Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Introduction
1.       The Country Landowners Association (CLA) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Royal Commission's invitation to submit evidence on environmental planning.

2.       The CLA represents the interests of 50,000 landowners in rural England and Wales, who between them own 5 million hectares of land. Many of our members manage rural businesses including agriculture, forestry and tourism and many other forms of commercial activity. As people who live and work in rural areas, the CLA's members have a keen and direct interest in the continued prosperity of rural areas. The current debate on environmental planning potentially has important repercussions on rural communities and the rural economy therefore our interest in this study needs little amplification.

The Planning System
3.       Our experience is that local authorities place greater weight on environmental protection than on social and economic issues. This view was confirmed by the findings of an RDC research study published in 1999 and a recent survey carried out by the CLA (a copy of the findings is attached). We believe that achieving sustainable development requires a balance of these three issues, as advocated in PPG7 ("The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development"). There will be cases where economic and social needs take priority over environmental issues. In such cases there may well be an impact on the environment, but it may be judged as acceptable. All development involves an element of change and it is the role of the planning system to assess the negative environmental impacts and minimise them as far as possible, in the context of sustainable development: meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

4.       The role of rural areas in supplying the raw materials essential to the wealth of modern Britain should not be ignored. Extractive industries - including coal, onshore oil and gas, minerals and aggregates - collectively employ large numbers of rural workers and return significant sums to local economies. The continued prosperity of these industries faces major planning hurdles. Public concerns over (often short term) impacts on immediate neighbours should properly be distinguished by Government from other objections to large-scale proposals for permanent urbanisation of the countryside. The positive role that extractive industries perform in creating new wildlife habitats and recreational opportunities, and restoring and improving land, also needs to be better recognised. Minerals can only be worked where they exist. Recycling, while valuable, can never provide the whole answer. Unless large scale imports (and their attendant additional costs and transport impact) are substituted, the countryside will continue to be important in producing minerals.

5.       We are also concerned that local planning authorities take far too narrow a view of what constitutes "appropriate development" in rural areas. Our experience confirms that this tends to be limited to "essential agricultural development" only, with "essential agricultural development" itself being interpreted too narrowly, ignoring modern agricultural requirements. Declining employment in traditional industries, including agriculture, relatively low rates of pay, and hidden unemployment in rural areas, mean that rural economies must be diversified. Planning policies must reflect a strong presumption in favour of reuse of agricultural buildings for both new businesses and homes. To achieve this there has to be some restraint on inappropriate additional environmental protection policies that militate against such re-use. Such policy changes will serve not just to maintain and enhance jobs and services for the excluded in rural areas but also will help provide the means for land managers to maintain and conserve the environment.

6.       We strongly agree that there is a need for adequate affordable houses, jobs and services in order to ensure sustainable rural communities. It is vital that the planning system plays a positive and, as far as possible, an enabling role to achieve this.

Planning policy guidance notes
7.       We consider that PPG 7 should be revised at the earliest opportunity to provide stronger guidance to local authorities on the need for economic activity in rural areas. It should expand upon its current guidance on diversification and rural development to encourage appropriate schemes to be carried out.

8.       A review of planning guidance to encourage rural economic development is necessary - but should not be confined to PPG7. It is important that all PPGs are consistent and do not provide guidance that undermines each other. PPG4 ("Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms") and PPG13 ("Transport") are particularly important. Indeed, a consultation on PPG13 has just been completed. Unfortunately, in its current form this revised guidance could undermine any attempt to achieve rural development and diversification. The published guidance must take rural needs into account or the current problems will only be exacerbated.

9.       The conflict between PPG 13 and PPG 7 is particularly important. Local authority interpretation of PPG 13 can lead to the use of urban accessibility criteria being used to judge rural development proposals. This approach fails to take account the specific issues that arise in rural areas , such as, the use of a car being a necessity, the lack of public transport and the number of people who do not have access to a car. In our experience, planning authorities have a genuine problem reconciling these two pieces of guidance. It is important that national guidance gives a clear steer on how policies must reflect rural accessibility issues.

10.       We have long argued that changes to the planning system are required to allow for economic diversification. To that end we supported the introduction of the proposed Rural Business Use Class, but this proposal was dropped in 1997. In our experience, a significant problem occurs in gaining planning consent for starting up commercial businesses in rural areas. We believe that in many cases it is the local authority's fear of future intensification of use (e.g. more employees and traffic) and its lack of control over such changes that leads to resistance to projects starting.

