Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

INTRODUCTION
Chapter Seven is the planning arm of The Land Is Ours, a voluntary organization which campaigns peacefully for access to the land, its resources and the decision-making processes affecting them, for everyone, irrespective of race, gender, or age.

Chapter Seven (formerly the Rural Planning Group of The Land Is Ours) has submitted evidence and responses to a number of Government consultation processes, including the 1995 Rural White Paper, PPG7, PPG3, PPG13, Opportunities for Change and the PIU report Rural Economies. Chapter Seven presented two papers to the sounding board of the forthcoming Rural White Paper. Our 1996 report Low Impact Development (supplied as supporting evidence to this submission) was the only NGO document cited in the bibliography of the Scottish NPPG 15 (equivalent of PPG7). Policies for low impact development are currently being considered by the Welsh Office and are part of the official brief for the Land Use Planning Forum which is currently reporting to Sue Essex, the Welsh Secretary for Planning Environment and Transport.

Our submission relates to land use planning in rural England, particularly as regards the open countryside and the land-based activities pursued there, such as agriculture and forestry.

The main argument of our submission is centred around question 1(a) of the briefing for submissions, which is tackled in two parts. The third part of our submission consists of shorter responses to other questions. The main recommendations for change are listed below against the questions to which they refer. An outline is provided on page 2.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE
1a.     The planning system should develop robust criteria for the assessment of sustainability and environmental impacts; these impact criteria should be incorporated into development plans and conformity with these criteria should be weighted against conformity with land settlement pattern policies.

1a.     Consideration should be given to the introduction of a Sustainable Rural Use Class which provided exceptional opportunities for development in rural areas to projects conforming to sustainable criteria outlined in local plans.

2c.     All aspects of sustainability - environmental, social and economic - should be brought within the remit of a single planning system, so that a balanced and comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of any project can be made.

2e.     Agricultural activities and developments should be subject to the same kind of environmental criteria and restraints that apply to other forms of development.

4f.     The appeals system should be kept as it is, except that there should be a third party right of appeal for local and environmental groups opposed to large scale developments which significantly affect a town centre or neighbourhood.

OUTLINE
Part A     Has the pursuit of sustainable development as the broad objective of policy had favourable or unfavourable consequences for the protection of the environment?

I.     PPG7, whilst encouraging sustainable development in the countryside, does not provide detailed guidance as to how this can be achieved and secured.
II     The emphasis given to concentrating development in existing settlements has created a policy vacuum which does not encourage sustainable developments in the countryside.
III     In some respects, and for certain kinds of development, a rural location may be more sustainable than an urban or peri-urban location.
IV     Exemplary and pilot projects for rural sustainability are being stifled at the planning stage.
V     A failure to adopt a strategic sustainable approach to the current agricultural crisis is likely to lead to a proliferation of activities in the countryside with potentially high environmental impact.

VI     A shift to a more criteria based approach.
VII     Consideration to be given to the introduction of a Sustainable Rural Use Class.

1b     Balancing environmental and other imperatives.
1c     Regulatory approaches
1d     The plan led system.
1f     Cumulative impacts.
1h     Long term risks; climate change.
2c     Policy targets in other areas.
2e     Planning controls over forestry and agriculture.
3h     Betterment tax.
4f     Third party right to appeal.
4g     Environmental courts.

I.     PPG7, whilst encouraging sustainable development in the countryside, does not provide detailed guidance as to how this can be achieved and secured.
Planning Policy Guidance 7 on the countryside states at its outset (para 1.3) that "sustainable development is the cornerstone of both the Government's rural policies and its planning policies." It goes on to outline four broad objectives for sustainability:

• meeting the economic and social needs of people;
• maintaining or enhancing the countryside and conserving natural resources;
• improving the viability of villages and market towns and reducing car commuting;
• recognizing the interdependence of urban and rural policies.

Indeed PPG7 explicitly delegates the responsibility for such detailed policies to local authorities. Referring to the sustainable objectives cited above, paragraph 1.5 states "It is for local authorities through their development plans to determine more specific policies that integrate these objectives in ways which reflect the different types of countryside and the economic and social circumstances found in their area."

This delegation of responsibility would be helpful if (a) local authorities were allowed a degree of autonomy in deciding what policies were applicable for their area; and/or (b) there were detailed guidance on sustainable development in the open countryside elsewhere.

However neither of these conditions presently obtain.

