Open consultation

Draft national policy statement for ports consultation

Published 4 June 2025

Applies to England

Ministerial foreword

National Policy Statements were introduced by the Planning Act 2008  to streamline the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. 

It was recognised that many planning inquiries and decision processes were spending too long on debating what ought to have been a straightforward understanding of national policy on the need for these developments and the conditions that would need to be satisfied for them to proceed.

The National policy statement for ports (NPSP) was designated in January 2012. Since then,  there have been many economic changes in the economy, leading to structural changes in the needs and priorities for ports infrastructure. At the same time, there have been significant changes in policy, leading also to important legislation, especially in the planning and environmental areas.

That is why we have decided that the time has come to review this national policy statement. Having now undertaken that review, it will come as no surprise that we have concluded that there is a persuasive case for amending the NPSP. 

The amendments we are proposing, in the draft on which we are now consulting, are comprehensive. However, the central thrust of the policy remains as before: that the UK ports sector is a market-oriented sector, that this has delivered the port development the country needs at minimal expense to the taxpayer, and therefore that the need for individual developments is a commercial need backed by each port operator’s perception of risk, and willingness to undertake it. 

And equally importantly, major port development can have significant environmental implications, which must be addressed before development consent can be granted. The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of international efforts to recognise and address the importance of intertidal and marine environment. This draft amended NPSP reinforces that commitment to the government’s clean energy and growth missions.

I encourage everyone with an interest in port development in England and Milford Haven to look at the proposed revision and to respond by 29 July 2025 if you have any comments.

Mike Kane Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Security

Introduction

This consultation seeks views on the draft NPSP. The existing version was designated in 2012. The NPSP applies to ports in England and Milford Haven as a ‘reserved trust port’. Elsewhere in the UK, port policy is devolved.

This consultation aims to identify whether the draft revised NPSP presented is fit for purpose. It contains:

• consultation information, including what we are looking for and how to respond
• the draft revised NPSP document showing comments and track changes
• the appraisal of sustainability (AoS)
• habitats regulations assessment (HRA)

The AoS and HRA are both statutory requirements under the (s.6(6) Planning Act 2008, Reg. 110 Habitats Regulations). You can read them alongside this consultation, however, this is not necessary for your response.

To help with readability, the revisions in the draft NPSP document have not been presented as ‘tracked changes’: you are invited to consider the draft as a whole. In your response, you can comment on all paragraphs, including those that have not been amended from the 2012 version. Ensure that any suggestions you make refer to the relevant paragraph.

We have included some questions that relate to the proposed amendments. You do not need to answer any or all of these questions. You can comment on areas not covered by the questions if you wish.

This consultation closes on 29 June 2025. Alongside this consultation, the Department for Transport (DfT) will submit the draft for scrutiny by the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport.

Need for policy development

Our long-standing policy is that port development should be determined through competitive market forces. We believe this has been successful, particularly in light of recent challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and structural changes in energy markets.

The UK ports sector is widely recognised as one of the most competitive in the world and is not subject to economic regulation (other than the ‘backstop’ provision at s.31 Harbours Act 1964 for objection to harbour dues).

We therefore propose to continue the policy, as set out in the existing NPSP, that the willingness of applicants to risk capital on a long-lived investment is deemed to constitute clear evidence of need for development. This is provided it satisfies applicable environmental requirements, as set out and referenced elsewhere in the NPSP. 

In our view, this is reinforced by the need for resilience of port capacity at national level.  Experience has shown that the efficient functioning of most types of port terminals requires physical capacity in excess of forecast and regularly experienced demand. The combined excess physical capacity resulting from aggregate investment enables trade to continue when particular ports or routes are subject to disruption. 

A central planning approach would not, in our view, be as likely as the market approach to deliver capacity in an efficient yet resilient way. This is not to say that state activities driving demand for port capacity might not be centrally planned to some degree ─ for example, the allocation of sites deemed appropriate for offshore wind development ─ as sector-specific ‘missing markets’ may require such intervention. But ports can and should (in our view) still compete to support such activities through commercial processes.

As in 2012, the port freight demand forecasts supporting the amended NPSP are intended to serve as a benchmark, not as a constraint or determinant of aggregate sector capacity need.

Consultation proposals

We propose to amend the NPSP from the extant NPS. Edits to the text have been made to update empirical, institutional and policy information. To ensure legibility, we have not tracked these changes. Comparisons may be made by the use of word searches or by scanning each document to find the paragraphs of interest.

In proposing this amended text, we have had regard to the Secretary of State for Transport’s duties under the Planning Act 2008 (PA08), including those at s.10 on sustainable development: 

(2) The Secretary of State must, in exercising those functions, do so with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. 

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the Secretary of State must (in particular) have regard to the desirability of — 

(a) mitigating, and adapting to, climate change; 

(b) achieving good design

Neither the existing nor proposed amended NPSP is locationally directive within the meaning of s.7(5) PA08, so that obligations specific to such NPSs do not apply in this case.  

In light of responses to this consultation, there may be further amendments, and/or some of those proposed may be withdrawn.  

In parallel with, and after this consultation, the draft will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. This may result in further changes to the text.  

Any substantive changes resulting from this public consultation and from Parliamentary scrutiny will be subject to an iterative appraisal of the sustainability process, in accordance with s.5(3) and s.6(6) PA08.

How to respond

See the Ways to respond’ section of the consultation page on GOV.UK to find out how you can respond to this consultation.

The consultation period began on 4 June 2025 and will run until 29 July 2025. Ensure that your response reaches us before the closing date.