Definition of agriculture
11.       We further consider that the definition of agriculture as given in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 should be revised to take account of modern farming. This definition has hardly changed over the last 50 years. The definition should recognise the characteristics of many modern farm businesses - e.g. contracting and food processing.

Reducing planning restrictions on the use of agricultural land
12.       The CLA believes that there may be scope to bring existing farm buildings into the B1 use class, and that new buildings on farms should be subject to full planning control, subject to appropriate policies to ensure that the needs of agriculture are met. This recommendation reflects the attrition of permitted development rights in recent years with the introduction of prior notification procedures for certain developments including new buildings. Against this background, it is a relatively small step to bring such buildings under full planning control (but with the ability to change uses within the B1 use class).

13.       If such a change is pursued, planning guidance must also be reviewed to stress the need for proper consideration by local authorities of the need for agricultural buildings. If such guidance is not provided we foresee that many planning authorities will seek to resist new buildings for agriculture simply because of their rural location. This must be tackled by a strong presumption in favour of buildings necessary for the continued development of agriculture, especially where such buildings are required to comply with animal welfare or crop security. The concern that proposals for new agricultural buildings may be a front for commercial development in the countryside should be addressed by use of conditions rather than refusal. In addition, if agricultural buildings were classed as B1 within the Use Classes Order then it would only be necessary to bring agricultural buildings within full planning control (Part 6 Class A (a)). There is no reason why any excavation or engineering operation (Class A(b)) should not remain as permitted development subject to existing criteria and procedures. The current permitted development provisions should remain.

14.       If such a proposal is not pursued, we would support a review of the criteria in paragraph 3.14 of PPG7 to offer a positive enabling framework to achieve conversion of farm buildings to commercial and other purposes. On this point we point out that there should be no reason for such buildings having to be "redundant". This term suggests that a building is no longer useful for purposes of agriculture. Many buildings could still be capable of agricultural use but the particular circumstances of a farm or area mean diversification is an appropriate way forward. Indeed the term "redundancy" was removed from PPG7 in the 1992 revision and from PPG2 (Green Belts) in the 1995 edition, as a requirement in considering proposals for conversion.

Improving regional planning guidance (RPG)
15.       We support the suggestions for treatment of rural areas within RPG. Our experience to date suggests that the new tranche of draft RPGs have failed adequately to achieve this.

Reducing planning restrictions on the use of agricultural land
16.       We can understand the argument to remove current protection for the "Best and Most Versatile" (BMV) land. Indeed similar arguments could be made regarding Green Belts where a presumption against development leads to increased development pressure on more environmentally sensitive land. We also believe that the removal of protection for BMV land would not open up large amounts of countryside to development, as normal planning considerations and current policies will still apply. However, this is a sensitive issue. We must be mindful of the scarcity and finite character of high-quality agricultural land, the threats to it from the effects of global warming, and the demands on it from a (globally) growing population. On balance, however, we believe that while it is important to provide adequate protection for the best agricultural land as a finite resource, this should not amount to policy of blanket restriction.

17.       We therefore recommend that the concept of BMV land is retained as a planning consideration but that new guidance is issued to ensure local plan policies balance land quality and environmental quality when allocating land for development. The value and versatility of agricultural land can be influenced by factors other than its assessed quality within the Agricultural Land Classification System, which in any case is by no means an unchallenged system. The blanket restriction and policy to protect should be replaced with a requirement for local plan policies to consider BMV land amongst other planning considerations. This will enable the most sustainable solution to be identified for development and provide the opportunity for land managers to diversify where the only available land falls into the BMV category.

18.       It is important to recognise the majority of land in the UK falls below the BMV threshold, and stills supports a large number of viable agricultural businesses with an important part to play in the rural economy.

Planning frameworks to protect the environment
19.       We consider that existing planning frameworks are adequate for protecting the environment and that no new designations should be introduced. The 1995 Environment Act recognises the needs of people living and working in environmentally sensitive areas such as National Parks. Planning policies must ensure that people in these and other designated areas are able to have access to jobs and services, which may involve development, to meet their needs.

20.       We are strongly opposed to the creation of any further set of designated areas of "High Environmental Value" (HEV), going beyond existing statutory designations. In practice, there is a real risk that some local authorities would simply identify all land not covered by statutory designations as "HEV" land (in the same way that designations such as "Areas of Great Landscape Value" (AGLVs) are widely used). The focus should be on encouraging full consideration of environmental issues in the planning process, not on establishing further arbitrary local environmental designations.

