Consultation on developing a National Policy Statement for Water Resources and proposals to amend the definition of nationally significant water infrastructure in the Planning Act 2008

Closes 22 Dec 2017

Part 3: Review of nationally significant infrastructure projects definitions

10. Do you have evidence on the costs of potential supply schemes, especially those other than reservoirs, and potential time and cost savings from NSIP designation, to improve our economic analysis (see Annex B for more detail)?

11. What are your views on the factors we have set out here for considering if schemes are nationally significant (see also Annex C)?

12. Are there any further factors that we should take into account?

13. Which of the two options is your preferred threshold for new nationally significant reservoir schemes? Please explain your reasoning, where possible using examples of previous reservoir schemes and schemes that are likely to be brought forward in future WRMPs.

14. Which of the two options is your preferred threshold for new nationally significant water transfer schemes? Please explain your reasoning, where possible using examples of previous transfer schemes and schemes that are likely to be brought forward in WRMPs.

15. Do you have any views on whether there would be benefit in including groups of smaller transfer schemes within the threshold? Please explain your reasoning.

16. What do you see as the main benefits and risks of setting the same threshold for all infrastructure types? For example, do you see any reasons that the threshold for reservoirs and transfers should be / not be the same?

17. What are your views on the inclusion of desalination schemes in the definition of nationally significant infrastructure? Please explain your reasoning, where possible providing examples of previous schemes or those that are likely to be brought forward in WRMPs.

18. What should the threshold for desalination schemes be? Please explain your reasoning, where possible providing examples of previous schemes or those that are likely to be brought forward in WRMPs

19. What are your views on whether effluent reuse schemes should be considered nationally significant? Please explain your reasoning, where possible providing examples of previous effluent reuse schemes or those likely to be brought forward in WRMPs.

20. Do you have any further comments on what water resources infrastructure should or should not be considered nationally significant?