This response has been developed by officers from Transport for West Midlands (TfWM), the transport authority for the West Midlands Combined Authority area. The combined authority represents the seven metropolitan districts/boroughs of the West Midlands, including Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Solihull and the four Black Country authorities of Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley and Sandwell.
TfWM has an interest in the draft NNNPS because of the impact that national guidance for transport infrastructure projects has on the successful delivery of our own Local Transport Plan (LTP) and our citizens. As a Local Transport Authority, we must have regard for national policy and guidance in local policy development, especially as we develop our new LTP.
The NNNPS contains a broad scope of issues to be taken into account during assessment of NSIPs. The impacts of any given NSIP on specific issues and the appropriateness of any proposals within the NSIP for maximising enhancement and minimising/mitigating harm is subject to a broad scope of professional and public opinion. In this regard, it is considered that the former and revised NNNPS does little to reduce such scope for challenge against proposals (challenge which might be perceived by Government to cause unwanted delays to progressing proposals).
The changes highlighted in the draft NNNPS do not seem to be significant when compared to the previous statement and so significant scope for professional judgment remains over the many issues. To be more effective the NNNPS would need to be clearer on the level of consideration that is appropriate for mitigating/avoiding any issues and providing network enhancements.
The NNNPS is a relatively high-level document, in that it will require the interpretation of wider guidance relating to the issues it covers for decision making. As a high-level document, it would benefit from being made more concise by removing surplus contents that wouldn't have a material bearing on the document's use as a framework for assessment. This would help practitioners as they apply it.
Whilst the extent of delay to NSIP progress may be affected by the contents of the NNNPS, it is also fundamentally affected by:
• The robustness/adequacy of optioneering that takes place in the development of transport strategy/ investment programmes prior to the NSIP detailed scheme development (with which the NNNPS is concerned); and
• The robustness/adequacy of wider strategies to manage issues on which NSIPs impact.
Ultimately concerns from the public over these factors will intensify objections to NSIPs.
We encourage Government to continue to ensure that alternatives are properly considered in early decision making (e.g. strategy/programme formation) which affect initiation of NSIPs. Evidence of such optioneering will be important to support NSIPs progress through the DCO process.
Insofar as clarity of strategy is concerned, it is considered that it is a challenge to make sense of the wide scope of national policies and strategies guiding surface transport. There are many policy documents focussed on separate objectives and components of the transport system. We believe that progress in delivery of surface transport policies and outcomes would benefit from a clearer overarching surface transport strategy.
We believe that transport strategy and policy proposals are still falling short of addressing the extent to which reductions in transport demands are required to achieve social, economic and environmental aims. In our view, the statement of need fails to address this, and is possibly detrimental to the achievement of it; particularly where the statement of need considers that additional capacity for general traffic is required to address pinchpoints where demand is exceeding capacity. We are concerned that such capacity building runs the risk of unpicking wider national and local efforts to encourage more sustainable and efficient travel, and to manage travel demands. We consider that there is a substantial risk of induced demand from such proposals and note the inconsistency in the NNNPS between road and rail sections in how it treats the extent to which capacity building leads to higher demands. We consider that this represents a contentious issue which will limit the effectiveness of the NNNPS in progressing proposals.
A particular challenge remains around the role of and plans for demand reductions in transport to deliver climate change mitigation obligations. The appraisal of sustainability notes substantial uncertain impacts on decarbonisation. There are also substantial uncertainties within Governments Transport Decarbonisation Plan, with limited firm and committed policies to manage demand for travel in spite of the clear link between travel demand and carbon emissions. Strengthening of the Transport Decarbonisation Plan to mitigate the risk that travel demand will undo the achievement of climate obligations with firm and committed policies would likely help limit the uncertain impacts of the NNNPS. However, such proposals should be progressed to support wider social, economic and environmental aims as well.
As discussed in the previous section, we consider that some fundamental issues with the strategic case and rationale behind the statement mean that the NNNPS is unlikely to be effective in enabling timely delivery of particular proposals due to the high number of objections they are likely to receive.
There is considerable unmitigated uncertainty over the impacts of transport and the impacts of transport policies/proposals in the wider policy that supports the NNNPS. There are also tensions within Government’s approach and between proposals; for example the way in which “vision-led” compared to predict and provide approaches are dealt with in the NNNPS seems non-conducive to each other. Measures to provide more capacity to accommodate more demand will unpick efforts elsewhere where capacity is being limited to encourage shifts in demand.
