Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

This is a response from the Environmental Services Association (ESA) to the invitation for views on the forthcoming study on Environmental Planning that the Royal Commission intends to undertake.

The ESA is the trade association for the UK waste management industry and related environmental services. ESA members span the full spectrum of operations (including collection, treatment, disposal, recovery, recycling and re-use of waste), specialist equipment manufacturers and environmental consultancies.

ESA would particularly wish to congratulate the Royal Commission for identifying the need for a more coherent and integrated approach to environmental planning and to consider how existing systems can respond to the challenge for sustainable development as a subject for study.

This response addresses the issues raised in the letter that was placed on the Commission's web site. It also picks up on some issues that arose from ESA's representation at a seminar organised by LUC as part of the commission to look into the future of land use planning in the UK. We were most grateful for the opportunity to contribute.

As the trade association for the waste management sector, ESA is deeply involved in many of the issues relating to the delivery and application of environmental and planning policy. A number of the matters listed for investigation by the Royal Commission are regularly discussed within the waste management industry. The Royal Commission may find that when the inquiry formally commences, waste management might provide a useful case study of many of the issues of concern to the investigation into how environmental considerations are applied by regulatory bodies.

I hope the views expressed in this letter and accompanying submission will be of use in highlighting some of the opinions and concerns of the waste management industry on this subject, as well as identifying areas for improvement. I would be grateful if you would draw the attention of the Royal Commission to these views.

ESA would be pleased to partake in further submissions and opportunities for discussion when the Study commences next year.

Introduction
1. The Environmental Services Association is the trade association for the UK waste management and related industries. As such, it has played a leading role in setting the standards of environmental management in the UK for over a quarter of a century. ESA members span the full spectrum of operations (including collection, treatment, disposal, recovery, recycling and re-use of waste), specialist equipment manufacturers and environmental consultancies.

2. An extensive, complex and fragmented legislative regime applies to waste management and yet an integrated approach to waste management requires a mix of systems which cross the existing regulatory boundaries. Substantial inconsistency exists between how different regulatory regimes are applied and how different sectors subject to the same requirements are regulated.

3. As currently operated, the planning and waste regulation systems are not delivering what is expected of them by way of plans, policies and decisions within a reasonable time scale that give a measure of certainty for investment, while allowing for flexibility if and when circumstances change.

4. Consideration of the pursuit of goals for environmental enhancement cannot be separated from economic sustainability. Plans that carry the support of society at large must also be able to release the necessary funds to enable delivery. This requires a change in public attitudes in how waste is managed in the UK.

5. This submission addresses the following key areas that the Royal Commission might wish to explore:

• Clarity of control, highlighting the duplication of regulatory controls that currently exist.
  
• Accountability to the public. This is identified as a key area for the waste management sector.
  
• Integrated Environment Agency emphasising ESA's support for the principle but outlining the difficulties currently encountered.
  
• Environment Agency and the planning process highlighting the benefits of coordination.
  
• Sustainability & waste management highlighting the need for clarity on the wider role of the Agency in exercising its overarching duties;
  
• Costs & benefits highlighting the need for proper evaluation of proposals;
  
• Availability & adequacy of information highlighting the historical dearth and the steps being taken to remedy this; and
  
• The adequacy of the environment planning system responding specific to points raised at the LUC seminar.

Clarity of Control
6. All waste management operations must be permitted by at least two separate bodies, notably the Waste Planning Authorities, usually county councils or unitary councils, and the Environment Agency. Both permits involve consideration of environmental matters although one is for land use planning/development control and the other relates to potential pollution and environmental protection.

7. There is considerable potential for overlap and duplication of controls. Added to this, on occasion there are aspects of the proposals that where other authorities such as environmental health authorities and the Health & Safety Executive have overlapping responsibilities. A particular case in point is the recently introduced requirement for permits to be sought from District Council functions for certain waste management sites handling hazardous substances.

8. This duplication places unnecessary burdens on the industry, can create conflict between the different regulatory body requirements and can result in sub-optimal environmental protection. Moreover this complexity can result in general confusion which partly explains why it takes so long for waste management facilities to reach the operational stage from the drawing board.

