Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

1.     CPRE welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the Royal Commission's study of environmental planning. The issues addressed by the study have been the central interest of CPRE for over 70 years and we are the leading voluntary organisation engaged in both shaping and operating the land use planning system at all levels. Through our network of local branches in every county and our regional groups we engage in the planning process daily. We appear at more public inquiries, Local Plan inquiries, Structure Plan Examinations-in-Public and Regional Planning Guidance Public Examinations than any other organisation and monitor almost 200,000 planning applications a year.

2.     The planning system has long been identified as an important means of managing development and change and regulating the use of land to achieve environmental objectives. Its legacy is visible in the beauty of the countryside, the strong physical divide between town and country and the relative lack in England of the urban sprawl and sporadic development evident in many other countries. This is a vital and continuing role for the system but it can do more. The planning process provides important opportunities to influence long term issues like how and where people live, access to facilities, the need to travel and the choice of transport and the pressure on resources such as minerals, soil, water and energy. It can also provide a framework and opportunity for public involvement in wider land use decisions over forestry, agriculture, regeneration, economic investment and housing.

3.     We identify a particular challenge for the planning system in developing its wider role as an instrument of resource management and public participation and welcome this focus for the study. The development of this role needs to be considered against a complex backdrop of diminishing local authority resources; growing public mistrust of local (and central) government; continuing tensions in central/local government relations; regionalisation; growing public expectations for involvement in decisions which affect their quality of life; business concerns over the flexibility of land use policy and delays in planning decisions; and demands for better integration of social, economic and environmental objectives.

4.     We have responded in detail to most of the issues raised by the study and enclosed a number of relevant CPRE publications. Our comments are structured broadly along the lines set out in the issues paper. We have not offered any views on the questions raised in 1h, 1i, 2a-2d, 3i, or 4e but can do so on request.

5.     We have taken the opportunity to stress the need for particular attention on two fronts:

the role of planning in resource management - the failure to embrace the role of planning in resource management is one of the most worrying blindspots in recent years. Despite recognition of its role in relation to energy and transport, the scope for more resource-conscious planning has been left at the margins and the contribution of planning to the key sustainable development objective of more prudent use of natural resources underdeveloped.

institutional capacity and the availability of resources - the success of the Royal Commission study will depend in large part on the availability of the resources - human, financial, skills - to deliver it. The current shortage of resources in all areas is acting as a major brake on the effectiveness of planning in achieving policy objectives. Indeed, there is a danger that a report that identifies further important roles and responsibilities for planning could fuel further disquiet about its capacity to deliver unless accompanied by a step change in the availability of resources.

1.     ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
1a & 1b- The benefits of sustainable development
6.     The planning system has been at the cutting edge of public policy development on sustainable development. The integration of sustainable development objectives into PPG12 in February 1992 was one of the first tangible examples of the sustainable development principles being accepted formally into policy.

7.     The sustainable development discourse has brought many benefits to the planning system and to planning outcomes. It has improved the rigour of decision making, ensured a much broader range of environmental considerations are addressed, encouraged longer term thinking and recognition of distant as well as local impacts, and helped establish a more objectives led approach. The process of integrating sustainable development thinking into land use planning has not, however, been without difficulties. We would highlight in particular:

• the lack of operational guidance for local planning authorities on the methods and approaches which they need to adopt - without such guidance planning practitioners have to deal with concepts such as environmental capacity, demand management, the precautionary principle and the need to distinguish between need and demand in a policy vacuum

• a continuing obsession in planning with seeing its role as a means of "balancing" considerations against each other - this fundamentally misunderstands the importance of both environmental capacity considerations and the objectives-led approach and is further explored in the enclosed reports Sense and Sustainability, Making sense of environmental capacity and, in relation to minerals, Rocks and Hard Places

• a debilitating concern that land use planning is confined narrowly to "land use considerations" which ensures that the wider role in relation to, for example, resource management is unrecognised

• the lack of an integrated approach to sustainable development across public policy as a whole which has often left the planning system operating in isolation and sometimes in contradiction of other public policy drivers

• the lack of a common approach to sustainable development and political support for an environmentally-led definition which requires genuinely hard choices to be made between potentially conflicting objectives. This is exemplified by the continuing use of the term "sustainable growth" at the heart of Government in the Treasury and during the two recent Spending Reviews. In public policy, sustainable development has not been addressed as an environmental discourse which recognises the foundational nature of environmental resources. Instead, it is, at best, a means to encourage integration between social, economic, environmental and resource management objectives

• make the long term protection and improvement of the environment its primary objective within which other (e.g. social and economic) objectives are pursued;

• agree environmental objectives which will guide future decisions;

• identify environmental capacity limits and prevent them from being breached;

• manage demand where this helps meet environmental objectives; and

• address the impact of decisions on resources beyond local authority boundaries and in the long term (i.e. beyond the time period of development plans).

• auditing the environment; identifying trends, critical problems and major pressures; and developing indicators of change;

• setting environmental objectives and targets which address resources which can be described qualitatively as well as quantitatively and which command public support;

• exploring the range of development and policy options for achieving these objectives through a process of Strategic Environmental Assessment (including policies for resource management as well as for the scale and location of new development); and

• applying the results through development control, enforcement and monitoring of the outcomes.

11.     The planning system could also contribute more to the management of natural resources, such as energy, minerals and water, as well as the regulation of development and the use of land. We address this issue in more detail below.

1c & 1e - Regulatory approaches and cumulative development
12.     The land use planning system is not good at addressing the importance of qualitative environmental resources. Tranquillity, character, diversity, landscape, dark skies and the cumulative impact of small developments are all poorly recognised and inadequately dealt with in development plans and decisions.

13.     Articulating and addressing the importance of the rural landscape beyond the designated areas is one of the biggest challenges for the planning system. This was recognised by the 1995 Rural White Paper which identified "how much we value the features which make places distinctive" and the need to learn from 50 years of experience with National Parks and other designations "by finding new ways to enrich the quality of the wider countryside". Progress has been painfully slow and policy debates remain obsessed by designations and a failure to recognise the value of the local and the common as well as the designated and the rare. In the meantime the statistics of damage and loss to the wider countryside from the Government (e.g. Countryside Survey 1990), statutory advisors (e.g. New Agricultural Landscapes, Monuments at Risk Survey) and ngos (e.g. Tranquil Area maps) record relentless decline.

