Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Introduction
1. The Country Landowners Association (CLA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Royal Commission's study of Environmental Planning. The CLA represents 50,000 members in England and Wales. Our members both live and work within rural areas; they operate a wide range of businesses including agriculture, tourism and commercial ventures. The quality of the countryside is of vital importance to our members and frequently brings them into contact with the planning system. Therefore our interest in this study needs little amplification.
2. The attached Annex sets out our wider views on how we believe the planning system should operate. We set out below our specific views on the role of planning in relation to environmental pollution.

Planning and Environmental Pollution

3. We are concerned about the principle of giving yet greater emphasis within the planning system to pollution control and environmental protection. We do recognise that planning has a role to play in support of environmental regulations, in avoiding the creation of polluting and environmentally damaging activities and we are committed to the principle of sustainable development. However, we question the assumption that the current system is failing. Environmental protection and pollution are currently material considerations to a planning application. Guidance is given in various policy statements including PPG 23 - Pollution Control, and is taken into account when decisions are made. In addition, there are also voluntary codes that are widely followed such as the MAFF Codes of Good Agricultural Practice on Air, Water and Soil. This approach is working and is adequate; we see no evidence to justify increased powers.
4. There is a danger that the planning system is being considered as the "cure for all ills". This is wrong and places new responsibilities on planning that are a fundamental departure from the purpose of the planning system. In our view there are currently sufficient controls that operate in parallel with the planning system such as authorisations made under the Environmental Protection Act. We feel this system works satisfactorily. If greater control was vested with the planning system this would lead to duplication of regulations resulting in unnecessary delays and costs to the applicant, and hindering the process of economic regeneration.
5. Planning officers and committees are already faced with a plethora of legislation and guidance on a variety of issues. In our view it is unreasonable to impose further requirements on them. There would still be a need for environmental protection authorities and agencies to be involved in the process, as planners may not have sufficient technical expertise on such matters. A further concern is bringing the issue of environmental protection into a political arena. Currently such issues are dealt with as a matter of fact, i.e. they either meet the required standards or not. But if they were dealt with in the planning system the decisions could be open to subjective and political pressure e.g. local pressure groups opposed to the principle of certain developments immaterial of whether they operate satisfactorily.
6. Notwithstanding, our reservations on the principle, the current review of the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) may be an appropriate vehicle within the existing system to address any concerns. The new-look RPGs are spatial plans and can cover issues not normally considered in land use planning. This would provide the opportunity to provide clear regional guidance to local authorities when considering policies on this issue.
7. Concluding, we believe that the best way forward is to maintain the current system but to consider a "development team approach" as suggested by National Planning Forum. This would provide the opportunity for a multi disciplinary team to deal with a proposal, within their own frameworks of legislation and regulation, at the same time. All permissions and authorisations could be dealt with together, thereby reducing delays, duplication of effort and costs.

The Planning System

1. The planning system has a major role to play in ensuring economic vitality and delivering sustainable development in rural areas. Planning regulations on development in rural areas have gradually increased in response to development pressures and an increasing regulatory culture. However, the broad principle of planning has not really changed since the introduction of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, with its underlying theme of protection. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that national guidance is becoming more flexible and recognises that a balance needs to be achieved between development and protecting the environment.
2. The main source of Government rural planning policy is PPG7 - "The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development". This document recognises the need for development in rural areas in order to achieve sustainable rural communities. It also recognises that the countryside can accept a range of developments without being harmful. In the CLA's experience, rural planning policy fails when this guidance is interpreted by local planning authorities in preparing their development plans. Policies are often formulated which restrict rural economic and social development. This was confirmed in the recent Rural Development Commission (RDC) research report "Rural Development and Land Use Planning Policies" (RDC, 1999).
3. The RDC research identified the following as the main reasons of refusal:
• inappropriate development in the countryside (this category included equestrian activities);


• impact on residential amenity; landscape intrusion;


• traffic generation;


• highway safety;


• design.

4. The research confirms the CLA view that the local planning authorities often place greater weight on environmental issues than economic ones. Our view is in support of PPG 7 in that decisions on sustainable development should follow a careful balance of economic, environmental and community factors.

