Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Background
ESA is the established UK trade body representing the business interests of 300 member companies providing waste management and environmental services, a sector of the economy amounting to 0.5% GDP with an annual turnover exceeding £4 billion. Our Members provide integrated solutions to waste across the full spectrum of biological, thermal and mechanical treatment options and are consistently achieving more sustainable waste management practices.

ESA welcomes the Royal Commission's Study into Environmental Planning. The Commission's Study is timely as it coincides with launches of the National Waste Strategies across the UK. Delivery of the National Waste Strategies, together with the Landfill Directive diversion targets and evolving renewable energy policy, will be conditional on securing planning consents for the necessary infrastructure to enable more environmentally sustainable management of waste resulting from production and consumption of goods and services.

ESA's comments are confined to those questions answered.

1.      Environmental Sustainability
The commission recognises that sustainable development has economic, social and environmental components. Within that framework the Commission sees its particular function as to ensure that environmental sustainability is not being prejudiced. In this case the Commission wishes to investigate the extent to which current environmental planning systems promote or prejudice environmental sustainability.

1a.      Has the pursuit of sustainable development as the broad objective of policy had favourable of unfavourable consequences for protection of the environment? To the extent that consequences have been unfavourable, how could that best be remedied?
Defining sustainable development remains subjective. ESA's concern is that waste/resource management policies are both economically and environmentally sustainable and it is essential that planning policy is consistent with this sustainability. ESA believes planning decisions must take due cognisance, in a carefully weighted manner, of economic, environmental and social factors.

1b.       Can environmental objectives always be balanced against other issues or are there environmental imperatives? If so, how are they (or how should they be) determined?
Achievement of environmental sustainability is linked to economic sustainability. In the UK, development of waste management facilities follows the guiding principle of Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) which seeks the optimal balance between environmental performance and economic cost. BPEO will often result in the presumption of an integrated approach taking site-specific factors into consideration, as well as the proximity principle and the waste hierarchy. Tools such as life-cycle assessment, risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis should be used to assist in the determination of BPEO as they can lead to more considered outcomes.

There are already good examples of the need for environmental imperatives - two such UK designations relate to Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, adequate protection of bio-diversity and of these pristine habitats can only be ensured if sufficient regulatory safeguards exist.

1c.       What regulatory approaches are likely to be the most effective and practicable to protect the environment, in both measurable terms, e.g. water, soil and air quality, and less tangible aspects, e.g. landscape and amenity?
ESA believes that the current regulatory framework through planning and environmental regulation provides a comprehensive structure for effective protection of the environment by legitimate business activities. Indeed, it is considered that for many developments such as waste management there is a need for a degree of deregulation to facilitate greater flexibility of operation and environmental performance (if various international, European and national policy obligations are to be delivered). The critical issue is the application and enforcement of policy and regulations to ensure environmental objectives are being achieved.

The UK adopts an integrated approach to process regulation i.e. across releases to air, land and water. Integrated pollution control offers the most effective means of protecting the environment, as it eliminates the opportunity to remove a pollutant from one environmental medium, only for it to be subsequently released into another. This approach underlies the formation of the Environment Agency, but so far there has been a failure to deliver a service efficiently drawing together the range of environmental considerations in an accountable, consistent and transparent manner.

The UK waste management sector is amongst the most heavily regulated industrial sectors. Effective regulatory measures reflect generic legislation setting out broad concepts and environmental objectives (i.e. the Framework Directive on Waste {75/442/EEC}) backed up by more prescriptive legislation (e.g. proposed Directive on the Incineration of Waste), the latter dealing specifically with releases in a more integrated manner. However less tangible considerations are often extremely difficult to evaluate e.g. the significance of visual intrusion from a wind turbine in a scenic landscape compared to the benefit of a reduction in carbon dioxide releases?

1d.       In practice, to what extent does land use planning still embody a presumption in favour of development? Has the legislative change to a plan-led system given land use planning the potential to become a more effective instrument for achieving environmental sustainability? Is any further change necessary, and, if so, what?
The presumption in favour of development remains a fundamental principle of land-use planning. However, with respect to the development of waste management facilities and the extent to which environmental considerations are to be taken account, this presumption is increasingly being superseded with a requirement for applicants to justify the proposal, very often in terms of demonstrating need. This is intended to bring more strategic consideration to the need for planning provision in key areas, including waste management: for example, the requirement for Waste Planning Authorities to take full account of the policies described in the National Waste Strategy ^[1] when identifying suitable sites for waste management facilities.

Practical experience however within the waste management sector illustrates the increasing difficulty to achieve positive planning decisions at the local level, suggesting an increasing level of influence of public perception on the local political decision making process. Decisions on granting planning permission for waste management facilities must become more coherent if policy obligations are to be delivered.

1e.       In practice, how far have planning regimes in general moved form "predict and provide" to "plan, monitor and manage" to avoid environmentally unsustainable outcomes?
The question appears to be based on the assumption that predict and provide involves no consideration of the environmental outcome of forecasts, or that the application of predictions in the development plans does not take into account environmental constraints. This is patently untrue. The benefits of the plan, monitor and manage approach over predict and provide have not been proven for all forms of development. In respect of waste, it is essential to forecast waste arising and to provide within plans the appropriate range of facilities - in an integrated framework - to satisfy the requirement for their effective management.

