UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 217-iHouse of COMMONSMINUTES OF EVIDENCETAKEN BEFORETRANSPORT COMMITTEE
THE PROPOSAL FOR A NATIONAL POLICY STATEMENT ON PORTS
|
|
1. |
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
|
|
2. |
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
|
|
3. |
Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
|
|
4. |
Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
|
|
5. |
Transcribed by the Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament: W B Gurney & Sons LLP, Hope House, Telephone Number: 020 7233 1935
|
Oral Evidence
Taken before the Transport Committee
on
Members present
Mrs Louise Ellman, in the Chair
Mr David Clelland
Mr Jeffrey M Donaldson
Mr Philip Hollobone
Mr John Leech
Mr Eric Martlew
Mark Pritchard
Ms Angela C Smith
Graham Stringer
________________
Witnesses:
Mr Bill Newman, Corporate Director, Thurrock Council, Town and
Country Planning Association, Mr James Trimmer, Head of Planning and
Partnerships,
Chairman: Good afternoon. Welcome to the Select Committee. Do members have any interests to declare? Mr Clelland?
Mr Clelland: I am a member of Unite.
Ms Smith: I am a member of GMB and Unison.
Graham Stringer: I am a member of Unite.
Q1 Chairman: Louise Ellman, member of Unite. Would our witnesses like to identify themselves with a named organisation for our records?
Ms Ellis: My name is Morag Ellis. I am a QC. I am the vice-chairman of the Planning and Environment Bar Association.
Mr Newman: My name is Bill Newman. I am corporate director at Thurrock Council and I am here for the Town and Country Planning Association.
Mr Trimmer: My name is James
Trimmer. I am head of planning and
partnerships for the
Q2 Chairman: What is your overall view of the draft National Policy Statement for Ports? Do you think that the Government should approve it as it stands or would you look for any specific changes?
Ms Ellis: I think our principal concern is with regard to the treatment of need in the document and of course, bearing in mind that the Infrastructure Planning Commission will not have the remit of examining any aspect of policy, once an application is made then it is to be determined in accordance with policy. In short, I think our principal concern about the draft Statement as it stands is that need is very much assumed rather than clearly demonstrated on an evidential basis. I can elaborate further with references if you would like but that is very much our main concern.
Q3 Chairman: Could you give me one example to explain what you mean?
Ms Ellis: One point is in relation to assumptions that are made with regard to the recent planning permissions which have been granted at Felixstowe and various other places. I very much have in mind pages 12 to 13 really where demand forecasts are being dealt with. On the one hand, the existing planning permissions are required to be taken into account but, on the other hand, it is made clear that if fully taken into account then it appears that they alone could satisfy the need. We are concerned about that. Of course it is possible that not all those planning permissions would be implemented but we feel that the document does not really grapple with the likelihood behind that. In particular, there is a phrase in paragraph 1.11.4 at the top of page 13 where it says, "However, the Government's view is that the long term effect will be to delay by a number of years but not ultimately reduce the eventual levels of demand." That is talking about the effects of the economic recession. Looking at it very much through a lawyer's eyes, one would say really where is the evidence for that? Our advice would be that there would be a susceptibility to challenge there, at least arguably on the basis of that not having been based upon evidence.
Q4 Chairman: Susceptible to judicial review?
Ms Ellis: Yes, on the basis of no evidence and also potentially on the basis of - using the legal jargon which sounds awful but I will use it anyway for clarity - perversity or possibly Wednesbury unreasonableness on the relationship of that conclusion to the treatment of the extant planning permissions. We are not saying that all of this is incapable of resolution but certainly to answer your question our recommendation would be to revisit that central element of the document in order to tighten it up and achieve security.
Q5 Graham Stringer: If I understand correctly what you are saying it is quite a profound criticism. You are saying that if this Policy Statement is adopted the IPC could say that there would be no further development of ports beyond those ports that have planning permission. Is that the burden of what you are saying?
Ms Ellis: Not quite, no. Clearly the NPS, when published, will form the policy basis for the IPC's decisions. Those with interests in those decisions have to take the NPS as finalised. There can be no challenge to that. That is settled law and it is spelled out in the Planning Act. Therefore, very much the focus turns to people challenging the NPS itself because, if they do not challenge the NPS then it is too late for example to come along and suggest that the treatment of need in the document is not robust. To answer the Chairman's question about susceptibility to judicial review and robustness at this stage, that is very much why we have drawn that out now. It is not quite so much to say that the IPC would reject something on the basis of the extant planning permissions, it is really to point to two things, a lack of evidence base for the conclusion in 1.11.4 and an internal lack of clarity or inconsistency or, in the legal jargon, perversity or unreasonableness with regard specifically to the treatment of the extant planning permissions and the extent of the need. You are right. I realise it is a pretty far-going point that we are making.
Q6 Graham Stringer: Would it be helped, both in terms of defence to legal challenge and future development of port capacity, if the document were site specific in a way that it is not at the present time?
Ms Ellis: Not necessarily. It might tangentially because if it were to be site specific that in turn might lead the framers of the document to look more closely at the question of need, but of course it is quite possible to look strategically at the question of need and quantifying that without having to get site specific.
Q7 Chairman: Mr Newman, could you give us a general view of the Statement? Should it be agreed as it is, or which areas would you change?
Mr Newman: In short, the answer is no. The Association's position is that the Statement represents a good start but it is work in hand and there is further work to be done. There are probably four broad points to be taken in that respect. The first is a much better and much firmer understanding about the relationship of this NPS with the remaining suite. In that sense, it is not clear to the Association how some of this work correlates with work yet to be produced. The second is, if that is an understanding about the relationship in the horizontal, then there needs also to be a relationship in the vertical. By that I mean there needs to be a dovetailing with regional and local spatial planning processes. Again at the moment it is very unclear as to how that relationship is effected through this current draft. The third really is then a question of how infrastructure planning and in particular how infrastructure provision and the financial implications, particularly at a regional level, are then co-ordinated in relation to the content of this policy. The fourth then is very much about ensuring that, so far as carbon accounting is concerned, the effects of this policy are such that UK plc should not exceed eventually its carbon allowances in the future.
Q8 Chairman: Mr Trimmer, do you disagree with anything that has been said or is there anything you would like to add?
Mr Trimmer: Certainly I agree with Bill in relation to the correlation between the NPSs and the degree to which this document will be used for plan making in addition to decision making for major schemes. There does seem not a vast amount of detail and evidence base to guide local plan making. That is something that we feel should be brought out more. As a check list for development, it seems appropriate but certainly I would not think any of the issues that have been covered here would not have been covered in a normal environmental statement for a major scheme.
Mark Pritchard: As far as process is concerned, what have been your main concerns about the process leading up to the NPS?
Q9 Chairman: Has the process been right? Has the consultation been adequate?
Mr Trimmer: From our point of view and certainly personally from a port operator's view, I think the consultation to date and the consultation that is still ongoing from the DfT has been appropriate and adequate.
Q10 Chairman: Is that view shared by everyone?
