Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Session 1: Chaired by Sir Tom Blundell

The meeting started with a brief introduction to the Commission and its work from Sir Tom Blundell (Chairman of RCEP). He outlined the timetable of the Commission's study on Environmental Planning; the seminar marking the end of the scoping stage, with a final report planned for the 1st half of 2001.

Susan Owens (RCEP) then described the rationale for the study and some of the key issues identified so far. The study was triggered by a concern that the plethora of regimes that might be encompassed by environmental planning, having developed separately, has resulted in overlaps, tensions and gaps. The study's scope is far wider than land use planning (although that aspect is central) and will encompass such diverse planning regimes as pollution control, waste, water, agri-environment and biodiversity, to name but a few.

An important point to remember is that while the Commission has always recognised that sustainable development has economic, social and environmental components, within that framework the Commission's particular function is to ensure that environmental sustainability is not being prejudiced.

Six key issues were identified:
Environmental sustainability - Can environmental objectives be balanced against other issues or is there an environmental bottom line? How do we cope with the effect of cumulative impacts? Has the presumption in favour of development had its day?
Integration or coordination? - Can (or should) the process of planning be further integrated or rationalised (as in New Zealand)? What should be the relationship between land use planning and pollution control?
Boundaries - Does the fact that the system covers many boundaries matter? Does land use planning cover enough land?
Subsidiarity and democracy - Who takes the decisions? Who else influences them? What are the effects of devolution and regionalisation?
The longer term - How do we plan for climate change?
Assessment approaches - What are the most appropriate concepts and methodologies and how can they be applied?

Next John Benington (Warwick Business School) described the changing relationship between local and national government. The government is setting long term targets based on cross-cutting issues. There is a new style of policy making in evidence with less detailed regulation and prescription, and more experiment with increased consultation procedures. On the other hand, the government has been prepared to intervene on an operational level if it is not satisfied with locally controlled initiatives. The trend towards community governance suggests an increased role for civil society in policy making. The complex, dynamic, cross-cutting problems being addressed require holistic government and seamless integrated services. The delivery of such outcomes presents an opportunity for environmental issues.

Among the points made in the discussion that concluded the session were:
Jeremy Worth (Countryside Agency) noted the need to consider the contribution that design approaches, as well as assessment methodologies, could make to planning goals;
Paul Ekins (Forum for the Future) welcomed the focus on environmental sustainability, asking whether the continuing trend of substantial greenfield development could ever be considered sustainable;
Derek Osborn (Round Table on Sustainable Development) emphasised the potential for plans to create as well as protect environmental capital, and noted the key role of public participation in the process, expressing the hope that the Commission's study might lead to a reinvigoration of planning;
Andy Blowers (Open University) was concerned about the potential problem for planning caused by the centralisation of power when councils refuse to toe the government line;
Paul Tomlinson (TRL) commented that engaging the public in planning could be a problem, especially when dealing with potentially technocratic approaches such as environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental appraisal, although a SEA Guidance Manual in preparation for the Highways Agency will provide guidance on stakeholder involvement;
Roger Vallance (Environment Agency) was concerned about the potential conflict between the "seamless state" created by joined up government and public accountability;
Nat Lichfield (Lichfield Associates) observed that, despite land use planning legislation being historically associated with environmental protection, planners have not responded well to the need to integrate environmental assessment into planning.

Session 2: Current environmental planning regimes: complementary or conflicting? Chaired by Richard Macrory (RCEP)

Malcolm Grant (University of Cambridge) commented on some of the differences between concepts and reality in the planning system. Planning theory suggests that planning is: not an end in itself; a management tool towards agreed objectives; a limited tool with limited power to achieve objectives; not a neutral process, rather it results in vested interests being overcome; not a narrow process, covering as it does a broad range of interests

However, in many cases it has become an end in itself, especially in the making of plans. The capturing of citizens' and landowners' rights inevitably leads to stasis that blocks the achievement of objectives. Furthermore, the incorporation of policy objectives such as sustainable development has narrowed the range of political options available. Even the New Zealand system is unsuccessful in coping with vested interests.

For the first time legislation is now in hand to specify objectives for planning. This is contained within the Greater London Authority legislation which will require the new Mayor to prepare eight strategies on subjects such as transport and, most importantly, spatial development. Turning the coordination of the strategies and their iterative development into a workable framework will be a major challenge.