As regards (a) development plan policies relating to sustainable developments in rural areas are liable to be thrown out at draft stage by Regional Government . The most salient example of this was the elimination of Policy H1O of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan as a result of objections from the Government Office of the South West. ^[1]

As regards (b), further guidance on rural sustainability is given in the DETR publication Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice (1998). However, in respect of the open countryside, this guidance is limited and unconstructive. This matter is discussed in detail in Section II below.

II     The emphasis given to concentrating development in existing settlements has created a policy vacuum which does not encourage sustainable developments in the countryside.
The main, if not the only, confident and detailed application of sustainable principles to rural development relates to the need to focus development on existing settlements, in order to restrain car traffic and prevent undue or cumulative impact of development upon the landscape of the open countryside. The logic behind these policies is laid out in the 1994 version of PPG 13 and in PPG 7 and all other guidance relating to rural development reflects this approach.

Chapter 7 fully supports this approach in ensuring that development appropriate for urban or village locations does not spread into the countryside, and in preventing an increase in commuter traffic. Our concern is that in their enthusiasm for this approach, policy-makers have failed to draw up adequate sustainable guidelines for the minority of developments that are appropriate for the open countryside. This is a serious omission, for although these constitute a minority of all proposed developments and planning applications, they nevertheless involve the greater part of the land-mass, in the region of 80 per cent. Moreover the primary industry in these areas, agriculture, is presently in a state of crisis - a situation which requires a proactive sustainable response.

This policy vacuum can be seen in Chapter 4 of Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards Better Practice. Here local authorities are advised to:

(a)   focus new development on the most accessible rural centres;
(b)   concentrate lesser amounts of development on smaller villages;
(c)   strictly control development in smaller settlements and the open countryside.

As regards their type, Towards Better Practice provides no list or guidelines indicating what developments might be appropriate in these areas. In the 28 pages of chapter 4, the only forms of development which are, en passant, identified as possibly being appropriate for the open countryside are:

(a)   On farm diversification;
(b)   Reuse of existing buildings for employment use;
(c)   Recreational and tourist developments.

As regards the "strict control" of any developments which might be appropriate to the countryside, the advice given in Towards Better Practice is sparse. The document does cover the matter of landscape protection in some detail, and also refers to local distinctiveness, tree cover and soil conservation. But a large number of matters relevant to both local and global environmental impacts are barely mentioned, including: wildlife corridors and biodiversity, sustainable agricultural methods, water conservation and management, sewage and grey water recycling, autonomous utility provision, energy conservation, renewable energy production, carbon emissions, waste minimization and management, limits on car use and the provision of alternatives, use of imported inputs, efficient use of natural resources in relation to the UK's global ecological footprint, contact with nature and so on. (Certain of these matters may be viewed by some people as not related to land use, and hence not relevant to planning, a matter which is addressed in Part C below).

The result of this absence of policy is that most developments proposed for the open countryside are assessed only on a limited number of criteria, primarily the need for the development, its landscape impact and conformity to settlement patterns. An analysis of planning decisions for developments in the countryside would undoubtedly demonstrate that these are overwhelmingly the main reasons given for refusal. Only in a handful of cases has planning consent been given explicitly because other factors militating in favour of sustainable development were deemed to outweigh these development plan policies. ^[3]

III     In some respects, and for certain kinds of development, a rural location may be more sustainable than a peri-urban location.
The implications of the priority given to settlement pattern considerations, and (to a lesser extent) landscape impact issues as opposed to other sustainable issues is a matter of concern. In many respects rural locations have the potential to be more environmentally sustainable than urban locations, because of the ready access to renewable natural resources. The only areas where urban developments are at a clear advantage are car transport and landscape impact.; and as regards the latter, potential for enhancement is arguably greater in the countryside.

The table below lists a number of environmental issues and assesses whether a sustainable approach to each of these problems can be more easily achieved in a built up area or the open countryside. The preferable location is marked by an asterisk. Where this cannot be determined, we have put a question mark.

There is no claim that the above exercise is objective or scientifically proven, nor is any weighting attached to the different issues. We claim only that the placement of the asterisks indicating preferable location is entirely reasonable. Some people would agree with this assessment, while others would not.

Take for example two hypothetical people, Mr Urbs and Mr. Rus, both concerned to live sustainably.

Mr Urbs is an office worker who likes to visit cinemas and restaurants frequently; he is content to live without a car, provided there is good public transport; he wants his family to be able to enjoy all available modern comforts at the flick of a switch in a house designed to the highest standards of energy efficiency; he and his family like to visit the countryside at weekends and on holidays. Mr. Urbs would undoubtedly choose an city or suburban location.