Mr Newman: No, certainly in the sense that the Association's view is that at the moment the process has been inadequate on two fronts. The first is that a number of consultation processes are being carried out in parallel - for instance, this one - with not yet a closure in relation to consultation period on the document itself. The consultation period on the document itself is relatively short, about three months - not much different to what happens at local planning level and that also includes the Christmas period. I think there is a reasonable concern that certainly for issues of this significance a longer period could have been afforded. Finally, I think there is a concern that again there is an issue about the timing of this relative to the emergence of other NPS documents. Again, it might well have been potentially better if we could have seen more emerging at the same time.
Q11 Mark Pritchard: On the content though, Mr Newman, is there anything in the emerging NPS that you think is a good thing and is positive?
Mr Newman: Yes. I think having an NPS is a good thing. It gives us a very clear sense of direction and a good start. It builds upon our previous policies and our position. Certainly so far as the Association is concerned, there is some concern about a complete reliance upon a market led approach. In that regard, I would pick up some of the points made by my colleague in relation to need but it would also go, I suspect, to certainly those criteria that might be used to think about. For instance, drivers for location. As an individual, I would not advocate site specific proposals but I might advocate the stronger use of clearer criteria with regard to thinking about port location and its impacts.
Q12 Mark Pritchard: Competition is a good thing in principle. Sometimes it produces good results; sometimes bad results. Do you accept that, despite the fact that there may be a national government view on ports policy, that does not have to diminish regional competition between ports?
Mr Newman: Yes, I do.
Q13 Mark Pritchard: Ms Ellis, you made one or two comments earlier that perhaps alluded to the fact that competition would be reduced. Am I incorrect in that assertion?
Ms Ellis: If I indicated that, it was not my intention. I do not think that we have a view one way or the other as an association with regard to competition. I was very much answering the question from a lawyer's perspective about evidence base.
Q14 Mark Pritchard: Do you think the NPS would reduce competition between the regions and between ports, Mr Newman?
Mr Newman: No, I do not think it would. There is no evidence that a previous incarnation of policy has done that. In that sense, I think what is important is that there is a clear direction, a clear understanding, on the part obviously of the decision makers in terms of how those decisions should be made. There will be times when, candidly, the proposals generated through competition will exceed the given wisdom with regard to capacity at any one time. The key criterion is how should the decision maker determine one application in favour of another.
Q15 Mark Pritchard: Need is a major pillar of a lot of planning legislation or perhaps less so in the retail sector recently. Do you accept that there are other pillars that are also important when making a judgment on major infrastructure projects such as for example employment and economic regeneration?
Mr Newman: Totally. Absolutely.
Q16 Mark Pritchard: A final question on security. There is not really much reference to security within the emerging NPS. Do you have any particular views on the positive and negative effects of this Statement on a co-ordinated national security approach to our ports and borders?
Mr Newman: No, I do not, not at this stage.
Mark Pritchard: Anybody else?
Chairman: Mr Trimmer, do you have a view?
Q17 Mark Pritchard: I know you are here with your other hat on, but you come from the London Ports Authority.
Mr Trimmer: I have nothing to add in terms of security. I would say, in terms of the market approach, it is certainly one that by and large has provided appropriate port facilities in appropriate locations that are well used. I think it is a reasonable approach and it is to be applauded that it is continuing within this policy.
Q18 Ms Smith: Mr Newman, in the written evidence of the TCPA you refer to the Connecting England report and the recommendation of that report for a balanced, strategic port strategy to ensure the sustainable growth of English ports by determining growth limits in southern ports and encouraging growth in northern ports. How do you think that recommendation fits with the proposed National Policy Statement and particularly its decision not to recommend specific port locations for growth?
Mr Newman: The Association's document has been with us now since 2006. In terms of the fit, I would not have said that the NPS position is yet a complete fit with the Connecting England report, really for the reasons I indicated earlier. I did indicate earlier that I thought there could be some further work in understanding a criteria-based approach in terms of how some of that may well be resolved. I think it goes to the issues that were mentioned by your colleague, not least things like employment or regeneration or environmental impact, sustainability-type carbon savings. There is a range of those things and I think there is more work to be done on that yet in order to achieve that level of fit.
Q19 Ms Smith: Would it be the view, do you think, of the Association that that work could be taken so far as to perhaps even recommend specific port locations in the final Statement or do you think it is right to actually avoid making those commitments?
Mr Newman: The Association has not declared on that point but I think it would be reasonable not to expect the work to go so far as to point to specific locations.
Q20 Ms Smith: Can I just ask more generally about the evidence base for demand and therefore need? Can I ask the panel to respond on that point by asking what kind of evidence base do you think would be robust enough to give confidence to decision makers in terms of determining planning applications?
Mr Trimmer: Certainly I am aware, with my other hat on, of the forecast of course for 2005 and 2007. There are a number of criticisms of those forecasts. I think again it is the issue there that they are national forecasts, they are deliberately not disaggregated into regions. It is perhaps the issue between a national need versus a regional need and where the developments are actually proposed. The other question I would have is that the bulk forecast is a very low increase from 2005 for 25 years. Again through the Energy NPS and the changing demand in terms of fuel, the small increase in bulk traffic does look quite low in a time when our energy requirements will be more imported by vessel.
Q21 Ms Smith: That is interesting because in the document reference is also made to the potential impact of the recession. It suggests that that forecast demand may be a bit on the high side. You seem to be saying the opposite. This worries me greatly in terms of the robustness of the evidence.
Mr Trimmer: I think certainly from the impact of the recession on shipping patterns that I am aware of, unitised cargo has been reduced an awful lot more than bulk cargo. They have all been hit but certainly unitised has been hit a lot more. I cannot say to what extent the picture will change over the lifetime of the forecast, but it just seemed to me low in that bulks were treated so differently from unitised cargo.
Q22 Ms Smith: As somebody who works in the industry and obviously is an expert in your own field, what would you recommend in terms of developing a more robust approach in the NPS?
Mr Trimmer: I think with the forecasts again I would agree it seems odd in the middle of a very severe downturn that forecasts from the 2005 review and 2007 are still relied upon with the view that they may not be reached in 2030 but, sooner or later, they may well get there. I would have thought that they need to be considered again and to be updated in order to provide the evidence base.
Q23 Ms Smith: Are there any methods or particular approaches on offer?
Mr Newman: I smile broadly because the
comment was made earlier and there was a comparison drawn with the way in which
retail testing has been carried out. I
think the advantage that retail has now is that it has been going on for sufficient
time and has been examined sufficiently frequently for certainly a consensus to
start emerging about methodology. I gain
no sense that that is the case in relation to understanding port forecasting or
demand. In that sense, I cast my mind
back to 2002 and the triple port proposals at Dibden, Shellhaven and at
Q24 Chairman: Mr Trimmer, you referred to a possible difference between national and regional issues. Is not the question whether national needs can be met by better development in regional locations? Do you think that the National Policy Statement deals with that?
Mr Trimmer: It does clearly on a national level. I am thinking in relation to a regional planning approach and also of course the development of master plans for individual ports that will again need to consider the national forecasts at a local level and how those will actually impact on the development of ports in the strategic timescale and obviously how the NPS will then relate to port master plans, regional planning, to provide a reasonable and appropriate fit for schemes that come forward. It would seem odd in a port master plan to have a forecast that did not seem to tie up with the national forecasts produced by government.