The next speaker, Bill Sheate (Imperial College), focussed on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Appraisal (SEA). He emphasised the importance of securing appropriate processes in which EIA/SEA can operate, rather than an undue focus on methodologies. The subjectivity of EIA, a common criticism, is a red herring - greater transparency should solve the problem.

How does SEA (EU Directive led) relate to the developing area of Sustainability Appraisal (appearing in development planning)? There is a real danger of losing environmental considerations in sustainability appraisal. Disjointed tiers of government are producing very complex relationships between sustainable development policies and planning, e.g. Environment Agency LEAPS, sustainability appraisal for RPG, RDAs etc, BAPs, and institutional implications at regional level. There is a great need for post-project monitoring to allow the creation of links between environmental decision-making tools (eg EIA, EMS, LCA, IPC, and integrated approaches). Again this stresses the importance of establishing suitable processes.

Richard Mills (NSCA) then discussed the interaction of strategies and methodologies. We can ensure that land use planning contributes to environmental and social goals using a mixture of incentives, persuasion and regulation. However, despite recent improvements, there are still problems in making these connections, in particular with ensuring adequate communication with planners and securing in practice their input to such wider policy programmes. There still seems a tendency to hanker back to more traditional land use planning - lead "master plan" approaches.

For developers, and others subject to environmental regulatory regimes, there are, no doubt, still a host of small conflicts and inconsistencies, such as sequencing of applications under different regimes, incompatible information requirements, etc. These may be substantial and need to be addressed, but are irritating rather than important.

There are some more fundamental overlaps of systems, e.g. BPEO assessments and EIAs. However, these are not identical, and even though they address the same fundamental question, arguably they have to do so from different perspectives and purposes. Hence scope for consolidation may be less that it appears. The more important issue is strengthening the intellectual underpinning common to both systems rather than trying to force a merger.

Tricia Henton (SEPA) described some of the key issues in Scotland. She noted the differences between SEPA and the Environment Agency, e.g. SEPA are not responsible for flood protection or water resource planning, and the potential for the planning systems to diverge further post-devolution. Two major initiatives of particular note have been produced: an environmental strategy document; and a national waste strategy. One of the key tools for change was the land use planning system. SEPA have input to this at policy, development plan and development control level.

The National Waste Strategy sets up Waste Strategy Areas consisting largely of groups of local authorities to ensure that decisions are taken over a large enough area. A key component is recognition of the need to engage with planning system at all levels. Such partnership can be difficult, unless all the participants are content with their role and have confidence in their partners. One particular overarching problem was a suspicion that, despite all the rhetoric, few people have a sound understanding of what sustainability really means, still less how it is to be ensured.

In the following panel discussion Richard Macrory (RCEP) asked how we might move to a situation where the question for planners was "is the development good enough to accept?" Malcolm Grant noted that there was no longer a presumption in favour of development, but rather a presumption in favour of the development plan. As such there was no legal obstacle to the plan specifying only development good enough to accept. All that was required was the political will to overcome vested interests. Such objectives were obviously easier to achieve when those seeking change hold the purse strings. While planning was not like that, other initiatives, such as tightening the building regulations, could help deliver improvements relatively quickly. Libby Street (RTPI) noted that the recent Windlesham case had shown that environmental considerations, in this case air quality and noise, could lead to the greening of plans. However, Wendy Le-Las (Environmental Law Association) felt that vested interests all too often held the upper hand in stopping plans becoming more environmentally sustainable.

Graeme Bell (TCPA) suggested that the power of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) could provide a common language to help overcome the divisions between specialisms and overlapping authorities in planning. Bill Sheate warned that GIS is only as good as the data within it, and that data availability and quality were major concerns.

Rob Jarman (National Trust) called for a more indicative approach to planning that included the protection of soils, groundwater and cultural valuables. He was particularly concerned at the inability of the planning system to address agricultural development and adequately protect agricultural soils. Richard Macrory suggested that the UK was in breach of EU directives on this point.

