26
Examination of witnesses
Jan Bessell and Simon Blanchflower.
Q51 The Chair: Good morning everybody and welcome to this evidence session of the Built Environment Committee in its inquiry on the impact of environmental regulation on development. Our witnesses today are Jan Bessell, who chairs the National Infrastructure Planning Association, and Simon Blanchflower, former chief executive of East West Rail. May I declare formally that the second witness and I both sit on the board of the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, but we will not be discussing Ebbsfleet today and I have not discussed today's session with Mr Blanchflower?
Please could members and witnesses keep their questions relatively brisk and tight and seek to avoid repetition, because we will be recording everything that is said? Unless we are being particularly dense, it should not be necessary to say the same thing several times, which some of our witnesses have been inclined to do but it is not actually necessary. I will introduce each of the questioners as we go around, but there are nameplates in front of them. I should have said that I am Daniel Moylan. We will start with the first question, from Lord Mawson.
Q52 Lord Mawson: What environmental regulations must promoters meet when delivering infrastructure projects, and are the regulations different depending on the consent route?
Jan Bessell: To start, there are myriad regulations, standards, policy, guidance. It is quite complex and overlapping, but the ones that are particularly pertinent to this committee can probably be brought down to three principal ones: environmental impact assessment regulations, water framework directive regulations, and habitats regulations assessments.
Under the Planning Act 2008, which I am sure you are familiar with, the primary legislation for development consent orders is mainly the consenting route for nationally significant infrastructure projects that are automatically in the system or directed into it. There is also something called the Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations—you can probably realise why we shorten it to APFP—which, at regulation 5, prescribes a lot of things that have to be put into the application. That includes things like the environmental statement, but also flood risk assessment and protected species licensing under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Each of the different consenting routes has its own environmental impact assessment regulations at the moment, but they all draw down from the main directive that has been brought into UK regulation. They only really vary in the process of consenting that they go through. In other words, the requirements and the information are the same, but screening and scoping are slightly different because the competent authority for that varies between the local authority and the Secretary of State. Habitats regulations are exactly the same, whatever the consenting route, as is the water framework directive.
The Chair: Obviously, today is about infrastructure rather than housing, which is the other limb of this, which is why we invited you, Simon Blanchflower: to get the perspective of somebody who has actually delivered major infrastructure projects, civil engineering projects, transport projects and so on and has experience of trying to get something built.
Simon Blanchflower: Thank you. On the technicalities, I do not want to add to what Jan has already said, which is very clear. In my experience, it all comes down to preparation and understanding the requirements of the consenting body, and how historically they have applied and interpreted the various regulations that are applicable. A lot of that comes through the dialogue that you are able to have at the pre-examination and pre-application stages to make sure that you have the absolute clarity about their interpretation, their requirements, and their understanding of the regulations and how they are expecting you to fulfil them. Yes, there are differences in interpretation, as Jan has highlighted, but it comes down to having that dialogue at an early stage to make sure that in preparation for submissions and examination you have correctly prepared the body of information that they will be considering to ease your progress through that particular approvals mechanism.
The Chair: How easy is it to have that pre-application discussion? We have heard that local authority officers—relevant planning officers—are very thin on the ground and overburdened. We have heard that it is often quite difficult to have coherent conversations with the Environment Agency, as it is so multifarious and multi-branched, because you will get one response from here and a different approach from somewhere else, and sometimes no response at all.
Simon Blanchflower: Most of the projects that I have been involved in are major projects, so the focus that the consenting bodies and the regulatory bodies have on your work is perhaps heightened by the intensity of work that is being proposed and the scale of development, and that does help to focus the mind.
Certainly, in the DCO process, the Planning Inspectorate is open to having inspectors involved and engaged—not those who make the actual decisions at the later stage, but others in their team—to provide advice, counsel and support through that pre-application process. Similarly, my experience with both Natural England and the Environment Agency has been that, provided that you engage at a sufficiently senior level, you can make sure that there are those who will be allocated to your particular project. But I recognise that my experience is primarily in the major infrastructure space, so the ability for them to engage in that way is perhaps greater than it would be in more minor schemes.
The Chair: I beg your pardon. Do promoters ever pay consenting bodies to resource themselves, as developers of buildings quite often pay local authorities to recruit someone to carry out the work? Does that happen in the infrastructure?
Simon Blanchflower: Certainly. In projects I have been involved in, we have come to many agreements with local authorities on supplementing their resources, particularly because of the onerous nature of managing the discharge of petitions and undertakings. I have certainly been involved in making sure that local authorities are invested in so that they have the resources to be able to do that. I have not had direct experience of resourcing additional officers in places like the Environment Agency, so I am not sure whether that occurs. Does it, Jan, in your experience?
Jan Bessell: My experience, particularly recently, is that there is an increasing need for applicants to fund pre-application engagement for each of the main statutory environmental bodies. For example, the Marine Management Organisation will not have pre-application discussions on a DCO without fees being paid, so there is the equivalent of a pre-application fee for a planning authority that you might be familiar with.
Most development consent orders have a planning performance agreement in place for local authorities—mainly the host authorities, but sometimes the ones on the periphery as well—where there is a need to engage with them. It might be the wider county involving highways, for example, normally to backfill resource or to allow for expertise to be brought in, particularly on environmental matters, because most local authorities do not currently support big teams of environmental specialists. They do not hold them in house anymore. They are quite limited. You are absolutely right that resource is very limited. It is not just numbers, it is expertise and capacity, particularly in understanding how to get the most out of the major consenting field and to engage with it best, particularly at that early stage.
We also get very variable responses from the statutory environmental bodies. They are very split regionally and do not necessarily hold expert teams to draw from, and the response time and level of depth that they go into are very variable. Most recently, we have even had Natural England advise examining authorities that they do not have the resource to attend oral hearings in person during a very important examination or to undertake that role as government adviser.
Lord Mawson: I am worrying about the gap between the policies, theory and practice. I was on a railway line yesterday, and the amount of detritus and rubbish on the sides of our railway lines is extraordinary. It is very depressing to see what is on the sides when you are entering one of our northern cities. I wonder whether this stuff is actually working in practice, because it seems to me that there is a gap between a lot of this theory and what is actually happening on the ground when you have a look.
Simon Blanchflower: What you are referring to is clearly more in the operational environment than necessarily in the project delivery environment. Is that correct?
Lord Mawson: I am just noticing what is at the side of our railways when we have all these policies.
The Chair: I think that is after the infrastructure is delivered.
Simon Blanchflower: In terms of the policies feeding through into actual delivery on site, I am confident that in the projects that I have been involved in, we have effectively discharged the requirements under the regulations.