9. Government has sought to give direction on how the different regimes should operate and interrelate in the Planning Policy Guidance Note 23: Planning & Pollution Control, and the recently issued Planning Policy Guidance Note 10: Planning & Waste Management. While the need to avoid duplication of controls may be emphasised policy guidance continues to shy away from defining the divide clearly. Any illumination the Royal Commission could bring to the debate would be most welcome. We would be delighted to provide further information on this issue.

   Accountability to the Public

10. The public interest needs to be taken into account when the need for facilities is being considered. It is therefore generally recognised that public acceptability for proposed waste management development is important and should be taken into account in the development control process. This is supported by consultation with accountable bodies in the waste management licence application process, laid down in the relevant statute. While the need to involve the public in the process is recognised, there must be safeguards in place to ensure that applications are processed expeditiously so that legitimate and essential activities are not unduly hindered.

11. The process by which public attitudes are formed is complex and is influenced by a wide range of factors. The industry is engaged in pioneering work to involve the public at the planning stage and ESA has offered to lead discussions sharing emerging best practice in handling the communications challenge around planning applications. A project on building public confidence has also been initiated by our associated environmental body - ESART - funded under the landfill tax credit scheme.

    An Integrated Environment Agency

12. ESA has been a long-term proponent of an integrated Environment Agency. The Agency has critical responsibility as an enabling authority to permit much-needed waste management facilities that contribute towards environmental protection, subject to necessary controls. It has the power to facilitate or prevent the delivery of waste management services across commercial, industrial and public sectors. ESA is sympathetic to the challenges faced by the Environment Agency, both in terms of unifying disparate functions and coping with a number of onerous new duties which have been placed upon it by recent pieces of legislation and Government policy commitments.

13. Relocation of the NRA, HMIP and the 83 WRAs under one roof may have created the potential for the treatment of some issues in an integrated manner. However a balance need to be struck between integration and retention of competent experts. Currently there is a sense that the technical complexity of licence application is not fully appreciated and valuable expertise is being diluted within the overall organisational structure. Much is also left to be desired in how the Agency communicates internally to ensure empowerment of appropriate personnel. This also applies to a lesser degree when dealing with planning authorities particularly where waste matters are dealt with by local rather than county authorities. Currently the Government is seeking to rectify this by redefining County Matters more clearly.

14. The consequence is that the service delivered bears little resemblance to that envisaged. ESA members have given numerous reports on how applications have been dealt with consistently outside the statutory timescales and with a lack of consistency on specified requirements. Monitoring inspections appear to concentrate on the well run and readily accessible sites, but leave those that require the attention of the Agency.

15. ESA has made a number of submissions to various bodies, most recently to the House of Commons Environment Sub-Committee that articulate the concerns further. We would be glad to provide copies to the Royal Commission if that would be of assistance. We are also engaged in an ongoing dialogue with the Agency seeking to address these concerns in a positive way.

    Environment Agency & the Planning Process

16. The Agency can bring considerable influence to bear in the planning process both with respect to commenting on specific applications and also in providing strategic input. It is a major player with respect to commenting on planning applications for specific facilities. Objection at either stage may prevent a development proceeding. Yet the Agency bears no responsibility for provision of essential waste management facilities.

17. Experience in waste management shows that the Agency may raise objections without technical justification or transparency and may also seek to use the planning system to pursue other issues for which more appropriate legislation exists, i.e. land drainage, discharge consents, etc. There are cases where Agency functions may take opposing positions at different stages and where the Agency as a statutory consultee may object to a proposal that the Planning Authority would wish to recommend.

    Sustainability & Waste Management

18. The waste management industry in providing waste management services makes an essential contribution to sustainable development by protecting and enhancing the environment for the benefit of this and future generations. Focusing on waste is looking at the 'end of pipe' only. A true assessment of sustainability must take into account the full resource costs of the consumption patterns that drive production processes. In view of the strategic nature of this issue, the statutory national waste strategy is the appropriate place for promoting sustainable waste management. However recent experience with the Environment Agency indicates a growing introduction of sustainability in its dealings with waste management.