Mr Rus on the other hand prefers outside practical work; he is capable of building his own house and wants to provide a proportion of his own food and other items so that he can reduce his family's consumption of non-renewable, over-packaged and unnecessarily imported resources to a minimum; he would like to contribute in a small way to the enhancement of the natural environment by planting trees and creating natural habitat; and he would be prepared, under reasonable circumstances, to put up with the inconvenience of not having daily access to a car. Mr. Rus would be highly likely to conclude that a countryside location provided a better opportunity for his chosen sustainable lifestyle.

A total environmental audit of these two ways of life might well agree with the above table that Mr. Rus' rural existence appears to have less impact upon the local and global environment than Mr. Urbs' city lifestyle. Yet if both of them wished to buy or develop a property to suit their respective sustainable aims, Mr. Urbs would find that his ambitions were well catered for in the local plan, while Mr. Rus would find that planning policy was stacked against him. Even if Mr. Rus could find a property within the confines of a rural settlement that suited his needs, it is likely that this would prove to be unaffordable for his chosen lifestyle.

To phrase this in more general terms, current planning policy favours urban forms of sustainable development, based on dense settlement patterns with efficient use of imported resources, but militates against rural forms of sustainable development, based upon low intensity and low impact use of local renewable resources.

IV     Exemplary and pilot projects for rural sustainability are being stifled at the planning stage.
There are a number of implications for the rural environment of this policy orientation which we consider the Commission should address.

The major concern is that projects which consciously set out to achieve an exemplary degree of rural sustainability often find themselves at odds with planning guidance. This is particularly the case with projects where on site residence is an integral part of the project. This is significant because many projects which aspire to sustainability rely upon on-site residence, not least because this is in accordance with PPG13's objective of siting residences next to workplaces. ^[4]

The result is that many experimental or pilot projects for rural sustainability are aborted at the planning stage, while others are handicapped or drastically curtailed. ^[5] At a time when mainstream agriculture is in severe difficulties, and new models for sustainable rural development are urgently required, this constitutes a tragic waste of opportunity. Much of the farmland that is being fragmented and sold off in small bareland plots is being used for activities which from an environmental point of view are of dubious value, such as horsey-culture or recreational pursuits, while other sustainable activities such as small-scale or part-time farming, which often depend for their viability upon on-site residence, are actively discouraged. ^[6]

Moreover, in the experience of Chapter 7 which works extensively in this field, the chances of a small-scale sustainable holding acquiring planning permission are considerably higher if the occupant moves on to the land before applying for permission, than if permission is sought in advance. This is because planning authorities and inspectors are understandably reluctant to evict someone from their home. Permissions for such projects are frequently granted through a protracted process of enforcement appeal, which not infrequently reaches the High Court. This undermines the authority of the planning system; it reduces the opportunity for the local authority to negotiate for a first class development; and it means that it is the unofficial, daring, opportunist projects with low levels of investment which are more likely eventually to acquire planning permission, while more ambitious projects, dependent upon funding from investors who require the security of full planning permission, are less likely to get off the ground.

V     A failure to adopt a strategic sustainable approach to the current agricultural crisis is likely to lead to a proliferation of rural activities with potentially high environmental impact.
Lying behind these trends is the disturbing fact that there is no strategic planning approach to many of the problems created by the crisis of mainstream agriculture (even though this crisis has been progressive and predictable). Large amounts of land are coming onto the market. Some will be absorbed into larger farms, but much of it is coming onto the market divested of its agricultural buildings in small bareland plots. ^[6]

Moreover recent proposals, in response to the crisis, to make it easier to acquire planning permission for industrial use of agricultural buildings ^[7], if implemented, will exacerbate this trend: the value of such buildings for industry will be considerably higher than their value for agricultural use, while the land will no longer need to be retained for the use of the building. The result is likely to be that the land will be sold off in bareland plots. This land will still need to be managed: land management requires buildings, and the new owners of this land are likely to apply for permission for such buildings, resulting in a proliferation of new agricultural, or quasi-agricultural buildings in the countryside.

As present policy stands, this worrying scenario is likely to be played out within a planning context where the definition of sustainable rural land use is, to put it charitably, embryonic. There is a prospect of marginal land and agricultural buildings being redistributed to a variety of entrepreneurs with potentially transport-intensive projects ranging from horseyculture and motorcycle scramble tracks to industrial storage and office employment - while projects which propose more environmentally sound uses of the land founder, partly because they are uncompetitive with other uses, partly because of an exaggerated prejudice against rural residences, but ultimately because there is no coherent planning policy on sustainable rural land use.

PART B    
How Can These Unfavourable Consequences be Remedied?