There is not a clear and credible view set out by Government around what sort of network demand we should be aiming for to achieve social, economic and environmental aims. The unmitigated uncertainties found in wider government policies are reflected in the NNNPS, suggesting that the scrutiny of NSIP’s will follow a similar pattern.
For instance, there does not seem to be proper scrutiny on issues such as decarbonisation. They are not really taken as barriers to development because the Secretary of State can still approve a scheme even if it has provable a negative impact on carbon emissions. Due to this limited scrutiny, as well as a lack of coherent national guidance on decarbonisations, projects won’t be contributing to wider aims and objectives. This may lead to schemes that have negative implications for the environment and the economy being approved, rather than proposals more likely to deliver on positive outcomes.
There also seems to be a focus on the SRN’s use for longer journeys, when its primary use is for local trips particularly in metropolitan areas. There isn’t enough scrutiny around reducing demand for roads on these shorter journeys that could be replaced by digital connectivity, local amenities or public transport. Priority is around increasing road capacity and new infrastructure for long distance journeys, when there aren’t any proposals to shift the SRN away from local trips.
The changes to the NNNPS appear minimal, with the scope for professional judgment remaining high. Therefore, there would not be significant improvement in delays.
TfWM do not deal directly with obtaining DCO’s. Delays in projects do affect our local areas and strategic road network, so we would welcome any improvement in this process.
TfWM find that the approach being set out in the NNNPS does not adequately addressing key pressures, such as Net-Zero, levelling-up and growth.
We believe there are pathways for the future of transport that meet all social, economic and environmental objectives and that these necessarily involve reducing the energy and spatial demands of transport.
Whilst most recently the focus for the need for this has been on decarbonisation (with CCC recommendations and wider independent research suggesting we need to manage demand), there is wider evidence that this can help a broader scope of aims. This was for example explored in the 2017 Wolfson Economics Prize albeit with the specific example of “how can we pay for better, safer, more reliable roads in a way that is fair to road users and good for the economy and the environment”
This is not what is reflected in the NNNPS Statement of Need. These inconsistencies in approach need to be resolved in Government policy beyond the scope of the NNNPS but resolving these issues should also be reflected in the NNNPS.
There is also a contradiction in relying on the ‘predict and provide’ approach to infrastructure building within the NNNPS. TfWM and other transport authorities are beginning to employ a ‘decide and provide’ method, so that new infrastructure projects can contribute to a travel future that better manages demand and leads to decarbonisation. The NNNPS does not acknowledge the negative impacts that ‘predict and provide’ and continued growth of infrastructure have on these wider aims. It also does not acknowledge that other national guidance, such as LTP guidance, is steering local authorities towards a ‘decide and provide’ planning approach. This is another case of misalignment between the NNNPS and other national policies.
We can see a case for new capacity where there are “missing links” on the strategic road and rail networks, but the approach set out in the NNNPS seems to lead us to resolve pinchpoints that result from surplus demand. Managing demand is the alternative option here that seems to be absent from the strategy for supporting economic and social advancement and environmental preservation or enhancement through transport.
The statement for need and the introduction to the NNNPS focus on public transport and active travel. Whilst public transport is clearly strongly related to the rail network, the use of public transport and active travel by road based NSIPs that are approved via DCO is much more limited, with the primary users of the Strategic Road Network being goods and servicing vehicles, and private cars. The NNNPS discusses cars very little in the statement of need and this is very concerning given that these would likely be the primary mode/vehicle for passenger travel on road-based NSIPs.
Whilst there is some acknowledgement that public transport relies on the road and rail networks, there is limited acknowledgement of the challenges it’s been facing over the past few years (specifically, there is limited discussion of the challenges for buses and coaches). Public transport’s challenges won’t necessarily be fixed by the NSIP’s assessed through the NNNPS, but large-scale national infrastructure projects could undermine wider aims for accessibility and mobility through public transport by continuing to widen the gap between how attractive it is to citizens and private organisations to rely on frequent car use to meet accessibility needs vs alternatives.
Lastly, whilst the statement of need discusses the Common Analytical Scenarios, it does not recognise that it is not necessarily fair to treat them as equally likely, nor that their plausibility and probability are independent of policy decisions that Government could yet make. For example, if higher demands for transport are not conducive to the achievement of aims then policies can be implemented so as to avoid them.