14.     Some of the reasons for this difficulty in valuing the landscape are clear but they are not insurmountable. Landscape issues lend themselves less easily to conventional methodologies or scientific techniques for assessing their importance. Their value lies as much in the emotions and feeling that people have for an area as in any independent assessment of landscape importance. As we increasingly come to recognise the narrowness of science as a basis for environmental decisions (see, for example, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's The basis of environmental standards 1998) so it is important that we respond not by continuing to refine conventional methodologies but by introducing new values and a new approach.

15.     This is not an argument to fossilise the countryside or to pickle it in aspic. It is an argument for recognising and addressing growing public anxiety about what we are losing and the pace of change. The change can be characterised in different ways, including continuity, community, wildlife, local distinctiveness, beauty. Running through them all is a common thread that we are allowing things to be lost which should be protected for today's and future generations and that we are failing to deal with change in a manner which is sensitive to the needs of the landscape. In survey after survey the public express their strong feelings for the countryside, only to find a seemingly uncrossable gulf between the things they care about and those which are recognised by policy makers and decision takers. The benefits of the landscape for business and economic activity are also undervalued. It provides opportunities for branding and marketing, is a fundamental resource for tourism and leisure, attracts knowledge-based industry, contributes to productivity and helps defines our global image and national identity.

16.     Specific regulation over certain kinds of development or land use change needs to be seen as only part of the picture. There is a need for clear objectives and targets for these qualitative resources and indicators by which to assess progress. CPRE has identified a serious gap in the Government's Sustainable Development Indicators, for example, which fail to provide a "countryside indicator" and proposed measures for rural tranquillity and landscape features. There is also a need for a new policy vocabulary for valuing and appreciating the quality, character and distinctiveness of the rural landscape, including by legitimating consultation methods which identify the qualitative importance attached to local features and elements in the landscape, developing and applying the Countryside Character Programme and giving legitimacy to policy measures seeking to address rural tranquillity and protect the night sky from light pollution. Policies also need to address the cumulative impact of a multitude of individually small but cumulatively significant changes as well as major landscape threats (see CPRE's Tranquil Area maps, Cluttered Countryside, example of urbanisation in Kent), including through a review of PPG7.

17.     There is also an urgent need for closer integration with other policy mechanisms. Effective protection, management and restoration of the diversity of the English countryside depends on an integrated approach to the protection and management of the wider countryside as well as measures to protect special sites and threatened species. We are firmly of the view that a more strategic approach to the conservation, enhancement and restoration of the countryside is needed which meshes land use planning mechanisms with other policy tools and makes best use of the limited resources available.

18.     Our approach is summarised visually in the strategic pyramid represented in Figure 1, with a series of five tiers, each representing a particular type of policy instrument applied to an increasing or decreasing amount of land. The pyramid model emphasises that each successive layer is supported by, and depends upon, the layers underneath it. Incentives (whether they be widely based, such as ESAs, or targeted, such as Countryside Stewardship) rest upon the basic standards and the protection and enhancement of special sites depends upon the gains achieved by both standards and incentives.

Figure 1     A strategic pyramid of policy measures for the countryside

19.     The model of a strategic pyramid for protecting, enhancing and restoring the countryside is valuable in a number of respects:

• it is spatial - meaning that it can be related to an area of land and includes the whole countryside and common species or landscapes as well as special sites, such as SSSIs or AONBs; and rare species or landscapes

• it shows how policy synergy may work or how different mechanisms can be used to enhance the effectiveness of other mechanisms, which is particularly important with limited resources available to achieve diverse objectives; and

• it shows that policies with diverse objectives need a range of mechanisms to achieve them.

21.     The introduction of the plan-led system has been one of the most important improvements to the planning system in the last decade. It is an essential element of any serious approach to using the planning system as a means of seeking more sustainable development. It provides a transparent and participative means of establishing public policy objectives in the long term, considering a range of options and provide a framework for individual decisions.

22.     In our view, the plan-led system needs to be further strengthened by additional controls over departure applications (including extra publicity, improved call-in arrangements and a requirement to give reasons for granting departure applications and not calling in such developments) and withdrawing the developers right of appeal on departures. The key shortcoming which needs to be addressed is to improve the quality and efficiency of the plan-making process. It is wholly unacceptable that almost 10 years after the passage of the 91 Act that so many parts of the country lack an adopted district-wide Local Plan.

1e - Plan, monitor and manage
23.     CPRE is a strong champion of the emerging principles of plan, monitor and manage (PMM) as a means of guiding future planning policies and practice and as an alternative to trend-based planning and predict-and-provide. We have undertaken extensive work on the method in relation to housing (see enclosed Plan, monitor and manage - making it work) and minerals (see enclosed CPRE's mock revised MPG6).

24.     PMM focuses attention on a forward-looking agenda of what is trying to be achieved instead of looking backwards at the continuation of past trends. This is one of the key elements of any approach which seeks to address the need for more sustainable development.

