Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

I refer to David Lewis' letter of 21 July. This has been considered by the members of the Institute's specialist Environmental Planning and Protection Panel, and I can now offer you the following comments on the issues to be considered in the second phase of the Royal commission's proposed study.

General

1. The Institute welcomes the study, which promises to be very broad ranging. It is probably too broad, as presently cast, especially in its aspirations to deal comprehensively with sustainability issues, and will need to be focused on a more limited range of objectives.

2. However, there is no reason why the breadth of the subject should preclude consideration of the integration of environmental planning (town and country planning, environmental pollution control, and other environmental regulation) under a single umbrella. The UK has tended to adopt an incremental approach to the revision of both planning and environmental legislation, in the past. Perhaps the time has come to consider an entirely new legislative base, along the lines of New Zealand's Resource Management Act.

   Definition
   

3. It will be necessary to define environmental planning more precisely. The Institute is particularly interested in how the Royal Commission sees the role of town and country, or land use planning in relation to environmental planning, and how these should all be subsumed into the operational practice of planning for sustainable development. This needs to be considered in terms of both the statutory regimes and the obligation on local government to pursue sustainable development.

4. Town and country planning (through both plan making and development control) is the focal point in environmental planning because of its influence over the use of land, and the location of activities. It often provides the link between different regimes, and enables decisions to be made in the democratic arena. Town and country planning was first brought into effect in the UK to address environmental problems, and environmental protection remains one of its many overlapping objectives. Many local planning authorities take great care to ensure that the environment is protected, or enhanced, where large- scale developments take place. The Ebbsfleet development, in Kent, is a case in point.

5. The study needs to recognise that environmental planning is anticipatory. It is part of an overall, integrated approach to environmental protection, in which regulation is needed to control both existing activity, and that yet to be approved. But environmental regulation is not sufficient on its own. It requires the context provided by environmental planning, and by land use planning in particular.

   The Royal Commission's earlier studies
   

6. There would be merit in the Royal commission revisiting its own work that has impinged on environmental and land use planning in the past. For example, the studies on air pollution, water pollution and waste disposal, and the work on transport, had many connections with the planning system. A focus on land use planning and pollution control might be helpful, as recognised in David Lewis' letter.

   Land use planning practice
   

7. It might be useful to explore land use planning practice in some detail. Apart from the core activities of development planning and development control, the use of section 106 agreements has a long history in connection with activities such as waste disposal, reclamation, and minerals extraction. The study could go on to examine the linkages between the use of such agreements and the environmental management systems that are operated within individual enterprises working in these fields. This has been a neglected area, but there are probably some examples of good practice.

   Environmental impact assessment
   

8. The study might also consider the implications of the strengthening connection between environmental impact assessment and decision-making. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), driven by European legislation, is extending the requirement for environmental assessment beyond individual projects, to policies, plans and programmes. It has also commissioned research to examine the practicality of moving forward from environmental appraisal, as we have known it, to full sustainability appraisals. These are likely to be applied, in the first instance, to regional planning guidance. Both these developments suggest that a greater significance will be attached to assessment processes in the future, and beg questions about how public awareness can be raised, and effective participation engineered.

   Integration of plans and programmes
   

9. From its own recent work, the Institute is only too aware of the many other statutory, and non-statutory, plans, programmes and strategies, with a spatial component, which have to interface with the statutory land use planning system in general, and development plans in particular. This is likely to be an even greater problem in the wider field of environmental planning. There are numerous overlapping, and often conflicting, plans and strategies - minerals plans, waste plans, community plans, local environmental action plans, biodiversity action plans, air quality management plans, EU Objective 1 strategy documents, Local Agenda 21, etc, etc - which are often formulated with little concern for existing plans. These must be anchored in the development planning system, which itself requires substantial overhaul to make integration possible. The Institute has recently submitted a policy statement on this issue to the DETR.

   Fragmentation
   

10. A major problem is that of fragmentation, and the frequent separation of the responsibility for policy planning from that of regulation. This raises the possibility of environmental problems slipping between the fingers of the various responsible agencies. Between them, the Environment Agency and local authority responsibilities for environmental health, building regulations, monitoring planning conditions and obligations, and environmental assessment, usually cover the full range of environmental problems. But implementation responsibilities are disaggregated and unclear.

11. Present Government advice is that land use planning and the pollution control regime should not duplicate each other. This is often difficult in practical terms, when factors such as timing, and public concerns, are brought into the equation. Guidance needs to be much clearer and stronger, so that the appropriate bodies can make informed decisions. Parallel tracking of applications for planning permissions for other authorisations and licences is encouraged, but is not mandatory.

12. The multiplicity of objectives that local planning authorities (LPAs) must endeavour to meet means that environmental priorities are often subjugated to economic or social needs. Thus, LPAs who are required to designate air quality management areas, or to control new development in the vicinity of hazardous installations, will be particularly careful to avoid planning blight, while meeting their statutory obligations.

13. There are many who wish to implement a project with clear environmental benefits - a wind farm, or a waste to energy incinerator - who find seeking the plethora of necessary approvals and licences baffling, time-consuming, and obstructive. The Royal Commission should emphasise the advantages of developing a better collaborative system, which clarifies, or removes, the overlaps between land use planning and pollution control.

    New influences
    

14. The complexities of environmental regulation and environmental planning have not been reduced by recent constitutional and institutional change, throughout the UK. Local government reorganisation has been followed by devolution to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, and an increased role for the regional level of decision making in England (reflected by the creation of regional development agencies, and non-statutory regional chambers). These developments have not been accompanied by any greater efforts to ensure integration and co-ordination. This is an issue that the Royal Commission may wish to recognise and investigate.

    Future action
    

15. In its final report, the Royal commission may wish to consider the mechanisms for producing guidance on environmental planning issues; undertaking research on a variety of environmental planning questions; and improving the training of professionals working in this complex, and increasingly scientific, area. If you think that the Institute can be of any further assistance to the Royal Commission, at this stage, please do not hesitate to contact me.

    Top

    ---

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