Q25 Graham Stringer: The IPC will have to balance up economic benefits against environmental damage. Will it be doing that on a national basis or will it just be doing it locally in terms of the damage in the immediate environment of the proposed port? What I am trying to get at is we have had figures - I do not have them to hand - about the huge number of lorries that are generated by ships landing in the south of England and then the lorries travel up to the north of England. Will the IPC be able to take that into account when it is looking at environmental negatives?
Ms Ellis: Yes, I would have thought so. If that is the transport impact associated with a particular proposal which is being considered by the IPC, then they will have to take that into account. Where perhaps it gets a little more difficult - and again perhaps the NPS might be able to give a clearer steer about this - is on the question of cumulative impact, which is alluded to but is not tremendously clearly spelt out at present.
Q26 Chairman: Is there any new ports policy in the Statement?
Mr Trimmer: I do not think so.
Q27 Ms Smith: Going on from the response that Ms Ellis gave, would that indicate therefore a need to ensure that National Planning Statements on road and rail transport need to be integrated as much as possible with this Statement before us today?
Mr Newman: That is the view of the Association.
Q28 Ms Smith: I know that is the view of the Association. Would it also be the view of the other people on the panel?
Mr Trimmer: We would concur with that, yes.
Q29 Ms Smith: To avoid exactly the kind of cumulative impacts perhaps that you were referring to?
Ms Ellis: It is not so much to avoid the cumulative impacts; it is to give a very clear steer to the IPC about how to handle them and assess them.
Q30 Chairman: Is there enough guidance to enable the IPC to weigh up economic benefits against environmental concerns?
Mr Newman: Certainly at the moment I do not think that there is necessarily enough in the NPS to offer a measure of benefit or disbenefit, one to the other. Of course it is enshrined that it is for the decision maker to determine. I think it goes to the earlier point made about the environmental impacts of this. As an officer within an authority that has one of these large port proposals within it, we normally ask the question, in a sense, whose environment? It will be very important for the decision maker to understand that there will be a series of environments and there will be a series of economic benefits. We will have to take a wider view. There will be national, regional and local interests weighed and in some cases they will not all face in the same direction. At the moment, I do not think there is necessarily sufficient in the document to indicate those elements where benefits or disbenefits can be measured.
Q31 Chairman: How will the Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest be applied in relation to the Habitats Directive?
Ms Ellis: I can see a difficulty about that given what I have suggested already is the dearth of evidence about need because, if you are looking for a case of overriding public interest, one is normally looking at need to balance against any harm to habitats, environments and so forth. I would suggest that if the need part of the document were more robust then all sorts of other things would become more straightforward as a result of that. The balancing act that we are talking about in the different contexts becomes clearer for the IPC.
Q32 Chairman: Which other National Policy Statements should be considered alongside the Policy Statement on Ports?
Mr Trimmer: Certainly those on energy, roads and railways and other main transport networks that are linked into ports and that would transport the cargoes to and from them.
Q33 Chairman: What about inland transport networks? Is there enough on that?
Mr Trimmer: Certainly there is an issue, we feel, in relation to how inland - in terms of waterway transport and coastal shipping, in terms of modal shift - is treated within the NPS, where it is stated at 2.17.20 that the use of inland waterways should be considered, but then it goes on to say, "Target modal shares may sometimes be appropriate but are not mandatory." I think if we are looking to develop a truly sustainable transport network - and of course ports do handle the vast majority of goods coming to this country - there should be a little more than just saying it should be considered but it is not mandatory. I think there should be a persuading of the decision maker that conditions and requirements are split. That should be considered very carefully rather than just looking at voluntary arrangements.
Q34 Graham Stringer: I cannot remember when it was now but Tony McNulty accepted the Inspector's report on Dibden Bay and turned it down. If this Policy Statement was accepted and went through the new process, do you think Dibden Bay would have gone ahead?
Mr Newman: In terms of conjecture, I think it would be very difficult to answer that. The reason for that is that I am not convinced that the guidance to decision makers is any stronger in that respect than it was at that time.
Q35 Graham
Stringer: So it would not make it easy for
Mr Newman: In considering the content of the NPS, certainly as a decision maker at a local level, it occurred to me that what we had before us would not make that judgment any easier on the part of the decision maker.
Q36 Graham Stringer: That is slightly surprising, is it not, because the background to all these changes is to make it easy to make big decisions on the policy - whether it is the equivalent to T5, nuclear power stations or ports. On what was a balanced, closely-argued-on-both-sides issue like Dibden Bay, if you are saying it would not have gone ahead, that is slightly surprising, is it not?
Mr Newman: I do not think it is surprising. I think the nature of the philosophical approach taken on the previous policy position is very similar to the nature of the philosophical approach taken in the NPS. It is not a surprise to me.
Q37 Graham
Stringer: This is probably a silly question. Would it be possible within these new rules
to reconsider
Mr Newman: I do not know enough about
the scale of
Mr Trimmer: It was my understanding from Dibden Bay of course that that dealt with European marine sites and therefore was sort of supra national in terms of the considerations that it had to consider. Therefore, to an extent, they would have to be considered by the IPC probably before the issues within the NPS and of course then there are the issue of alternatives and whether the scheme was actually harmful to the European designated site. Although I agree that it is conjecture, I do not know to what extent this would have made any difference to that decision because of course the importance of the European sites is highlighted in here as statutorily it has to be.
Mr Newman: Therein lies the rub because
Mr Trimmer: As of course do most port schemes if they happen to be in estuaries where these sites are, but again it comes down to the decision maker as to whether those impacts can be ameliorated or mitigated, which of course still is referred to in here. The actual criterion for decision making is the same as it was previously.
Q38 Graham Stringer: If we are not talking about Dibden Bay, it is fairly clear when you look at the other major planning considerations - runways, nuclear power stations, et cetera, - what we are talking about. This document is non-site specific. The Government, I am sure, has some new ports in mind. Would you care to speculate what they might be, which sites they are that the Government is not putting in this document?
Mr Newman: I have no idea.
Chairman: Who wants to take that one up?
Q39 Graham Stringer: I am being permanently surprised. There are a limited number of sites on the coast that could be turned into ports. You must have some idea what the Government has in mind.
Mr Newman: I have no idea.
Mr Trimmer: I do not know if the Government has anything in mind but I certainly agree that there are only a small number and of course they are by definition location specific. There are a number of other proposals perhaps coming through the Marine Act in terms of marine conservation zones that may well reduce those, particularly in terms of channels and depths of approaches, where they will be minimised still. Again, the treatment of schemes to be approved by the Marine Management Organisation and the IPC and how those interface with marine plans is another issue altogether that will need to be considered between the two organisations.
Q40 Ms Smith: One potentially big decision that may have to be taken will be whether or not to go ahead with the Severn Barrage scheme. That is not a port scheme proposal but it is a proposal that would have a significant impact on ports in the Severn estuary and environmentally on the estuary itself. It has European protection. Do you think that this Statement would have any impact in terms of enabling decision makers to decide whether or not to go ahead with such a scheme?