VI     A shift to a more criteria based approach.
In its 1999 policy statement Planning for Quality of Life in Rural England, the Countryside Agency stated "we favour a greater use of criteria in planning policies to determine applications, complementing area based policies . . . Designating areas for development or countryside protection is often only a partial solution to planning problems. Designation for development usually does nothing to protect the character of a landscape; while designating areas for protection can lead to other needs going unmet."

Chapter 7 agrees with the Countryside Agency that a shift to a more criteria-based approach, whilst still maintaining area-based policies, would ensure more environmentally sound development.

Area based policies primarily relate to locational need. Some kinds of development are clearly suited to urban locations and some to edge-of-town or village locations and in general, many of these uses will be inappropriate for the open countryside. But there are a number of other uses which need to be sited in the countryside, or are appropriate there, including agriculture and forestry, agricultural diversification where it is linked to land use, part-time and small-scale land management, permaculture, affordable housing for rural workers, eco-hamlets and similar self-contained communities, tourism, educational facilities with a rural emphasis and so on. Because of the constraints upon development, and the resulting high prices for building land, some of these needs are unmet, particularly residential needs.

Criteria-based policies relate to environmental impact. Having established the appropriateness of a given use to a given location, criteria based policies can ensure that the development associated with that use has a benign effect upon the global and local environment, in all its aspects, or at least a minimal adverse impact. If criteria are sufficiently robust and properly enforced then no matter how great the demand, there should be no adverse environmental affect; if there is an adverse environmental effect, this would suggest that the criteria are not strong enough, or not well enough enforced.

At present in England, criteria relating to environmental impact are weak. This means that once a need for a development has been established, planning authorities have relatively little control over its environmental impact. This leads to a general perception that "development" destroys the rural environment; this in turn leads to demands to constrain development (particularly residential development) to very limited areas, resulting in a scarcity of building land, artificially high prices and a shortage of affordable rural accommodation.

If robust and comprehensive criteria for environmentally sound development in the countryside were applied to all developments deemed appropriate to be sited there , then development in the open countryside would have a minimal adverse impact upon the environment, and in many cases could have a benign impact (for example through tree and hedgerow planting, sound land management practices, sufficient non-commuting population to ensure viable public transport and services etc.) This in turn would allow area-based policies to be relaxed commensurately so as to provide more affordable opportunities for those who wished to live and work in the countryside. Alternatively, conformity to established and projected land settlement patterns could be regarded as one aspect of environmental sustainability to be weighed up in any given planning application, against all the others. Or, as we advocate in section VII, below, the process of rural regeneration could be implemented through the establishment of a new Sustainable Rural Use Class.

In 1998, the Rural Planning Group of The Land Is Ours proposed 15 criteria for sustainable developments in the countryside associated with land-based activities. Although these criteria have no statutory or policy standing they have been cited in at least a dozen applications and appeals; in one case they were produced in evidence at Appeal by a local authority opposing a development which they alleged did not meet all the criteria. ^[8] The frequency with which they have been cited, despite their lack of status, suggests that there is a need for them. These criteria are reproduced in Appendix A and copies of the document from which they are drawn, Defining Rural Sustainability, are also provided with this submission. ^[9]

We would also draw attention to the sustainable criteria drawn up by the consultancy Development Planning and Design Services for the redevelopment of Hatfield aerodrome, which are not dissimilar to those drawn up by the Rural Planning Group, even though they relate to a very different kind of development. ^[10]

We recommend that:
The planning system should develop robust criteria for the assessment of sustainability and environmental impacts; these impact criteria should be incorporated into development plans and conformity with these criteria should be weighted against conformity with land settlement pattern policies.

VII     Consideration should be given to the establishment of a sustainable rural use class.
The planning system does not at present provide great incentives for sustainable development. It acts as a driver for sustainability insofar as it prevents, constrains or confines development which might have undesirable impacts. This is a "stick" approach, and moreover it is a stick applied indiscriminately so that the message is not clear. For example, people who have no intention of owning or even driving a car are punished by land use policies designed to counter the effects of those who do drive cars; and people who live in dense areas designed to limit car use are nevertheless at liberty to own a car and drive it as much as they like.

The planning system could act as a much more powerful driver for sustainability by offering "carrots" to those who proposed sustainable developments . If land that was not normally designated for development were available for developments which conformed to stringent criteria (including restricions on car use), that in itself would provide an incentive; moreover, the cost of this land would be considerably lower than that of designated development land because of reduced demand, and this would provide a further incentive. The more stringent the criteria, the less the demand and the cheaper the land.