21.       We recommend that a full-scale review of all statutory and non-statutory designations is carried out to ensure that the balance struck in such areas pays sufficient account to the principles of sustainable development. In addition, this would give the Government the opportunity to review and abolish wherever possible the plethora of local (non statutory designations) that can unduly restrict otherwise acceptable and essential sustainable development.

Bringing all agricultural development within planning control
22.       We consider that there is no need to remove all permitted development rights, and that a blanket removal of rights other than for new buildings would have potentially serious consequences for sustainable agriculture. Such rights can include the provision of farm reservoirs: if brought within full planning control, the delays and extra costs could make such projects unviable with serious implications for farm businesses. There is an added complication in that many forms of activity in the countryside, including environmental management (such as excavations involved in cleaning out old ponds) may conceivably fall within planning control and its attendant costs and delays without appropriate permitted development rights. This would be contrary to the Government's own "Better Regulation" principles. The provision of permitted development rights for small scale activities is widespread in the domestic and business sectors, and accordingly it seems unreasonable to single out agriculture by removing the permitted development rights that currently apply.

23.       The CLA would object to the removal of the exemption under 5.55 (2) (e) of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act. If pursued this proposal could seriously affect a farmer's ability to manage his land effectively e.g. crop rotation. It would subject agricultural activity to unnecessary delays and costs each time a farmer considers a change to his agricultural practice/management. Therefore, we recommend that the planning exemption for farm management practices is retained.

Cost and Benefits of Planning Approval
24.       We acknowledge that the issue of planning gain is often perceived to be opaque. However, we recognise the role for mechanisms to ensure rural areas do not suffer due to a development e.g. highway improvements for large scale industrial development, or provision of school facilities in relation to large residential developments.

25.       The issue of replacing planning gain with offsetting and impact fees mechanisms may merit further study. We agree with current guidance that any such requirements must be local, in scale and appropriate to the development. For most small-scale rural development this may be no greater than most current local plan policies e.g. replacing barn owl nesting sites.

26.       The issue of impact fees is more controversial. There are significant problems in assessing the impacts of development, and little agreement on the appropriate methodology amongst academics or practitioners. Accordingly, we see little justification for replacing the existing framework or planning agreements with a new untested methodology. In any case we consider that, if introduced, such fees must be proportionate to the development proposed. Regulations should be transparent to avoid bringing the planning system into disrepute and there are significant concerns that impact fees may be seen as the selling of planning permissions. Similarly there must be guarantees that any revenue generated is actually used for mitigating the impacts of the development and not fed into local authority budgets as a form of windfall tax.

Housing
27.       We recognise the need for affordable housing in rural areas and support the report's identification of the issues which need to be tackled (e.g. the failure of planning gain and exceptions policies in this area). Innovative mechanisms need to be considered. Consideration also needs to be given to the importance of providing adequate housing in urban areas to reduce the premium on sites in the countryside. Financial issues must also be tackled - including the implications of previous decisions such as transferring funds to housing benefit rather than the building of new houses. It will also be important to consider local needs for housing and provide an adequate mix of houses of different sizes and forms of tenure. We plan to undertake further policy development work in this area.

June 2000

AIMS OF THE SURVEY
There has been much activity recently in the issue of rural planning and whether the system is operating effectively to provide necessary development in rural areas. Recent work includes research by Rural Development Commission in 1999, Rural White Paper discussion document, farming summit, and the report on rural economics by the Performance and Innovation Unit. All these papers and statements have identified planning policies as an obstacle to development in rural areas. In order to address these concerns the Government is looking for evidence of problems and a practical way to resolve them. It is hope that such details will move away from anecdotal evidence often cited in comments.

As part of our response to the above papers, we also identified the interpretation of planning guidance as an obstacle to obtaining planning permission for commercial development in rural areas. This opinion is reinforced by comments from Regional offices and inquiries received as part of the CLA advisory service. However, we have no supporting facts or figures on these issues, this can leave us open to challenge from the Government and other organisations. Therefore, there was a need for the CLA to obtain up to date details of whether the problems exist and the scale of such problems.

There does appear to be data available on the number of applications approved in rural areas. It is uncertain if this figure, which is often quoted as a high percentage, covers all applications and whether the percentage adequately reflects commercial developments. Notwithstanding, this point we believe there is a gap in the analysis. This gap relates to the number of proposed schemes that are not pursued to application stage as a result of advice given by local planning authorities. This study seeks to provide an insight into this issue. Therefore, the fundamental aim of this study is to assess whether a problem exists, the scale of the problem and any reasons for it.

