme choices, for example at Project Control Framework stages 0 and 1 for road schemes. • provide a list of “exceptional circumstances” which would necessitate consideration of alternative schemes during the Development Consent Order examination process; and • provide examples of how the draft revised NNNPS supports a move away from the ‘predict and provide’ approach to developing NSIPs.

The draft revised NNNPS should be amended to include an equivalent to Clause 5.29 of the current NNNPS. If the Government declines, it must explain why, and how this is compatible with Government policy on promoting biodiversity.

In its response to its call for evidence on freight, logistics and the planning system, the Department for Transport should address whether some types associated development which are vital to the road freight supply chain, such as driver rest facilities or service areas, would be more effectively delivered if considered part of major infrastructure Draft revised National Policy Statement for National Networks 27 and approved by Development Consent Order. In our 2022 inquiry on the road freight supply chain we heard that the process of building a new motorway service area can take a decade, and that the planning process is a key source of delay; the Government needs to cut through this quagmire to deliver the facilities that are desperately needed.

The Government should amend the draft revised NNNPS to clarify, by way of providing a list of examples, what would normally be deemed to be ‘associated development’ for schemes which meet the threshold for nationally significant infrastructure.

The draft revised NNNPS should be amended to include a stronger requirement for scheme applicants to adhere to the cycling infrastructure design standards set out in CD 195.

The NNNPS could be a helpful document when making decisions on transport schemes which are not classed as nationally significant but are still large scale or regionally important. These schemes are currently consented through the Transport and Works Act and receive a less rigorous level of scrutiny.

The draft revised NNNPS should be amended to include provision which makes it clear how the NNNPS could be a relevant policy consideration for non-NSIP schemes which are currently consented under the Transport and Works Act.

The Government should consider the merits of restructuring future iterations of the National Policy Statements for transport so that there is an over-arching Transport NPS, with Road, Rail, Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges, Ports, and Airport NPSs sitting underneath it, and provide a clear rationale if it opts not to do so.