25.     PMM is both a practical and necessary new approach to planning. It:

• works - there is experience of applying versions of the approach in relation to housing in both Tyne & Wear and Strathclyde and it has been explored in detail in the West Midlands. The Government has indicated its willingness to adopt the approach and is providing a clearer strategic vision for the role of the planning system and the future of both urban and rural areas and communities. The approach has the major advantage of allowing the planning system to respond to changing conditions and address uncertainty without major plan reviews. This helps meet policy objectives and improves the efficiency of the planning process with benefit for all concerned.
• provides long-term direction - plan, monitor and manage helps shift the focus of attention away from new provision to management and regeneration of existing urban areas and the relationship between town and country. This is a much more strategic and creative approach than that engendered under predict-and-provide, is more appropriate to the region and is more consistent with the thrust of Government policy. It does not, as some critics suggest, limit planning to a 5 year horizon. Instead, it ensures long term objectives are established and better met by adjusting the actual process of development more regularly to achieve them
• better meets social needs - by focusing on policy objectives it can ensure a better match between aspirations and outcomes. In relation to housing, for example, the emphasis placed on revitalisation of the existing entry level housing stock and the improvement of urban areas where the highest levels of housing need exist. A large and continuous supply of greenfield land is almost wholly irrelevant since housing "chains" do not extend far enough or deep enough for the supply of suburban owner-occupied housing to impact on meeting social housing needs. Meeting the need for new social housing depends on public funding and a tight rein on greenfield land supply only marginally affects the cost of provision.
• is responsible - plan, monitor and manage helps to highlight the inherently greater risks associated with the over-provision of, for example, housing land or mineral landbanks, than under-provision. The risk of over-provision in housing include: increased vacancy rates, surpluses in the most marginal stock, the loss of entry point housing, unnecessary greenfield development, a loss of control over the location of new building, and difficulties in taking corrective steps to de-allocate land. Under-provision also has some risks - such as potentially inhibiting forward planning and the benefits from planning obligations and upward pressure on the price of housing land and/or housing - but some of these can beneficial, the downsides are less serious and all can be readily picked up through monitoring and corrective action taken where necessary.
• avoids pre-empting county and more local decisions - plan, monitor and manage requires and encourages more consistency in the techniques and approach to monitoring and managing across a region but it does not pre-empt decisions better made at a more local level in the same way as predict-and-provide. This allows for the essential process of testing regional policies in the light of more knowledge and information at a county and more local level.
• helps build institutional capacity - plan, monitor and manage requires continuing dialogue between stakeholders such as, for example, housebuilders, social housing agencies, environmental interests, local authorities, infrastructure providers and local communities, supported by regionally consistent and up-to-date information on land availability, construction rates, consumption of natural resources and housing needs. This process will generate both institutional capacity and social capital, advancing the Government's wider agenda for greater community engagement and greater local responsiveness from the planning system.

27.     There are a number of obstacles to the integration of PMM into the planning system which experience over four months with PPG3 already highlights:

• ignorance - many councillors and some planners profess to knowing little about PPG3 and its implications
• inertia - too many involved in the system find it easiest to carry on as before
• "jam tomorrow" - too many local planning authorities have development plans under review and argue that the implications of PPG3 will only begin to be felt in the next plan review
• lack of guidance - confidence in implementing the policy objectives of PPG3 is undermined by a lack of guidance on some of the practicalities, such as the detail of the plan, monitor and manage process
• lack of agreed methodologies - delays in producing guidance on some of PPG3's new requirements, such as urban capacity studies, are acting as a blockage
• lack of belief - concerns over the real implications of PPG3 on the ground, doubts that the Government will back local planning authorities on appeal, and misplaced fears of liability for compensation on withdrawing greenfield sites from the planning pipeline are among many obstacles being raised
• lack of resources - the requirements of PPG3 in terms of monitoring, review and research are demanding and stretching limited resources in local authorities, especially at a regional level - see Question 1g
• lack of skills - many local authorities lack any in-house skills to address much of the PPG3 agenda
• lack of joined-up Government - there is widespread scepticism over the Government's commitment to bring other necessary measures (e.g. tax breaks for urban renewal, funds for affordable housing, action to tackle traffic growth) for implementing PPG3's objectives.

29.     The evidence of a lack of capacity is growing and apparent in a number of ways. Perhaps the most obvious case concerns the regional level of planning. The growing significance being attached to Regional Planning Guidance, as evidenced by PPG11, has led to a considerable growth in policy making at this level which has only to a very limited extent been met by a corresponding increase in resources. Regional Planning Bodies (consortia of local planning authorities) who are responsible for preparing draft RPG rarely have a permanent professional staff of more than 3 or 4, and rely largely on the goodwill of participating authorities who are prepared to allow senior staff to work on regional issues. This does not allow for continuity in the regional planning process which, even with the Government's challenging desired timescale, will usually last at least 4 years from start of review to completion of a regional framework. Monitoring of regional trends, particularly in relation to housing needs and provision, has recently emerged as an important area which will require continuous staffing. While it is welcome that Government Regional Offices have recently been able to recruit an additional member of staff to focus on RPG, this only marginally increases their capacity to play an effective part in the review process.

30.     There are also continuing problems with the level of resources available at local and national levels. Locally, there has for many years been considerable concern, exacerbated as a result of local government reorganisation and the creation of unitary authorities, about the lack of specialist strategic advice in key policy areas. Examples include the declining number of local planning authorities who employ a properly qualified Conservation Officer with responsibility of the built heritage, and the weak coverage in many local authorities of archaeological expertise. At the national level, the Planning Directorate in the DETR appears relatively poorly staffed in view of its task when compared with other parts of Government. We also have concerns about the capacity for national agencies, statutory and advisory, effectively to engage in key strategic planning debates. For example, there is little evidence that the Countryside Agency is able to contribute as much as it should to the preparation of RPG or development plans.

31.     Finally, concerning the issue of the complexity of procedures, CPRE believes there is considerable scope for simplifying these in ways which safeguard opportunities for effective public involvement. While we welcomed the introduction of the plan-led system in 1992 and recent moves towards the reintroduction of early consultation on emerging development plans, we believe there is much that can be done to streamline procedures in this area. Improvements here, however, will to a large extent depend on better resourcing of development plan preparation at the local level, as well as more effective sharing of best practice.

2.     BOUNDARIES - ADDRESSING FORESTRY AND AGRICULTURE
32.     This part of our submission addresses question 2(e) concerning the privileged position of forestry and agriculture in the planning system. CPRE identifies three key issues:

• exclusion of land used for agriculture and forestry from the definition of development;
• permitted development rights in relation to agricultural and forestry buildings and other development; and
• the poor level of integration between agriculture, forestry and other forward planning processes, especially development plans.

• biodiversity;
• landscape;
• natural resources (air, soil and water);
• historic and cultural resources;
• public utility, access and enjoyment and
• the role of land, or more precisely soil, in environmental systems or cycles (oxygen or carbon cycles for example).

Agricultural and forestry buildings and other development
35.     CPRE has a number of concerns regarding the control of development associated with agriculture and forestry. This includes all building and construction works (including roads) associated with agriculture and forestry. We believe that agricultural and forestry development should be brought under full planning control. The nature of agriculture has changed and farmers now plan ahead like any other business. Planners are also now more aware of the needs of agriculture and support genuine applications for agricultural development. Bringing agriculture and forestry development under full planning control would result in a number of benefits including:

• a simplification of the planning system, with the removal of highly complex and poorly understood arrangements for permitted development rights and prior notification;
• bringing all areas, town and country, under the same control;
• a proper and effective mechanism for addressing planning concerns associated with controversial and environmentally inappropriate development.