The issue of coordination between regimes provoked a number of points. Bill Sheate commented that while EU Directives permitted IPPC assessments and EIA to be combined, the problem was achieving this in practice. Malcolm Grant noted that institutional coordination between the planning and pollution control regimes should be easier in the UK than in states with a federal system, but Richard Mills warned that while coordination of procedures and some information requirements should be possible, the assessment systems had quite different goals and should be kept separate. Sue Collins (English Nature) was concerned at the difficulty in coordinating environmental planning in coastal areas, giving the example of 14 authorities and organisations responsible for development in the Humber estuary. Richard Macrory noted that this also applied to operations such as landfill and incineration. Graham Wynne (Round Table on Sustainable Development) lamented the quality of most economic appraisals of developments, which made sustainability appraisal very difficult, and Richard Mills questioned the ability of institutions to turn sustainable development duties into policy and legislation.

Session 3: Planning tomorrow, chaired by Sir Tom Blundell

Graham Wynne (Round Table on Sustainable Development) presented the views of the Round Table prepared by one of its sub-groups as input to the Commission's study. Land use planning is crucial to the delivery of sustainable development because of its ability to manage growth and change, link national and local goals, examine issues in the round, and encourage public participation.

However, there are three major constraints on the planning system: planning authorities are not masters of their own destiny; development plan vision needs public investment; and other control regimes and determining authorities may also have a say. The current system is too reactive, inconsistent and fails to inspire stakeholders. The public in particular are too focused on development control, rather than plan formulation.

The Round Table would like to see a new vision for planning, based on the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. taking decisions at the right level. Community-led vision is important, exemplified in LA21 and community plans. Local authorities should be made to proactively pursue sustainable development and economic instruments should be applied to discourage the unsustainable and encourage the sustainable. There needs to be better coordination between planning and public investment, and more integration of regulatory regimes (for instance wind power schemes receive funding approval before any land use decision is taken), building on a better professional understanding of cultural and technical issues. The system needs to avoid inappropriate trade-offs and "salami slicing" resulting in temporal or geographic cumulative effects. Finally, existing technical failures, such as old mineral permissions, alternative uses, outdated plans and agricultural development, need to be addressed.

A model approach to planning is proposed that encompasses: understanding the environmental, social and economic importance of asset affected; understanding the potential impact of the development through appraisal - for instance, does anyone know the environmental impact of the centralisation of hospital services?; avoiding adverse impacts wherever possible; considering alternative solutions (including doing nothing) before demonstrating that the development benefits outweigh disbenefits; offsetting adverse impacts through mitigation, and compensating where adverse effects still occur.

Next, Roger Levett (CAG Consultants) gave a presentation on a study conducted at the behest of the Commission on "Environmental Planning, People's Values and Sustainable Development". His report, which appears on the Commission's website, proposes outcome criteria of both environmental and social aspects of sustainability, and concludes that the UK's current environmental planning regimes fall far short of achieving them.

He emphasised some "laws of gravity" - basic realities that constrain what is possible in planning, and which are easily forgotten. Each decision is only taken in one place - decision power is a 'zero sum game': more to one body means less to others. Decisions are only guaranteed to 'reflect the views' of whoever makes the decision, and any decision process entails selection and prioritising of some issues and viewpoints.

However, influence is not 'zero sum'. Reflecting views depends on the accountability of decision process. Local government is more accountable and open than central government. Even with low turnout, local elections (with perhaps 20,000 votes cast) are in some senses more accountable than Local Agenda 21 processes, which might actively involve only 50 people.

Change to achieve sustainable development needs stronger planning interventions and/or stronger non-planning interventions. Displacing development is no longer adequate: we need to constrain the total of development and/or reduce development pressures incentives, e.g. through taxes. Local discretion must be constrained by national targets if we want planning to achieve those targets.

Cascading and consultation take time: if we want quick results, regimes must become more dirigiste. Good decisions take more resources than we have yet been willing to give them. Finally, there is no getting away from the fact that public goods entail restricting private liberties.

Issues suggested for the Commission to explore include: open "examination in public" and independent sustainability appraisal for national planning policy and guidance; national deliberative fora; the linking of deliberation to decision; explicit sustainability targets and integrative indicators; processes and institutions for setting and apportioning targets; the avoidance of incremental erosion of environmental assets and quality; capturing betterment and planning gain; and how to determine the balance between public and private rights.

Bob Evans (South Bank University) drawing on an ongoing study being undertaken by the Town and Country Planning Association and South Bank University on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, subsequently published in March 2000, then discussed the contribution of economic instruments to planning objectives.