I will talk later about my experience on East West Rail Phase 1 and what has been achieved there, but major infrastructure investors, promoters and deliverers do understand the obligations that are placed on them to respond to the environmental regulations. Quite rightly, there are challenges there, and there are action groups that are effectively holding developers’ and promoters’ feet to the fire to make sure that they progress in the way they should, but my experience evidences that people do take this seriously and are very focused on delivering against the regulations once projects get the consent to progress.
Jan Bessell: You raise a really good point, though, in that sometimes we take consenting in a very siloed way. I always make an analogy with the food industry using everything right the way through the process, nose to tail. Really, infrastructure delivery should also be about the operation and the management, monitoring and mitigation of that, not just in the construction and the operational effects but in that wider sense. It is infrastructure delivery within the environment and the community, not just consent, but when we then go into construction and operation requiring a lot more joined-up approach. The Environment Act 2021 that is now being brought into effect is starting to look at that, and it is where the latest environmental impact assessment regulations 2017 have tried to go with monitoring and management a little bit, but practice could go so much further.
Q53 Baroness Eaton: To what extent, if at all, do the variations in requirements between local planning authorities impact on the infrastructure delivery, and what is the impact of this?
Simon Blanchflower: Clearly, each local authority has a local plan. They will have supplementary planning guidance, so they are trying to reflect the particular circumstances in the environment in which they are operating, but that sits beneath what is set out in regulations. In my particular sphere of infrastructure there will be sub-national transport boards that set out transport policies across a particular region and how that sits in relation to national policy statements.
Part of the challenge comes when there is a disconnect through that hierarchy of documentation, that hierarchy of policy, and how it flows down. That often occurs because things are not necessarily updated to the timescales that they need to be, so they become out of date and a little bit tired in the currency of what is set out. We have seen that recently in some of the challenges to the national policy statements, for instance, but the Government are now taking steps to remedy that by updating the national policy statements. A lot of this is to do with how that flows down through the hierarchy of policy and interpretation, taking particular account of local circumstances.
Baroness Eaton: So is it a very big problem, or just an occasional problem?
The Chair: This is supplementary to Lady Eaton’s question. You get through a hybrid Bill or a DCO—for the sake of an example, let us say a planning permission to construct a railway. None the less, you will require a very large number of subsidiary planning permissions from local planning authorities that are affected, and they may relate to things as different as oversight development or even the number of contracting vehicles allowed on site, or to approach at a particular time, and things of that sort. In your planning work, how much of it is given to these subsidiary applications compared to the DCO or the hybrid Bill process? Lady Eaton is asking whether this is a huge burden or something fairly trivial in terms of time, cost, delay—all those things.
Simon Blanchflower: Clearly, the principal mechanism of permitting the scheme, whether it be a hybrid Bill, a DCO or a Transport and Works Act order, will agree the principles and the strategic narrative around the overall delivery. You are right that there are details that are then left, such as the discharge of conditions and any supplementary planning, consents that may or may not be required, depending on the nature of the scheme, that will be in the gift of the local planning authority, but that is within the framework that the overall scheme has been permissioned.
There is effectively a quasi-duty to operate efficiently to make sure that those permissions are being granted in a reasonable way, but it can be quite time-consuming. In schemes that I have been involved in, hundreds of conditions need to be discharged as part of that process, and there are teams of people who work on that with the local planning authority, hopefully in a collaborative way, to make sure that that is done in a timely fashion, which goes back to the agreements that are put in place to make sure that the authorities are resourced to do that.
The Chair: We are looking for ways to improve the system. Is this one of the areas where there could be streamlining?
Are you aware of practice in other European countries? We are always told that in France, for example, nobody gets a say and it all just gets built through. I do not know if that is a caricature or not, but are you aware of other countries where they have a different approach, where the principal consent gives more power, and that the scheme can then proceed with fewer subsidiary planning applications or maybe none? Are there any ways in which we could come out of this report with recommendations for improvement?
Simon Blanchflower: I am not familiar with the consenting regime in other countries. I cannot comment on that. Jan might be able to do so.
I have had experience of where one local authority acts as the lead for a number of local authorities, and that can be a significant advantage in terms of the consistency of approach that is taken across neighbouring authorities, so you are not left trying to consent different aspects with different authorities in a different way. Bringing authorities together to co-operate in that way would be a step forward in making sure that there is ability to do that. Jan, I am not sure whether you have other reflections.
Jan Bessell: I might be able to help with some suggestions and maybe a little more insight as well. The development consent order is known as the one-stop shop, but that is a bit of a misnomer. A hybrid Bill, the Transport and Works Act 1992, and development consent orders are very powerful. They are not just planning permission, as you are well aware. They involve a lot of other powers, including compulsory acquisition, so they are immensely powerful statutory instruments with the ability to put their own approvals mechanism in, particularly the development consent order.
It is not always the local authority that is the discharging authority for what you describe as secondary consent, and there has been a bit of innovation in this area, looking at this through the vehicle of Project Speed and the A66, which is the TransPennine dualling upgrade that has been piloting this approach. One of the objectives it was given was to have no pre-commencement conditions, which is quite a challenge on what is effectively eight DCOs in one. It is an extremely large infrastructure scheme that has been approached and undertaken through a different vehicle within the consenting framework that we already have, and it means that it is much more adaptive and, ultimately, has some Secretary of State sign-off and engagement with the statutory environmental bodies and the relevant local authorities.
There is local input and information, but, ultimately, if it meets what is required, it is signed off and goes ahead. In other words, if you follow the process, the standards and the outcomes required, you can go ahead as long as you have demonstrated and gone through the approval process for that. That, in effect, is an approach to streamlining.
There is a point to make about improvements. Since the start of the Planning Act 2008 we have seen it creep more and more towards control and the desire to have more and more direct intervention in secondary approvals. That probably needs a reset.
The Chair: Direct intervention by whom?
Jan Bessell: In terms of practice and people wanting it to feel and look more like a planning permission.
The Chair: So it is the consenting authority putting more and more requirements.
Jan Bessell: Yes, and those engaging with it. Over the last 10 to 12 years, we have seen a shift to more complexity and more control, and that could really be looked at on the basis of, “What is the benefit of that? Is it having the effect we want? Is it delivering the outcomes we want? What is necessary that really delivers, and can we therefore pair it back to the things that really matter without losing that engagement and keeping people connected with the delivery of the projects?”, because that is very important.
Very quickly on the international example, I almost always give the Dutch example, because they are far more effective at being collaborative at the pre-application stage and effectively agreeing the outcomes for things like habitats regulations before they even get to the application stage. The statutory environmental bodies, the agencies and organisations interested get together to resolve and work through the issues rather than a big exchange of data and everyone asking for more and then challenging it. I would draw attention to that practice, which we could easily do within our framework with resourcing, a change in approach and mindset and with different direction to the statutory bodies about their duties on that.
Q54 Lord Greenhalgh: In the same vein, I am glad you mentioned the words “development consent order”. I thought it was Deputy Chief Officer, but I am caught up to speed.