This is a significant driver for change that is entirely within the planning system's control and competence, yet which it totally fails to use to an advantage. At the moment land prices are polarized between agricultural land (at about £2000 per acre) and development land (about 100 times as much), with nothing very much in between. This cheap agricultural land provides no incentive for sustainable activity, since as far as the planning system is concerned, and provided the activity is agricultural, one can do almost anything one wants on it.

The best way of adapting the present situation to provide incentives for sustainable development might be to introduce a Sustainable Rural Use Class, available to developments which conformed to very strict criteria. Included within this category could be the sort of uses that are envisaged in the proposed Rural Business Use Class, as well as some kinds of affordable housing. The criteria for such developments and the sort of land allocated or eligible for them, could be defined in the local plan in accordance with national guidance. One might expect the price of such land to be between £4,000 per acre and £20,000 per acre, depending upon the location and the strictness of the criteria. It is hard to think of any incentive for sustainable development more effective than the prospect of cheap development land.

We recommend that:
Consideration should be given to the introduction of a Sustainable Rural Use Class which provided exceptional opportunities for development in rural areas to projects conforming to sustainable criteria outlined in local plans.

PART C
Responses to other questions in the brief.

1b     Can environmental objectives always be balanced against other issues or are there environmental imperatives? If so how are they, (or should they be) determined.
Environmental imperatives relate to the continued provision for future generations of global environmental resources. Social imperatives relate to the fair distribution of these resources. Economic imperatives relate to the efficient and productive use of these resources. There is no logical contradiction between any of these imperatives.

Conflicts that arise, which appear at first sight to be between environmental and economic imperatives, are frequently at root a conflict between long term and short term benefits. To take the most obvious example, a policy of high reliance upon fossil fuels may provide short term economic benefits, but is likely to be economically undesirable in the long term. Excessive depletion and pollution of natural capital is likely to be economically unsustainable in the long run to the same degree that it is environmentally unsustainable. For this reason we are extremely concerned at the use of GDP as an indicator of economic sustainability ^[11], since GDP represents short term economic benefits, rather than long term.

Confusion can also arise when short range environmental benefits conflict with long range ones. For example, the establishment of conifer plantation or the mining of aggregate in sensitive areas might be viewed as environmentally undesirable. However, if refusal to plant or mine involves the importation of equivalent quantities of timber or aggregates from elsewhere, this may involve greater environmental damage, not only because the distant source may be more destructively managed than the local site, but also because increased transport will add to the environmental costs. Ideally this could be assessed through environmental footprinting, but this is often too complex an exercise that it is impracticable to carry out accurately. For this reason (amongst others) we favour prioritizing the use of local materials which are easily accountable.

1c     What regulatory approaches are likely to be the most effective and practicable to protect the environment, in both measurable terms, eg. water, soil and air quality, and less tangible aspects, eg landscape and amenity.
As we outlined in the response to 1a, we would like to see greater emphasis on environmental and sustainable criteria in development plans and in dealing with planning applications.

At present, planning officers do not have the expertise to make assessments on all potential criteria. However, applications could be assessed by the planning authorities on the basis of reports from competent consulting bodies, much as agricultural viability, for example, is presently assessed by consultation with ADAS or land agents.

Assessment can also be carried out through certificating bodies, such as UKROFS (as regards organic agriculture), FSC (as regards forestry practice), or BREEAMS, (as regards sustainable building practice).

Making assessments on a wide number of criteria could involve a considerable work load. This could be bypassed by the existence of umbrella agencies which made comprehensive sustainability assessments, drawing on the expertise of specialist certificating bodies and consultants.

1d     Has the legislative change to a plan-led system given land-use planning the potential to become a more effective instrument for achieving environmental sustainability? Is any further change necessary, and if so, what?
As regards sustainable development in the countryside, the plan-led system will not be of assistance until there is a clearer mandate for plans to include policies which define and encourage such developments.

At the moment, sustainable rural developments which succeed in obtaining planning permission, usually do so, not because they conform to development plan policies, but because (in the words of Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act) "material considerations indicate otherwise." For example, in a recent appeal concerning a permaculture nursery and visitor centre in Devon, the Inspector stated:

"Although on strict agricultural grounds there is no justification for a dwelling on the holding . . . the appeals proposals are a combination of activities which fit in with the broader requirements of the Government's commitment on sustainable development . . . There seem to me to be substantial other considerations sufficient to override those policies of the development plan and national guidance which prohibit development in situations where there is no proven agricultural need, and make the overall scheme acceptable." ^[12]

Section 54a will only be of assistance to sustainable development in the countryside when there are clear policies in development plans defining and supporting such developments.

