Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Theme 4. Subsidiarity and democracy

a)       Is the current balance between elected leadership, expert assessment and public participation in environmental planning decisions appropriate?

1.       In considering this issue we would like to provide a response that reflects our experience in being directly exposed to the planning application determination process from both sides of the development control fence. We are currently engaged by prospective developers and by Local Planning Authorities on a wide range of landuse proposals. We would on average expect to be involved in over 50 planning application cases every year. Often these are with respect to technically complex proposals with significant landuse planning implications.

2.       As a starting point it is necessary to look at what is the reality with respect to the roles of relevant stakeholder groups under the current system. We would like to focus in particular on the role of the technical case in the decision making process.

3.       The key function of the planning system in this Country is to ensure that decisions are taken in a balanced way taking into consideration all material factors. This should ensure that assessment by technical experts, often in the form of officers and technical advisers is balanced with the views of elected members and the public. An area where we are well qualified to respond is with respect to waste management decisions where reconciling national and regional targets with local interests and public concerns often seems impossible.

4.       Waste management activities in what ever form they take, are by their very nature considered by most to be bad neighbours. This frequently results in mass opposition by local residents to new proposals whether for a landfill site, waste to energy plant or any other form of waste handling or treatment facility. The needs of the local waste disposal authority, the region or the nation and the needs or wants of local people often appear diametrically opposed.

5.       In such circumstances there appears to be immense pressures placed upon elected members to have a disproportionate regard for the views of their constituents. In our experience this pressure can be so great that it can override the technical case presented by experts. There are obviously many examples where officers have recommended approval, elected members have subsequently refused the planning applications and then permission is granted through the appeal process.

6.       In our experience this often results from a polarisation of views driven by genuinely held concerns of local residents which are then reflected by their political representatives. This can often lead elected decision makers to reach decisions based on reasons of political expediency and unsubstantiated concerns and not the facts of the case. In many cases this whole process results in significant frustration and delay in the implementation of very reasonable proposals not to mention the cost to the public purse.

7.       With respect to proposals that are generally perceived as bad neighbour developments the system often seems stacked firmly against the developer and any basic landuse planning assumptions such as a general presumption in favour of development are not fairly applied.

8.       This issue can be illustrated with reference to the government's new targets for diversion of waste away from landfill. Under the EU Landfill Directive ^[1] the UK is required to divert an increasing proportion of waste away from landfill between now and 2020. Specific diversion targets are set for the period 2010 to 2200 and separate waste recovery targets (recycling, composting, energy, materials) are defined for the period 2005 to 2015 ^[3].

9.       Over recent years Waste Local Plans have gradually moved away from a need to make provision for landfills towards emphasising the need for alternative methods of waste management and the concept of sustainable waste management. The inevitable consequence of this is that there is a growing need for planning applications for new waste management facilities to be approved by local planning authorities. Many Waste Disposal Authorities are favouring energy from waste plants as a major component of their new strategies.

10.       Waste to energy plants are perceived by many in a very bad light due in part to the reputation and bad press associated with the old style waste incinerators built in 1960's and 1970's. These have been associated with significant quantities of harmful emissions leading to the publication of many damning reports and general public concern. Commonly the issues have focused on health effects and in particular levels of Dioxins. The older style plants have now been closed or been required to meet much stricter emission standards under the EC Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive ^[4].

11.       Even though the real effects associated with emissions from these older style plants have often been exaggerated they can rightly be considered as technological dinosaurs in comparison with many modern plants. The new generation of waste combustion plants now incorporate very sophisticated emissions control systems which have to meet very strict emission standards set by EC Directives. Consequently the environmental effects associated with such plant are relatively limited.

12.       Public concerns and therefore political views at a local level appear to be lagging behind the technical facts on this issue. As a consequence planning applications for new facilities which may be found to be acceptable by technical experts are not gaining planning permission due the way the existing landuse planning system is designed. This appears to be militating against achieving national targets and overall sustainable waste management objectives.

13.       There is a significant role here for the waste industry to fulfil. Education and communication expertise needs to be brought to bear to dispel misunderstandings and prejudices. Consideration should also be given to the way cases for and against proposals are presented to decision makers.

14.       One answer to this issue might be a rethink of the way the Environmental Impact Assessment system is organised in this country another may require a correction in the influence that different stakeholders have in reaching environmental planning decisions.

15.       Looking firstly at the EIA system. At present the system requires that developers who are proposing 'EIA Development' ^[2], should undertake an EIA and submit an Environmental Statement to accompany the planning application. This leads to an inevitable degree of in built bias in favour of the proposals in question. This is particularly the case when independent consultants are not used to undertake the EIA. It would seem appropriate that the officers and regulators who are consulted on the application should provide a check or balance in the system. However in practice although a limit on time, expertise and resources often means that full and detailed verification of EIA findings cannot be achieved.

16.       An option open to the Local Planning Authority is for the EIA to be independently reviewed by a competent body such as the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment or a reputable independent environmental consultancy. However resources are not always available to enable this to happen.

17.       A more fundamental suggestion requiring changes in the current legislation would be to require all EIAs to be subject to a review by a panel of experts independent of the developers and the decision makers. This is an approach that is adopted in the Netherlands and in Canada. Alternatively the planning authority should commission the EIA for any proposed EIA development itself. If necessary using funding resources provided by the applicants.

18.       One of the limitations of such approaches is the de-linking of the design and mitigation aspects of EIA from the assessment process. This presupposes however that the design and environmental consequences of development proposals are fundamentally affected by the findings of an EIA. In many cases this is clearly not the case. In the worst cases EIA is undertaken as a retrospective process when the nature of the development has already been determined and is in effect fixed and irreversible.

19.       With regard to certain types of development proposals the technical cases are often very complex. Generalist planning practitioners are often not (and should not be expected to be) sufficiently knowledgeable to judge the relative merits of each and every technical issue. Some degree of specialist expert input into the determination process should therefore be mandatory. In many cases this can be satisfied through the statutory consultation process but not in every case.

20.       Whether a change in the current system of appraisal of technical information is warranted or not one thing is clear. The technical arguments for or against any land use proposals often do not get the level of attention that they deserve at the time of final reckoning. The strategic and community significance of some developments (such as many waste related proposals) is often lost amidst local issues and political intrigue which sometimes detract from the facts.

21.       A wholesale change in the current system is probably not warranted. However from our experience consideration should be given through the current Royal Commission to ways in which technical considerations on landuse planning issues can be given the same level of weighting as they are with respect to Environmental Consents regulated by the Environment Agency. Here although public consultation is required and indeed has greater significance under the new Draft PPC Regulations, technical officers (experts) take the ultimate decision.

22.       Although political input into planning decisions is a central plank of our landuse planning system in this country, strategically important proposals that have regional significance such as waste related proposals would seem to deserve special treatment. With such developments the balance seems at present to be slanted to far away from the role of expert assessment.

References:

^[1] EC Directive 99/31/EC
^[2] The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999:293)
^[3] Waste Strategy 2000 England and Wales; DETR May 2000
^[4] EC Directive 94/67/EC

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study