Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

I refer to the Commission's letter of 21 July 1999. The range of topics given seems to provide a very reasonable base for the study.

The following are our comments:

(a) It is difficult to see how democratic control can be improved without introducing a further elected layer of local government. Community councils should in theory be able to fill this gap. However, not all areas have effective councils. This is a possible area to be considered.

(b) Market forces seem to prevail in decisions on the use of land. There is also a feeling that the Government has apparently been seen to take planning decisions outside the planning mechanism.

(c) The planning public inquiry system appears to the lay person in general to have too much emphasis on professional submissions which are not available to, nor can they be afforded by, the lay person. it must, therefore, be made easier for people to participate in the process.

(d) Details of national aims do not receive sufficient publicity at the grass roots level. This is also true about the operation of certain agencies such as SEPA.

(e) The visual impact of hard construction and noise levels are often dealt with as afterthoughts. It is essential that they be allowed for at the design stage. The professional institutions and associations should be encouraged to co-operate with the Commission and possibly produce or update codes of practice.

(f) Drainage, both surface water and foul, are posing increasing problems and are likely to be affected by climate change. This is an area needing research.

Back to Index of comments on the scoping of the Environmental Planning Study