1f     Do current arrangements for environmental planning sufficiently take into account the cumulative impacts of development.
As far as most developments in the countryside are concerned, the answer is "no", since the environmental impacts are not considered in sufficient detail per se, let alone on a cumulative basis.

As far as sustainable rural developments are concerned, the cumulative effects should be assessed on the basis that: low impact developments will have a comparatively low cumulative effect; zero-impact developments will have zero cumulative effects; and beneficial impact developments will tend to have benign cumulative effects,though there may well be limits (for instance, in a denuded area where tree-planting was viewed as beneficial, there might be an optimum threshold of tree cover beyond which any further planting would be undesirable.)

1g     To what extent is effective environmental planning hindered by a lack of resources? Have the procedures become too complex for any institution to cope adequately?
We cannot answer this comprehensively, but are in favour of the use of consulting and certificating agencies (see our response to 1c, above).

1h     What are the implications of long-term risks, such as those posed by climate change or persistent waste, for environmental planning? Can planning systems become drivers for limiting the extent of damage from unavoidable climate change.
Since sustainability is, by definition, long term, then any assessment of sustainability will be considering long term risks. Please see the comments made on the conflict between long-term and short term interests in our response to 1b above.

The planning system can, clearly become a driver for limiting damage from climate change, for example by discouraging development in flood prone areas. However this is a sticking-plaster approach. It is far more important that the planning system should be a driver in preventing avoidable climate change.

2c     Should the land use planning system be responsible for helping to deliver policy targets in other areas?
One reason why planning guidance is weak in some areas of environmental impact management is that not all environmental impacts are viewed as coming under the remit of "land use planning". While matters such as settlement patterns and landscape impact are generally acknowledged to be land use matters under the remit of the planning system, the status of other concerns, such as waste management, pollution, or energy use is much more ambiguous.

This distinction between "land-use" and "non land-use" matters is artificial, confusing and unconstructive, and leads to many anomalies. For example, the disposal of waste upon land is regarded as a land use matter, while the generation of waste upon land is normally not. There is no logic to this distinction, and it is extremely unhelpful, given that minimization of waste production at source is at the top of the Government's waste hierarchy ^[13], whilst disposal is at the bottom. The planning system presently expends considerable effort regulating the disposal of waste, effort which could be more productively employed controlling its generation.

Moreover, sustainability is a material planning consideration, but the planning system is clearly incompetent to make a balanced assessment of the sustainability and environmental impact of a given development if it cannot weigh up all the relevant factors. At present, greater weight tends to be given to the "land-use" related aspects of a given development - in particular conformity to settlement patterns - than to other aspects such as sound land management, zero carbon emissions or waste minimization. As we have already pointed out, this leads to a situation where highly sustainable developments are refused permission because they do not conform to the land settlement patterns outlined in the local plan.

We recommend that:
All aspects of sustainability - environmental, social and economic - should be brought within the remit of a single planning system, so that a balanced and comprehensive assessment of the sustainability of any project can be made.

2e     Does the lack of control over certain other activities, such as forestry and agriculture, prejudice the achievement of environmental goals?
The present situation, where most forms of agricultural development are outside the control of the planning system, needs to be remedied. It is plainly absurd to have a land-use planning system which is powerless to adjudicate over what takes place on approximately 80 per cent of the land mass. If we want a sustainable agriculture and landscape, then farming and forestry should conform to the same kinds of criteria that apply to other activities and developments.

Moreover, in the face of the present agricultural crisis, the distinction between traditional agriculture/forestry and other forms of land management, such as permaculture or management for wildlife conservation or public recreation, is becoming increasingly meaningless.

We recommend that:
Agricultural activities and developments should be subject to the same kind of environmental criteria and restraints that apply to other forms of development.

3h     Is a betterment tax feasible and desirable? Might there be some way of linking the rate of tax to environmental impact?
The principle behind betterment tax is a sound one , but previous attempts to implement it have not been successful, and as the question suggests, hypothecation is difficult. A further problem is that placing an additional financial burden on greenfield development , besides having the desired effect of deterring undesirable development in the countryside, would also make the provision of rural affordable housing and sustainable developments in the countryside more expensive.

The present system whereby betterment can be recouped through planning gain is not an intrinsically unsound one. The main problem is that only in a minority of cases is the gain environmental (though the situation has improved considerably in the last few years.)

