Comments on the scoping of the RCEP's Environmental Planning Study

English Nature welcomes the RCEP's decision to initiate a study into environmental planning at this time. We consider it vital that those involved in planning are able to integrate new environmental initiatives where they have relevance for the use and development of land.
A key challenge for the planning system today is to ensure that it has sufficient information about the environmental implications of proposals and about environmental objectives and priorities at both the national and local level to enable it to make fully informed decisions.
In this regard we highlight as possible topics for the RCEP study to address: the new approach to environmental capital currently being developed by English Nature with its sister agencies; English Nature's current research into barriers preventing the planning system from maximising its contribution to the delivery of UK BAP targets; and aspects of the Environmental Impact Assessment regime, including (i) post consent monitoring, (ii) integrated EIA for projects requiring multiple consents, (iii) the use of powers to require informal environmental appraisal of projects falling outwith the statutory EIA regime and (iv) the linkage between avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures set out in the EIA and the conditions and obligations attached to any consent subsequently issued.
We acknowledge the risk that economic objectives in the new UK SD Strategy could undermine environmental objectives (broad topic (e)) and identify the importance of developing tools to ensure that SD objectives are fully integrated and not balanced or traded off against one another, operating on the principles that our important and irreplaceable environmental assets must be fully protected and that there must be no net loss of our environmental stock.
We highlight the inadequacy of cross-sectoral links with the planning system, highlighting issues surrounding: agriculture (and the UK's failure to implement an EIA regime for intensive agricultural use projects); water resource use as a material planning consideration; and the need to tackle diffuse aerial pollution.

Introduction

1.1 English Nature is the statutory body responsible for advising both central and local Government on nature conservation in England and for promoting the wildlife and natural features of England. In fulfilling its duties English Nature:

- advises Ministers on the development and implementation of policies for nature conservation;
- advises Ministers other policies affecting nature conservation;
- identifies, notifies and safeguards Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSS1);
- establishes, maintains and manages National Nature Reserves (NNRs);
- provides guidance and advice on the principles and practice of nature conservation to a wide constituency;
- commissions and supports research and other projects relevant to nature conservation.

1.2 Through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) English Nature works with sister organisations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to advise Government on UK and international nature conservation issues.

1.3 We work in close partnership with local planning authorities in particular to assist them to undertake their duties and responsibilities in relation to nature conservation through their statutory planning functions.

General Comments

2.1 The Royal Commission's decision to undertake a study into environmental planning is both timely and appropriate. The Government's Modernising Planning and regionalisation agendas, in parallel with the Opportunities for Change programme and emerging sectoral sustainable development strategies, provide important new opportunities to explore the operation of the planning system and its relationship with environmental objectives.

2.2 There has been a welcome blossoming of environmental initiatives in recent years designed to address a diverse range of environmental challenges. It is vital that those involved in planning ensure that the planning system continues to maintain the capacity to take into account and integrate these initiatives where they have implications for the use and development of land.

2.3 There is also a growing need to take account of the European dimension in the UK planning system. The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESPD) recognises the central role of planning mechanisms for the delivery of environmental objectives and indicates the need for the development of a more comprehensive system of spatial planning to meet these challenges.

2.4 We found the brief overview paper inviting submissions to provide a helpful analysis of the situation and we endorse the broad conclusion that opportunities may be being missed at the interface between different regulatory frameworks. It is this concern in particular, coupled with issues surrounding the delivery of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, on which we have focussed in our response.

Key Issues

Understanding the Implications [Broad Topics (a.) and (b)]

3.1 A fundamental challenge for the planning system in regard to environmental objectives is to ensure that the full implications for the environment of different land use change and development options are clearly articulated in the light of international, national and local environmental priorities. It is only when these implications are fully understood that informed decisions can be made. In the following paragraphs we set out six aspects of information and evaluation worthy of fuller examination by the Commission.

3.2 Since 1996 English Nature has been working with its sister agencies (Countryside Agency, Environment Agency and English Heritage) in the development of a new approach to environmental capital ^[1]. The key features of this approach are: that it seeks to address different aspects of the environment in a consistent and integrated manner; that it builds on the character based approach; that it takes account of the benefits of environmental features and their importance at a variety of scales in the context of both national objectives and targets and their value to local communities; and that it can be used to derive management recommendations as to enhancement. The approach is still in development and we are currently assessing the implications of a series of pilot projects in which it has been used. However this approach has the potential to provide better information about the implications of development and to inform rigorous environmental compensation requirements. It is therefore worthy of closer examination.

