Relationship of National Policy Statements to existing policy

Existing policy statements on major infrastructure
Some existing statements of Government policy, such as the Air Transport White Paper, do not meet the appraisal or consultation requirements for NPSs. These current statements of national policy, before being adopted as NPSs, will have to undergo consultation, appraisal of sustainability, parliamentary scrutiny, and an explanation of how the policy takes account of Government policy on climate change.

The role of NPSs
It is possible that some NPSs may not be comprehensive, overarching documents. Some Government departments appear to view them more as guidance notes for the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which will cross-reference existing PPSs and other relevant information (which could include development plans) that the IPC will need for considering applications.

Planning Policy Statements (PPSs)
A key concern is how NPSs will relate to existing PPSs and guidance notes (PPGs), as well as to development plans. However, there have been encouraging statemented from Ministers in this regard.

For example, in January 2008, the then Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, stated that NPSs will reflect existing Green Belt policy. In November 2008, Baroness Andrews stated that the ‘major development test’ in PPS7 for National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, would be relevant to NPSs produced under the Act.

These points will need to be pressed strongly as there is no clear guarantee that Ministers will take policies in existing PPSs into account, or avoid using the NPS process to water down established principles.

Consultation
Statutory bodies, including the Environment Agency and Natural England, are listed among bodies that will have a right to be consulted in draft secondary regulations, along with regional planning bodies and local planning authorities.

NPSs and Judicial Review
Finally, the Act includes provision for judicial review of an NPS in a number of circumstances:

• Actions or omissions of the Secretary of State in preparing or reviewing an NPS.
• A decision by the Secretary of State to review, or to not review all or part of an NPS.
• A decision by the Secretary of State, following a review, to either amend an NPS, withdraw its designation as an NPS, or leave the NPS as it is.
• A decision by the Secretary of State to suspend the operation of an NPS pending the completion of a review.

In such cases a claim form for judicial review must be filed as promptly as possible and within six weeks.

In general, the use of judicial review should be considered very much as a last resort as it is risky, expensive and often does not solve the problem that has prompted the action, even where a claim is successful. For more details of how the judicial review process works, see the briefing 'Judicial Review and Planning Decisions' issued jointly by CPRE and the Environmental Law Foundation.