As far as sustainable rural development is concerned, the provision of a Sustainable Rural Use Class (or even policy moves in that direction) would contain its own built-in betterment tax embodied in the relatively low price at which land could be acquired for such developments, and this benefit would be channelled directly towards the sustainable project in question. It is hard to think of a more simple and direct way of channelling "the unearned profits of development" towards environmental objectives.

Incidentally, many of these "unearned profits" are currently directed in a similar manner towards subsidizing the farming industry; according to a DoE research report, many farms are dependent on the collateral inherent in the potential sale of their farm buildings at non-agricultural prices. ^[15]

4f     Does the present form of planning inquiry offer the best way of resolving disputes? Should it be extended to permit a third party right of appeal?
Chapter Seven, which tends to represent people who do not have large financial resources, is generally in favour of the appeal process as it stands, at least in relation to small-scale applications by individuals. In our view the appeals process is a good deal more flexible, comprehensible and accessible than law. It is considerably easier for an ordinary person with a low income to represent themselves in a planning appeal than in law courts.

The appeals system is less helpful to low income people and poorly funded people who are objecting to large scale developments which may have a profound effect upon their neighbourhood. Such individuals and groups often do not have the funds to pay for the expensive consultants employed by large scale developers. Moreover they are blocked by the lack of third party right of appeal. When large scale developers have the agreement of the local authority for a development which is locally unpopular, the lack of third party right of appeal is profoundly undemocratic, in conflict with current government policy concerning participation and opens the door to corrupt practices.

We recommend:
The appeals system should be kept as it is, except that there should be a third party right of appeal for local and environmental groups opposed to large scale developments which significantly affect a town centre or neighbourhood.

4g     Would environmental tribunals or courts enhance public confidence in the appeals process?
In our view, public confidence in the appeals process is greater than public confidence in the legal process; this confidence would be still greater if there were a third party right of appeal. A court system would be likely to entail greater costs for ordinary people and require the provision of legal aid.

We are also concerned that a move towards a legal system might result in a less flexible system. Planning is based upon guidance, not upon statute. In a recent Court of Appeal case, Lord Justice Sedley commented:

"But - and this is precisely the value of policy guidance as against statutory prescription - circumstances will vary infinitely and a margin of flexibility may be needed to accommodate them. So here an unexpected but undoubtedly genuine application . . . requires not a rigid application of criteria . . . but a practical adaption of those criteria to secure the underlying purpose of the policy."

^[1]    This policy stated that "Proposals for highly sustainable development in rural areas will be permitted where they comply with stringent criteria specified in the local plan." It therefore appeared to comply with the advice in PPG7 that "it is for local authorities, through their development plans to determine more specific ways" that sustainable objectives can be integrated. GOSW objected on the grounds that there was no strategic justification for the policy. There were no other significant objections demanding deletion of the policy, and CPRE supported the policy. Chapter 7 was involved in lobbying in support of this policy: in an off the record discussion with a senior official at GOSW we were told that there was no national guidance that would allow GOSW to support the policy: in an off the record discussion with a senior DETR minister we were told that it was up to Regional Government and the newly formed Regional Development Agencies to determine these kind of matters.

^[2]     Some of these uses are acknowledged as appropriate elsewhere in Government guidance (for example agricultural residences and high quality country houses in PPG7 and gypsy sites in Circular 1/94 , but there is nothing in this existing guidance explaining how such developments can be made sustainable.

^[3]     Examples include: Hockerton Housing Project, Newark and Sherwood DC, 1994; Avoncliffe Square, earth sheltered house, appeal ref: SW/p?5411/220/5 6 Feb 1995; Plants for a Future, appeal ref: T/APP/W1145/99/103645/P2 1 June 2000.

^[4]     Projects which can be classified as agricultural come under the heading of Annex I of PPG7, which advises that "normally it will be as convenient for [agricultural] workers to live in nearby towns or villages as it will be for them to live where they work." This advice appears to contradict that given in paras 3.5 and 3.6 of PPG13 which counsels that people should be enabled to "live where they work". Projects which do not classify as agricultural, but can only reasonably take place in the countryside, are assessed by general development plan policies which invariably discourage residence on a site in the countryside, even when the applicant can show that on-site residence will reduce commuting.