Land use change
37.     CPRE has long argued that the definition of development needs to be re-defined to include agricultural and forestry activities, which constitute a major land use change. This would include activities such as major forestry planting schemes and the ploughing-up of moorland or permanent grassland. Including such activities within the definition of development and thus bringing them into the planning system will ensure that the environmental implications of major land use changes in rural areas are properly considered and managed. Small scale changes and normal land management operations would be granted permitted development rights.

38.     CPRE has also pressed this issue in the relation to the UK Government's failure to implement EU Directive 85/337/EEC on Environmental Impact Assessment. This would require environmentally damaging land use change to be subject to an EIA (see CPRE publication Meadow Madness: why the loss of England's grasslands continues uncontested). The Directive was first introduced in 1985 and the UK Government was required to implement it by July 1998, but as yet has failed to do so.

Integration issues
39.     Planning Policy Guidance note 7 The countryside does not make adequate links between the land use planning system and other approaches to rural land use, in particular agriculture and forestry. While welcome reference is made to both agricultural and forestry policies and programmes, PPG 7 fails to take advantage of the opportunity of encouraging much greater integration between the different influences on rural land-use. It is vital that decisions about agricultural and forestry policies (including the use of incentives and regulations) are set within the context provided by the land-use planning system at national, regional and local level. This view is supported by the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development's report on Aspects of sustainable agriculture and rural policy (July 1998). This has become increasingly important as greater emphasis is put on pursuing a wider range of public policy goals through agricultural policy, particularly the new Rural Development Regulation (RDR).

40.     The RDR is highly significant for two key reasons. Firstly, it promotes a radically new way of sustainably supporting and developing rural areas that is based on environmental, social and economic objectives and begins to shift the emphasis of support away from agricultural production. It provides a means for re-integrating farming into the wider economy and communities of rural areas. And, crucially, it recognises the social and environmental role of farmers alongside their food production role, where a diverse, attractive and high quality countryside is seen as an economic asset rather than an obstacle to be overcome, offering opportunities for marketing and diversifying farm businesses.

41.     Secondly, the RDR recognises that Europe's rural countryside is highly diverse and that tackling the various problems and needs of rural areas cannot be effectively tackled at an EU or even a national level. Unlike much of the rest of the CAP, such as Beef, Sheep and Milk Regimes or the Arable Areas Payment Scheme, the RDR is not prescriptive. It does not state what incentives Member States should be implementing in order to address the specific needs. Instead it sets out a number of broad objectives and then provides a 'toolkit' of measures available to Member States to use to achieve those objectives in a way that is most appropriate for the conditions of a particular area. The Regulation leaves it open to Member States to decide how it will implement the various measures - but insists these should include agri-environment schemes and strongly encourages implementation at a regional level.

42.     The RDR in England has been implemented as a national plan made up of a series of regional chapters. This provides considerable opportunities for devolving decision making on how we want to see our countryside managed and 'developed' away from Brussels and down to a regional level. This shift in focus is highly significant because it provides a major opportunity for local views to be taken into account in the implementation of a major plank of the CAP. It also provides greater opportunity for farming and rural development policies to be more coherently integrated with other regional and local planning and decision making processes. The onus is now very much on the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF), to implement the various Regional Rural Development Plans, in a way that integrates the RDR with these wider processes. Linkage with RPG and development plans and the identification of shared objectives should be key to this.

3.     INTEGRATION OR COORDINATION?
3a - Gaps, duplication and conflict - embracing natural resources
43.     The existing collection of mechanisms to oversee environmental planning and management is diverse. It constitutes a system whose parts have been designed with very different objectives in mind, and at very different times. It consequently displays a lack of co-ordination and integration - in geographical jurisdiction, public participation, environmental objectives, implementation and enforceability - which hinders its effectiveness in delivering more sustainable development today.

44.     Parts of this system have done their job very well. Land use planning has largely contained urban sprawl. Pollution control and licensing have developed into effective systems and continue to develop, with the amalgamation of air, water and waste responsibilities in the Environment Agency offering real opportunities for further integration.

45.     Many elements of environmental planning have been isolated, however, and waste planning and minerals planning provide good examples. Whilst ostensibly an integral part of the wider land use planning system, they remain generally at one remove from other activities even though they are intimately linked to most forms of built development. It has been difficult, for example, to get Minerals Local Plans to even consider addressing demand management policies because of their focus on the "winning and working" of minerals. Yet, when the same issues are raised in a Local Plan context, there are cases where they have been refused to be considered and referred to the Minerals Local Plan.

46.     Such gaps as exist in the system arise from the changing view of environmental management from one based on tackling nuisances and maintaining "amenity" to an approach founded on sustainability. The integration and co-ordination of objectives, policies and practice which is now being sought demands linkages and relationships which currently either do not exist or are under-exploited.

47.     This can be illustrated by the weak way in which the planning system fails adequately to address the management of natural and non-renewable resources.

48.     The Government's national Sustainable Development Strategy promotes the objective of "doing more with less". This gives a positive direction to the objective of "prudent use of natural resources", part of the Government's definition of sustainable development. This objective is itself intimately linked to the others. Economic needs will not be met sustainably unless natural resources are conserved and increased. Social well-being and quality of life will be harmed by wasteful exploitation of finite resources. Effective protection of the environment demands sustainable use of natural resources. Too often these objectives are seen as somehow inevitably in conflict and needing to be somehow "balanced" against one another. Reconciliation of objectives, not balancing of conflicts, is the key to sustainable development. We believe that this breaking of the link between economic prosperity and environmental degradation will be imperative if national and international sustainable development objectives are to be achieved (see, for example, our Rocky Logic report which demonstrates how the link between aggregates production and GNP has been broken).

49.     Making sustainable development happen in practice demands a reorientation of all the elements of the environmental planning and management system around the principle of sustainable management of natural resources. It is anomalous in the extreme that the planning system requires a publicly accountable decision on very minor alterations to a house, yet fails to take effective account of the likely impact on the environment of the likely increase in demand for water when making strategic plans for hundreds of thousands of new houses.