METHODOLOGY
Due to the short timescale involved, in order to assess results and provide information that could feed into Government reviews, it was not possible to survey the whole of the CLA membership. It was decided to survey a section of the membership using the branch committee structure. This allows for a cross-section of businesses, farm types and locations to be studied.

All members in the survey were issued a questionnaire to find those members who had considered schemes, within the last 3 years, what advice they received and if the proposal was pursued. The 3 year period was chosen to comply with the last revision of PPG 7, "The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development", issued in February 1997. The full questionnaire is given in appendix 1. Respondents were also asked to add information on the content of advice and reasons for any decisions made. The nature of the responses also allows us to make comments on other aspects such decisions on proposals, which are pursued to application.

210 responses were obtained from the 1200 questionaires sent out. 31 respondents had not considered any proposals in the last 3 years, this left a sample for analysis of 179 proposals. Of the 179 responses 89% had approached the local planning authority for advice prior to submission of a planning application. It is this section of the survey which is of interest in this study. This approach involved either discussion with a planning officer, an assessment of the relevant development plans or in some cases both. The type of proposals covers a range of developments from a farm shop, light industrial units, processing of agricultural products (see appendix 1). Table 1 shows details of the respondents attitude to the advice they received.

Table 1:     Did the advice given by the local authority encourage you to pursue the proposal to Application

WHERE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ADVICE DID NOT ENCOURAGE YOU TO PURSUE A PROPOSAL WHAT ACTION WAS TAKEN?
The key issue of the survey was to find out how many proposals were not pursued to application due to local authority advice and the reasons why. The main sample for this particular aspect of the study was the respondents who did not receive encouragement to submit an application. 85 respondents, 52% of the sample fell into this category. Table 2 shows the breakdown of the actions taken by respondents in this group.

Table 2: What action was taken by those who were not encouraged to pursue an application?

As the results show over half the sample surveyed did not pursue a proposal to application stage due to the advice received . This high percentage does indicate that problems may exist in the interpretation of national guidance and recent ministerial statements at a local level. In order to consider this issue further it is important not to look solely at headline percentages but to consider the reasons behind this advice.

WHAT REASONS WERE GIVEN, BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES FOR NOT ENCOURAGING A PROPOSAL?
Analysis of the survey responses indicates that a range of reasons was cited by local planning authorities for not supporting a proposal. Some of these related to various site specific issues e.g. design and amenity of adjoining occupiers. However, a pattern did emerge showing a number of common concerns. Table 3 shows these issues.

Table 3: Advice given by local authorities

(i)       Inappropriate Development.
The term inappropriate, in this survey, does not relate to site specific problems arising from a proposal e.g. landscape impact or highway issues, the term refers to a presumption against certain uses and activities being located in a rural area. The results of the survey confirm confirms the CLA's view that local planning authorities take a rather narrow view of what constitutes appropriate development. In our opinion this tends to be restricted to essential agricultural development and not fully reflect the tone and substance of the guidance given in PPG 7. The results of our analysis have similarities with the RDC study into development plan policies in 1998 that also identified an over restrictive stance by local authorities when considering what is 'appropriate' development in a rural area.

(ii)      Highway issues.
Many of the highway requirements related to improvements that were out of scale with the development e.g. when considering access improvements highway authorities rigidly adhered to set standards with no consideration given to the usage on the road. Similar concerns were raised in relation to the improvements to general road network. There was also a reluctance to take into account existing usage. A number of responses pointed out that when a proposal was made to replace an agricultural use the traffic/highway assessment considered the traffic movements of the proposal in isolation and failed to consider the existing traffic generated by the agricultural activity.

Another aspect that has been raised is the relationship between positive guidance of PPG 7 with that contained within PPG 13. One aspect being that development in rural areas is seen as not meeting the sustainable development criteria of the latter leading to a presumption against such development based on transport issues. Responses seem to reflect the imposition of urban based accessibility criteria in rural areas.

(iii)      Policy Interpretation
From the responses it became apparent that most authorities had policies which on face value were in line with national guidance and encouraged diversification, but on closer inspection were subject to restrictive criteria or were outweighed by other policies e.g. conservation or highway issues. This detailed criteria can often be so restrictive so as to make such schemes non-viable. For example re-use of existing buildings which are subject to tight controls on new build or highway improvements that can run into thousands of pounds. When considering proposals put to them it was felt that greater weight was placed on either this criteria or other policies. The responses indicate that a balance of the relevant components of sustainable development is not being achieved i.e. economic, social, enviornmental and natural resource issues.