The aim was to review the policy instruments and initiatives that seek to secure three planning objectives. Shifting the balance of housing development from greenfield to brownfield sites might be achieved by: a greenfield tax; adjustments to VAT; Capital Gains tax; vacant land tax; Stamp Duty; taxes on property ownership and use; or zones. Ensuring that developers pay for the social, economic, environmental and infrastructural costs of proposed housing development might be delivered by: planning obligations; impact fees; or environmental compensation. Recovering for the community the increases in the value of land created through the award of planning consent for housing (a hectare of farming land worth around £8,000 can become worth around £1,400,000 with planning permission for housing in the South East of England) could be achieved by the imposition of a betterment tax.

The Urban Task Force recommended the introduction of environmental impact fees and vacant land tax, although their proposals did not appear to be entirely consistent. Another possibility is land value taxation. A key element of any scheme is likely to be hypothecation of the revenues generated, although the Treasury were traditionally suspicious of such proposals. It must also be borne in mind that greenfield versus brownfield development is not always a simple case of black and white.

The land use planning system would still be pre-eminent, but effective economic instruments could help move the system towards a more holistic process.

In the discussion following these three presentations, Paul Tomlinson (TRL) emphasised the positive role that the private sector could play in producing innovations in planning if suitably motivated. He suggested that a flexible consent regime that rewarded good environmental management could help send the right signals.

Paul Ekins (Forum for the Future) pointed out that reducing developers' profit inevitably reduces development, unless the public sector is prepared to initiate more to make good the shortfall. Bob Evans suggested that the use of compulsory purchase of unused development land might counteract that tendency. A greenfield tax was preferred by Nat Lichfield (Lichfield Associates). In that case it would be the landowner who was being taxed, not the activity. In this way there would be no blight on development as developers would be tax-neutral.

To Geoff Steeley (National Retail Planning Forum) the key to environmental planning is the city. In the UK 80% of the population live in urban areas that also account for 90% of economic activity and most of the pollution. The real problem is that there are not enough good models of the relationships between things. Models such as economics, culture, space and causality have been used but each has its drawbacks. We need some way of integrating these models to help strategically plan the city as the basic unit of management. Roger Levett suggested thinking of the city with its hinterland.

On a separate subject, Judith Petts (University of Birmingham) wondered how we would recognise or measure the effectiveness of community led vision. Would it depend on outcome or process criteria? Rob Jarman (National Trust) was concerned that the public tended to react to proliferation, rather than the first example of a given type of development. However, the planning system works in a different way using the first example as a precedent. This leads to two things - opposition to unexceptional development to avoid setting a precedent and cumulative effects from uncontrolled subsequent development. Roger Levett suggested that methods such as the new approach to environmental capital should be used to set minimum standards for open space and biodiversity to set limits to incremental erosion.

Sue Collins (English Nature) focussed on the importance of the environment to well being. Since 80% of land use is in agriculture and forestry, the countryside is of great importance to the maintenance of that well-being. While economic activity can be moved around, ecosystems cannot. More integration of sustainable development principles is needed with a better appreciation of cumulative impacts and the need to protect biodiversity. The integration of environmental objectives in sectoral policies, practices, investment programmes and plans is vital. It is essential that the planning system protects important and irreplaceable natural assets from irreversible damage. It is also necessary to recover countryside and urban quality through investment in compensatory provision in place of significant losses as well as enhancements linked to BAP and Natural Areas priorities. Key sectors include agriculture, water, coastal and flood defence. Trading off environmental assets against other goals is even less acceptable when recovery is the goal.

Assessment tools are a key issue. There is a need for improvement of post-development monitoring and review of the environmental impact assessment and an extension of its application to include agricultural intensification. The work that English Nature and others have done on the environmental capital approach also provides useful tools, not just of designated areas, but also to evaluate the importance of non-designated sites.

Andy Blowers (Open University) began by noting that definitions of sustainable development tend to be aspirational rather than operational, recommending that in a 1993 TCPA report, "Environmental planning for sustainable development", which integrates both physical and social elements of the concept.

There are severe barriers to land use planning achieving sustainability: planning is not equipped to grasp the agenda; it is subordinate to other policy sectors; it is restricted in function; and it lacks power with a weak base in declining local government.

"Ecological modernisation" emphasises the market, partnership and compatibility between economic growth and environmental protection. However, it cannot effectively deal with long-term ecological risk, and is opposed by a range of environmental interests capable of forming powerful coalitions. Furthermore there is an emerging intellectual debate that is profoundly sceptical of contemporary modernisation.