What the Chair and Lady Eaton have tried to probe is that, from the outside, we are pretty rubbish at infrastructure and the intersection of the requirements of the statutory environmental bodies and those that are promoting the scheme and those that want the scheme to be done in the best possible way. None of that works very well. very major infrastructure project we have costs multiple times. I was a big supporter of HS2 for regenerative reasons in my own borough. It has taken huge amounts of time. In fact, it will be most of our natural lives to see some of these projects come to fruition.
Lots of people around this table really believe in growth and regeneration, so my follow-up is that the strong suggestion is no. If you were to respond with a no and how we can improve, do we have the right division of responsibilities between the promoter, the inspectorate, the Secretary of State, Parliament, and all the local planning authorities? If we do not have the division right, what practical steps can this committee recommend to improve things?
Jan Bessell: I am not sure I would characterise it quite in the same way. There are some really good success stories as well—I point you, for example, to Port of Tilbury2. It was done at phenomenal pace, used the development consent order process really effectively, engaged with the community, and is fully operational now and delivering for the economy. There is excellent practice out there.
There are also real difficulties on some projects. It depends a bit on who they are promoted by, what they are, and the circumstances of them, and there is a difference between regulated projects and private investment; there is often a clear division.
The Chair: That is an interesting point, though. The Port of Tilbury is private investment, first of all—private capital. Secondly, it manifestly can say that it is bringing local jobs. East West Rail is government capital that just brings a stinking noisy railway to the bottom of your garden that is not going to stop and give you any transport benefits. This is often the case with road, rail and other transport projects; if you are not living near a station, the appearance of this infrastructure is all downside for you. You mentioned that, and I was thinking that myself. Is that really a material distinction?
Jan Bessell: Regulating brings a whole layer of additional process, which is not necessarily well meshed with good outcomes and good consenting. There could be some real streamlining and improvement of understanding between regulatory and consenting, so that everyone is on the same page, it is all to the same effect and we remove duplication. That would save a lot of time, resource and money, as well as create clarity for people instead of consultation fatigue, which we are seeing hugely in the water industry at the moment with the rapid process, the regional planning, and the consenting of the major new infrastructure that has been underinvested in for 30 years. There is a really obvious improvement there, which would be a huge win-win.
In terms of the division between the promoter, the inspector, the Secretary of State, Parliament, the local planning authority, there could be some real capacity building around having effective roles and removing duplication, and incentivising those roles to be proactive where it will make the greatest difference, rather than being resistant.
There are times when projects are not supported, not just opposed, but, on the whole, major infrastructure inevitably brings objection just because of its scale and nature. However, it is important that one of the things that Parliament does not do and should, is long-term spatial planning. We have let national policy lag on being up to date and fit for purpose, and we have seen commitments from government about updating and renewing it now and taking a more strategic approach. Again, a more common approach would be hugely beneficial.
The Chair: I should say that, to spread the word, I am of course pro-railway and I know that a modern railway is neither noisy nor smelly.
Simon Blanchflower: A lot of this comes down to how we are framing what we are trying to achieve through infrastructure projects. Certainly, the Infrastructure Client Group, the IPA and others have been doing a lot of the work recently on increasing the focus on outcomes that are trying to be achieved rather than focusing on a narrower output approach.
You talk about the example of East West Rail. The outcome that is trying to be achieved there is supporting housing growth to support economic growth, to make sure that the golden triangle in this instance remains competitive in the international environment. If we are able to lift the approach that we are taking a little to recognise the outcome that we are seeking to achieve, that enables a greater consistency and collaboration around bodies that are seeking to approve the scheme.
The sub-national transport body, England's Economic Heartland, is very supportive of it, University Groups are supportive of it, and local authorities are supportive of it. Part of the challenge has been to make sure that there is a clear agreement in government as to why the investment is being made and the basis for the outcomes that are being sought, so the business case can be presented in a compelling way with the right narrative.
The Chair: Specifically with railways, did the Department for Transport allow you to tell the public what service levels would operate on the railway once it was completed—how many trains an hour, which destinations, what the route patterns would be? I believe that East West Rail has branches. It has options, at least.
Simon Blanchflower: Yes. It was part of the public consultation exercise that we carried out. We carried out two public consultations while I was chief executive, and we gave indicative service patterns in both that would illustrate the calling pattern, the frequency of service, that would be operated.
Lord Greenhalgh: In the answers and in the probing, there have been lots of really good points, and I have taken away the focus on the long term, the difference between the regulatory pathway and the consenting pathway, but also the very last point about outcomes. I hazard a guess that it is often money that stops some of these things making sense to the policymakers, but if we got smarter at land value uplift and actually captured that for the public good, we would be able to have the business case far sooner to get stuff done as well.
There is a lot coming there that we can make use of for the report. You have talked at quite a high level. If you were to pick one specific thing that would make a huge difference to the regulatory pathway, what would that be?
Simon Blanchflower: For me, it is about taking heed of and endorsing the work of the National Infrastructure Commission and how that is framed in the National Infrastructure Strategy.
The Government set up the National Infrastructure Commission for a clear purpose, which was to set out the long-term strategy for investment in infrastructure in this country, and having done that it should take heed of the outcomes of the deliberations and reports and make sure that we move beyond the five-year horizon that Parliament so often talks about. It is about the longer-term planning horizon which the National Infrastructure Commission allows us to have.
Jan Bessell: I absolutely agree with that. The other thing is about opening the horizon of the regulatory framework and aligning it with what we are seeking to achieve rather than having narrow, siloed areas of constraint, and ensuring that there is full understanding of the delivery and consenting process and bringing projects forward in the environment and community.
Q55 Lord Berkeley: I declare an interest, having been a witness and done several petitions on hybrid Bills, and my wife was formally the chair of the Isles of Scilly bat protection league, so I know quite a lot about bats. I got involved in the Oxford Tunnel when you, Simon, were starting—not before you did it. They had to put special lights in the tunnel so that the bats ran away before the train came through, which all seemed slightly over the top to me, but there we are.
You have told us about the range of frameworks and directives that have to be studied and complied with for these type of projects. How much difference is there between the transport and works process, the DCO process, and the hybrid Bill in the timing and the amount of work, or maybe money, that goes into complying with these things?
To go back to one of the things that one of you said, with a hybrid Bill, and probably with a DCO as well, the idea is to agree the principle of a project in the House of Commons before you get into the detail. My experience of talking to many of the people who object to these things—rightly or wrongly, they have a right to object—is that they do not have the ability to get enough information on which to make an objection until it is too late to go back to it. I see both sides of the argument here, but they clearly need the information and they do not seem to get it soon enough.
The Chair What is the question?
Lord Berkeley: What is the solution? That is my question.