A particular concern that emerged from the study was the response by a number of respondents that local authorities would rather let buildings fall down than consider a re-use. In our opinion such a stance is contrary to national planning guidance and the objective of achieving sustainable development e.g. PPG 7 currently recognises the positive role that can be played by re-using agricultural buildings.

WHAT ACTION WAS TAKEN WHEN ADVICE GIVEN BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY ENCOURAGED A PROPOSAL?
Not surprisingly over 90% of respondents receiving positive encouragement for their proposal submitted a planning application. 60% of these applications were approved. It is important to note that this is significantly less than the 80 -90 % cited by other organisations and the 1995 DETR study into similar applications. Table 4 shows the complete breakdown.

Table 4: What action was taken by those who were encouraged to make an application?

The 9% who made no application, the main reasons being related to further financial assessments and risk associated with the proposals.

There is a particular concern that as high a figure as 18 % was subsequently refused planning permission. Site specific issues were raised e.g. issues of design and traffic that arose during the consultation period. However, one major problem that was identified, which is difficult to address, is that officer recommendations were overturned by committees and senior officers.

ANALYSIS OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS MADE
It is interesting to assess the outcome of planning applications made to offer a comparison to the much cited figure of 80 - 90% approvals, in rural areas. 108 applications were made by respondents who had obtained pre application advice from the local planning authority. Table 5 shows the results.

Table 5 Analysis of applications made where advice was obtained before submission.

The reasons given for the refusal of consent seem to mirror those given for not pursuing a planning application (see Table 2). However, analysis of those that were granted planning permission also indicate some areas of concern such as onerous conditions and planning obligations, highway requirements, interpretation of policy, and delays.

(i)      Highway issues
Highway requirements and analysis was the most common cause of concern. It was felt that the requirements for improvements at an access or along the highway were unreasonable given the scale of proposal and of high cost, that in some cases made the scheme unattractive to pursue. Highway improvements incurred costs of thousands of pounds indeed one response detailed a requirement that cost £800,000, in relation to a potato store and packing building.

(ii)      Delays
A number of the planning permissions obtained were granted either at appeal or after long delays and negotiations. It is accepted that in part this may be due to the way an application is presented but it is apparent that overcoming local authority opposition on issues such as appropriate is a significant factor. Delays lead to costs not just in presenting an adequate appeal but also the loss of income when waiting or as pointed out in some case the loss of grant funding.

(iii)       Conditions and agreements
In some cases where consent was granted the permission was subject to various conditions or agreements including control of end user e.g. the business shall be operated only by the occupier of the farm and house. This control places restrictions on future occupancy but offers little land use control.

CONCLUSIONS
From the results of this survey it does appear that CLA concerns on how commercial development and diversification proposals, in rural areas, are considered by local authorities are correct. A high percentage of proposals are not even making it to the application stage due to advice given by local planning authorities. Many of the reasons cited relate to policy interpretation. In many cases this interpretation does not reflect the guidance given in the PPGs, in other cases national guidance does not fully address the issues raised therefore leaving a policy vacuum in which local planning authorities seem to be taking a precautionary approach and finally there is conflict between different national guidance e.g. PPG 7 versus PPG 13.

It is true to say that many authorities have policies that reflect the positive rhetoric of national guidance, however, on closer scrutiny these positive statements are subject to a range of detailed criteria that undermines the aim of the policy. In addition, social and economic development policies are undermined by other policies on conservation and transport issues, which are accorded greater weight in the decision making process.

Although the majority of authorities seem to follow this approach it is encouraging to note a couple of authorities who are taking a more positive approach to rural development. It may be worth considering a further study of these authorities as a means to identifying a good practice guide of how appropriate development can be achieved in rural areas while at the same time meeting all the requirements of sustainable development.

APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF DEVELOPMENT TYPES PROPOSED

Light Industrial
Leisure
Offices
Farm Shop
Tourist Fcaility
Storage
Craft Workshops
Creche
On Farm Processing Unit
Garden Centre
Horse Training Areas
Stables
Livery
Golf Course
Golf facility
Agricultural Produce Packing Station
Furniture Storage
Horticultural Development
Greeting Card Business
Caravan Site
Caravan Storage
Wind Farms
Go Kart Tracks
Tea rooms
Fishing Lake and Facilities
Recording Studios
Holiday Accomodation
Golf Driving Range
Woodland Burial Site
Waste Transfer Station.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study