When responding, state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. If responding on behalf of an organisation, you need to:

• make it clear who the organisation represents
• how the views of members were assembled (where applicable)

If you would like alternative formats of the consultation, contact: portsnpsconsultation@dft.gov.uk.

What will happen next

After the consultation closes, we will study responses and will consider what (if any) amendments to retract and what (if any) further changes to propose. These changes will be subject to an AoS and to ongoing Parliamentary scrutiny. 

Following these processes as stipulated by PA08, the Secretary of State will arrange for the final revised NPSP to be published and laid before Parliament. A post-implementation review will then be undertaken.

We will publish a summary of responses and the government response on the homepage for this consultation. Paper copies will be available on request.

If you have questions about this consultation, contact:

Ports and Shipping Division
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR

Alternatively, you can email: portsnpsconsultation@dft.gov.uk

Full list of questions

These questions are listed here to give you an overview of what we are asking.

See the Ways to respond section of the GOV.UK home page for this consultation for an online response form and other ways to respond.

Port freight demand forecasts

Question 1: what is your overall view of the central case forecasts for unit-load traffic summarised in the draft amended NPSP?

Question 2: what is your overall view of the central case forecasts for bulk traffic summarised in the draft amended NPSP?

Question 3: do you agree that the forecasts should be at national level, rather than disaggregated to regional or even individual port level?

Question 4: we have forecast higher and lower scenarios for traffic rather than statistical confidence intervals. Do you agree in this case, that this is the appropriate way to depict the inevitable uncertainty in any such forecasting?

Need for development

Question 5: do you agree that the need for development in the ports sector should continue to be market driven and that decision-makers should accept proposers’ perception of demand and hence need other than in exceptional circumstances?

Economic, social and environmental impacts

Question 6: to what extent do you think the draft revised NPSP as a whole provides suitable guidance to decision-makers to help them make decisions about development consent applications for new port applications?

Question 7: do you think the draft revised NPSP provides suitable guidance to decision-makers on the need to promote equal access to the jobs, services and social networks created by port infrastructure?

Question 8: do you think the draft revised NPSP considers all of the significant potential impacts of port development? If not, what do you think is missing and why?

Question 9: do you think the draft revised NPSP provides suitable guidance to decision-makers on the impacts of port infrastructure on the local population?

Question 10: do you think the draft revised NPSP gives appropriate guidance to decision-makers about when and how they should consider alternatives when it comes to particular projects?

Question 11: do you think the draft revised NPSP provides suitable guidance to decision-makers on the impacts of port infrastructure on the natural environment and biodiversity?

Question 12: thinking about dredging specifically, do you think that the draft revised NPSP provides suitable guidance on environmental safeguards for capital dredging and requirements for maintenance dredging after a project is implemented?

Question 13: do you think the draft revised NPSP provides suitable guidance to decision-makers on the impacts of port infrastructure on the historic environment?

Question 14: do you think the draft revised NPSP gives appropriate guidance on how the cumulative and in-combination/synergistic impacts of port development should be considered by decision-makers?

Question 15: it is a requirement of the Planning Act that a NPS must give reasons for the policy set out in the statement. Do you think the draft revised NPSP fulfils this requirement?

Question 16: it is a requirement of the Planning Act that the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of achieving good design. Do you think that the draft revised NPSP fulfils this requirement?

Question 17: thinking about guidance in the NPS on environmental regulations and mitigation in the round and drawing on past experience with such regulations and guidance, do you broadly consider it clear, apt to change during the process of an application or proportionate to the problems it seeks to address?

Appraisal of sustainability

Question 18: to what extent do you think the methodology used to assess the sustainability of the draft revised NPSP is appropriate?

Question 19: has the baseline analysis in the AoS missed or misrepresented any environmental, social or economic data?

Question 20: are there any additional key sustainability issues relevant to the NPSP that need to be considered in the AoS?

Question 21: are the AoS objectives and sub-objectives as set out in the AoS framework appropriate?

Question 22: are there any incompatibilities between the main NPSP objectives and the AoS objectives which have not been identified in the AoS?

Question 23: to what extent do you think the alternatives covered are appropriate? Are there any additional alternatives that should be included?

Question 24: to what extent do you think the approach taken in the AoS to the assessment of alternatives is suitable?

Question 25: do you agree with the results of the assessment of alternatives?

Question 26: to what extent do you think the assessment correctly identifies the sustainability effects of the draft NPS?

Question 27: have any key findings from the AoS report not been taken account of properly in the NPS?

Question 28: to what extent do you think the approach to monitoring is sufficient to monitor the sustainability effects of the NPS?

Question 29: to what extent do you think the appropriate assessment is a suitable high-level assessment of the impact of port development on protected sites and species?

Question 30: do you agree with the analysis of costs and benefits set out in the impact assessment?

Question 31: are there any impacts of producing a national policy statement that have not been considered?

Question 32: to what extent do you think the ‘habitats regulations assessment’ is a suitable or unsuitable high-level assessment of the impact of port development on protected sites and species and why?

Freedom of information

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory code of practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence.

In view of this, it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information, we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the department.

Data protection

This consultation is seeking your views on revisions to the national policy statement for ports.

Your personal data collected through this consultation is processed in line with our online forms, surveys and consultations privacy notice.

For responses from organisations, we will collect the:

• organisation’s name
• size of organisation
• type of organisation

This will help with identification, aid our analysis and our understanding of the organisation’s relationship to the proposals.