Jan Bessell: It is different in each of those processes. The development consent order process is probably the process that should be, and is, the easiest to engage with for people, because it is what is called front-loaded. In other words, the applicant is required to go out before the project is too settled and engage with people, and they are actually required to have regard to the responses they get back. They do not have to go with them—it is not just a yes/no—but they have to have regard to that and show how they have had regard. To use an old phrase, it is a real chicken and egg. You have to have a project that is not so fixed that people can influence it, but that means you have quite general information when you have not settled the project. Also, with most Transport and Works Act, hybrid Bill and development consent orders you have an outline scheme, effectively.
Once you have your consents in place, you do the full detailed engineering design, the full environmental design, and all the detailed surveys—like archaeology excavations, those types of things—because it is very expensive to do this pre-application. You probably would not go to the full design stage and full site investigations in their entirety before understanding whether you could take a project forward, just because of the way projects are invested in and financed. Therefore, there is always a tension between people understanding how it affects them in their home where they are, what that means for them, and what stage a project has got to.
That is really difficult. When I first started being involved in development consent orders, I strongly advocated for there to be a planning aid supporting resource, or a McKenzie friend-type role for the communities that were going to be directly affected. Some promoters pay for that on the very biggest projects, and they resource that to try to give the communities a resource they can draw on, but it is only really the very biggest projects that have the scale to support that.
Groups are very good at finding information from other groups that have gone through the process as well, but there is limited resource for the layperson, which really could benefit that meaningful engagement and take out a lot of the fear, uncertainty and difficulty out of engaging. That could be done at relatively little cost.
The Chair: May I ask how? I will act, if I may, on behalf of one of our members, Baroness Thornhill, who has local authority experience; she was the elected Mayor of Watford. She is present at the meeting by Zoom but has slightly lost her voice, so she has asked me to express a question, which fits in here. What can we do to get better public engagement at the right time for different parts of the project? You have suggested that something can be done, so it would be very helpful if you could be explicit or specific about what that might be.
Jan Bessell: It is about having the time and resource to capacity build, which is something the Planning Inspectorate did when it was the Infrastructure Planning Commission, before it was rolled into the Planning Inspectorate. It did a lot of outreach and capacity building both with local authorities and in the communities about how to engage with and get the best out of the process, the applicant and the other agencies. That has now been lost due to resourcing issues.
Putting that back in place would make such a difference; it would have real effect. As the inspectorate is independent and not the promoter, it is seen as a really valuable go-to, trusted friend; it makes a big difference. There have been examples of that. Crossrail did it; it brought in planning aid, and paid. Sizewell nuclear facility also paid for planning aid to come in and work with the parish councils and the communities, which made a real difference to what was put into the application process.
Lord Berkeley: I would love your views on whether the hybrid Bill process or a DCO for a major railway is better. I remember suggesting to a Select Committee that it should have this special friend, and it refused. Why do we have a hybrid Bill for rail and DCOs for road?
Jan Bessell: We have DCOs for rail as well, but it is very prescribed.
Lord Berkely: Occasionally, yes.
Jan Bessell: Of course, any rail promoter can opt into the development consent order process, but they often prefer not to because it is a lot of work. Each of the processes has its merits, but the engagement piece could be improved in the Transport and Works Act and hybrid Bill sense. As you will be familiar with from your experience, they each have their own consultation requirements, but there really could be a meaningful benefit there, and a supportive one.
Simon Blanchflower: I will not repeat what Jan has already said, but my experience has found that going out to do early consultation is quite challenging because people want far more detail than you are able to provide at that stage, but you can get some useful feedback and input from the communities at an early stage to help further shape things later on. I have also found that the role of parish councillors is key. I understand that parish councillors do not exist all over the country, but they are a valuable presence on the ground. Therefore, spending time talking to and engaging with parish councillors and using them as a clear conduit back into their communities works very effectively, from my experience.
Q56 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I should declare an interest in that I am the chair of the Great Western Railway stakeholder advisory board and we run trains through Oxford, which is in the west bit of the East West railway. Also, in a previous life, I was a political adviser to the British Railways Board. We did not have Transport and Works Act orders then, but we had one, two or three British railways private Bills. I think I can say with some certainty that we never lost one as they went through, but they did give rise to an opportunity for lots of discussions from MPs about timetables and late trains.
This is a question for Mr Blanchflower. It strikes me that your task of achieving delivery timetables for major infrastructure projects must be made incredibly difficult by environmental regulations, particularly if those regulations come to light after you have committed yourself to the sort of scheme you want to construct. What can be done to ease this process and perhaps meet those environmental regulations earlier in the process?
Simon Blanchflower: If I take a bit of a step back, we often see these as opposing and challenging opposites, in a sense, with environmental regulations on one side and infrastructure delivery on the other. A couple of years ago, I was involved in a piece of work putting together a Vision for the Built Environment, which very clearly set out that our vision for the built environment is to enable people and nature to flourish together for generations, which became the headline tag from that document.
We need to take a step back and look at the outcome that we are seeking to achieve, which is flourishing communities that will flourish through the provision of the infrastructure that is required but also through creating the right natural environment. I think there is synergy between the outcomes that we are trying to achieve, a lot of which is about the pre-planning that goes in. A lot of effort needs to be put into the planning and the surveys. However, that is becoming more straightforward these days with the digitalisation of a lot of the open source data that is available, the ability to use drones rather than people on foot going out into the field to do this, and using predictive tools, which you can then go and validate on a sample basis. The move to using artificial intelligence and digitalisation to help with the gathering of the information does help.
We have both talked about the collaborative approach used with Natural England and the Environment Agency. We have had staff from those agencies embedded into the projects I have worked on, such that we are working on a real-time basis with them, which certainly helps with the licensing process that is necessary. For example, you can find bats in unexpected places at unexpected times, roosting and not to be disturbed, but if you have developed a relationship with the licensing bodies then it is far easier to problem-solve when that happens. It is also about investing upfront.
With East West Rail’s Bicester to Bletchley section, for instance, there was a lot of effort upfront to create the compensatory sites at an early stage, so that people were confident that the biodiversity net gain that had been committed to was being practically delivered, and that enabled trust to be built. Trying to find the right balance between onsite and offsite measures is also needed. Quite a lot can be done with the seed mix used on embankments and cuttings, and the types of shrubs that are put in to create diversity of habitat, but that has to be balanced by what you do offsite as well. A lot of it is a mindset thing in terms of the approach you take and the outcomes you are seeking to achieve—not seeing the environmental piece as a separate activity that becomes burdensome for the project to deliver but one that is built into the overall project sequencing.
The Chair: You have not mentioned financial considerations. With railways, it tends to be that the Government are the promoter and the funder. Fundamentally, the Government end up as the operator in effect. We know how the system works. We often say that government-funded infrastructure is very expensive to deliver compared to other countries, perhaps. Is this adding significantly to costs of infrastructure or not? You might say it is not, but is it related in some way?