50.     CPRE believes too little attention is being given to the potential of land use planning in helping to manage demands on natural resources. The planning system has particular advantages over other forms of regulation. It brings together a wide range of environmental and land use objectives and combines a forward looking strategy with immediate regulation over development and change. There is growing recognition of the potential for least-cost planning which examines the mix of development options and their resource implications and finds the best combination for the environment. The choice of whether development patterns are dispersed or concentrated, for example, has a major impact on travel (and hence energy) needs or the demands for infrastructure (and hence construction aggregate). Equally, by controlling the scale of development in particular locations the planning system can reduce or exacerbate pressures on scarce water resources. At the more detailed level, planning conditions might be used to require recycled aggregate to be used in construction or require the most water efficient appliances to be used in new development. By neglecting resource issues in planning we run the risk of resource-hungry patterns of development being created by default. Resource-conscious planning is a necessary even if not a sufficient condition for reducing pressure on the environment.

51.     The quickest way to achieve resource-conscious planning is by publication of new national planning guidance backing these principles. This should be reinforced by appropriate changes to legislation, including the introduction of an environmental duty on central and local government in relation to planning decisions and requirements to undertake strategic environmental assessments of development plans. There are a number of other issues which needs to be address which are set out below:

Detailed requirements for new development
52.     The application of natural resource management principles should not be confined to the strategic level. One of the thorniest problems in recent environmental planning has been ensuring the application of national policy for sustainable development at the local level. CPRE believes there is a case for detailed planning regulation to set and enforce resource use and efficiency standards for all new development. Some proposals are emerging from the sustainable construction part of the Government's Movement for Innovation (M4I) construction industry initiative. The Sustainable Construction Focus Group's draft key environmental performance indicators for the industry cover embodied, transport and operational energy, biodiversity, water resource management and efficiency in use of materials. Periodic revisions of Building Regulations have increased the energy efficiency of new buildings significantly. We believe a comparable approach needs to be implemented for all finite natural resources, including minerals, water, waste production, related travel and, fundamentally, land (see enclosed Hungry Housing). There is a much stronger role to be played by planning conditions in particular.

Co-ordination
53.     Progress towards more co-ordination within central Government has been welcome, but limited. The lack of closer links between the DTI and the DETR on renewable energy is a particular cause of concern. The DTI document New and Renewable Energy: strategies for the 21st Century demonstrates a laudable understanding of the importance and role of Regional Planning Guidance, and removes the division between economic and environmental processes which bedevilled the NFFO. The environmental impact of what is proposed will, however, be highly dependent on such details as the exact level of the buy-out price for the renewables obligation and it is not apparent that any thought is being given to the land use implications of this decision. Moreover, the overwhelming emphasis on cutting prices which characterises wider Government energy policy could cripple simultaneous attempts to tackle emissions by reducing energy demand. We hope the wider links between resource use and economic progress will be addressed through the emerging DTI sustainable development strategy.

54.     Despite the welcome amalgamation of the former DOT and DoE, there remain potentially damaging tensions between land use and transport policies. Planning policy is also still lamentably unconnected to such closely related fields within the DETR as water management and the extraction and use of minerals. Leaving aside questions of regional and local implementation, the credibility and effectiveness of national policies for sustainability will first demand much greater cohesion within central Government itself.

55.     The potential for the Environment Agency to contribute to wider land use strategy and offer detailed advice to local authorities is largely ignored. Local authority planners need to incorporate and actively promote EA objectives for water, waste and air (e.g. as set out in LEAPs and the emerging national and regional strategies for sustainable water resource management) in RPG and development plans. While there may be a case for a review of where these fields most conveniently fit within the range of environmental plans, we believe that much could be swiftly achieved simply by incorporating water resources as an important policy criterion within PPGs (especially PPGs 1, 3, 11 and 12). The Environment Agency also needs the resources necessary to support regional planning bodies and local planning authorities with the expert advice they require in order to make informed decisions.

56.     The primacy of Regional Planning Guidance over the Regional Economic Strategies is an important principle which requires official recognition for the effective operation of sustainable regional policies. We believe that conflicts between Regional Development Agencies and sustainable development objectives are unnecessary provided the economic benefits of environmental assets are properly recognised. Where there are such tensions, however, it is important that wider land use strategy should not be undermined by short-term economic decisions. Effective use of Regional Sustainable Development Frameworks could provide a useful mechanism for this but their preparation lacks an effective process and is poorly resourced.

57.     Government agencies such as the Countryside Agency have a leading role to play in addressing specific aspects of minerals and waste planning in particular. The Agency's position as championing landscape and rural development priorities gives it a unique perspective, but this contribution has been largely lacking from national policy debates.

Resourcing
58.     The issue of resources is discussed elsewhere in this submission (see Question 1g). We believe the need to reassess and, if necessary, provide more resources for effective implementation of policy applies not only to local planning authorities but also to other bodies, notably the statutory agencies.

Industry - voluntary and negotiated agreements
59.     There is much potential for greater use of negotiated agreements between the Government and industry. The climate change levy reductions being negotiated for energy-intensive sectors show a welcome recognition by the Government of the potential of negotiated agreements. These are a complementary means of achieving environmental policy objectives while simultaneously easing the burden of change on the national economy. The Dutch experience indicates that negotiated agreements are not sufficient on their own, but have to be used in combination with regulation (such as planning) and appropriate fiscal measures. Regulation requires clear, progressive objectives and the resources to ensure swift enforcement. Fiscal measures could include additional and increased taxes on environmentally harmful activities as well as incentives and tax breaks for positive performance.

3b - Hierarchy of planning
60.     CPRE attaches great importance to the role of strategic planning at a county level. This is the level which can think widely enough to make strategic decisions but which remains close enough to communities to allow effective participation. Even a significantly improved regional planning process cannot replace the role of county planning. It is important, therefore, not to consider the hierarchy of planning simply in terms of a cascade down from national planning guidance to development control decisions. Important information and understanding only becomes available at the county level and this needs to be given much more importance in the process. This is especially the case in the context of handling the range of demand projections which shape planning policy - households, minerals, traffic, waste employment etc. This issue is further addressed in response to Question 4c.