3.3 Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) are the principal vehicle whereby national biodiversity objectives as expressed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) are translated into local priorities for action. The planning system is recognised in the UK BAP as having a significant contribution to make to the delivery of these objectives at the local level. English Nature has recently commissioned research to explore the extent to which planners (particularly forward planners) are responding to this challenge and to look at the barriers to the effective integration of BAP targets into the land use planning system. The specification for this work is attached at Annex A (Unlocking the Potential). We expect to have an interim report by December which could provide the basis for an examination by the Commission into the effectiveness of current arrangements for integration of BAP into the planning system.

3.4 The last four issues under this theme all relate to aspects of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. First, considerable resources are directed at the front end of the EIA process in the prediction of effects arising from proposed development and the evaluation of their significance. Individual Environmental Statements (ES) are produced and used to inform important decisions over development proposals. However there is only very limited follow up to these assessments and limited monitoring of the actual effects when developments are implemented. Without these there is no means of testing predictive models and no refinement of assessment techniques in the fight of the reality of development in practice. In the absence of such feedback we are failing to learn from our experience and there can be no continuous improvement in the quality of impact assessment methods. Research appears to indicate that there have not been significant improvements in the quality of ESs over time ^[2]. We believe that it would be appropriate for a requirement to be introduced for post consent monitoring of EIA developments which receive consent and for the establishment of a feedback mechanism to help refine and improve techniques.

3.5 Second, we believe that where multiple consents are required for a new process or development (eg. planning permission, a waste management licence and a discharge consent), and where these applications are each subject to EIA requirements, there should be a provision or requirement for 'integrated EIA' in which all aspects of the environmental effects of the proposal can be addressed in a single document with a single round of consultation and publicity, perhaps with the identification of a lead authority for this purpose. This would reduce the burden on applicants, consenting authorities and consultees alike and enable proposals to be considered in the round having regard to the full range of their environmental implications.

3.6 Third, we consider that there is too much of a gulf in the quality of environmental information available to competent authorities between developments subject to formal EIA and those for which EIA is not required, for example because the project does not fall within a class for which EIA may be required under the Regulations (however great its effects on the environment). The environmental implications of such projects should nevertheless be identified and evaluated in order to enable the planning authority to make an informed decision on the application in the light of its environmental effects. In these circumstances we would like to see greater use made by local planning authorities of their powers under the planning Acts (including powers of direction under Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Applications) Regulations 1988) to require additional information in the form of informal environmental appraisals of non-EIA projects.

3.7 Finally, we argue that the effectiveness of the EIA regime in deflecting or modifying potentially damaging developments relies on a much clearer tie-in between proposed measures for avoidance, mitigation and compensation set out in the ES and the legally binding conditions and planning obligations attached to any planning permission which is subsequently granted. In our view we need to move to a position where all necessary measures are clearly set out in a schedule to the EIA which the decision maker can use in drawing up the terms of any consent.

Integration Techniques [Broad Topic (e)]

3.8 English Nature welcomes the Government's clear expression of the four objectives for Sustainable Development (SD) in its recent SD Strategy A Better Quality of Life 1999. These objectives are the starting point to the development of integrated action for sustainable development. However there is a danger that the expression of economic objectives for SD ("high and stable levels of economic growth and employment") could be misunderstood as a licence to permit environmentally damaging developments on the basis of short term economic gain. In effect a return to pre-SD decision making in which our environmental stock is traded in for economic benefit. SD objectives are not alternatives which can be balanced against one another. Their effective delivery requires their full integration in project proposals such that no one objective is delivered at the expense of the others. This requires new evaluative mechanisms and decision-making procedures (of the sort referred to under Understanding the Implications above) which recognise that the important and irreplaceable components of our environmental stock must be fully protected and a 'no net loss' approach must be taken with the rest.

3.9 New techniques for Sustainability Appraisal are also being developed (eg recent DETR consultation over Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Planning Guidance). We have commented on the detail of these to Government. More broadly however it is important that such techniques are applied consistently at different levels of policy development from national programmes to local projects.