Simon Blanchflower: There can be marginal cost increases driven by the environmental regulations, but those are dwarfed by the challenges around clear policy decisions and making sure there is a line of sight for why projects are being delivered and the timescales in which we want them to be delivered, such that political decision-making does not hinder or hold them up. Costs are built in far more through that process than they ever will be through the environmental process. Again, from an outcomes perspective—I keep coming back to this—we need to understand that the UK is in the bottom 10% of nature-depleted countries. We have to do something about our nature recovery and the biodiversity net gain that is required in this country. It is incumbent upon us, as we invest into infrastructure, to take due account of that in the processes and investment.
The Chair: The other aspect of finance is delay. In your experience, how much has the delivery of the project been delayed by environmental considerations and, implicitly, by considerations that you had not anticipated? As you just mentioned, you can find bats in odd, unexpected places and there will be other things that come up.
Simon Blanchflower: On the projects I have been involved in, we have had to re-sequence works and there have been small costs associated with doing that, but, again, because of the good planning and collaboration upfront, those costs are often minimised when problems occur through the constructive approach agencies have taken. We did find bats roosting unexpectedly in the Bletchley flyover, and we had to re-sequence some of the works associated with the deconstruction of the existing flyover before the new one was installed, but we maintained the overall programme and were able to mitigate that effectively because of the relationships we had. A lot of it comes down to making sure you are embedding this in the core elements of the programme and not seeing it as an extra that you are having to deliver against.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: If you were coming to the East West Rail project afresh and were about to start it, what would you do differently from what you did when you were running it?
Simon Blanchflower: When I first came to the project in late 2018, it was being looked at on a sectional basis. Phase 1a had already been delivered, which connected through Oxford Parkway and down the lines to Marylebone, and we were delivering the next phase which was Bicester to Bletchley. The subsequent phases were being done very much in isolation. One of the first things I did was to say that it has to be looked at as an overall scheme, not in segments. It could not be cut up. You have to look at its end-to-end benefits to understand the full business case. I questioned why we were making decisions on a particular section in isolation, instead of understanding the overall picture.
It all comes back to being really clear at the outset: what problem are we trying to solve here? What outcomes are we seeking to achieve? What is the strategy for implementing this? How does it all sit in the overall transport strategy for that region and what does it mean for the type of scheme we are trying to deliver? Again, it comes back to the early stages. It is about being really clear what the client requirements are and how those will then be expressed in the detail of the infrastructure delivered to support that.
Jan Bessell: I have one example that might help with the original question. The offshore wind industry, which has been extraordinary in its delivery, is increasingly reaching challenges, particularly around habitats regulations. That is with good reason in terms of environmental capacity, but it is really about the way we approach the needs around renewable energy and habitats regulations assessment on a project-by-project basis, and on data delivered by each project promoter. Natural England requires at least three full years of overwintering bird data; there is little movement and a lot of conflict in that. It is hugely expensive at the pre-application stage, which is the hardest to fund for privately funded and promoted infrastructure projects. This is an approach that national verified data could be of real benefit.
The Human Genome Project, which I use as an example, delivered a medical transformation in our understanding of genetic sequencing through its open-source data and sharing of data. If we apply that in the environment space to our understanding and baseline data on a verified basis, and if people contributed to that and used it—maybe paying a fee—we would all agree on the starting point. We would then all know what we are assessing against and it would remove a lot of conflict, challenge and debate. It would bring certainty around the veracity of the data and how you apply your project in that and your contribution to it.
The Chair: I can see how that would work for birds, but would it work for others?
Jan Bessell: Bats.
The Chair: It might work for bats. There are bird watchers who have a network that can feed into a verified database people could draw on, but what about invertebrates lurking in the grass?
Jan Bessell: There is absolutely no reason why we cannot start to build up a national database. The nature recovery strategies are going to require that under the Environment Act which has just been brought in, so we will, first, have a better understanding and, secondly, keep it up to date in order to understand the state and recovery of it and what is existing there. Each project can contribute more to that but then we all start from a better understanding and less conflict. Each project then contributes proportionately and we understand it in the wider environmental setting, which should deliver much better outcomes, along with smoother and more effective—and timely—consenting and delivery of essential infrastructure.
Q57 The Chair: You mentioned the regulatory framework right at the outset. Of course it is evolving and, in the course of this year, we are going to have obligations for biodiversity net gain. In relation to nutrient neutrality, Natural England has advised a complete moratorium on development in, I think, more than 70 local planning authorities in the country. That would presumably apply to infrastructure as well. One local authority has banned development in relation to what it fundamentally regards as an inadequacy of water to continue serving wetlands in that local authority, so things are evolving.
In that context, what roles do Natural England, the Environment Agency and central government play in infrastructure delivery and in supporting the delivery of good environmental outcomes? Could I ask you here particularly about the Environment Agency; do you perceive that there is a conflict—or maybe no conflict—in the interests of the Environment Agency between its role as a regulator and its role as the owner of quite a number of assets, such as flood defences and so forth, which they need to fund?
Jan Bessell: I will start with the easy answer, which is, yes, there is a conflict sometimes seen in the Environment Agency and how it performs and consistently applies its duties, even to its own responsibilities and works. We see that not just in the Environment Agency, but with other agencies which have a consultee or a regulatory role, and then they have an operational role, for want of a description. They behave quite differently in those roles and do not necessarily apply the same standards and approach to their own operations. We have seen quite a lot of reporting around the water environment on that recently: on the state of our rivers and the current practice in discharge licensing and the monitoring, management and improvement of those areas, which, rather starkly, illustrates that for the Environment Agency. That is the easy starting point and it would be very good, in effect, to have those separated out in terms of at least functions.
The Chair: Do you think the functions could be separated? Do you see examples of the Environment Agency using its regulatory muscle to extract financial contributions to pay for its own assets?
Jan Bessell: Yes.
The Chair: We might come back to you afterwards for some examples.
Jan Bessell: And probably with good reason in each instance, which can explain behaviours.
The Chair: So the separation of the two roles might actually be an answer. The Environment Agency might be split. We are going to be taking evidence from the Environment Agency later, but this is just a line of thinking that we might want to explore. You may not want to comment further but feel free.
Jan Bessell: You may not need to split the organisation, but you need to have a very clear framework around performance and operation. It is just as a local authority does: whether as a landowner or a planning authority, it has to apply the same approach.
The Chair: They have always had to apply an approach, but, following a judgment, it is now very formalised. I cannot remember the name of the judgment but it was about two to three years ago. A court judgment resulted in a very formalised, almost contractual arrangement. The separation is astonishingly stark between the local authority’s planning authorisation role and its role as a developer and a promoter of works. Does that distinction—the same legal framework—apply to the Environment Agency as yet? You may not know the answer to that.
