Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

1. We very much welcome the RCEP's intention to examine the subject of environmental planning, and for all of the reasons set out in your letter of the 24 August. It should be an interesting study. Exactly how a spatially based land-use system can best be used to address what are essentially non-spatial policy objectives has always been a challenge. The existing planning system is designed to deliver black and white answers; it is not so good at dealing with uncertainty which, whether we like it or not, we increasingly have to do in our attempts to achieve a more sustainable use of the environment against a background of climate change.

2. The subject is a very large one and we hope that the Commission will concentrate on a few pertinent issues. As you will be aware, we have already published two substantial documents on the State of the Environment: one on freshwaters and one on coasts. The third in the series, on land, will shortly be going to press. All of these reports highlight different facets of the planning issues raised.

3. In the short time available, and being the tail-end of summer, we have not been able to examine all of the points in your letter in full. But in view of the RCEP's request for a very short response at this stage, the following thoughts are offered - in no particular order. We will of course also be happy to make available to the Commission copies of our 'land' report when available, plus the background material used in compiling it but not necessarily appearing in the finished product. And, as you know, staff from our Thames Region will be helping the Commission in its study. You will be aware of their document "Enhancing the environment: 25 case studies" which includes examples involving the existing planning system.

4. First then, some general points. Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), the Agency, and an increasing number of other bodies and organisations have a remit to promote, or contribute towards the achievement of, sustainable development. Each is doing so within its own system with plans, strategies, and regulations, be it at a national, regional, local or site specific level. The result is, inevitably, a piecemeal approach that at times lacks coherence. The different time scales used for the plethora of plans and strategies rarely coincide, which often reduces their relevance and usefulness.

5. All of this is not helped by the legislative framework, either in day-to-day practice or in the clarity of long term aims. Thus development planning is essentially concerned with assisting economic growth and social development, placing as few impediments as possible in its path, whereas environmental legislation is often seen as restrictive and aimed primarily at constraining local development, albeit for the longer-term good of the environment. The two are, of course, actually complementary; but this is not always the perception. What is lacking is a common vision or understanding of the sustainable capacity of the environment - on various scales - to absorb such development without compromising its short or long-term quality, or the range of choices for its subsequent use. This difference is also reflected in the fact that we, the Agency, are required to take a precautionary approach in relation to environmental licensing, whereas 'demonstrable harm' has to be shown for a planning application to be turned down; clearly these approaches to decision making are at odds.

6. The Town and Country Planning system is pivotal to environmental planning (taken as land use planning, environmental protection, and other environmental plans), often providing the link between different regimes and enabling decisions to be made in the democratic arena. There are however instances, relating mainly to procedures and interfaces, where difficulties and obstacles are encountered which could usefully be addressed to provide future guidance and clarity. Present government advice is that land use planning and pollution control regimes should not result in a duplication of controls, But the practicality of this is difficult. Existing guidance needs to be clearer and stronger to enable the appropriate bodies to make informed decisions. At present, the so called parallel tracking of planning applications and environmental licences is encouraged but not mandatory. If it was formalised, so that planning applications and licence applications were submitted simultaneously, many of the existing problems would be reduced. With appropriate collaboration, public concern could also be managed better during this process. It is often difficult to judge the pollution consequences of proposals fully at the planning stage because of a lack of detailed information. The Agency has therefore consistently argued, alas to little avail (for example in discussions on IPPC implementation) for closer alignment ("parallel tracking") with pollution permitting. But while the Agency is a statutory consultee in development planning, comments are only advisory and are often ignored.

7. Bearing in mind that most major developments require both planning permission and one or more environmental licences, both the applicants and the public are often confused even more so with the added complications of building control and development control. They also object to the apparent added bureaucracy, and hence cost. To be fair, the Town and Country Planning process is more democratic, open, and transparent compared with much of environmental licensing, and there is a planning appeals system in place.

8. But the perceived duplication of controls is also an area of concern with respect to such planning appeals. In a number of cases recently we have been asked to appear as a witness at planning inquiries to answer questions relating to pollution control which are dealt with under the Agency's regulatory regimes, and to which the Agency therefore has no objection. In these cases the Planning Inspector appears to be moving beyond the realm of Town and Country Planning, contrary to Government advice. Again, greater clarity on the role of all parties would help to streamline the process. In fact, the appeals process for planning and environmental licensing could be combined to increase openness and allow greater scrutiny of the overall regulatory system.

9. One of the existing challenges is that of achieving the correct balance between democratic control and the application of technical expertise and evaluation. The trend towards more and more consultation may be politically attractive, but there is a limit to the resources which can be deployed on such matters, and this should not be done at the expense of spending time on improving the scientific and technical basis of decision making. It is essential that, in some cases, the public fully appreciates the weight of the scientific and technical evidence - even if it is unpopular - bearing in mind the limitations that may be placed upon it. Indeed many feel that there should be a limit on the extent to which local authorities can put on one side the views of the nationally-competent body on specific issues such as pollution control or flood risk. This is particularly so when the counter argument of "democracy" is actually reflected in the fact that only a small minority of the local population will have been involved in the relevant debate. And it is likely that the silent majority may well have had greater confidence in the views of the nationally competent body.

