Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Further to our telephone conversation of the 1st November 1999, during which I outlined how through my involvement with the Environment Agency, Dr Andrew Skinner (Environmental Protection Manager, Midland Region) suggested that I should respond with my own submissions.

As a lay person and as one who has experienced the effects that environmental planning, planning in general, or in some cases, non planning can have upon the general public. In particular those who's lives are likely to be changed by decisions taken without their knowledge or consultation, which will radically change forever the area where they live.

Our whole approach to planning in general is so confrontational. We need desperately to change to a consultation led approach if we are to get away from the trench warfare way we currently seem to enjoy.

The topics suggested in this paper seem to only tinker around with the unsatisfactory system we have at the present time. It is now quite apparent given the climate changes which we can definitely attribute to our misguided usage of our infinite resources and the costs we must now find in order to attempt to mitigate the effect of these changes, that to merely tinker is not good enough.

The paper calls for a study on environmental planning and it must be the effect on the environment, which should be our first consideration when considering any planning proposal be they national or regional. To achieve this it will of course be necessary to restructure to whole planning procedure, I would respectfully suggest the revised process should proceed as follows.

Stage One

Full and open consultations with all interested parties.
At the present time potential developments come before planning authorities and are treated in confidence. Development Control, Economic Development officers and the developer examine them together, considering all the implications of these proposals, all to often, to a point where Development Control can recommend approval to their planning committees.

In most cases all this activity has taken place before people living locally and who's lives will be profoundly affected, know anything about any proposed development is about to become their next door neighbour.

Our present planning structure as outlined above, also precludes people and organisations with a wider interest in the environmental implications from offering their views until like the locals above, proposals are already 'cut and dried'.

This is and will always be a recipe for potential conflict.

Stage Two

Environmental Assessment
A full environmental assessment of the proposals, including the effects the proposed development will have long term on the area in which it will be sited and the wider effects of how the acquisition of all the raw building materials would be sauced. That is to say the effect on other areas and communities, where the quarrying of sand, aggregates clay, iron ore and the felling of timber needed in the construction and of course their transportation to site is of consideration. This approach must lead to developments becoming much more sustainable and worthwhile in the longer term, as the question will inevitably be asked as to the real value of development proposals and the weeding out of many of the speculative schemes which we have seen over the past twenty years or so.

Stage Three

The need for licensing aspects of certain developments.
It is at this point that the granting of any specific license should be considered. Operations like landfilling, land raising, incinerating, water abstraction and airborne discharges need special consent. To acquire these permissions involves a very intensive investigation into the safety of the proposed operation and if placed here in the progress to planning consent, will act as a filter, only the very serious applications will be prepared to fund this process, thus weeding out the speculative and bringing this type of development out into the public domain.

Stage Four

Long term feasibility of development.
As touched on above, the long term value of particularly industrial development has a very significant effect upon our environment. Where it is situated, that is to say its close proximity to an available and useable work force, adequate access to existing transport infrastructure and again close proximity to either its raw materials or the point of import for its raw materials.

Another consideration in this category must be the long-term viability aspect of new development. As pointed out above the raw materials needed to build new factories, power stations etc., are not an infinite rescuers and as such will further enlarge the holes in the ground out of which these materials mostly come. Indeed parts of the county of Derbyshire and the area south of Peterborough already resemble the lunar landscape. We must therefore in the future insure that we only allow development, which will accord with these criteria.

Stage Five

The decision to allow development
After going through all the hoops I have proposed in this submission, I believe that any proposed development which survived this degree of scrutiny would have satisfied everyone that it was indeed a serious and as far as possible an environmentally sound proposal. The public most effected would have had the opportunity to express their points of view, other interested groups would have added their particular input, the statuary agencies would have scrutinised all aspects of the proposals and we would have got away from the 'trench warfare' I spoke of earlier in this submission.

I trust the forgoing is of interest to you and of help in your deliberations.

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