Mr Newman: If what you are saying is, if a decision maker was contemplating whether or not to go ahead with a scheme, whether or not they would then consider the impacts or the decrease upon capacity at a national level in relation to port capacity, then candidly they would have to take that into account. In the sense of the usefulness, it comes back I think to the earlier comment: is there an acceptance about the modelling and the way in which demand is forecast and therefore accepted? Otherwise you are back into that debate.
Mr Trimmer: I would also think it would be an interesting question then between the renewable energy NPS and the ports NPS as to how they could be correlated. How that would happen again I am not sure because also of course the view of the MMO would also add another layer to the complication for the decision maker.
Q41 Ms Smith: How do you think it would be best to move forward - you are professionals in the industry, as I said before - in terms of balancing the different demands of the Energy NPS and the Ports NPS when it comes to things like the Severn Barrage, when we are talking about impacts on ports rather than the development of ports?
Mr Newman: The Association has a very clear view and of course it comes across in its evidence, which is that it does look at and request through the Connecting England report a much firmer, much stronger and much clearer national development framework. It would suggest that the solution lay in the form of a national development framework, a form of national plan.
Q42 Chairman: Do you think that the thresholds for designating major ports are adequate? Do you know how they came to be put together?
Mr Trimmer: I do not know. There is an element to say that clearly a number would have to be picked. Whichever one it was, it could be considered to be somewhat arbitrary. My view is, again going back to the issue of bulk cargoes, if a petroleum products-importing terminal handling 4.5 million tonnes went off line, I would say that would have a nationally significant impact. The important thing is to retain the flexibility for the Secretary of State and the IPC to consider whether a scheme that might not reach the threshold is actually deemed to be nationally significant and able to be determined through this new route.
Q43 Chairman: Does anybody else have a view about the setting of the thresholds and their adequacy?
Mr Newman: I have a view about the impact of the threshold as opposed to the threshold itself. In that sense, having worked for a long time in the field where thresholds are applied, where as a result one finishes up with more than one decision maker, from my perspective, what is of utmost importance is that there should be sufficient clarity and sufficient steer within the policy documents to ensure a consistency on the part of the decision makers above the threshold as well as below it because without it, if there is scope for too wide an interpretation of what policy means, it can lead to very broad inconsistencies.
Q44 Chairman: Has that been achieved in this document?
Mr Newman: I would not like to say that it had.
Q45 Chairman: That sounds like "no" to me. Ms Ellis, do you have any comment on the threshold issue?
Ms Ellis: I cannot comment on the specifics of the threshold. I do not know how it was arrived at and I am not expert in ports like these two gentlemen, but all I would say is that of course the threshold is statutory, subject also to the existence of a statutory discretion. I would agree with Mr Newman that in the interests of transparency there should be some firm policy guidelines about the exercise of the discretion, as there are for example under section 77 of the 1990 Act, with regard to call-ins so that communities and authorities and so on, broadly speaking, know what to expect.
Q46 Chairman: How long do you think this Statement will last and be relevant? Do you think there should be a trigger for its revision?
Mr Trimmer: Without wishing to appear to be too flippant, I seem to remember when the 2005 policy was trumpeted there had not been a ports policy for a generation and it now seems we have had three revisions in five years. I think it should be something, particularly in terms of the need and demand I suspect, that would trigger a review unless there was some other factor in terms of the criteria that would trigger it. So subject to there being no change in Government policy and the market deciding, it needs to be one of the other issues that actually triggered the review.
Q47 Chairman: How long do you think this document will be relevant for?
Mr Trimmer: Again, I think it depends on the market.
Q48 Chairman: Yes, I know all that. In your opinion, how long a period will this document be relevant?
Mr Trimmer: I think it would be worth reconsidering, certainly in terms of forecasts, within five years.
Q49 Chairman: About five years. Does anyone have any other views?
Mr Newman: Taken in itself, certainly I would not argue with five years. I would certainly advise that regard nevertheless should be had to in effect the remainder of the planning system. It is the point I made earlier on, particularly with regard to regional planning, where there are some very clear and distinct planning periods. Certainly 2021 is one of them. Some of those will go out of kilter and some of those will be subject to review at a different time. Again, those thoughts I think should be borne in mind when thinking about the incidence of review for the NPS.
Chairman: Thank you very much for coming and answering our questions.
Witnesses: Councillor Richard Kemp, Local Government Association, and Mr Alan Welby, Director of Strategy, ONE North East, Regional Development Agencies, gave evidence.
Q50 Chairman: Would our witnesses identify themselves by name and organisation please, for our records?
Councillor Kemp: I am Councillor Richard Kemp
from
Mr Welby: I am Alan Welby. I am director of strategy at ONE North East and I am representing the nine Regional Development Agencies.
Q51 Chairman: Could you give us an indication of how satisfied you are on the way in which this draft Statement has been drawn up and how far your organisation has been involved in any consultation on getting us to this point?
Councillor Kemp: First of all, our involvement has been marginal up to this stage. We are not satisfied with the way that it is being introduced almost in absence from the other national planning strategies which need to take place alongside it. Having a port strategy without particularly a road and rail strategy to complement it does not enable you to take full advantage of the picture of what the National Port Strategy might look like.
Q52 Chairman: Mr Welby, could you give us any comments on how far you have been involved in getting the strategy to this point?
Mr Welby: I think I would echo some of the joined up nature of that and some of the points raised by one of the speakers earlier around the vertical, regional side. In general, the RDAs have worked well together looking at this and working with consultants on the consultation process quite effectively.
Q53 Chairman: Are you satisfied with the current consultation that is taking place now? Do you think it is adequate?
Councillor Kemp: No. To our mind there has not been enough involvement of local councils. The feeling of my own council is that we have been very peripheral to this, that the role of the local council, in both very localised planning and alongside other councils with sub-regional and regional planning, has not been adequately recognised.
Q54 Chairman: Mr Welby, what is your view of the way consultations are being carried out now? Is there enough opportunity for views to be put forward?
Mr Welby: I think there is opportunity. The challenge is making sure the messages are heard and integrated in time. The challenge is around some of the processes around regional planning and sub-regional planning which Richard has alluded to. Making sure they are aligned and integrated into this national framework does require a bit of thinking. It is not straightforward.
Q55 Chairman: In the draft document as we have it now, is enough weight being given to the importance of ports in regional economies?
Councillor Kemp: No. Ports are important as a hub within their
region, an activity growth. You have to
consider the role of a port like
Q56 Chairman: Does this draft document do that?
Councillor Kemp: It certainly does not in isolation, which is why I made the point before about needing to consider this against the other national planning strategies. You could build the best port in the world but if you cannot get to it by road and rail it is almost irrelevant.
Q57 Chairman: Mr Welby, do you have anything to add on this?
Mr Welby: I think I would agree with that. Ports themselves have a very specific nature in the roles of communities that they serve. For a lot of the towns and cities along the coast, their raison d'etre was a port. The economic viability of them is vital and crucial. The connectivity to infrastructure, both internationally and locally, nationally, is vitally important as well I think. Particularly the role they are playing in terms of the ever changing world, that sort of gateway, has to be understood.
Q58 Chairman: The question is: is that reflected in the Statement as it is?
Mr Welby: No, not enough at the moment.