Countryside Designations

5. An emphasis on environmental protection is clearly shown in the local authority approach to countryside designations.
6. Development plan policies, and recent draft Regional Planning Guidance, contain protection policies for a plethora of countryside designations. These policies involve statutory designations (e.g. SSS1s) and non statutory local designations (e.g. Landscape Protection Areas). It is the policies for local designations that give rise to much concern. These policies are often as restrictive as those relating to statutory designations. Great weight is placed on these policies when making decisions which generally leads to a refusal of planning permission for most forms of development. It is our view that these local designations act as a barrier to sustainable rural development.
7. This problem was recognised by the House of Commons Environment Committee when it considered the 1995 Rural White paper. The Committee accepted that such designations could hinder economic development. Subsequently the revised PPG7 "The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development' advised local planning authorities that local designation can "unduly restrict acceptable development and economic activity" and policies for local designations should be accorded less weight than that given to a statutory designation. PPG7 went further and recommended a review of local designations, with a view to maintaining only those where it was clear that normal planning policies did not provide sufficient protection. From our experience local planning authorities are not carrying out such a review. In fact the RDC research report shows that the number of designations is actually increasing.
8. It is important to note that these concerns do not only apply to landscape designations. Development plans now contain local designation policies on a range of issues such as wildlife sites, historic sites and 'quasi' green belts.
9. In order to ensure economic vitality, the problem of local designations needs to be addressed, with at least a review of current designations. If retained, such designations should be accorded their appropriate weight.

Diversification

10. Although the rhetoric of national planning policy guidance is positive and encourages diversification, the interpretation and implementation of this guidance by some local planning authorities remains a problem. Even where such economic development is accepted, sites tend to be restricted to within larger settlements or for small-scale uses. The dilemma is that while the need for economic development is recognised, there is a concern that success will lead to unacceptable growth. It is this fear of expansion that is considered to be sufficient justification for refusal. Other authorities are reluctant to accept that rural areas can accommodate economic development. It is felt that any form of activity will be harmful to the environment and contrary to the objectives of sustainable development. This opinion is again backed up by the RDC research, which identified the following conflicts or tensions when dealing with economic development in rural areas:
• the provision of rural employment and a Government aim for reducing the need to travel;
• reluctance by authorities to accept that a range of businesses can fit into a rural area;
• restrictive definitions of small-scale employment use.

11. It is particularly worrying that such attitudes remain in view of the 1995 Rural White paper, revised planning guidance and a good practice guide on diversification. To change such approaches there needs to be explicit guidance from Government, possibly even a reintroduction of the presumption in favour of development in the countryside.

Development Plan Policies

12. Development plan policies are often too vague and in some circumstances meaningless to guide economic development. Even where a plan policy is positive about economic development, it can be undermined by a previous environmental protection policy. While the CLA does not advocate a "free-for-all" with no regard to protection, it does urge the Government to issue guidance to encourage local authorities to identify where development policies have priority. Plan policies should clearly identify the situations where economic development would take priority.

13. It is also important that these policies are not expressed in isolation. Currently, development plans have separate sections on issues such as housing, economic development and environmental protection, and there is little guidance on how these issues inter-relate. There is a need for integrated planning policies to address these issues and concerns.

Other Strategies

14. We agree with the RDC findings that there is no real link between economic development strategies and planning policies. We have experienced occasions where rural strategies have been developed but rarely implemented. This is partly due to funding but also to the fact that development plan policies do not reflect the needs of such strategies. This issue is likely to increase in importance with the creation of the Regional Development Agencies (RDA) as it will be vital that planning policies take account of the RDA's strategies and provide a positive planning framework for their implementation. This is a matter that has been touched on in the draft PPG11 but could also be addressed in other PPGs.

Changes to Principles of Planning

15. The underlying definitions within planning regulations have not changed since 1947. One particular problem relating to this is what constitutes acceptable development? There tends to be a view that the only appropriate development for rural areas is essential agricultural development. Inadequate account is taken of the changes that have occurred in agriculture and the rural economy as a whole. It would be appropriate for the Government to issue clear guidance on the types of development that should be encouraged.

Recommendations

16. 1. The Government needs to remind local planning authorities of their need to reflect the appropriate economic weighting in planning policies.

    2. The proliferation of non-statutory environmental designations in local plans needs to be curtailed as required in PPG7.

    3. Local plans need to have integrated policies linking economic development, housing, transport and environmental protection.

    4. Government needs to address the void between local authorities' economic development strategies and their planning policies.

    5. It is timely for the Government to issue clear guidance on the types of development that would be acceptable in the countryside. Agricultural development alone is not enough.

    Top

    ---

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