Jan Bessell: It is clear they are separate functions but, just as that case caused a significant step change with local authorities, there is maybe an opportunity to create better and more consistent good practice.
The Chair: As far as you know, the court case applied to planning authorities but did not apply to the Environment Agency?
Jan Bessell: As far as I am aware.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Please, go on, as we have not got to Natural England yet, which is even more interesting.
Simon Blanchflower: Clearly, there are different roles. We covered this a little earlier about open-source data, which is a clear advantage here. There is a role for both Natural England and the Environment Agency in being able to foster the right environment for that open-source data to be created and made available. There are tools now available around biodiversity net gain, and understanding how this should be measured. Having these consistent tools and being confident in using and deploying them is incredibly important for promoters and deliverers.
The work that the IPA—the Infrastructure and Projects Authority—has done around the Transforming Infrastructure Performance document, which roots a lot of this back into the UN sustainable development goals, and the system of systems approach that builds on work the construction industry, the Institution of Civil Engineers and others have done is incredibly helpful. Again, it comes back to that focus on outcomes and long-term sustainable relationships.
We need to ask how we make sure there is that clear framework. How do we make sure that the tools people are going to use are consistent and replicable? How do we make sure that data is available in the most effective and efficient way possible so that, as people build up their case, it is done in a way that can be relied upon, therefore smoothing both the consenting process and the ongoing delivery of the scheme in reality?
Q58 Lord Goddard of Stockport: Last month, the Welsh Government announced they were scrapping all major road projects due to environmental concerns. Are there any lessons here for the Department for Transport and for National Highways?
Simon Blanchflower: I have just joined the board of National Highways as a non-executive director, so I would not particularly want to comment on the National Highways perspective this morning.
The Welsh Government decision was on the basis of an independent report that drew upon the national transport strategy for Wales. My understanding is that it was not looking at highways in isolation, but at how roads play into that overall national transport strategy and making sure there is a correct balance between road schemes that go ahead and other means of delivering the transportation outcomes people were seeking. It was an focused on better outcomes for people and for places.
The learning, if anything, that comes from what has happened in Wales recently is in making sure that there is an overarching transport strategy as a whole that enables you to balance where investment should go, whether that should be in road, rail, active travel or other forms of public transport, so the most efficient and effective outcomes can be achieved with the least damage to our planet. That is my perspective.
Lord Goddard of Stockport: That is the strategy, but the reason they have stopped all the schemes is over environmental concerns. That is separate to an overarching strategy for road, rail et cetera. It is different.
Simon Blanchflower: Environment is a key component in that, for understanding where best to invest and how to support the outcomes that are sought. I am not an expert on the Welsh transport strategy, but my understanding is that it has not meant cancelling all road schemes. There are a significant number of road schemes still going ahead. They have cancelled, I think, eight road schemes.
Jan Bessell: They are going ahead with 15.
Simon Blanchflower: Yes, so there are road schemes still going ahead. A number have been stopped and one of the reasons for that, as you say, is around the environmental concerns and the environmental impact that it would bring.
Jan Bessell: I think there are some really good learning points. One is about the approach to strategic transport planning and mobility, having full regard to climate change and the natural environment, as well as the need for economic delivery and movement. Of course, in Wales, under the devolution settlement and the Wales Act, they have a framework and Spatial Plan within which they are looking at each of those things. Within their legislation, they have committed to different environmental outcomes and initiatives than England currently has, so it is set in that context. In terms of England and the wider UK spatial plan, that would be welcomed and beneficial to provide a long-term and integrated framework.
An interesting reaction that has come from the Welsh case is the need for transition so that you do not start without alternative provision if you are to deliver on environment and for people’s health and well-being, and the economy. Transition is a big learning point for me: making sure there is a smooth glide path rather than an abrupt cliff and an evidence-based strategy. Whether you agree or not with the evidence, they have taken an evidence-based approach to strategy, which is a good learning point. Also, the integrated approach to movement, transportation and mobility alongside the wider environment, people and health concerns is something we could definitely develop more of. The Draft National Policy Statement for National Networks has just come out for consultation, which is an update of what we had rather than a national strategy around transportation and movement. In that context, a move away from road and rail projects to a transportation strategy would be a really good development point.
Lord Goddard of Stockport: That is a better strategic route but there is a necessity in all areas for connectivity, which you need if you want to attract the jobs. I had to go down to Tenby last year to visit some friends. It takes six hours to drive there. I can drive to Belgium in less time. The real issue is that it is not connected. You take the motorway route, which is M6 and M4, or you try to go through Wales which means using minor roads, A-roads, up cul-de-sacs and everywhere. As somebody who wants to get that connectivity, there needs to be the vision that it is a two-way street. It is about the environment but it is also about human beings, sustaining life and creating employment and opportunities. The balance needs to be right. Perhaps in Wales they have tilted it the wrong way. Just cancelling all those schemes on environmental grounds which, to me, lacks a bit of forethought and planning at the beginning of the process, which I think is what you tried to tease out in the answer.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: I too have strong Welsh connections and have owned a cottage in Llanbedr for 50 years. One can only agree that the roads are a shambles, but I rather read the Welsh Government's decision to stop and have a rethink, not necessarily on environmental grounds, but on grounds of ordinary, hopeful, common sense that you might do better with a bit of tinkering with the roads than building new ones. I so hope that was true because, as a resident of Cambridge, it would be much better if we stopped building roads altogether and filled in the potholes. The money would be better spent.
The Chair: Before we have too much of a discussion of roads policy in Wales, is there a question you would like to ask the witnesses?
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: I am interested to know how Jan Bessel read this. Did she read it as an environmental issue or as, in some sense, a common-sense financial policy?
Jan Bessell: I read it as a wider strategy but particularly informed by environmental matters as a significant part of what they were looking at. I read it as a wider approach on a reset and rethink about how to deliver transport, resource, investment and delivery in the Welsh context.
The Chair: Do you have any follow-up to that, Baroness Cohen?
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: No, I just plan to use it somewhere.
Q59 Lord Best: There is a big overarching question: to what extent is the problem one of accepting that all these environmental requirements are justified and important, or is it about accepting them and then saying “But implementing them is the problem”? We have to accept the framework that we have and we need to streamline; we need to have a national strategy. These are all about how we get the job done, but they start with an acceptance that all these requirements are necessary and important and that we should adhere to them.
The Chair: Are you trying to get at the distinction between saying “Are we doing too much and are the regulations too burdensome and carry on being added to?”, therefore development is not happening, or is it simply the case that what we are aiming at is correct but that because of history—because we have inherited some of these through directives from Europe, which tend to be specific about particular topics—and because we have a multiplicity of agencies and departments like Defra that have their policy plans? There is a lot of confusion in the system; I think we would all accept that. We could keep the objectives but somehow deliver it all better through eradication of the confusion and by having simplicity and a greater focus and so on.