10. Devolution, too, inevitably carries with it the risks of parochialism and inconsistency of approach. We have yet to see an overall guidance framework - encompassing all the facets of sustainability - plus its interface with the seemingly limitless list of EC and national legislation and guidance relating to planning and environmental licensing which would ensure a nationally consistent approach, applied at a local level. The gap between 'thinking globally' and 'acting locally' - in concept and in practice - is still immense. Better use should therefore be made of development plans as contributors to national strategies as well as mechanisms to support delivery of local needs. Local authorities should then be made more accountable if they go against national strategies. For example, local authorities who are net exporters of waste could be "penalised" in some way to ensure that they pay for the full environmental costs of such exports, rather than being allowed to increase pressure in other areas to use land for waste disposal. They should also be financially responsible for flood defence when building in flood plains occurs against our advice. Regional assemblies could provide an audit role in this respect. In any case, regional assemblies should be charged with trying to bridge gaps between national strategies and local initiatives, where such gaps exist, And where targets are set nationally, it should always be clear as to how they should be translated into local plans and actions.

11. National environmental strategies and local interests may indeed conflict very badly at times. Some recent questions we have asked ourselves are: how should the Agency best contribute to strategic planning on landfill locations, rather than as at present comment on a site by site basis as planning applications are made; how will sites be selected for radioactive waste disposal facilities; will the chosen sites have to be "good" or "the best"; and how will future development in one area take account of the need to protect water resources (including ground waters) which are required across a larger regional boundary?

12. In fact, in general, we consider that we are rarely sufficiently involved at the strategic level, so that issues such as environmental capacity are not resolved in an informed way, and at an appropriate stage. As a result, the planning process often prejudices timely decisions; for example, in the case of schemes being constructed to meet EC Bathing Water Directive requirements, the planning system severely delayed progress in many areas.

13. Environmental planning problems are not restricted to pollution control. Issues relating to flood risk and water resources are also very pertinent. The former - building in flood plains - is a long-standing issue but the extent to which the land use planning system considers the environmental impact on the environmental impacts of water supply when dealing with cross-boundary transfer problems, differing timescales, and strategic impacts on a local scale is another general issue; the cumulative impacts of many small and, 'not significant' developments can often lead to unforeseen environmental damage.

14. Because actions on the land surface invariably impact on drainage into the soil, and hence groundwater, land use policy should also be intimately linked with groundwater management and protection in a wider context. There are usually very long time scales between development and any adverse effects, which makes consideration of groundwater issues particularly critical in the context of sustainability.

15. The UK is densely populated and thus land - especially high quality land - is at a premium. But there are no comprehensive national strategies for land use or soil use or protection. Developing such strategies will not be easy, because of the complexity of the environmental, social, and economic factors that affect land use; but they must be produced. This might then help to resolve such issues as the use of green and brownfield sites; some rural brownfield sites might be better returned to agriculture.

16. There are some who argue that some agricultural activities should be subject to the planning process. This would need to be carefully balanced with the operational needs of the farming community.

17. Identifying problems is however easy. Finding solutions is not. There is a view that planning on a "natural area" basis, for the purposes of environmental management, would have definite advantages. But the trouble is that there are so many "area" definitions, and economic zones, all of which are appropriate for different purposes. With current information technology (GIS), it is in any case now possible to aggregate or disaggregate information in such a way that would allow decision making to be optimised across many different geographic bases. In fact, the better use of such technology will be increasingly important as an aid to decision making at all levels.

18. Finally, I thought you might find it useful to have a (far from complete) list of difficult areas where gaps or barriers between environmental regulation and environmental planning can and does exist. Some are long-standing problems, such as the first. They include the avoidance of development in:

    -	flood plains and other areas prone to flooding;
    -	areas where long-term sustainable waste supplies are simply not available;
    -	areas where the lack of capacity of sewerage and sewage treatment facilities result in a deterioration of water quality;
    -	sensitive groundwater areas; and
    -	areas where species and habitats will be adversely affected.

19. Other problems arise from the lack of.

    -	policy objectives to secure energy;
    -	efficient and resource-efficient buildings;
    -	planning frameworks which have a presumption in favour of long-term environmental sustainability;
    -	consideration of the cumulative effects arising from any minor decisions made within existing land-use controls;
    -	pragmatic flexibility within planning boundaries to allow for environmental issues;
    -	compensation arrangements to provide solutions (e.g. managed retreat) which are beneficial to the community as a whole but the cost of which has to be borne by a few;
    -	any integration between planning permission and environmental licensing; and
    -	any means of monitoring or auditing the effectiveness of, and adherence to, guidelines in relation to planning controls.

20. As 1 said at the beginning, none of this is in any particular order. But it is evident that we attach a great significance to this particular RCEP study. We sometimes feel as if we are in something of a planning blight whilst awaiting the final outcome of the setting up of RDAs, voluntary regional chambers, sustainability plans, regional economic strategies, regional planning guidance, the role of community plans, the European spatial development perspective and so on. We struggle to keep abreast of all of them in the production of our own Local Environment Agency Plans (LEAPs), which translate our own policies and practices into local action plans, but by way of these LEAPs (and otherwise) we can provide you with many examples of all of the above should the Commission find it useful. As always, we will do all that we can to help. Please contact me should you need anything more in the short term.

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