Sectoral Links (Broad Topic (d)]

3.10 A significant deficiency in the present arrangements for integration of environmental objectives in the planning system are the weakness of current cross-sectoral links, especially in regard to agriculture, air and water. The inadequacy of these links reflects a weakness in the present statutory framework which deserves closer examination.

3.11 Much has been written about the implications of unregulated agricultural change for environmental objectives. Here we focus on one aspect of this: namely the ploughing and intensive arable use of previously uncultivated land in floodplains. This activity is entirely unregulated at the present time but gives rise to significant externalities including loss of biodiversity, pollution of water courses and increased siltation (which can increase downstream flood risk). Recent agri-economic changes have triggered the ploughing of permanent grasslands in the Wye and Avon catchments for example in recent years.

3.12 Since 1985 the UK Government has been under an obligation to implement a regime to regulate projects for the use of uncultivated land and semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes and to require (where significant environmental effects are likely) environmental assessment before any consent for such projects is given. These obligations arise from the EU's Environmental Impact Assessment Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC. It is of continuing concern to English Nature that an appropriate regime has still not been implemented in the UK.

3.13 Secondly, new development especially housing and industry often gives rise to increased demands on water resources in the area of the development. There is an expectation that the necessary provision in respect of infrastructure and water supply will be provided and it is widely regarded that the implications of that for the local environment (including freshwater ecosystems) is not material to the determination of any planning application under consideration. It is becoming increasingly clear that water resource provision can have serious implications for the natural environment and that an integrated approach to such matters at the time of the application, or even before this when allocations for new development are being made in development plans, is necessary. English Nature has for some time been pressing Government to recognise water resource use as a material planning consideration and to provide guidance on how it should be addressed by local planning authorities in the determination of planning applications. This would enable LPAs to adopt development plan policies requiring water efficient design features to be used in new development where water resource provision is an issue.

3.14 Thirdly, there is a significant problem of diffuse aerial pollution in some parts of the country. For example in parts of East Anglia diffuse pollution (primarily from agriculture) means that background levels of nitrous oxides (NOx) in air are already above recognised critical loads. This has serious implications for the delivery of biodiversity objectives in relation to species and habitats which rely on nutrient poor conditions. IPPC would appear not be able to address this issue as individual emissions are either too small in their own right or arise from unregulated activities (such as outdoor piggeries). The problems of diffuse pollution are complex and difficult to address through a single mechanism but they can be very significant and we would commend the Commission to consider whether it could use the opportunity of the present study to seek to tackle them.

Natural Areas [Broad Topic (h)]

3.15 The research we have recently commissioned into the integration of Biodiversity Action Plan objectives into the planning process (see 3.3 above) will also look at the role of Natural Areas in this respect. Clearly Natural Areas are a key mechanism whereby LPAs may address in their plans the relationship between environmental systems (and ecological processes) and the administrative areas in which they operate. Our work on environmental capital (see 3.2 above) also builds on and integrates the Natural Areas-based characterisation approach into its thinking.

Annex A

English Nature Research Contract Specification Unlocking the Potential - Using the Planning System to Deliver Biodiversity Objectives in the Context of Natural Areas

Background

1.1 The biodiversity approach to wildlife conservation is now well established both culturally and, politically. It is widely recognised that controls over the use and development of land (through the town and country planning system) provide an important vehicle for the delivery of biodiversity objectives. The Natural Areas approach is perceived as having a potentially significant role to play in informing conservation priorities in planning at the local level. It also acts as the framework within which UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets are translated down to a regional and local level (in many cases via Regional and Local BAPs). However it is a premise of this project that there is a significant gap between current practice and the full potential of the planning system to deliver through this process.

1.2 The 'protectionist' role of the planning system in relation to safeguarding sites and species from harm is reasonably well-established. Alongside this important function it is considered that there is also considerable untapped potential in relation to the 'creative' aspects of biodiversity conservation: regarding the enhancement of existing habitats and features, the restoration and re-creation of priority ones, stemming the decline of important species, and extending and strengthening their populations.

1.3 The purpose of this project is to review recent experience in this area and to articulate a series of recommendations as to how national policy, local authorities and English Nature can increase the contribution of the planning system to biodiversity conservation objectives and targets in the context of Natural Areas.