61.     This is not to suggest that there should not be reserve powers to intervene or effective mechanisms to address the conformity of different levels of planning with each other. The question of the conformity of a Local with a Structure Plan should, for example, be a matter of public debate instead of being left to the county council as at present, and there is a need for greater consistency and transparency in the use of call-in and powers of direction on both development plans and development control (see Planning for People 1999).

62.     CPRE is also concerned by the apparent ease with which development plans can be usurped by other planning processes or decisions which are not grounded in such a rigorous process or which address narrower concerns. Regional Planning Guidance and development plans should, for example, provide a framework within which regional economic strategies, LEAPs, tourist strategies, regional rural development plans, waste plans and other plans and strategies operate. This would be further assisted by moves towards using the land use planning system to develop a spatial strategy, as encouraged by the European Spatial Development Perspective, and a clearer national land use framework within which to position other national, regional and local policies. Some of these issues are further addressed in response to question 4c.

3c - Integration, rationalisation or co-ordination?
63.     Better integration of environmental planning practice with clear national policy objectives is essential. Although there might be some scope for "rationalisation", the increasing specialisation of environmental professions makes it likely that co-ordination and development of links within the existing pool of expertise will be the more fruitful way ahead. Radical organisational change could, indeed, endanger the benefits the existing system delivers by inadvertently harming the effective mechanisms which have been developed to manage specific processes. "Better co-ordination" does not adequately describe the far-reaching adaptations required to meet the new imperatives of sustainable development . Nonetheless CPRE believes that policy objectives, not institutional structures, are the fundamental issue to be addressed.

64.     Above all, it needs to be recognised that the environmental planning and management 'system' collectively does not currently possess sufficient muscle if the Government and society are serious about commitments to sustainable development. This will only change through stronger political leadership.

3d - Efficiency and cost effectiveness
65.     The case for Government intervention in land use and development was clearly established over 50 years ago with the introduction of comprehensive planning controls following the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. That the broad principles of the planning system have survived largely intact since that time is testament to its considerable value as a public policy tool. In terms of expenditure at national level, land use planning functions, including those of the Planning Inspectorate, account for only a very small proportion of overall Departmental expenditure (£25-30m) and yet bring inestimable benefits in terms of facilitating sustainable development, protecting the countryside and wider environment and engaging the public in determining and feeling involved in changes to the pattern of development and land use in their area. By any measure, this represents good value for money. CPRE does not believe that the planning system imposes significant or unnecessary costs on business or any other sector. It can also add value to existing public expenditure by helping to secure wider public benefits, for example in terms of urban renewal from housing expenditure that works within a planning framework that emphasises the re-use of previously developed land.

66.     The efficiency of the land use planning system should not be measured merely in time taken to process planning applications or prepare development plans. It delivers numerous valuable additional benefits. Public participation and the transparency which (at best) is afforded to public decisions, are critical factors in securing a degree of public consensus around environmental change. At the development plan level this reduces costs and delays in relation to individual decisions. The popular opprobrium and accompanying burden on the public purse which surrounded some large road schemes in the 1990s shows clearly what happens when public consensus about development breaks down.

67.     CPRE believes speeding up the planning system can be fully compatible with environmental protection, provided the policy objectives are clear. Policies such as PPG2 Green Belts, which contains unambiguous guidance designed to protect the environment and foster regeneration, can then be swiftly applied.

68.     A large proportion of delays at development plan inquiries are caused by objections from development, not environmental, interests, often suggesting for inclusion sites which have already been exhaustively examined and rejected. Similarly, vexatious appeals against refusal of proposals contrary to publicly endorsed development plan policies are common. The issue of public involvement and appeal rights is dealt with elsewhere in response to Questions 4f & g.

3e - Planning and pollution control
69.     There will remain a need for some separation between land use planning decisions and pollution control, if only because the skills required are very different.

70.     There are widespread worries, however, about the degree to which responsible statutory agencies can be ignored by the land use planning process and the weak contribution that they often make to policy development and decision-making. The Environment Agency has not, for example, seen it as its duty to offer positive advice to waste planning authorities on more sustainable waste management policies. Yet, where it does display a clear role in relation to questioning planning decisions that contradict its clearly stated advice on flood risk, it can be ignored. The Agency appears to be lamentably under-resourced as a body, and unable in many cases to make the contribution it should to environmental management decisions. In one recent example of an East Anglian local authority faced with a landfill proposal in an area vulnerable to groundwater pollution, the Environment Agency cited insufficient resources as its reason for not carrying out its own assessment of the risk, and had to rely instead on evidence from the applicant to make its recommendation.

3f - Integration with transport
71.     CPRE strongly supports the integration of transport planning with wider spatial planning and land use policies at a regional level and for decisions over major infrastructure predominantly to be made at this level.

72.     There has been welcome progress on land use/transport integration in recent years, with the updating of the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG11 and PPG13), the setting up of Multi-Modal Studies and the introduction of (eventually statutory) Local Transport Plans (LTPs). Inevitably, the timetables for establishing these different processes has often been jumbled by the desire to get the changes implemented as quickly as possible. For example, the five year LTPs are being agreed by local authorities prior to the updating of Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) in most regions, which creates obvious difficulties in adhering to the requirements that LTPs must refer to their RPG.

Regional Planning Guidance and Regional Transport Plans
73.     The Regional Transport Strategies (RTS) are mostly being developed on a different time scale to the RPG and there are concerns that the two policy processes may run on different tracks, as they have done in the past. For example, there are concerns that the Government's regional consultation over the Ten Year Transport Plan may have by-passed some of these new systems and that individual infrastructure projects have been promoted without reference to the wider context of land use planning or a spatial strategy.

74.     The Government Regional Offices have a key role to play in ensuring that the emerging RTSs (led by the RPBs) do not diverge from the spatial and land use objectives established in RPG, nor should specific infrastructure projects develop their own momentum, separate from other proposals in RPG.

75.     The draft RPG for East Anglia and the South East illustrate the range of regional interpretations of the national guidance and provide some clues to the future shape of these documents. The transport and land use policies in the South East draft RPG are firmly based on the new agenda set out in the Transport White Paper. The focus of the draft RPG for the South East upon the problems of congestion and economic hotspots, leads to a rigorous interpretation of national guidance on car parking standards, Green Commuter Plans, developer contributions for integrated transport and the promotion of walking/cycling. This is in contrast to the East Anglia draft RPG which has a wider range of sub-regional concerns and policy approaches. This draft RPG has a strong emphasis on demand management measures in growth areas like Cambridge and a less rigorous set of policies in areas which are seen as peripheral and in need of regeneration. Our concern is that the national guidance should not be seen as something to be promoted only in areas which are economically vibrant, relatively urban and which can 'afford' to do it. The guidance should also avoid an urban bias to its proposed package of solutions and the perception that it is less relevant to the rural periphery.

