Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Water UK represents the whole of the UK water industry - private companies in England and Wales, the Scottish Water Authorities and the Northern Ireland Water Service.

1. Introduction: how we plan for water
   Water is an essential resource - for the environment and for human health. It is a pre-requisite for development and for economic activity. Yet in the UK there is not one system which takes into account water issues when planning for these other human activities.

   Water planning is fragmented - it is partly the role of the Environment Agency (in Scotland, SEPA) and partly that of the water industry (both private companies and public authorities). Local planning authorities and agriculture, both of which have huge impacts on the water environment, are not formally part of the water planning process.

   The current system is characterised by:

   1. Water resource plans agreed for 20 years between the water industry and the Environment Agency. Population movements are plan led, and don't take account of the availability of resources to accommodate growth projections

   2. No long-term plans for waste water issues, this being a function of the companies' asset management plans and local environment agency plans

   3. No consistent planning over the longer term in terms of flood defence

   4. Confusion over different roles, different plans, and different tiers of planning, both for applicants and planning bodies themselves

   5. No real perception of what the public wants from an environmental planning system

      The UK's land use planning system has served the country well but increasingly we need to question whether it is appropriate to continue building on the system piecemeal to take into account new policy developments

2. What does an environmental planning system need to deliver?
   We suggest that a successful environmental planning system needs to deliver:
   1. Public confidence
      This is an essential pre-requisite. The public must be confident about the decisions made by professionals or elected representatives on their behalf. The system must deliver what is in the best interests of a sustainable society - we suggest that this is best described as "peace of mind".

   2. Consistency
      This is needed both geographically and between different sectors. It is essential in order to ensure confidence in the system.

   3. Transparency
      Explaining why decisions have been made and enabling participation in the decision making. Providing understandable and timely information to the public.

   4. Sustainability
      Traditionally, environmental planning and regulation has looked at specialist areas and solved problems on a scientific or social scientific basis. This approach has led to a system that is fragmented and does not deliver the most effective solutions. For example, the increasing standards for waste water treatment have major energy impacts.

      A more holistic approach is required, to reflect the international and national policy objectives of sustainable development.

      Environmental objectives are only met if society pays for them either by generating revenue or by making a decision to forgo something else. Environmental, economic and social factors all make up sustainable development. A planning system must acknowledge that humans are part of the environment too, and recognise sustainable development in the round.

      In order to deliver solutions, strong links between different policy areas are required. Land use, economic development and other environmental impacts are not separate and have far reaching effects on one another and other policy areas.

      Sustainability also needs to be seen against a changing baseline predictions and projections are constantly evolving as our knowledge of environmental systems increases. A flexible environmental planning framework is required which can adapt to the changing baseline and direct the efforts of all those with a responsibility for the water cycle.

3. Different tiers of planning to suit different purposes
   The relationships and responsibilities of national and local government, and the roles of the RDAs and those bodies with a regulatory and resource planning remit is confused.
   1. National Government should:
      1. provide a national framework, based on the national sustainable development strategy

      2. set a legal framework of standards and guidance on how these are to be met (for instance the implementation of UWWTD is not clearly set out as national policy, therefore there have been problems in implementing it locally)

      3. set out a clear framework for the role of statutory bodies in implementing policy and legislation - eg on the habitat directive the consenting body is LA, not EA, but the LA brings in EA, EN etc which leads to confusion

      4. designate a lead body with clear responsibility for each environmental issue. It may well be a different body for different types of issue, but a consistent approach and decision making is needed, both sectorally and regionally

      5. ensure that its "quality of life indicators" should set the scene for all national policy development and be reflected in regional and local, plans and policies

   2. Regional planning
      With a remit to promote and deliver sustainable development, RDAs are ideally placed to coordinate different activities. They could translate national policy and set out priorities in more detailed regional plans

      Whilst regional planning is growing in importance it is still land-use oriented. A more holistic approach is necessary to co-ordinate the different existing planning mechanisms

      There are questions too as to how the RDAs will operate - either by setting broad frameworks within which other bodies can develop their own plans or by setting out more detailed prescriptive plans for others to follow.

      Although we welcome the recently issued regional planning guidance, which is a major step forward, its concentration on land-use planning to deliver sustainable development is misplaced.