Q59 Ms Smith: Bearing in mind the criticisms that you have made, Councillor Kemp, about the consultation on offer, how will Liverpool City Council be involving its local decision makers but also the general public in the consultation on this Statement? Given you are where you are with it.
Councillor Kemp: I am only of course using
Liverpool as an example because I am trying to represent local government as a
whole here.
Q60 Ms Smith: That is how you have consulted on your sub-regional and regional priorities and your city priorities. How are you going to consult, given all that work, on this proposed Statement? How are you going to ensure that all the views related to sub-regional development of Merseyside are going to fit into your response to this document?
Councillor Kemp: We will be doing that through an organisation called 4 North West which is where all the regions of the North West get together and consider things of wider importance, either to individual councils or to sub-regions. There is a planning and strategy committee of that and that is where we bring together such items. I cannot tell you whether that has actually taken place in the North West at the moment but that is how we will do things.
Q61 Ms Smith: Bearing your criticisms in mind and not necessarily disagreeing with them, do you accept that there is a responsibility on the part of local government to ensure that any responses made to this document are as robust as possible?
Councillor Kemp: Absolutely, yes, as we respond to every local government inquiry or document. We research it as thoroughly as we can and make the maximum possible impact into it.
Q62 Ms Smith: You have the mechanisms in place to do that and you feel you have the time to do that?
Councillor Kemp: The time is a difficult one because, as I have tried to explain before, we find it very difficult to answer in isolation one particular strategy without knowing how that strategy will fit into other complementary strategies which will make that strategy relevant or irrelevant.
Q63 Ms Smith: You can make comment on that. There is nothing to stop you making comments on that in your response.
Councillor Kemp: I do and have.
Q64 Ms Smith: Through the LGA you have the tools to make sure that that happens as well at national level.
Councillor Kemp: I would be the first to tell you that, because we do not have the wider framework, that will be an inadequate response because we cannot frame the response properly.
Q65 Chairman: Which other National Policy Statements do you think you should have?
Councillor Kemp: Road and rail.
Q66 Chairman: Those two?
Councillor Kemp: Yes.
Q67 Ms
Smith: Can I just ask Mr Welby about the consultation
process? Some of the port authorities
involved in this are not as large as
Mr Welby: In having discussion with colleagues from the private sector and the ports up to now, there is a degree of cynicism about this. I suppose that will come out tomorrow when you meet them. I do think though that the people I have talked to understand the challenges and opportunities for this and broadly welcome the intent. Whether that is being done via themselves as individual ports or via their associations will come through tomorrow. In terms of the regional dimension and consultation, up until now we have had the regional, spatial strategies and quite large public consultation on those. Going forward, we will have the integrated regional strategies and again a very robust and detailed public consultation process is involved in that. The private sector has been quite critical of that, how long it will take to develop integrated and regional strategies, but it is a democratic process. We have to get people involved in understanding the issues and challenges.
Q68 Ms
Smith: Do you think that the Regional Development
Agencies have an effective role to play potentially in helping authorities like
North East Lincolnshire to put together their responses on this, given that
those ports are absolutely critical to the whole of
Mr Welby: I definitely do. I think in general we have a very good working relationship with local authorities on that. In the previous session you were talking about the economic impact and the economic dimension of ports. At a local and regional level, I think that is relatively well developed and is developing further and further. It is that inter-relationship between the regional and the local to the national which I think needs to be integrated, aligned and made better, to tell the truth. That is never going to be perfect - let us be honest - but we have to make it work. The private sector partners do come to us and say, "Well actually, in general, the local authority planning system works quite quickly when they need to work quite quickly." It seems to me the blockages, and I am not criticising the national organisations here, and criticisms are where the local and the regional do not actually tie in with the national and the delays come through. I have had partners in Teesside saying that a big investment was almost missed because of those kinds of challenges.
Q69 Ms Smith: Finally, just in the context of the north, do you think that Northern Way has a role to play in responding to this National Policy Statement and the other policy statements as well in terms of not just regional but supra-regional?
Mr Welby: The transport approach
through the
Q70 Chairman: The document itself is very market led. Does that mean you would prefer something more location specific?
Mr Welby: No. I think market led is to be applauded but we need to understand that there will be times when opportunities come along - for example, around the offshore wind agenda - where it may be appropriate to have a slightly more interventionist approach, to put some economic stimulus in there. For example, if we look on my patch at Teesside at the moment and Corus closing down, it is a real challenge. How can we speed up the really impressive developments that are going on at Teesside port to help mitigate, in a sense? Can we use the planning system to move quickly on that?
Q71 Chairman: The question is how is that reflected in this Statement?
Mr Welby: I think a little bit more work is needed there.
Q72 Chairman: Councillor Kemp, what is your view on that? Market orientated or more location specific?
Councillor Kemp: There needs to be much more locational emphasis on this. The market goes where it is cheapest and easiest. We know from a variety of infrastructure interventions across the country that if you create the right infrastructure the market follows it, because it then becomes cheaper and easier to go somewhere else. If you do not make those interventions, then the market does not operate effectively. It only operates in those areas where it is able to operate.
Q73 Chairman: How do you see the draft National Policy Statement on ports in relation to those comments?
Councillor Kemp: It is largely a market led document which does not place enough emphasis on the overall economic strategies needed by the Government and by the regions to diversify the economy and improve regional activity.
Mr Welby: When it comes to some of the more technical issues around the actual impact and the evidence specified here, I think that needs to be firmed up a little bit more as well.
Q74 Graham
Stringer: Following those questions and answers, I would
ask you to do the work for us. It has
been the view of this Committee, when it has produced previous reports, that
there is too much traffic in the south of England causing congestion on the
roads. How would you change the National
Policy Statement so that it gave advantage or encouraged investment in new
ports in the north of
Councillor Kemp: In a way it is following on
the
Mr Welby: I am speaking on behalf of all the regions, so I do not want to just speak for the north here. I think it is also about the international incentivisation, the dialogue we have with the routes etc. At the moment, it is economically viable to go to the south east for the international carriers, so trying to make those routes as viable as possible to get that critical mass to ports in the north will be important.
Q75 Graham
Stringer: This question has been asked before in a
slightly different way. Do you not think
that, to really encourage investment into the north of
Councillor Kemp: Coming of course from
Liverpool, which would be one of those, that would be very satisfying but the
reality of life is that we do have to pick winners. You are never going to get bulk containers
going into small ports. Therefore, how
do you develop the five or six in the north of
Q76 Graham Stringer: Can I just take you back to consultation because Paul Clark, the Minister for Ports, has said publicly and to this Committee that local authorities are central both to the consultation and the final decision making process and are deeply involved all the way through. From what you said before, Councillor Kemp, you do not agree with that. I would like your response to Paul Clark's statement as I have reported it.
Councillor Kemp: On the ground it does not feel that way.
Q77 Graham Stringer: Can you be more specific than that?
Councillor Kemp: There is always going to be a difference of opinion between local and central government.
Q78 Graham Stringer: It is not really a difference of opinion; it is whether you are involved, whether you feel you are influential and have had the right to communicate your views.