Lord Best: Or is it impossible?
The Chair: Yes, the third option is that we are doing it as well as it possibly can be done already.
Simon Blanchflower: Which I do not think we are.
The Chair: No, I did not think we were.
Simon Blanchflower: My personal perspective is that these regulations are important. We have already rehearsed that we are facing a climate emergency and a nature emergency, so there is a need for us to focus in on what we can do on nature recovery, mitigating climate change impacts and so on, so these are important issues. Currently, there are challenges in how some of these things are brought together and, therefore, the overall roadmap—the overall picture that we are trying to achieve here. For me, it is around two things. One is simplifying the roadmap and making sure, as we look across the breadth of regulations that exist, that we ensure they are sympathetic to and supportive of each other in terms of those overall objectives.
Coming back to something I said earlier, we should not see them as competing but as part of the overall system we are trying to deliver in trying to achieve the outcomes. The focus should very much be on ensuring the consistency and comprehensiveness of the regulations in a way that aids and supports the outcomes we are seeking to achieve through infrastructure delivery.
Jan Bessell: I absolutely agree with Simon about the starting point; it is hugely important. In my experience, if you provide clarity and certainty and you make it capable of achievement, most applicants will engage with that effectively and deliver projects which do that. However, if you keep moving the ground from under them and make it very difficult to navigate and very inconsistent, it becomes a real burden. Therefore, we have a real opportunity to make a step change in terms of the environmental outcomes, while streamlining and removing overlapping regulations—all those standards we started off this session with.
There is an opportunity to create clarity, consistency, and coherence from government policy right through to the local level and through the regulatory and consenting process. We can incentivise collaboration and innovation, and improve the resource and skills by investment in training. Expert groups can also be drawn upon so that that resource provision is cost effective—and that is in our local authorities, our statutory environmental bodies and in government departments. Let us have collaboration across the departments, not silos, and bring in clear process and requirements to have adaptive management in consenting, which will deliver right throughout the life of a project and ensure real value is delivered. We can grow that data and knowledge base to inform future decisions.
Lord Best: If we were to have this inquiry again, or start a new one, should we look at whether all the environmental requirements that are placed upon those wanting to get on with the job are necessary, important and right or, as the insiders, do you feel that is not the issue? Is it that people have not gone over the top, that bats are only a very peripheral issue and basically that this framework we are all trying to operate within is justified and sensible? Should that be our next inquiry—to look at whether some of this is a complete nonsense?
Jan Bessell: It would be really interesting and valuable even to come up with a list of all the regulations that apply in every context and process, to map what they do and what their intent is in delivering those outcomes, and to look at how effective that is in practice and therefore whether it is the right tool for that purpose. This is just so much conversation if we do not get the right outcomes.
The National Infrastructure Planning Association sometimes commissions research. At the moment, we are doing our third insights research, which is called Project Hindsight and is about the implementation phase: what is it like to implement these projects in practice with these consents, with these other regulations? We are just about to report on that, so we will happily provide a copy of that to the committee as soon as it is published.
Lord Mawson: I would like to pick up on what Lord Best was saying about whether these systems, which are full of process, are really fit for purpose. When you get into these communities in detail, you often find that it is about people. You find people who often know a great deal about these issues, often more than local authorities and any of the public sector. I have been working with a developer recently who is an environmentalist and has created 1,200 jobs and spent 20 years trying to develop with all the right intentions, which is massively difficult when you hear all the detail.
A lot of this discussion has been about process, not people. I wonder what your reflections are on that. Have you found, as I have—certainly when you dig under the carpet and get into it—that there is something quite different there, but you have to get really interested in people and place rather than just process?
Jan Bessell: It is about planning with communities, not doing it to them. The most successful engagement and projects are the ones that get that. They really endeavour to work with the communities and schools. It is not set-piece public consultation with exhibition boards. It is about working with communities, understanding their needs, their fears and how a project can still be delivered even with that. I am a very strong believer in that and have been all my professional career. It is something we could do a whole lot better.
Q60 Lord Carrington of Fulham: Clearly, what you want to do is to bring everybody in. You want to make all the regulations simple. You want to make it so there is great clarity, and everybody knows what is behind every stone along the way of any project. You are not going to get that, because the real difficulty in this, surely, is that we are always trying to reconcile irreconcilables.
Take HS2; it is always easier to think of concrete examples, is it not, and there is a lot of concrete there. HS2 is a national priority to build a railway. There are cost constraints, partly dictated by external factors, whatever they may be, but it is heavily constrained by the electoral cycle as well. There is then the local problem. If you are living in what used to be Conservative constituencies along the way, you are not going to have a railway station or any access to the track, but you are going to have all the disbenefits, so you will always oppose it whatever happens, because it is not a good thing for you.
The problem is that you have irreconcilables, which means that no amount of motherhood and apple pie, amount of consultation or how well you go about it will ever please all the various people who, under our present mishmash of regulations, are able to oppose it, delay it, add to the cost and insist on the HS2 going in tunnels for vast distances at massive expense, creating, arguably, even more environmental damage at either end of the tunnel and all the rest of it.
There is the wonderful old music hall joke about the French Transport Minister being asked, “How do you get all your high-speed railway through, and how do you make sure you do not get local opposition?” He is supposed to have said, and I am sure he did not, “When you’re draining the swamp, you don’t ask the frogs. You just get on and do it”.
Do we not have to have a system which says that some things have a national priority and we have to minimise it as much as we can, but actually it just has to be driven through? Is that not the only way we are going to get these things done? All we are going to end up with is HS2 starting at Old Oak Common, going to Birmingham, not going to Manchester perhaps, certainly not going to Leeds, not going to where it should go to, which is Glasgow and/or Edinburgh or wherever you want to send it to. It needs to connect to HS1, so that you can go from Glasgow to Paris or Brussels without getting off the train.
If you do not have the central direction which says that this is an overriding national priority, you will end up with several generations who will have gone through this and we still will not have a train that connects to the other train.
Jan Bessell: That is the importance of the national policy statements. That is exactly their role and why they are an equal limb of the Planning Act 2008, which has been left to languish and has now created a lot more uncertainty and a lot more ongoing conflict and delay. Long-term, clear policy which says that it prioritises nationally significant infrastructure is important. There is a presumption in favour of nationally significant infrastructure in the Planning Act 2008; that is effectively what the Planning Act does. We have not had comprehensive national planning policy coverage even from the outset; we are still missing some bits, and some bits that were put in early are now very dated and not fit for purpose. As a result, we are seeing increasing challenges, delay and the things that you describe.