^[5]     Recent examples include: (i) Plants for a Future, a permaculture ecovillage project in Torridge DC, Devon, proposed by a a charity with an internationally respected track record, which was refused permission for a settlement of low impact dwellings on a site which had been acquired because there was extant outline permission for 28 holiday chalets; after two refused applications, the applicants were finally given permission on Appeal for a single temporary dwelling (see above ref 3). (ii) Brithdir Mawr, an application for change of use to a sustainable agriculturally based community for a farm in Pembrokeshire National Park; the application was withdrawn in the face of opposition from council who refused permission for buildings that would have been permitted agricultural development had there been no application for change of use; (iii) the Fiskerton project for 12 affordable highly energy-efficient starter homes sited next to the recently upgraded Fiskerton railway station in Notts. The houses were to be sold under terms which provided incentives for public transport use and deterrents for car use. The proposal was turned down at committee, on the grounds that it was "the right project in the wrong place" and refused at Appeal earlier this year.

^[6]     A comprehensive picture of the fragmentation of farmland, and (inadvertently) of the hostility which is felt in official circles towards those who are taking advantage of this market opportunity, is given in the DoE Research Programme Report Planning Control over Agricultural and Forestry Development and Rural Building Conversions, Land Use Consultants et al., HMSO 1995.

^[7]    Rural Economies: a Performance and Innovation Unit Report, Cabinet Office, HMSO 1999.

^[8]     Proof of Evidence. Mendip DC, Kings Hill appeal, ref: APP/Q3305/A/95/248044, second appeal hearing October 1999.

^[9]     Defining Rural Sustainability: 15 Criteria for Sustainable Developments in the Countryside together with Three Model Policies for Local Plans, The Rural Planning Group of The Land Is Ours, 1999.

^[10]    Welwyn Hatfield Council and St Albans City and District Council, Hatfield Aerodrome Sustainability Appraisal, available from Development Planning and Design Services, Swindon, 01793 610222; or see Planning magazine, 19 May 2000.

^[11]    Monitoring Progress (Indicators for the Strategy for Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom), DETR, 1999.

^[12]     Plants for a Future, op cit 3.

^[13]     Making Waste Work: the UK Strategy on Sustainable Waste Management, HMSO 1995.

^14.     Rural Economies, op cit 7.

^[15]    DoE op cit 6; p 161.

^[16]     Arthur Sidney Petter and Monica Mary Harris v Secretary of State and Chichester DC, 15 March 1999.

Fifteen criteria for developments associated with sustainable land-based rural activities

Reproduced from Defining Rural Sustainability The Rural Planning Group of The Land Is Ours, 1999

[1]   The project has a management plan which demonstrates:
[a] how the site will contribute significantly towards the occupiers' livelihoods;
[b] how the objectives cited in items 2 to 14 below will be achieved and maintained.

[2]   The project provides affordable access to land and/or housing to people in need.

[3]   The project provides public access to the countryside, including temporary access such as open-days and educational visits.

[4]   The project can demonstrate how it will be integrated into the local economy and community.

[5]   The project can demonstrate that no activities pursued on the site shall cause undue nuisance to neighbours or the public.

[6]   The project has prepared a strategy for the minimization of motor vehicle use.

[7]   The development and any buildings associated with it are appropriately sited in relation to local landscape, natural resources and settlement patterns.

[8]   New buildings and dwellings are not visually intrusive nor of a scale disproportionate to the site and the scale of the operation; and are constructed from materials with low embodied energy and environmental impact, and preferably from locally sourced materials, unless environmental considerations or the use of reclaimed materials determine otherwise. Reuse and conversion of existing buildings on the site is carried out as far as practicable in conformity with these criteria.

[9]   The project is reversible, insofar as new buildings can be easily dismantled and the land easily restored to its former condition.

[10]   The project plans to minimize the creation of waste and to reuse and recycle as much as possible on site.

[11]   The project has a strategy for energy conservation and the reduction, over time, of dependence on non-renewable energy sources to a practical minimum.

[12]   The project aims over time for the autonomous provision of water, energy and sewage disposal and where it is not already connected to the utilities, shall make no demands upon the existing infrastructure.

[13]   Agricultural, forestry and similar landbased activities are carried out according to sustainable principles. Preference will be given to projects which conform to registered organic standards, sustainable forestry standards or recognized permaculture principles.

[14]   The project has strategies and programmes for the ecological. management of the site, including :
[a] the sustainable management and improvement of soil structure;
[b] the conservation. and, where appropriate, the enhancement of semi-natural habitat, taking into account biodiversity, indigenous species, and wildlife corridors;
[c] the efficient use and reuse of water, as well as increasing the water holding capacity of the site;
[d] the planting of trees and hedges, particularly in areas where the tree coverage is less than 20 per cent.

[15]   The project can show that affordability and sustainability are secured, for example, by the involvement of a housing association, co-operative, trust or other social body whose continuing interest in the property will ensure control over subsequent changes of ownership and occupation.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study