Councillor Kemp: We have the right to communicate. We can all do that. It is about whether anyone is listening to that communication. We do not think that there is a fundamental understanding of the regional agenda in the construction of this report. We have made that case and clearly it is not reflected in so far as it appears at draft stage.
Q79 Graham
Stringer:
Councillor Kemp: As you have rightly identified, if we were to take the whole of the country, we might be talking about a dozen places to talk to intensively, and I do not think that is too much for a government to do.
Q80 Chairman: Does the National Policy Statement provide clear guidance for local planning authorities to determine small port developments? Do you have a view on that?
Mr Welby: From my side, I think we look for as much flexibility as possible and the least amount of bureaucracy, so I think the answer to that is probably that it does at the moment in terms of where it is going. We just need to keep that bureaucracy to a minimum, particularly for small ports, in terms of development and costs.
Q81 Chairman: You are saying that you think the Statement is all right?
Mr Welby: Yes.
Q82 Chairman: Is there likely to be a conflict between the National Policy Statement and the local development plans? Is that an area of contention?
Councillor Kemp: I would have thought that was almost inevitable. We can take the 12 big ports; many other ports are a key part of the local redevelopment plans of the council and its local partnership. Inevitably, you cannot satisfy everyone. Clearly, at some stage there needs to be a rationing out of opportunity, if I can put it that way, because you cannot satisfy everyone's needs. What I am not clear about is whether sufficient information is being given to councils to say, "Frankly, it is a waste of time proceeding with this because you will fall outside the strategy".
Mr Welby: And vice versa I suppose, that that bottom-up approach comes into the process as well. All the work that people are doing through local economic assessments and regional strategies goes up into the system.
Q83 Mark Pritchard: Councillor Kemp, do you think government offices are doing more today than perhaps they were a few years ago?
Councillor Kemp: It depends where you start. I was a consultant who helped set up the regional government offices and I can remember them not being there, so they certainly do more than when they were not there. I think, as Alan has said, that there is a strong regional ethos now and the local authorities, through the regional leaders' boards and the regional development agencies, do get together and try to work with the regional offices. The regional offices are somewhat opaque in terms of their decision-making process around a whole series of planning issues.
Q84 Mark Pritchard: Are they better than they were yesterday?
Councillor Kemp: I would not pass a judgment on that.
Q85 Mark Pritchard: That is despite your being a senior councillor in your region?
Councillor Kemp: There are some things about government offices that I would be more than delighted to give an opinion on, but on this one I do not feel qualified to judge on the question between today and yesterday, I am afraid.
Mark Pritchard: Let me make it easy for you. Do you think the region would be enhanced or diminished as a result of their closure?
Chairman: This is just in relation to ports?
Q86 Mark Pritchard: Of course it is, because they are a key stakeholder.
Councillor Kemp: I do not think it would make any difference to the ports strategy but I will come back at another time to argue the wider point.
Q87 Mark Pritchard: Do you agree that strategic partnership working, joint procurement between local authorities, has increased in recent years, for example in your region?
Councillor Kemp: Without a doubt.
Q88 Mark Pritchard: Do you think that is a good thing?
Councillor Kemp: It is indeed.
Q89 Mark Pritchard: So you clearly trust local authorities to deliver on a wide range of services?
Councillor Kemp: Local authorities by themselves and local authorities in partnership on a sub‑regional and at times a regional basis, yes.
Q90 Mark
Pritchard: At an economic level, do you
think that increased working and partnership would be beneficial for example to
the
Councillor Kemp: Yes, I do. We have a very
strong organisation in the
Q91 Mark Pritchard: Do you accept that there are different circumstances in different regions and therefore the vehicle or the platform to deliver regeneration of ports or economic activity in and around ports might differ per region?
Councillor Kemp: It will vary from port to port, never mind region to region. We need to have a model of government which is a set of principles that is moved around the country rather than a static model to be enforced in every area.
Mark Pritchard: Given your comments on the robustness of some local authorities to deliver strategic partnerships and economic regeneration, given the differentials between different regions, and given that you seem to speak your mind, which is refreshing, as a witness, do you accept that there may be circumstances in which local authorities work more closely together and where we might see regional development agencies perhaps closing? This is relevant to ports, Chairman.
Chairman: We are talking about a strategy, a policy statement on ports.
Q92 Mark Pritchard: I believe, if you look at Standing Orders, Chairman, that each member of the committee is allowed to ask a question uninterrupted by other members of the committee. This is around ports and I would be interested in the response from the witness.
Councillor Kemp: I believe that in the context of ports the Merseyside authorities are capable of making the sub-regional decisions. Somewhere above that sub-regional basis we have to link up with a national system because we will never - and Merseyside again is an example - be able to decide how the whole railway system works or how the whole motorway system works.
Mark Pritchard: The final question, given that the Chairman has very kindly allowed
me to ask something not relevant to ports but given that you are senior within
the LGA: I would be interested in
your view on roads and the road conditions that we are facing. Perhaps all of us will struggle to get home
tonight and certainly back to the
Q93 Chairman: If you want to give a short answer, that is okay. I agreed to one question on this. Actually this is all about ports and that is the reason you are here.
Councillor Kemp: The answer, in short, is that this is a 30-year problem and, in the context of a 30-year problem, my answer is "yes".
Q94 Ms Smith: Very briefly, at a very local level planning authorities of course have some discretion in terms of prioritising development on the grounds that an area needs regenerating, so that is what the Unitary Development Plan, the Local Development Framework as it is now, can do; it can help to prioritise areas for redevelopment on the grounds that regeneration is necessary. Do you think that model can be applied and developed to work at national level?
Councillor Kemp: No. I believe it can be
applied further at a regional level. For
example, again to look at the
Q95 Ms Smith: What I am thinking of particularly is this big point about whether or not you prioritise development for instance in northern ports rather than southern ports and on environmental grounds as well as grounds for regeneration and developing the economy of the North. Do you think there is something in the concept, used at a very local level, that could be applied within the National Policy Statement?
Councillor Kemp: There needs to be a national economic strategy which recognises that local authorities and their partners will develop a rich mosaic to deliver their part of that national strategy. Local councils cannot do it all by themselves.
Q96 Ms Smith: That was not my question. Mr Welby, what are your comments on that?
Mr Welby: I think they do and that there is much to learn here from the hub and spoke approach, the interconnectivity of different sites together. I know of some of the work in the South East that has been very positive around that. The interdependencies of cities and ports are vital to future development, not just around containers and shipping. I do think there is something to be learnt there. Working that through is not straightforward, let us be honest, and there are competing agendas: thematic competing agendas and national, regional and local competing agendas. Unless we deal with them, we will just get a hotchpotch and that is not going to serve us well in the internationally competitive marketplace and in actually looking at the challenges that ports are facing over the next five to ten years.
Q97 Chairman: Do you feel that the draft Statement gives enough weight or guidance to trying to evaluate any possible conflict between economic and environmental factors?
Mr Welby: On my side, I do not think the balance is quite there yet between the economic and environmental.
Q98 Chairman: When you say it is not there, do you mean the Statement does not give enough guidance?
Mr Welby: It does not. We would be looking for more guidance, particularly on the economic side. We will give you more details in our written submission. We feel that it is lacking in a number of areas. If it is lacking, then inevitably the judgments being made, particularly in relation to environmental decisions, will be unbalanced, if that makes sense.