When you create a strong policy framework that is based on all the other things we have said, you create clarity and people know what they can and cannot influence and engage with, so their effort is more directed. You will never change opposition to some projects; I absolutely accept that. But that does not mean that you should not try to bring people with you and do what you can to understand their situation and deliver for them as far as it is appropriate to do so. Also, we need to think far more smartly about the proximity of some of our major infrastructure and the position we leave property in, particularly residential property, because of that integrated approach to existing development and new development.
The Chair: Simon, there must be occasions when you have done all the public consultation and at the end of it you have said, “Well, it doesn’t matter. I’m still going to build this. I’m still going to do it the way I was going to do it”. Is that not what Lord Carrington is hoping you do?
Simon Blanchflower: Absolutely. It is the last piece that is key, and it is the overriding presumption that this is the right investment to be making as UK plc, that it is where we see ourselves going as a nation and the infrastructure we need to support the economy, housing and so on. As we have talked about, the National Infrastructure Commission, the policy statements et cetera are all part of the framework that allows us to understand what the direction of travel is.
However, once you have accepted that principle, whether it is HS2, East West Rail, Crossrail or whatever, it is about understanding how you deliver that in a way that is complementary as far as is practicable to the needs of the communities you are passing through. Some will benefit directly, because they will have a station, a junction on a road or whatever else. Others will not benefit directly but can benefit indirectly through the works being done on environmental mitigation and the design aspects of it. That is a key point in the consultation process: understanding people's views and perspectives and trying, as far as reasonably practicable, to build those into your decision-making and the evolution of the design you are bringing forward.
We saw that on East West Rail in the feedback we received from the first consultation and put into the second consultation. I think last week’s Budget Statement said that there will be a preferred route announcement this May. Again, the work that has been done since the second consultation will, I am sure, be fed into the route option announcement in May. It is an evolutionary process, it is an administrative process, and, as far as is practical, it is about taking people with you, listening to them and incorporating their views and perspectives.
Lord Carrington of Fulham: You cannot take everyone with you,
Simon Blanchflower: There are some people you will not take with you.
Lord Carrington of Fulham: Absolutely. I am not advocating this, by the way. I am just raising it, because there will come a point where, if we are going to build a major infrastructure, a railway or a road or something, and it will always to run into opposition. Somebody has to be able to say, “That will be built, because it’s in the overall national interest to do so and we’re going to limit your ability to delay it. We’re going to force it through. If there are bats in the way, they can find another belfry to go to. If there are people up in trees, they’re going to be removed whether they like it or not, and the courts won’t be allowed to interfere”. In other words, no politician who does that will get elected. I just do not understand how we get out of the mess we are in.
Jan Bessell: I will give you two examples, one where it has worked well and one where we are currently in difficulty. The national policy statement for waste water has some project-specific policy in it. You have all been in and around London, so you will be aware of the Thames Tideway Tunnel, and some of you may have seen the television documentary. It was a hugely controversial project in its planning. It was a named project in the national policy statement, which said that it had to be a tunnel. It could not be sustainable drainage or something we can do in 10 or 20 years’ time when looking at green infrastructure. The urgency was that we had been in breach of our obligations on water—
The Chair: It was always EU law that drove our Civil Service.
Lord Carrington of Fulham: Absolute nonsense.
Jan Bessell:—since the year 2000.
The Chair: That is why they have no idea what to do with it.
Lord Greenhalgh: We fought that tooth and nail, Matthew.
Jan Bessell: The amount of sewage that is still spilled into the Thames out of the combined sewer overflows goes in every time we have heavy rain, so there was that overriding need.
Lord Greenhalgh: And it made money for Thames Water.
Jan Bessell: There were 14 London boroughs in that project. It was a huge scheme under London, and we all know the construction disruption. It would have been almost impossible to examine and consent without that national policy statement. I can say that because I was the lead examiner, so had to report on the project.
Lord Carrington of Fulham: You should know that Lord Greenhalgh fought it tooth and nail. Lord Moylan was next door, and I was the MP for Fulham, so we are all—
A Noble Lord: We are all scarred permanently.
Lord Carrington of Fulham: We are parti pris, as the French would say.
Jan Bessell: That shows exactly the challenge. I use that example deliberately, because it is a very controversial project, but if you look at it now, as it is starting to get to the later stages, you see that we have gained the education programme, the open space that is being created, and eventually the amount of sewage that will be taken out of the Thames in the central part of London.
The Chair: What is the failure?
Jan Bessell: I will come back to that in a moment. You gain the capacity to keep investing and developing London, because we were operating on borrowed time on Bazalgette’s sewer system, which was designed and built for a fraction of the population and development we now have in London. I am not saying whether I personally support the tunnel, but those are the facts of where we are.
The downside is that the construction impacts are immense, particularly for four of the communities at the most extreme end, to the point where I said at the time that one of the sites was unacceptable in policy terms. It did not fail the overall project, but I asked the Secretary of State to do something about it, and we ensured that there was as much mitigation as there could be within the terms of what we were given. That is all you can do in that situation: try to have some humanity and do what you can, and try to make it as good a project as it can be in its delivery.
The only thing is that people's lives—and it is people's lives—are affected by that. We need to get better at putting more support around them for those projects. It is often said that, “National gain, local pain”. That project is a very stark version of it. The only good thing about impact and that project is that once it is operational, there will be very little ongoing impact.
The second example is renewable energy: solar, wind and tidal. We have a vacuum in policy. Everyone thinks we need to address climate change, but there is a lot of reaction to having that scale and type of development in your local area.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will summarise, and it is only fair that I let you comment on this summary. I was very struck by one phrase that Simon used, which we also heard in our previous inquiry when we examined infrastructure policy-making and met the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, and that is the notion of a system of systems. If you have a massive thing to do like building a railway—be it East West Rail, HS2, whatever—as an engineer and standing back, you have a system of systems that you have to deliver. It is relatively easy from a mental point of view to fit the environmental requirements into that. Be it the bats, the habitats, whatever, that is just one of the other things you have to do, along with ordering sufficient concrete and having the right fleet of contractors vehicles ready. It is just part of that system. So for large infrastructure projects the environmental challenges are more easily incorporated into the mental framework and into the delivery pattern. That is the lesson I am taking away.
The challenge for this committee, I think, is to reflect in the light of the previous evidence sessions we have had, and going forward, why that mental approach is not applicable in the commercial housebuilding sector, and things like that, where you are not an engineer with large system of systems experience and mental approach. That is what I took away as a sort of summary conclusion of this very valuable evidence session. It is only fair that I let you comment on it, because I may have misrepresented you, or you may think I have drawn the wrong lesson.
Simon Blanchflower: No, that is a really helpful summary. I would just emphasise that it is about maintaining the outcomes focus in the development of the system of systems that will deliver against those outcomes. That would be the only addition I would make to the statement you have made.
The Chair: Thank you both very much indeed. It has been an extremely valuable and useful evidence session for us.