Rationale

2.1 National planning guidance (including PPG 7 and PPG 9) and the various UK Biodiversity Action Plan publications provide a broad encouragement to local planning authorities (LPAs) to use the planning system to contribute to biodiversity objectives. We need to understand how local planning authorities (LPAs) have responded to this encouragement, to identify the conceptual and practical impediments preventing them doing more, and to determine what English Nature and its partners can contribute to overcome these.

2.2 Given the primacy attached to the development plan in the development control process, it is envisaged that the most effective means of achieving these objectives will be to engage at the development plan stage, setting the policy framework in which 'biodiversity-friendly' decisions on individual planning applications can be taken.

Objectives

3.1 The principle objectives of this project are as follows:

To review the current policy/advisory frameworks governing both town and country planning and biodiversity.
To clarify the potential for the planning system to contribute to the delivery of biodiversity targets and suggest some broad objectives which English Nature can articulate.
To explore and review existing practice in this field, with a view to (a) identifying the barriers impeding practitioners from maximising the potential for biodiversity conservation through the planning system and (b) capturing good practice.
To identify the needs of LPAs for supplementary information and further analytical capacity.
To set out substantive and practical recommendations for national policy, LPA action and English Nature support to deliver these objectives.
To develop some worked examples of how UK BAP targets can be translated (via Natural Areas profiles where appropriate) into concrete policy decisions in development plans.

Methods

4.1 This broad topic of research will need to be broken down into a series of discrete blocks of work, each of which will inform the precise focus of each subsequent element of the work. Thus the precise methodology will be finalised in conjunction with the successful contractor. However the required work will include aspects of the following:

An initial desk top study to review selected national planning policy, BAP and Natural Areas documents (including examples of Habitat and Species Action Plans and individual Natural Areas profiles).
An assessment of the different types of BAP objective (eg "prevent", "promote", "restore", "recreate" etc) according to their potential for the planning system to contribute to their delivery.
A review of selected Regional Planning Guidance, Structure Plan, Local Plan and Unitary Development Plan documents, using a standard proforma to be agreed with the Project Officer, to determine the extent of BAP/Natural Areas treatment within them.
Telephone interviews with practitioners within selected LPAs (both planners and ecologists) and English Nature, to identify the barriers to progress, the needs of practitioners and try good practice ideas.
Draw up a series of recommendations as to changes to current guidance in the PPG series, actions by LPAs and their support requirements from English Nature (and others) to unlock the potential of the planning system to contribute to the delivery of BAP.
Develop a series of examples showing how BAP, local BAP and Natural Areas profiles can be used to inform the policy priorities, policy content and specific land use allocations in Regional Planning Guidance, Structure Plans (including UDP Part Is) and Local Plans (including UDP Part IIs and Minerals and Waste Local Plans).

4.3 The contractor will be required to structure the work according to a strict timetable. A stage payment will be made, following satisfactory completion of appropriate aspects of the work (4.1 (i), (ii) and (iii)), in ****. The final payment will be made in ****subject to the receipt of the products specified to the satisfaction of the Project Officer.

Outputs

5.1 The output will constitute a report made up of the following elements:

A short introductory/issues section (based on 4.1 (i)).
A table of BAP targets showing the potential contribution of the planning system to them (based on 4. 1 (ii)).
An overview of the current status of BAP and Natural Areas considerations in various development plan documents and discussion of the conclusions to the practitioner interviews (based on 4.1 (iii) and (iv)).
iv. A series of recommendations (based on 4.1(v)).
A series of worked examples and a checklist for EN staff to use to analyse BAP and Natural Areas information to feed in to regional planning guidance and development plan consultations (based on 4. 1 (ii), (iv) and (vi)).

English Nature, August 1998

^[1] Ref. CAG & Land Use Consultants What Matters and Why - Environmental Capital: A New Approach published by the Countryside Commission, the Environment Agency, English Heritage and English Nature 1997

^[2] see for example: S. Thompson et al The Ecological Component of Environmental Impact Assessment: A Critical Review JEPM 40(02) 157-171, 1997

Top

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

Page last modified: 22 March, 2007
Page created: 2 January, 2004


Back to top \| Comments \| Contact us \| Help \| Copyright	RCEP Homepage