76.     The national guidance should have a well developed rural dimension, particularly on: tranquillity; access to services/facilities; the mapping of unmet need; the location of lorry operators and lorry route networking.

77.     Both the East Anglia and the South East draft RPGs raise concerns about the weak link between transport investment and land use planning. The East Anglia draft RPG has an underlying assumption that peripheral areas need new transport links to be economically prosperous, a conclusion which is questioned by the SACTRA report on this subject. The Government's requirement, in responding to the SACTRA report, that new infrastructure must be accompanied by an economic appraisal justifying any claims about economic regeneration, needs incorporating into PPG11, PPG12 and PPG13.

78.     The South East draft RPG suffers from the investment proposals being based upon a narrow interpretation of the spatial strategy which ignores the document's wider range of stated objectives and policies, and instead justifies the building of long established infrastructure projects. This highlights a more general concern that the existence of established and costed road schemes, is not currently matched by a similar list of well worked through rail/water schemes. Nor is there any consideration at a regional level of non infrastructure packages of smaller schemes which can make a big regional impact, i.e. on modal shift and traffic reduction. Local authorities have been slow to put forward large scale packages of traffic reduction or safety measures, the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) has only recently been created and the MMS have yet to report. This makes it difficult to undertake a proper priority setting exercise within the RPG where a choice of investment options flow from agreed land use strategies.

79.     We look to the Shadow SRA and public transport operators to play a more pro-active role in the RPG process and the Government to encourage ambitious bids from local authorities which match the priorities for local transport provision set out in the RPG.

Multi-Modal Studies (MMS)
80.     The MMS were established following the Government's review of trunk roads and their recommendations will have major implications for land use planning when their reports are submitted to the RPBs. There is clear evidence that many local authorities, who make up the biggest block on MMS steering groups, have not taken on board the land use elements contained in the DETR guidance on MMS, or approached the studies with open minds. For example, despite the fresh approach taken by the consultants in the Hastings MMS and the development of viable transport options which match an alternative vision of Hasting's future economy, the local authorities have continued to publicly campaign for new by-passes which will distort the policies in draft PPG13. The Highways Agency is currently developing a process of Strategic Environmental Assessment for MMS and RPG. We recommend that this approach be adopted as soon as possible to ensure effective integration.

Local Transport Plans (LTP)
81.     DETR guidance on Full LTP requires consistency with planning guidance and development plans, since the later are statutory documents which have undergone a rigorous process of participation, scrutiny and public examination. There is very little evidence that local authorities have taken up the suggestion in DETR guidance that they draw up interim supplementary planning guidance to incorporate the Transport White Paper's new agenda into their development plans. Most are waiting for the regular cycle of development plan updates. This has left most LTPs having to refer to either draft RPG, or development plans which pre-date the welcome changes in national guidance. It is unsurprising that the Oxford Brookes survey of provisional LTPs found that very few made mention of either regional, or local plans. This is worrying, as CPRE is keen to avoid plans being updated to fit in with major transport proposals, rather than having investment flow from land use strategies.

82.     The Government Regional Offices should ensure that local authorities, who are not currently reviewing their development plans, are made to update the transport sections of these plans. Future DETR guidance on LTPs should ask authorities to include a demonstration of how issues arising from the development plan have been addressed.

Monitoring
83.     Not enough attention has been paid to monitoring the implementation of RPG and ensuring that this process has a measure of independent scrutiny and transparency. For example, the South East draft RPG barely mentions it. This has serious implications for the ability of national and regional government to ensure transport policy is contributing towards broader land use objectives.

84.     PPG11 should include advice on the creation of monitoring bodies, independent input into the assessment process and transparency. The annual assessment should look beyond the targets/indicators laid down in the RPG and include consistency of the local authorities policies and priorities with the RPG. Other stakeholder organisations (i.e. SSR, RDA) should also be assessed to check that they are having regard to the RPG. Investment patterns and priorities should be included as a specific section of the annual monitoring report.

3g - Economic instruments and non-statutory procedures
85.     CPRE believes there is great scope for economic instruments, non-statutory procedures and informal arrangements to complement planning regulations. There is an emerging consensus that complementary economic instruments are necessary in order to enable planning to be more positive and objectives oriented. For example, harmonisation of VAT on refurbishment and greenfield development would go a long way towards contributing to the overall goal of urban renewal, as well as the national and regional targets for the reuse of previously developed land for housing. It should be emphasised, however, that economic instruments will only work alongside strong planning regulations.

86.     Non-statutory procedures and informal arrangements can also be of value. Although we have some concerns about the impact on the role of third parties in development control processes, we are broadly supportive of the growing use of mediation techniques in resolving planning disputes. They seem to be particularly appropriate for dealing with neighbourhood-level issues, but have also been used to deal with regional issues, such as housing provision. The new aggregates levy is another example which should complement reforms to minerals planning guidance. The key here, however, is to design and use these processes in ways which enhance rather than undermine transparency and accountability.

87.     CPRE is also optimistic about the potential of the Planning Users' Concordat (to be launched on July 10) to promote greater understanding among local authorities, the business sector and voluntary sector, of respective views about the operation of the planning system. Other informal, neighbourhood-level planning initiatives, such as the Village Design Statement concept pioneered by the Countryside Agency, have also proved to be of considerable value, particularly when adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance, in securing consensus on design standards and development needs in a growing number of localities.

3h - Betterment tax
88.     CPRE believes strongly in the principle behind a betterment tax, but recognises that in practice it has proved extremely difficult to implement. We believe the time has come to look carefully at this option again in the context of policy and practice relating to planning obligations. The environmental capital approach for evaluating environmental benefits promoted by the Countryside Agency may well provide a means of linking the rate of tax or obligation to environmental impacts. Alternatively, an approach based on impact fees might be easier to apply. In both cases, however, it will be critical to ensure that the approach is designed to avoid promoting the trading-off of environmental assets for other gains, and to secure higher overall standards of environmental protection and enhancement. The ability to do this is far from proven.