Councillor Kemp: One of the problems with following the market is that that has
environmental consequences. If you take
any load a long way by lorry from a southern port to the north of
Q99 Chairman: What is your view on the imperative reasons for overriding public interest as applied to the Habitats Directive? Do you think that the Government has drawn the balance properly?
Mr Welby: I refer you back to my previous answer; I do not think the balance is quite there yet in terms of getting the balance in the document. In particular, I do not think that some of the technical models we will be using to make those assessments are robust enough.
Q100 Chairman: Do you think that the draft Policy Statement on ports is compatible with existing strategy on transport?
Mr Welby: My feeling is that it is but I do not think it is quite there yet and does enough to take it forward to make the alignment that is needed, the step change that would really be needed to make the systems move as quickly and remain as democratic as possible.
Councillor Kemp: As I have indicated, we are waiting for the complementary strategies to come out. The existing strategy is reasonable but whether it is implementable is more important than whether it is strategically correct.
Q101 Chairman: How important is it that you see those other strategies?
Councillor Kemp: It is absolutely vital. As I have tried to explain before, a port which does not connect easily with its hinterland and beyond the hinterland is a poor port, no matter how good the port operator can make it.
Chairman: Thank you very much for coming.
Witnesses: Ms Ginny Clarke, Network Services Director, Highways Agency; Ms Janet Goodland, Director of Development Projects, Network Rail; and Mr Mark Rowbotham, Co-Chair of the Ports, Freight and Maritime Forum, Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, gave evidence.
Q102 Chairman: Do you think the Government should formally approve the draft National Policy Statement on Ports or are there any areas where you think change is required?
Ms Clarke: I will mention our particular concerns which are around transport and the rail industry in particular. We feel that there is not enough in the draft NPS about the established rail planning systems which are available and should be used in order to judge whether or not a port's transport systems will be adequate. We would like to see those referred to in the NPS and that whole system consolidated together.
The Committee suspended from
Q103 Chairman: Does anybody else want to indicate the main problems you have with the National Policy Statement? What are your views on the way the consultation is being held on the Ports National Policy Statement? Do you think it is adequate?
Mr Rowbotham: There are a lot of members in the CILT in the
Q104 Chairman: Do you think that the Statement reflects the existing policy on ports infrastructure development?
Ms Goodland: I am not particularly involved in ports infrastructure development.
Ms Clarke: Neither am I and I am afraid I cannot help you on that.
Mr Rowbotham: Again, from our point of view, it does address it generically. As I have noticed from previous answers this afternoon, it largely depends upon, as I would put it, a matrix, a regional element to the ports, because we have different regions and different requirements for port activities. It also depends on the nature of the port itself, whether the port, let us say, is a multi-purpose structure that deals with a variety of handling, such as dry bulk containers, roll-on roll-off, or whether it is a very specific port dealing, say, with handling hydrocarbons, or a ro-ro port, as in the case of Dover, or even a container port, as in the case of Felixstowe.
Chairman: Does the Statement state the case for additional port capacity? Do you have any views on that? You do not.
Q105 Mr Hollobone: It is all very well not having a view but, with respect, we have representatives here from Network Rail and the Highways Agency and we are interested to know your views on ports; that is why we are here. We have just had two questions from the Chairman on the development of ports and we have not had a response from either of you. We would be interested to know your views, whether you are an expert or not.
Ms Clarke: I am happy to take it on that basis. Perhaps I could take both together. What this Policy Statement does for the Highways Agency is set an outline, the approach to ports and the impacts that has. It sets a clear policy framework for us, but it is in support of other documentation we already have in terms of the development of a strategic road network to support, as you know, key important economic aspects for the country, and of course ports are part of that. Our reference point would be to the documentation, for instance the delivery of the Sustainable Transport System in 2008, which refers to future planning to 2014 for the strategic corridors for national networks, including clearly the strategic rail network. In that context, we would view this document in its draft in the context of seeing the guidance we already have about the direction and indications to us as to where we would want strategic development to take place. In that sense, we have a view about it because clearly we have in place already things that would help us in terms of the strategic direction for ourselves and so I can support this because it builds on that to some extent; it brings a clarity and another level of detail, which is the impact assessment. Clearly, when we look in terms of individual applications, although this is the direction to the decision-maker, it helps outline the sorts of things that any proposal would have to prepare and, where we are involved, the things that we would expect to see from them.
Q106 Chairman: The National Policy Statements on national networks are not due until March. Does it make any sense to look at a ports policy without looking at national networks?
Ms Clarke: I am not sure I am the best person to answer.
Q107 Chairman: What is your view?
Ms Clarke: In my view I think there is a benefit in seeing both together and therefore the comments on this would need to take account of the fact that when we see the National Networks National Policy Statement there might well be some read-across to this and if you had had the two together, you would have had the benefit of seeing them there.
Q108 Chairman: But does it make any sense to look at them separately?
Ms Clarke: I made some sense out of this in the terms of what I was looking for in the Strategic Road Network but I cannot best comment for others who are probably looking for other things in this document.
Q109 Chairman: Mr Rowbotham, what is your view on that? We are looking at a document on ports and we do not have the equivalent document on national networks. Does that make any sense?
Mr Rowbotham: To a point it does if you are looking at it from what the function
of the port actually is in terms of its overall contribution to the economy. However, in terms of transport issues, I am
of the view that cognisance should be given to the other statements when they
arrive because a port is, after all, a mixture of transport activities, all of
which interlink. You cannot have one
without the other. After all, a vessel
coming into a port is going to discharge a cargo or load it. What happens to that cargo after or before
that then depends very much upon the national infrastructure concerning road or
rail, or even inland waterways. I do think
to that extent there has to be an overlap between any form of statement or view
made of the infrastructure concerning both rail and road because without them
we would not have a cohesive, integrated infrastructure in the
Q110 Chairman: Do you think that this Statement is adequately linked to policies on sustainable transport, like taking more freight off the roads?
Ms Clarke: I found it was linked enough. As to whether in fact there are all the clear references, I come to this clearly with quite a good knowledge of the strategic road guidance, so again I look at it knowing what is there already to some extent. I found it quite an easy document to reference things but, as I say, I come from a background of understanding what those strategic road issues are.
Ms Goodland: I think from the point of view of rail, again, yes, there is clear policy out there; there are clear planning guidelines that we work to with the industry, but they are not reflected in here, and so anyone looking at it independently without that knowledge would not necessarily understand the linkages. Yes, in that sense, having the National Networks National Policy Statement would help. I would say that that is then linked to other things because you will have the same arguments with airports' national networks - national networks airport access.
Q111 Chairman: Would it be right actually to designate a National Ports Statement without having a National Networks Statement? I must have a view on that. You have all said how it would be helpful and better - you have used words of that nature - to look at them together. I am asking you: would it make any sense actually to designate a National Ports Statement without reference to a National Networks Statement?
Ms Goodland: I think probably not, in my view.
Q112 Chairman: Could I have your answers clearly? We need to record what people are saying and not just nods. Mr Rowbotham, what do you say?
