The Department for Transport’s (DfT’s) update to its transport infrastructure planning policy has been highly criticised by the Transport Committee chair and Green Party MP Caroline Lucas for its disregard of climate-related targets.
The National Networks National Planning Policy (NNNPS) provides planning guidance for nationally significant road, rail and strategic rail freight interchange projects. It is the basis for which the transport secretary makes decisions on whether to green light Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) related to transport.
The previous NNNPS was published in 2015, predating the government’s updated targets and policies for achieving net zero. Despite this, it was used as the basis for granting development consent to many major road projects.
The updated NNNPS was presented to parliament this month and came under scrutiny in a parliamentary debate on Tuesday 26 March.
In October 2023, the Transport Select Committee published its recommendations for changes to the draft update to the NNNPS. In this week’s debate, Transport Committee chair and Conservative MP for Milton Keynes South Iain Stewart expressed his “concern” that the DfT had rejected the recommendation for the government to show more transparency on the decision-making process for transport NSIPs, especially when ruling out potential alternatives.
“Transport projects aren’t just put in place for the sake of it; you don’t just build a new railway or road or port extension just because it’s good in itself,” Stewart said. “They’re there for a purpose; they’re there to support wider policy objectives.”
He continued: “I do question, as a country over many decades, do we have the right decision making process put in place to appraise and evaluate different projects and ensure a joined-up policy thinking across government.”
He went on to say that the Transport Committee’s current inquiry into strategic transport objectives is questioning which policy developments for transport should be devolved to local authorities. This is because, at a national level, “transport is always going to fall below more immediate and electorally saleable spending – whether that’s on the health service, on police on defence and a whole range of other ones.
“Transport will always be lower down the priority queue, under any government, because the projects, by their very nature, last well beyond the course of a single parliamentary or government term. Having longer-term perspective is important.”
Government ‘dodging scrutiny’ as policy ‘fails to rise to the occasion’
In her contribution to the debate, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion Caroline Lucas accused the government of “dodging scrutiny” by holding the NNNPS debate shortly before the Easter break when most MPs have returned to their constituencies.
“This NNNPS has significant implications for the delivery of our climate and environment targets and yet, rather than giving MPs the opportunity to properly debate it, this government has, it feels to me at least, rather cynically left its approval until the very last minute before the Easter recess,” she said.
Lucas went on to say that she had “many concerns” about the NNNPS, but focused her remarks on the climate and nature consequences.
She highlighted data from the National Audit Office showing that 10% of the UK’s CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2022 came from transport. Furthermore, the reduction in transport emissions between 1990 and 2022 was only 11%, the lowest of any sector, she pointed out.
“So there is a real problem here,” she said. “And frankly, this policy statement fundamentally fails to rise to the occasion and the challenge that that poses.”
She questioned why the government had not followed up on the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation, from its 2023 progress report, to carry out a systematic review of all current and proposed road schemes.
She asked: “In the absence of such a review, can [the DfT] explain how [it] plans to close the gaping delivery gap when it comes to cutting transport emissions?”
Lucas accused the NNNPS of making constituents “ever more dependent on cars” when it should be about “levelling up public sector transport outside London and improving cross-country rail”.
“The first priority of the Transport Decarbonisation Plan is modal shift, yet the NNNPS has no target for this,” she said. “In fact, seven out of eight DfT scenarios on which it is based assume exactly the opposite kind of modal shift – in other words, a shift to cars.”
She also sought explanation for the lack of reference to the government target of having 50% of urban journeys taken by active travel by 2030.
Regarding environmental targets, she said: “It is profoundly disappointing that the NPS fails to set out the implications of the new Environment Act targets at the strategic or scheme level.
“It’s not good enough simply to have due regard for some of the targets.”
She concluded that the NNNPS “is not only unclear, but it fundamentally fails to set out a new direction of travel to ensure the delivery of our climate and environmental targets in the age of climate crisis”.
Government response
The government response in the debate was provided by DfT departmental undersecretary Guy Opperman.
Regarding Stewart’s concerns, Opperman stated: “No one is pretending this is perfect. This is a work in progress. We all get that and we all understand that.
“[Regarding] the idea that this is an insubstantial document […] it runs to over 100 pages, it has been available for public consultation, hearings and then the Transport Select Committee have obviously done assessment to it and the government has responded to that. With respect, I think this is a very substantial approach to this particular issue and I endorse the comments that he made in terms of future plans.”
On climate concerns, Opperman said: “I would gently push back because, clearly, there has been a lot of change in government policy since the NPS was designated in 2015.”
After listing the new commitments and policies, he continued: “The NNNPS has been reviewed to reflect these changes in policy and to remain a robust framework for decision making on NSIP schemes.”
Opperman did not address these responses to Lucas directly and left most of her concerns completely unanswered. As he wrapped up his response, she could be heard demanding some answers, but none were forthcoming.
Later, Lucas took to social media to say: “I tried to call on him to answer my points which he had ignored but got shown the hand. A government with no answers and no solutions.”
I tried to call on him to answer my points which he had ignored but got shown the hand. A Government with no answers and no solutions. #TotallyFrit https://t.co/yMXDugzW5R pic.twitter.com/TVWd0PVzEE
— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) March 26, 2024
Like what you’ve read? To receive New Civil Engineer’s daily and weekly newsletters click here.