Planning potentially aligns with these challenges. It links the social and natural and the local and global. It is concerned with risks in the far future, is engaged in participative forms of democracy and has a social purpose that focuses on environmental inequality.

To realise this potential, changes are needed in the function and purposes of planning. At a functional level planning must be integrative and strategic. In terms of purpose planning must encourage the construction of social consensus on environmental change. These changes suggest an approach to environmental planning which develops the principles of: deliberative and accessible decision making; early involvement of those affected by decisions; commitment to openness and transparency; broader and participative peer review; and adequate time for the resolution of issues.

Social consensus also requires a commitment to equitable policies.  Environmental inequalities are a barrier to co-operation as well as environmentally unsustainable. Equity also has an intergenerational dimension.

Planning has a crucial part to play in a process of social transformation, which is a necessary, though not inevitable, response to ecological deterioration.

The final speaker, Jan Pentreath (Environment Agency) suggested that planning needs a stronger presumption in favour of conserving the natural environment. For example, 30% of water resources come from groundwater; yet planning ignores the impact of developments on this resource.

There is a need for clear long-term goals to be set, at all spatial scales; at present there is a culture of "survival of the fittest" for the various plans, and too many do not converge. Part of the problem is the lack of a common language for plans and strategies. A simultaneous consideration of all legal requirements, and of all reversible and non-reversible environmental consequences would help. The current system of post-development licensing presents the Agency with a fait accompli, and leaves them little room for manoeuvre.

More use of GIS would undoubtedly help with some of the problems resulting from a mismatch of scales, but there are difficulties in validating the data used and in finding adequate resources to provide the relevant environmental information publicly available in consistent formats.

Planning decisions need to be made in the light of available scientific and technical advice. This does not mean that other considerations cannot over rule such advice, although the reasons for doing so should be made clear. Independent auditing of plans has been neglected and would help ensure proper accountability.

The discussion of the afternoon's presentations began with Henry Oliver (CPRE) noting the potential for negotiated sectoral agreements between government and industry groupings to provide an efficient means of providing compensation for development, despite the difficulties sometimes associated with reconciling the many considerations involved. He also commented that, although the plan led system is supposed to be visionary, it rarely fulfils that potential. In particular, it does not seem able to properly consider environmental capacity. Paul Ekins commented that although environmental capacity is a scientific concept, it is also socially constructed. Unless the scientific targets are better defined there is always the tendency for short-term considerations to over-ride long term goals.

Roger Levett wondered if the relative success of Local Agenda 21 and the environmental capacity approach owed more to their current lack of influence on important decisions, and whether more influential community planning processes might need the same procedural safeguards as are built into the land use planning system. He also argued that there was still in fact a presumption in favour of development because plan policies restricting development required specific justification. On the other hand, developers do not need to demonstrate economic or social benefits; development can only be excluded from the plan on the basis of disbenefits that meet the criteria of material considerations. Graham Wynne also criticised the standard of economic appraisal of development, and in many cases doubted whether the actual economic benefits match predictions.

Mike Purdue (City University) contrasted the pollution control regime, with its regular reviews of conditions, with the planning system where outdated permissions could provide major environmental and sustainability problems. Jeremy Worth (Countryside Agency) wondered how to build technological development into the planning process, particularly for the very long timeframes of some targets, such as that for renewable energy sources.

Andy Blowers worried about impediments to public participation, such as the continuing government pressure on local authorities and the difficulty in handling uncertainties in the assessment of long term risks with a consequent difficulty in determining how to compensate communities taking on these risks.

Duncan McLaren (Friends of the Earth) called for less emphasis on trade-offs and protection, and more on identifying and delivering development that enhances the environment. On occasion this might imply using imaginative planning instruments to transfer investment from new developments to existing lower standard ones, as a means of obtaining greater environmental gains for the same level of investment. Graham Wynne agreed that there was more positive benefit available from the planning system than was currently realised, but felt that the limitations could only be solved by greater public investment.

Sir Tom Blundell (RCEP) thanked to speakers and participants for their time and efforts. He noted that the Commission would now consider the responses to its announcement of the study, its consultants' reports, and the views expressed at the seminar, before identifying the key issues for further investigation. He emphasised that Commission has an open mind on the issues, and encouraged people to contribute, either by writing to the Secretariat with ideas not fully explored at the seminar, or in due course in response to the call for evidence which was due for dissemination in late March.

Back to Index of News Releases