19. ESA believes it is inappropriate for the Agency to exercise judgement as to the sustainability of individual proposals on an ad hoc basis. The identification of the best practicable environmental option (BPEO) as originally elucidated by the Royal Commission should remain the defining principle. Therefore the focus should be on environmental burdens rather than evaluation between methods of management. For example objection to a landfill proposal as not being in accordance with sustainability principles fails to address the problem of what happens to the waste. Local authorities will rarely ignore an objection from the Agency and yet rejection of an application may result in the disposal of waste at less technically suitable sites. This illustrates the difficulty of the Agency exercising such powers at a local level without being accountable for the wider strategy implications.

    Costs & Benefits

20. While a Compliance Cost Assessment (CCA) or Regulatory Impact Appraisal (RIA) may be undertaken on a piece of legislation in the early stages, the compliance costs can vary significantly depending on the approach taken to implementation. ESA considers that CCA/RIA as currently performed is very limited and narrow and does not place enough emphasis on the possible economic and social consequences, nor take into account the full environmental costs of proposals or the benefits. It is important in waste management that the approach to CCA/RIA is sufficiently broad that impacts on the consumer can be identified, and that proposals are considered as part of the overall plan, not isolated in their effect on say just landfill, incineration etc.

21. To improve the system ESA proposes that the assessment should be "scoped" before starting. This can be done as a matrix bringing out long-term and short term effects, first-order, second-order and third-order etc. effects, certain effects (the reactions of parties directly affected by their statutes) and intuitive effects (likely business responses to optimise their position). This framework could then be circulated to the key players and entries invited under each of the headings. Trade associations may play a key role here as they are well placed to assess the impact within their respective sectors.

22. While the sector believes in high environmental standards, meeting these standards can be expensive. As service providers to waste producers, the market is highly competitive, waste management companies cannot force higher standards and increased prices on their customers, but must wait until the regulations change. Most commercial customers do not unilaterally improve their environmental performance without regulatory encouragement. There is growing concern that the Agency is producing its own guidance introducing additional regulatory requirements that has significant implications for commercial operations without explicitly undertaking a CCA or an RIA. Such guidance fails to explicitly recognise the necessary balance between financial and environmental benefit.

    Availability & Adequacy of Data

23. The letter from the Royal Commission asks a question about the knowledge base including the adequacy of data and this is very pertinent with the provision of waste management. Practically all major waste management proposals are controversial and in the consideration of the balance between allowing a development that is unpopular to local residents and its requirement to provide a service, proving the need is often a major factor. Information has been inadequate and efforts in the collection of data are only just beginning to catch up with the requirement for proper assessment. What is available currently is often dated and incomplete. The Environment Agency is obliged and is undertaking data collection that will go some way at least to resolve the situation and it would be relevant for the Royal Commission to review this as it is produced, against criteria of what is required to resolve the current situation.

24. ESART is working in partnership with the UK Environment Agencies to pilot a new UK-wide scheme for classifying waste. This will also provide an* important new tool to refine the data from the ongoing national waste production survey. The project is being jointly funded by ESART and the Environment Agency's waste research programme. This is the first time the Agencies and the waste management industry have worked in partnership on a research project.

    Adequacy of Environmental Planning System

25. A significant point made at the LUC Seminar was that in many ways the current systems of environmental control that have been developed in the UK over many years, have been effective in providing a balance between regulation and allowing free enterprise. However, some pertinent statements were made in terms of the delivery of the present system by the local planning authorities which is sometimes less than satisfactory or helpful for the encouragement and continuation of operations by the industry.

26. It should not be necessary to widen the scope of planning powers in order to bring a more sustainable system for the future. ESA considers that basically the system is capable of providing for the best interests of the welfare of the country although the detailed priorities for these often conflict. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current system; the difficulties are with the delivery. The process by which BPEO is arrived at enables account to be taken of the range of relevant factors at this stage.

27. We are conscious of the need to allow industry as a whole to prosper not only for its own sake, but also to provide investment for future development that delivers environmentally sustainable solutions. The waste management industry will have to cope with waste from a rising number of households. It also needs to provide outlets for the waste from the increasingly prosperous economy that the government, communities and the waste management industry are working towards.

    Top

    ---

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