Revised national networks policy contains subtle shift in land use emphasis

Aside from the headline-grabbing topics of climate change and biodiversity, the draft NNNPS (107 pages / 805KB PDF) reinforces protection for open space, green infrastructure and the green belt, and attributes greater value to existing agricultural land, woodland and minerals. While this represents more evolution than revolution, the direction of travel aligns with the government’s broader environmental agenda and the goals in the 2021 Environment Act.

Given this wider context, the revised draft NNNPS includes some important changes in emphasis that infrastructure developers would do well to note as they develop the land assembly strategy underlying their upcoming projects.

Increased emphasis on pre-application discussions with host local authorities

A key change introduced in the draft NNNPS is in the treatment of the local authority’s development plan governing development in the area to which the new linear infrastructure proposal (NN NSIP) is related. The current NPS requires applicants to:

• identify existing and proposed land uses that would be affected by the NN NSIP, particularly those that would prevent the existing land use from continuing or that would prevent a proposed land use from coming forward; and
• carry out a proportionate assessment of the impacts of the NN NSIP on those land uses.

In the draft NNNPS, these requirements are replaced by a more general requirement to enter into pre-application discussions with the local planning authority and other regulatory bodies regarding the impacts of the NN NSIP on land use. Applicants are warned that it is essential that such engagement is “meaningful” and supported by ‘statements of common ground’ “where necessary”.

Read more on draft national networks NPS

• Draft revised planning policy for English road, rail and freight development published
• Green growth characterises revised road and rail planning policy
• Updates to English network infrastructure policy follow high-profile legal cases

Local planning authorities are encouraged to identify any concerns they have about the impacts of the NN NSIP application on land use and are advised that these discussions can inform the preparation of their local impact reports. This approach is consistent with the ‘front loaded’ ethos of the 2008 Planning Act regime but will no doubt pose to challenges to both developers and local planning authorities. 

For developers, the difficulty will lie in providing information to support such an assessment while their proposals are still emerging. For local planning authorities there will be the challenge of marshalling the resources to engage proactively in such pre-application discussions.

Green infrastructure definition

The revised draft NNNPS brings a new, clearer definition of “green infrastructure” and express recognition that green infrastructure can deliver environmental, economic and wellbeing benefits. It states: “green infrastructure is a network of multi-functional green and blue features and other natural features, urban and rural, which are capable of delivering a wide range of environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for nature, climate, local and wider communities and prosperity. Green Infrastructure can include nature-based solutions to prevent or reduce environmental impacts.”

It also clarifies the point that environmental mitigation developed in support of NN NSIPs can be “green infrastructure”. This brings welcome confirmation that NN NSIPs can be judged not only on the adverse impacts they may have on existing green infrastructure, but also on the value of the new green infrastructure that they provide, particularly where they contribute to active travel links, recreational facilities and improved connectivity.

Changes to brownfield land requirements

While the revised draft NNNPS still promotes the benefits of a “brownfield first” approach to the siting of projects, it continues to acknowledge that this may not be possible for linear infrastructure projects such as road and rail NSIPs. However, strategic rail freight interchange projects will now have to “demonstrate clearly why the use of brownfield land is not appropriate” – another factor for developers to consider when choosing the location of these projects.

Clear direction on interpretation of green belt policy

In relation to green belt policy, the revised draft NNNPS has been updated to reflect developments in case law on the interpretation of green belt policy, which is a welcome improvement on the skimpy cross-reference to the National Planning Policy Framework on which the current NNNPS relies. 

The revised draft includes clear direction on how green belt policy should be applied in relation to NN NSIPs, emphasising that any harm to the green belt, and any other harm resulting from the NN NSIP, must be outweighed by the benefits of the NN NSIP.

Open space obligations

Where existing open space will be lost to NN NSIP development, the obligation to provide replacement open space land endures, but the bar has been nudged a little higher when it comes to the requirement for the replacement land to deliver “equivalent or better provision”. Replacement open space land should be either equivalent or better not only in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; it should now provide equivalent or better “functionality” too, and be in an “accessible” location.

Best and most versatile agricultural land classification

In relation to NN NSIP development on the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land, the revised draft NNNPS brings welcome confirmation that the Agricultural Land Classification is the only approved system for grading agricultural land quality in England and Wales. 

This confirmation is welcomed because it reduces the scope for argument during DCO examinations as to the methodology that ought to be employed in assessing the quality of agricultural land affected by NN NSIPs. The revised draft NN NPS also encourages developers to devise and implement a Soil Resources and Management Plan to manage soils sustainably in line with the government’s ambitions set out in the 25-year Environment Plan.

Safeguarded minerals obligations

The revised draft NNNPS introduces an obligation on the developer to consider, taking into account the policies of the relevant Minerals Planning Authority, whether mineral resources affected by an NN NSIP should be extracted prior to development. The prospect of prior extraction, when not directly required for the NN NSIP concerned, could impose on the developer the burden of the related adverse environmental effects of such extraction, together with the burden of commensurate mitigation.

This heightens the importance of taking into account the existence of safeguarded minerals when undertaking options appraisals to avoid, where feasible, safeguarded minerals supported by a policy of prior extraction.

Protections for forests, trees and woodlands

The revised draft NNNPS includes references to the government’s 25-year Environment Plan and the 2021-2024 England Trees Action Plan, which committed to ensuring that “strong planning reforms will lead to more trees being planted and ensure strong protections for existing trees”. New policy in the revised draft NNNPS follows up on this commitment, stipulating that “existing trees and woodlands should be retained where possible”.

There is also an express requirement for developers to assess the impacts on, and loss of, all trees and woodlands within their NN NSIP boundary and to develop mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts and importantly “any risk of net deforestation”. This is accompanied by confirmation that where woodland loss is unavoidable, “compensation schemes” – such as planting new trees to replace existing trees lost to new development – will be required.

The requirement is fortified by a recommendation that the long-term management and maintenance of newly planted trees should be secured. This new policy has implications not just for scheme promoters but also for existing landowners who might ultimately bear the burden of hosting such compensation schemes on their land.