The recent announcement that most electricity storage will be no longer be considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) is the latest modification to a regime designed to support the provision of major new schemes.

Previous changes to the NSIP regime concerned removing onshore wind, changes in thresholds for water transfer and storage and modifications following the introduction of Welsh developments of national significance (DNS).   

Those concerned with a reduction of scope of the NSIP system would be in a minority in this case, as all responses to the Government’s consultation supported the proposed roll back of the NSIP regime. These projects will now be consented under the Town and Country Planning Act.

The change is expected to make the development of electricity storage easier in terms of planning, therefore enabling the UK to make the most of green energy produced by wind and solar, to manage peaks and troughs in demand.

The NSIP regime is widely considered to be a success in improving the certainty of consenting outcome for major infrastructure projects but that does not make it the best regime for all types of infrastructure. When the Planning Act 2008 was drafted, it was not possible to conceive of the plethora of storage options now available for energy nor that the actual land use planning effects of these would be relatively slight, as is the case for batteries. So this is a good example of regulatory legislation flexing to account for changing circumstances.

The NSIP regime, front loaded with requirements for design, assessment and consultation, is not the correct regime for consideration of these projects. It remains entirely the right regime for the genuinely national infrastructure projects it was conceived of to assist. 

There is a growing need to review many of the National Policy Statements (NPS) that make up a part of the NSIP regime. The energy NPSs are subject to legal challenge at present; they are outdated and it does not help, for example, that many refer to the Infrastructure Planning Commission that has not existed since 2011.

There are also arguable cases to extend the scope of the NSIP regime to cover, perhaps, natural capital infrastructure, super hospitals and other forms of major development that are by their nature sticky within the Town and Country Planning Association systems.

It is often suggested urban extensions could be considered a form of NSIP in order to accelerate the supply of planning permissions for new housing and provide a quicker route to compulsory acquisition for land assembly.

It is therefore consistent to contemplate an extension of the system to cover certain types of development while at the same time acknowledging others are not appropriate for it. 

Another area on which review might be necessary is solar, for which the 50MW NSIP threshold seems to be a factor in creating an unintended dearth of projects in the 50-300MW category. Should onshore wind come back into fashion, it will be necessary to consider a threshold for NSIP to allow it to be considered within the system.

In both cases, the practicality of what constitutes a nationally significant project has moved greatly since the regime started. The capital costs have reduced, making projects accessible to less highly capitalised developers, for example.

The recent change will likely not be the last and it is good the system should be flexible to changing circumstances.

Further information

Contact Savills Energy