We believe that the draft NNNPS poorly supports the Net Zero ambition. There is a lack of sufficient firm and committed proposals that will deliver Net Zero and mitigate the risks posed by perceived uncertainties. Schemes can still be approved by the Secretary of State even if it has proven detrimental effects to the environment or plan to only mitigate harm to the environment, rather than tacking a pragmatic approach. Until Government has firm and committed programme of proposals to achieve obligations, we believe that Government will face persistent challenges over the delivery of NSIPs that have a detrimental carbon impacts.
Increasing capacity for general traffic through road building risks encouraging/enabling increases in travel demand that are detrimental to the achievement of decarbonisation aims.
NSIPs, themselves, are likely to have substantial embedded carbon costs, with the raw materials and additional operational costs associated with an expanded network. Focussing on leveraging more out of existing infrastructure and employing smaller-scale (lower embedded cost) solutions would better align with Net Zero goals and better deliver decarbonisation.
The NNNPS is based around the common analytical scenarios which were discussed in the previous question. It does not fairly recognise that in spite of all scenarios having falling carbon emissions they don’t necessarily fall enough to meet aims and the policy gap at least in part needs to be addressed by a reduction in energy demands. This is not accounted for in the NNNPS.
Overall, we have concerns over the arguments made over the impact that poor network performance has on economic growth and the role infrastructure investment has to play in resolving this.
We note that under socio-economic impacts, there is limited reference to the potential negative socio-economic impacts that NSIP proposals may result in, and in the interest of balance it would be better for this to be acknowledged. For instance, the statement does not acknowledge the reduced accessibility that people without cars may face. National policies need to be enabling genuine equitable opportunity and accessibility, but this is not demonstrated in the NNNPS.
Attempting to relieve congestion pinchpoints with more connectivity is an economically inefficient way to achieve greater growth through improved accessibility. Our transport networks are already relatively mature, particularly the road network. Adding/relieving individual links on a mature network is generally likely to have relatively marginal benefit. It can also result in an exacerbation of all the economic and social costs of our current transport system that we wish to avoid. There is greater potential to deliver economic benefit by leveraging more out of our existing networks by changing how we use them than there is from incremental expansion. NSIPs may play a vital role in such a strategy, but this does not come through in the statement of need.
Overall, improving accessibility can be achieved by more than just improvements to mobility; it is also supported by changes to land use and digital connectivity. Much like Green Belt policies help to repurpose and regenerate existing urban area as opposed to continually expanding the built environment, restraint on expanding network capacity could encourage more efficient and sustainable use of our current network, land and digital technologies. Whilst NSIPs might be important in such a future for reshaping how current infrastructure can be used, spatial planning and land use policy would also be important for enabling growth without network expansion (and associated impacts).
Whilst the breadth of general policies and considerations, and general impacts is wide, it is not clear that the NNNPS is providing much of a different framework for assessing proposals than would be expected of any other non-NNNPS proposal. There is such a broad array of issues and scope for professional judgment and opinion on each of these that it does not seem to offer a particularly expeditious and timely framework for decision making as compared with non-NNNPS proposals.
The inclusion of HRA’s and Environmental assessments is important in assessing projects, as these provide strong scrutiny of projects and their impact on the environment and a broader range of policy issues. However, the criteria set out within the NNNPS itself isn’t strong enough to deliver on positive outcomes. There are significant uncertainties around which legal obligations and national targets will most factor into project approval considerations. This also causes uncertainties around the effectiveness of more ambitious local targets and transport plans for assessing local and national projects. We would welcome emphasis on the need to assess potential impacts of NSIPs within the context of the current level of commitment to wider policies at the time that consent is sought.
We would also welcome greater recognition of the inequitable transport barriers facing different people beyond protected characteristics; in particular noting the impact that low income has on the travel options that may be viable for people. This is particularly important to ensure that NSIPs consider in order to support “Levelling Up” of the most disadvantaged no matter where they live. Inclusion of these issues in NSIP assessments would be welcomed by TfWM.
As previously discussed, the NNNPS references national guidance around net zero, biodiversity and decarbonisation but the projects likely to be approved through this framework would not contribute national targets and may even be detrimental to biodiversity, air quality and carbon emissions.
Increased travel demands can be detrimental across a wide variety of impacts. The statement of need favours a predict and provide approach to infrastructure building, but this makes demand increases more likely rather than avoiding them. We recommend the need for consistency between the scope of impacts that should be considered for NSIPs and the scope of impacts within the options appraisal report underpinning the Rail/Road Investment Strategies. National guidance is also somewhat inconsistent on this point, with CRSTS funding steering local authorities away from road building projects to increase capacity.