4.     SUBSIDIARITY AND DEMOCRACY
4a & 4b - Balance between experts, public and politicians and public accountability
89.     CPRE is concerned that in general there is still an undesirable imbalance against effective public involvement in the planning process. With current reforms to local government, particularly the introduction of new executive-style arrangements, this could get worse unless effective safeguards are put in place to maintain openness and transparency in decision-making. Proposals for improving opportunities for public involvement in planning are set out in CPRE's Planning for People campaign charter (enclosed).

90.     We believe it is wrong, however, to imply as in 4(b) that public involvement in planning is inevitably in conflict with procedural efficiency and speed. Effective public input can lead to more robust and sustainable decisions and need not involve unnecessary delay. In many cases, it is interests other than the local community which can be the main cause of delay and uncertainty in the planning process. Strictly, in CPRE's view, there should be no case in which local public opinion is completely overridden in decision-making. This does not mean that we believe there should be no decision which conflicts with public opinion, but that it is important that public views are taken into account in coming to the decision and that the decision-making process should show how this has occurred and what impact it has had on the final decision.

4c - Planning and subsidiarity
91.     CPRE believes the current 'cascade' structure of the planning system is broadly appropriate. The tensions between the different tiers are a source of strength, not weakness. Over coming years it will be important to see how far the welcome wider spatial approach reflected in the European Spatial Development Perspective and, it is anticipated, in RPG, will be followed through in local authority development plans. It is vital in our view that development plans are able to extend beyond pure land use considerations, to embrace a wider spatial perspective if environmental planning is to become more integrated in future.

92.     The evolution of the ESDP and the extent to which its principles and policies are embraced in RPG could well cast light on some gaps in the national planning framework in future. CPRE believes there is an increasingly strong case for some kind of overarching national spatial framework to provide a link between the international and regional levels, and to guide the preparation of RPG and regional economic strategies more effectively.

93.     CPRE strongly supports the principle of subsidiarity. We identify three guiding principles which should influence the process and determine where decision-making is most appropriate:

• public mandate and participation - final decision should only be made at a level where a public mandate can be secured through effective opportunities for public consultation and participation. The machinery of public policy should enhance rather than diminish local people's and communities' sense of responsibility, accountability and opportunity
• information - final decisions should only be made where there is no significant likelihood of pre-empting decisions which can be made at a lower or higher level on the basis of new or better information
• diversity - decision-making should be sensitive to local and regional diversity where there is a valued resource, and where distinctive regional and local circumstances and problems demand distinctive responses and solutions

4d - Regional planning
95.     CPRE has a longstanding interest in regional planning. We are the most active of all participants in terms of representation in the Public Examination process. Notwithstanding our comments above, we broadly support the emerging regional tier of planning which can perform a valuable role in addressing issues of particular concern within a wider region, and particularly connections between conurbations and surrounding areas. At the same time, we believe that County Structure Plans should remain the primary vehicle for strategic planning as they generally cover areas with which people can identify, and are subject to statutory procedures which ensure adequate opportunities for public involvement. CPRE strongly believes that RPG will need to be placed on a statutory footing if it is to be given a wider role in the planning process than is currently the case and will need to be the overarching policy document for regional decisions (including by RDAs and other Government departments).

4f & g - Planning inquiries and appeal rights, Environmental Courts
96.     As a regular and active participant in the inquiry process CPRE has considerable experience from which to make the case for a change to the procedures. We are content with much of the process but have concerns about the procedures operating against third party volunteer interests; inconsistencies of outcome; and a failure of the Planning Inspectorate to play as full a role as possible in policy delivery.

97.     We have two particular procedural concerns. The first is that the Inquiry Procedure Rules should more explicitly recognise the constraints - of both finance and time - which apply to third parties in the public inquiry process. This is particularly important because third parties frequently represent vital public interests in the matter under consideration and their contribution to the inquiry may extend beyond the confines of the particular development or proposal in question. Indeed, it is recognised that major public inquiries are a legitimate and valuable forum for the testing and evolution of Government policy; and that third parties have frequently been the agents of such a process. Public funding for third parties at these major inquiries should be established.

98.     Our second and related concern is that the Rules impose rigidities on the timetabling applied to public inquiries in ways that may be at the expense of third party involvement and an effective and genuine exchange of views. There is a vital need for flexibility, applied at the discretion of the individual Inspector, to ensure that public inquiries flow smoothly and that all parties have the opportunity to make their contribution effectively. It is also vital that a consistent and high standard of reasoning is required from Inspectors in reaching their decisions.

99.     We also believe that further consideration should be given to the role of the Planning Inspectorate in implementing the planning system. We believe clear environmental objectives should be stated in the Framework document setting out the Inspectorate's relationship to the Department of the Environment. The opportunities for increasing the independence and environmental role of the Inspectorate by, for example, integrating it into a new Land and Environment Court should also be explored. The new Court could make all planning appeal decisions and be responsible for other areas of environmental law thus combining the expertise and experience needed to strengthen the Inspectorate's environmental role. The Secretary of State could be given the right to call-in any planning appeal within 28 days of its being lodged so that he could determine it as a way of allowing for departures from policy.

100.     The benefits of an Environmental Court could include closer integration of environmental and planning decisions, and enable the fostering of environmental expertise. This could result in enhanced public confidence but only if it can be ensured that such reform is able to secure greater certainty in the planning process and that it does not frustrate efforts to secure improvements in the delivery Government policy objectives. The widespread concern about the operation of highways inquiries by Inspectors, until recently appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department, indicates the need for any such reform to be carefully managed.

101.     We address some of these issues in our written evidence to the current House of Commons Environment Sub-committee inquiry (enclosed). In this evidence, we also reiterate our support for the introduction of a third party right of appeal against the approval of planning applications which are contrary to the development plan (departure applications). In our view, the case for such a limited third party right of appeal will become difficult to resist following the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into UK law in October. CPRE does not believe that the number of appeals would swamp the planning system. They would be a tiny fraction of the applications submitted. Less than 5% of applications are taken to appeal by developers and the number which would be taken by third parties would be a fraction of this.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study