Just before Christmas the National Infrastructure Commission published an interim report into its review of freight transport, requested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November 2017.
Readers with long memories will recall that there was something of a Twitter storm at the time when Lord Adonis, the then chair, took against rail freight in no small measure. This followed some unfortunate comments in the commission’s draft National Infrastructure Assessment. Since that time, however, a more measured approach has been apparent, and the freight study has provided a good opportunity for a balanced look at the challenges faced by freight distribution.
The interim report is only a staging document, with the final report due out sometime in the middle of this year. However, it sets the broad tone of the emerging thinking, and highlights those areas the commission believes are most worthy of further consideration.
At first read, one might think the report is a little disappointing on rail freight, given it does not make specific comments on growth or promote its role in helping to decarbonise freight transport. We know that several of the commission’s workstreams do consider these factors, and so the final report may look at this in some more detail. Yet the report is equally silent on areas that might affect demand for other transport modes, such as the case or otherwise for road pricing to replace fuel duty and airport expansion. Instead, the document has focused on three areas that are pertinent across all modes, including rail.
The Commission’s overarching finding is that ‘without action, freight’s contribution towards congestion and carbon emissions will remain problematic. Acceleration of technological advancement and clear and firm long-term targets will be key to tackling this. A more co-ordinated approach within and between different tiers of government, based on better data, will be crucial to getting this right.’
The specific findings refer to the need for regulatory certainty, particularly around environmental innovations; better data, particularly in the HGV and van sectors; and the need for a spatial planning system that takes proper account of how freight fits in to the transport picture
The recommendation on planning is particularly pertinent for rail. Terminals are currently consented under two different regimes, that for nationally significant infrastructure that covers larger rail linked warehousing, and the ‘normal’ planning regime that covers smaller terminals alongside housing, retail and the host of other applications at local level.
Although it is complex and expensive, the system for nationally significant infrastructure has broadly been successful for strategic rail freight interchanges, with several applications now in progress and other sites approved and in construction. But for smaller terminals the situation has been deteriorating, with increasing difficulty in getting some new sites consented, and particular issues arising where new developments, such as housing and apartments, have been consented right next to existing terminals. This threatens the viability of those sites, either directly to release more land, or through noise and environmental restrictions that limit the ability to operate the terminal effectively.
The reasons for this are various and complex. There is a lack of knowledge and understanding of freight in overstretched planning departments, and a disconnect between a specific local application and supply chains that span the country and indeed beyond. There are increasing pressures to release land for housing at all costs, and a shortage of land for industrial and freight use, particularly in urban centres. And for rail and water freight, the obvious necessity to be by the river or railway as well as the road network further compounds these challenges.
The commission is not alone in highlighting this. Working with the Mineral Products Association, we have been raising the need for reform around construction terminals in particular, with a focus on London and the South East, where the issues have been most acute to date. We were pleased that the draft of the Mayor’s London Plan acknowledges the issue and seeks to increase the protection of existing railheads and wharves. In particular, it implements the ‘Agent of Change’ principle, which means that the cost of mitigation such as noise barriers falls to the developer of new infrastructure, not the existing facility.
If this can be established, along with a broader protection of industrial land, it will help build confidence for those who build, own and operate terminals and that in turn will help them to make the necessary investments to modernise and expand, helping to tackle the issues of congestion and environment that the commission rightly highlights as a key issue for the sector. We are pleased to see this acknowledged at the centre of this interim report