Mr Rowbotham: No, because the two have to work together. With regard to your comments about taking transport off either road or rail, we have to look very much at the present scenario and then, if we are to address that and make decisions in the future, we have to look very decisively as to how we can do that, given that ultimately the ports which are delivering to the rest of the country in the main are here in the south of England. That means that they will have to rely on domestic infrastructure of some description. Whether that is road or rail or inland waterway or even coastal shipping is another matter. That decision cannot be made overnight; it is something which must be made in the context of the overall National Transport Strategy.
Q113 Chairman: Is that view shared?
Ms Goodland: I would share that view and add to it that the fact of designating the NPS means that the decision making goes to an independent person. At that stage, that independent person needs the full awareness of everything.
Ms Clarke: I think that link is the strongest aspect. When we are presenting a case through to the IPC and our evidence to that body, being able to be clear about what the status is of these National Policy Statements would be very helpful, not just to us presenting our information but also to the decision maker.
Q114 Ms Smith: Following on from that, I understand entirely the argument that the various Policy Statements need to be integrated and should therefore ideally be agreed together. I would agree with that. However, I recall at a previous inquiry on investment in the railways the Chief Executive of Network Rail making a statement to the effect that he thought it was time for Network Rail perhaps to start thinking about the strategic development of the railways, especially in the context of the need to develop the economies of the north of England and not to continue with a reactive model, which continues to focus investment in the south. Do you think in that context that Policy Statements can aid in the process, both in terms of network Policy Statements and ports Policy Statements, perhaps of focusing more on the economic areas like the north of England, Wales and Scotland, or rather Wales, and not continue with the focus perhaps on investment in ports in the south and investment in getting cargo from the south to the north?
Mr Rowbotham: There is one case where that is already happening to a point but it
is very much to do with geographic location.
Admittedly, this is in
Q115 Ms Smith: It is the same with Immingham.
Mr Rowbotham: Immingham is a pseudo-deep water terminal but it still does not have the depth, let us say, of Hunterston. I believe that Immingham is at round about 15 to 18 metres, whereas Hunterston is 26; it can actually accommodate the largest of the Cape-sized vessels.
Q116 Ms Smith: That is not answering the question, is it? Given physical capacity constraints exist regardless. That is not an answer to the question. The question is: would it be right for the Policy Statements to take account of the need to develop economically other areas of the country and to help if possible in taking the pressure off the south east of England and off London in terms of the increasing congestion I think we are experiencing in the south of the country?
Ms Goodland: I think from the point of view of the railways, we would support that, although we would not necessarily be saying that that is what must happen. It is something that would make our lives easier and make our investment decisions easier and help us in a number of ways. The question is how you achieve that through these NPSs. As someone previously said, perhaps the economic weight is not there. There is a lot in this NPS in particular about environmental aspects but less about the economics. Perhaps that balance would need to be changed to achieve what you are trying to do there.
Ms Clarke: If I may comment on that, I think on the roads side there are very specific references to congestion in the National Policy Statement for Ports in the impact section where they deal with the assessments. I think there are some quite strong indicators for strategic road advice to be absolutely clear about the congestion issues associated with developments. You are right that that would not necessarily drive it from south to north but it would certainly seek to bring forward the evidence that says that if you do it in this location you are reinforcing issues of congestion. I accept that that is written specifically in the Strategic Road Network, and the local road network actually, and that there is an emphasis on that in terms of the impact assessment. From my point of view, I felt there was a link there. As I say, it would not necessarily drive you north/south; it would certainly seek to emphasise the impacts of congested networks.
Q117 Chairman: Are the thresholds for designating nationally important port developments adequate? Do you know how they came to be drawn up in the way they were?
Ms Clarke: I am not aware of how the thresholds were derived. I have read the background documents. From our point of view, effectively we would have notification of any of the port developments, not just the national level ones. To some extent, we would have visibility of those proposals through the planning system, whether they were nationally significant or not. In that respect, we probably do not see this as quite such a significant issue in terms of our role in commenting.
Q118 Chairman: Are there any other comments? How long do you think that the draft Statement would survive? Is it robust enough?
Ms Goodland: From the rail perspective, we look to refresh our planning documents every five or so years, and I think that other people have said the same sort of thing. I think that would be the time to refresh this one in line with emerging policies.
Q119 Chairman: Should there be a trigger for its revision, apart from the discretion of the Secretary of State? Do you think there should be any other trigger?
Mr Rowbotham: From the figures that were presented in the statement, again referring to previous answers, the fact that the original work was done back in 2005 and then was reviewed in 2007, I would have said a period of two years gives a far more accurate prediction because, in line with normal rules on forecasting, the longer you leave it, the more distortions you will have. If you do a series of monitoring targets, if you like, over a rather shorter period, i.e. a period of either 12 or even 24 months, you get a much more accurate set of figures, which you can then use for the purpose of extrapolation or certainly rather more accurate forecasting.
Ms Clarke: Five years fits quite well with the 2014 horizon for developing the Sustainable Transport System. In that sense, five years seems to be a sensible timescale. I would make the point, and I suppose it is not specific to the Policy Statement, that certainly there have been changes in interests within port development, and particularly at specific locations where we have been involved, where things have changed in under five years. I think if we are talking about policy statements, the five-year horizon seems to fit certainly with the strategic approach taken on our network.
Q120 Chairman: Is there enough guidance for the Independent Planning Commission on evaluating the conflict between economic and environmental influence?
Ms Clarke: Can I comment on this from the experience we have had not so much in the Policy Statements but in other areas where we have compared assessments? Certainly from the reading of it, that seems to be based very much on what we do in other areas when making comparisons in these areas. I saw this as generally following the way in which we are doing assessments elsewhere. I cannot comment specifically on the impacts inside the ports but, in relation to the Strategic Road Network, it followed very consistently, not unreasonably I suppose, with the approach we are taking elsewhere. Whether specifically it will bring out the differences in the ability to judge this, I think to some extent has to be seen when this develops through the actual system when it is applied to the decisions of the IPC.
Q121 Chairman: How does the guidance here equate to the situations that you are describing? Is the guidance clear enough?
Ms Clarke: To me it is but we have quite a lot of experience in using this type of guidance. From experience, I find this quite a familiar way of doing it. It is quite technically based. I will leave it to others to make a judgment whether it helps them in that way, but it follows very much the processes we have adopted through our Strategic Road Assessments.
Ms Goodland: It also mirrors the Strategic Rail Assessments. It is the same family of models and assessments that are used there.
Q122 Chairman: You find it adequate?
Ms Goodland: It is consistent. I put it that way. It depends what you are trying to achieve with it but it is consistent.
Q123 Chairman: Is the guidance clear enough?
Ms Goodland: Yes.
Ms Clarke: Yes. Certainly if we were bringing forward our evidence for the roads aspect of this, we would find this a familiar way of presenting evidence about whether we are trying to make the economic point or the environmental point from our perspective.
Q124 Chairman: Mr Rowbotham, do you have a view on that?
Mr Rowbotham: I would say what my two colleagues have said: as a generic function, yes, it is adequate, but again it boils down to the merits of each individual case.
Chairman: There are no further questions. Thank you for coming.