4. Local level planning
   It is extremely important to have democratic decisions. It is essential that environmental planning decisions, which may be difficult or controversial, have local support. But this needs to be balanced with the need to define parameters of local community involvement

   Local communities also need to feel that procedures are worthwhile and have confidence in the whole system. Currently members of the public are often disillusioned with processes and how issues are taken on board or discounted as procedural points

   It must be recognised that many actions and decisions do have to be taken at a strategic level and there may be little scope for local decision making. Subsidiarity must be the overriding principle - whilst decisions should be local wherever possible, local decision making should not stand in the way of broader regional and national policy objectives. Perhaps the true test of a healthy and vibrant democracy is the extent to which citizens can accept that decisions at national and regional level are made in their best interests

   Where national legislation applies, there should not be further local debate on the principles -this should be restricted to getting the best out of the situation. For example, the delivery of the water industry's investment programme is very much dependent on local planning considerations. It is agreed nationally, by Government and regulators in order to meet international standards - it's therefore essential that the programme is not held up by local considerations. Providing guidance/direction to planning authorities to explain the wider context would be helpful

   Policy, and the need for a particular policy needs to debated at the beginning of the process rather than having set-piece consultations towards the end of the design process. If policy development is open, transparent and inclusive, then the decisions stemming from the pursuit of a policy are relatively easy

   Community participation is also about education and information provision. Changing customer behaviour, for example, in the use of water, may mean less need for capital schemes in the future and therefore less conflict. But paradoxically it only seems possible to engage the public when there is conflict. It seems to be much more difficult to mobilise the public to make lifestyle changes than to rise up against individual developments.

5. How should decisions be balanced between local and national needs?
   A planning system must address and identify long-term priorities. Many tools are available for balancing priorities but there is a need for a clear national direction. Further work is required on the development, use and acceptance of consistent evaluation methodologies for the benefit of all

   Those involved in environmental planning, including NG0s. UK standards for Strategic Environmental Assessment, EIA, economic valuation of environmental costs and benefits, life cycle assessment and any other relevant technique should be established.

   In the Netherlands an independent EIA agency carries out this work, however we discount the principle of making one all embracing body to lead the environmental planning process. Currently the planning profession, perhaps by default, has become the centre of all environmental planning. It is increasingly trying to deal with more and more issues - but planners often don't have the training or expertise to do so.

6. Other issues for the RCEP to consider
   1. What will sustainable communities look like and how do we get there?
      1. The traditional approach to environmental problems has been to identify and implement engineering solutions. This is increasingly inappropriate -environmental problems are complex and dealing with one aspect in isolation tends to have greater adverse impacts elsewhere. We need to take a joined-up approach to our evaluation of problems, recognising that professional knowledge systems prejudge the problem and bring with them preconceived technical solutions.

      2. Need to hold visioning exercises with different agencies to determine the types of systems we wish to see in the future. Only when we have a shared vision, will we be able to plan for it.

         Einstein: "problems are never solved by those who created them". Need to think more widely.

      3. For example water systems of the future could be characterised by: greater use of natural drainage, extra water holding areas such as wetlands and reed beds, better catchment protection, increased recycling and re-use at industrial and domestic level, and a responsible attitude to the use of water treated to the highest standards.

   2. The application of EU directives into UK law
      The role of Europe, and in particular the efforts of DGXI is the key to the development of an integrated environmental planning system. We need to consider the most effective way of implementing legislation and cascading standards and guidance down to local levels.

      The UK is unique in applying environmental law. Directives have been tagged on to existing laws and implemented by existing systems. Land-use planning is a separate discipline, set up to deliver a particular set of objectives - there is a danger that different regulatory requirements are being shoe-homed into an inappropriate system. Land use planning is becoming a melting pot of different issues, some of which are not being dealt with effectively as the system was not designed to cope with them.

   3. Training for effective environmental planning
      Currently planners often don't have a view of the wider environmental picture and, sometimes seem unaware of the basic principles of water supply, use and treatment. A change in emphasis from land use planning to resource planning would allow the development of professionals with a wide view of environment, leading to a more effective and integrated system.

   4. Regulatory systems
      The water industry is regulated by three separate regulators and the regulatory system perpetuates current patterns of investment. Economic regulation by Ofwat doesn't encourage flexible long-term approaches. Only a five-year planning horizon is possible with certainty.

      Our environment regulator, the EA acts as a regulator of current activities rather than a planner for the long term. For instance, its role in "augmenting resources" is not clear even though it has a legal obligation to plan for this. There may be a case for an additional body, linking with EN and MAFF to plan for new water resources rather than regulate them.

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