It is suggested that the Secretary of State give stronger weight to general impacts as considerations for schemes. Under the current NNNPS recommendations, the Secretary of State can still approve something that ‘furthers growth’ but which doesn’t properly mitigate the impacts. Breaches are just mitigated rather than avoided from the outset of design or conception. We would welcome a common framework for “mitigations” covering enhancing, avoiding harm, reducing harm, offsetting harm. We also endorse the whole-life assessment approach with respect to carbon and where relevant, other factors. In particular, we endorse an approach that recognises that earlier decisions over optioneering tend to offer the ability to deliver a greater scope of benefits. This would provide a stronger framework for assessing the general impacts, as well as their optimal solutions.
There is also no discussion of clean air zones or other established government requirements for mitigating some of these impacts. These in particular have significant impacts on the road network. It would be relevant for the statement of need on air pollution to reference the requirement Government have placed on local authorities to introduce charging clean air zones in a number of key locations and that speed limits have been introduced on stretches of local and SRN roads to achieve the same.
We are concerned that the Appraisal of Sustainability found that there was no significant impact from the NNNPS when we consider that proposals for new infrastructure in the NNNPS have substantial uncertainties of impacts. The assessment found substantial uncertainties, particularly with regard to climate impacts, but without mitigations in the NNNPS or wider strategy these are not satisfactorily managed.
We are also concerned with the generation of options in the AoS. These options have treated the achievement of economic and environmental aims as being fundamentally in tension, but we consider that this is an unhelpful false dichotomy. In developing our LTP we found that with the broad range of options for accessing what we need through transport, land use and digital connectivity, and a broad range of options for travelling as well, there are pathways for the future of transport where we can unlock and sustain economic growth and meet wider social and economic aims. Whilst changing how we access what we need may come with short term economic costs, these costs represent an investment to enable long-term economic and social advancement and environmental enhancement and protection. The problem is not that the achievement of economic or environmental aims are necessarily in tension, the problem is with particular pathways for the future of transport that do not allow for the achievement of these different aims. Management of transport demands is fundamental to unlocking this, it remains concerning that this has not featured strongly so far in Government policy as we consider this key to shaping the future of transport to the benefit of all aims.
TfWM officers found that the draft NNNPS itself was challenging document to understand even as professionals and specialists in the sector. This was echoed by partners in the industry with whom we discussed the consultation. This has made it difficult for officers to develop a robust response for either the Transport Select Committee or the Department for Transport consultations.
There isn’t much insight into the impact of the NNNPS on communities, local authorities, etc in the DfT consultation. This is a beneficial area of exploration within this call for evidence that should be included in the DfT consultation.
The NNNPS is a relatively high-level document, in that it will require the interpretation of wider guidance relating to the issues it covers for decision making. As a high-level document, it would benefit from being made more concise by removing surplus contents that wouldn't have a material bearing on the document's use as a framework for assessment. This would help practitioners as they apply it, and it would also have helped make the consultation more accessible.
Large road building and strategic rail freight interchanges will have a significant impact on local communities. Greater traffic on key route networks will increase noise and air pollution for communities, affecting their health and wellbeing. This traffic will also increase on more local roads, affecting the air quality and congestion there as well. Similar impacts will arise from the construction of these forms of infrastructure.
This also does not align with the ambitions in the emerging new West Midlands LTP. We have a focus on improving accessibility, reducing traffic and electrifying transport. If the NNNPS becomes the foundation for new infrastructure, this will undermine our efforts to connect communities through public transport and reduce their reliance on personal vehicles. It will also impact our air quality targets and increase inequality. Reduction in travel demand is core to our LTP’s aims but that the NNNPS will support proposals that undermine that with a resultant impact on our achievement of our aims.
The achievement of travel demand reduction requires partners to be working towards the same end goal, but this statement suggests this will not be the case as it is misaligned in some areas to other national guidance. Our LTP acknowledges this is a risk for local authorities and that we risk being in a future scenario with entrenched car dependence and possible decline in public transport services instead of more substantial behaviour changes and aspirational levels of accessibility for those without a car.
This emphasis on SFRI’s will necessitate us and other local authorities to develop a relevant regional strategy. However, we are currently undergoing the development of a new transport plan, so this SFRI strategy may not be in the upcoming pipeline for a while. Projects may be approved on the national level for SFRI’s before we can develop this strategy and determine how these interchanges align with our local priorities. This, as well as the road building set out in the NNNPS will undermine each other if national and local projects are working at different aims. Exceptions being where capacity on the national networks is explicitly for sustainable modes.
May 2023