Source · Select Committees · Transport Committee
Recommendation 10
10
Rejected
Paragraph: 53
Amend draft NNNPS to include current Clause 5.29 equivalent for biodiversity protection.
Recommendation
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.
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the recommendation to include an equivalent to Clause 5.29, stating that paragraph 1.9 of the revised NNNPS already provides sufficient clarity and flexibility for different consenting regimes, making a 'one size fits all' approach disproportionate.
Paragraph Reference:
53
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
The Department for Transport considers that paragraph 1.9 of the revised NNNPS provides sufficient clarity regarding the status of the NNNPS in other consenting regimes. Paragraph 1.9 states that: “Road and rail developments in England are also consented through routes other than the NSIP regime, such as the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Where schemes come forward under these alternative consenting routes, this NPS may be a material consideration in decision making. Whether, and to what extent, this NPS is a material consideration, will be judged on a case-by-case basis.” We consider that a one size fits all approach would be disproportionate for Transport and Works Act applications. Paragraph 1.9 provides an appropriate level of flexibility to decision-makers in applying appropriate policy for the scale of scheme being consented. The primary and statutory purpose of the NNNPS is to provide the consenting framework for large scale nationally significant projects who all utilise the same examination process. The nature of schemes promoted through the Transport and Works Act are generally very different to NSIP schemes. Projects are often of a smaller scale and can be promoted by a greater variety of promoters, some of whom can be relatively small operations. This flexibility in determining whether and to what extent the NNNPS applies to other consenting regimes also enables appropriate consideration of local policy where schemes are often promoted to meet local needs as opposed to a national need as with NSIPs.