Insufficient provision of facilities would lead to European Court of Justice rulings against the UK for failure to comply with key aspects of European legislation (e.g. Landfill Directive). An additional difficulty with the concept of plan, monitor and manage is that it implies the ability to respond reasonably quickly when there is a requirement. However the waste management industry, as a closely regulated and capital intensive sector, often requires long lead times for major new facilities to come to fruition.

1f.       Do current arrangements for environmental planning sufficiently take into account the cumulative impacts of developments?
Cumulative impacts fall into two categories: 1) those relating to the combination of different parameters associated with a development (e.g. noise and emissions); and 2) the contribution from a development to a particular release type (e.g. increase in background NO_x level). These are dealt with in turn below.

The issue of cumulative environmental impacts has not traditionally been addressed via the planning regime but ESA believes strategic Environmental Assessments will substantially address this concern. However, the assessment of cumulative environmental impacts is complex and requires both quantitative and qualitative parameters with different spatial and temporal boundaries to be considered. Strategic Environmental Assessments have an important role in taking into account the cumulative impacts; whereas regulation via implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive will bring a more holistic approach to facility operation.

The Environment Agency as statutory regulator assesses the projected environmental loading of a substance - attributable to a proposed development - alongside those already occurring (e.g. the percentage increase in a substance for which an Environmental Quality Standard {EQS} exists). This could impact on the siting of a facility if the additional loading triggered an overall unacceptable level of a particular release. The development of such environmental management tools as life-cycle assessment will play an increasing role in making more informed planning decisions.

1g.       To what extent is effective environmental planning hindered by a lack of resources within central government and local government, statutory agencies and advisory bodies? Have the procedures become too complex for any institution to cope adequately?
ESA is concerned that resources for environmental planning are not used effectively. Environmental agencies fail to focus on core issues and so duplicate work of other bodies. For example, the Environment Agency increasingly takes an interest in the strategic issues associated with waste development, matters of need and even development plan issues even though these areas are covered by planning authorities. Rationalisation or clearer demarcation would improve efficiency.

1h.      No comments

1i.       To what extent does the achievement of environmental sustainability depend on permitted uses being time limited?
The waste industry is an increasingly capital-intensive sector with adequate returns often being realised only over a long period. Time limiting permitted development would be counter-productive, as it would add uncertainty to longer-term returns on investments. This would impede the Government and the UK waste management industry from moving towards resource recovery focussed on waste producers and towards investment in more environmentally sustainable infrastructure.

2.      Boundaries
The Commission wishes to investigate whether administrative boundaries and the way environmental planning is sub-divided between policy areas are hindering the pursuit of environmental sustainability.

2a.       To what extent does a mismatch between administrative areas and environmental processes contribute to environmentally unsustainable planning, for instance in river catchments or along coastlines? What should be done about it?
Administrative boundaries may cause authorities to adopt isolationist policies in attempts to protect resources within their areas regardless of whether this is most environmentally sustainable arrangement. Some pollutants (usually airborne or via watercourse) know no administrative boundaries once released e.g. carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

The local planning approach adopted by the Environment Agency in Local Environmental Action Plans (LEAPs) using water catchment areas has no relevance for most waste matters and no correlation with local planning authority boundaries and their development plans. There is an adverse prospect of contradictory measures within particular areas and variance of standards from one administrative area to another. There should be a governmental body prepared to intervene when these discrepancies arise. With development plans there is already the means for this, but there seems a reluctance to take action and even recommendations of public inquiry inspectors are being ignored.

2b.      What problems arise from different plans being produced and implemented for overlapping geographical areas?
Different plans produced and implemented for overlapping geographical areas result in two main concerns: 1) confusion as to who is the superior authority. However, this should be rare with opportunities to clarify the scope and area of responsibility of respective plans and cross-referencing; and 2) unnecessary infrastructure duplication. While the proximity principle and regional self-sufficiency may be among relevant considerations for planning, they must be interpreted with a sufficient flexibility to minimise this phenomenon.

The Strategic Waste Management Assessments of the Environment Agency purport to include policy matters so there is cause for concern regarding the fact that the regional waste strategies of the Regional Planning Bodies ostensibly cover the same matters.

2c.       Should the land use planning system be responsible for helping to deliver policy targets in other areas such as transport, energy, water provision, flood protection, climate change and nature conservation?
Yes. If land-use planning is not seen as having some responsibility for helping to deliver policy targets (e.g. transport, energy, waste provision and nature conservation), development will be less co-ordinated and effective as a result. However, co-ordination between separate authorities beyond an optimal point becomes cumbersome. ESA recommends that consideration be given to a single-tier of local government for environmental matters. Also the split on land-use planning development control and waste regulation between counties and the Environment Agency needs to be addressed.

2d.      How might geographical information systems (GIS) contribute to environmental planning in both the short and long term? What problems are associated with data accessibility and quality, and how might they be addressed?
GIS mapping can help environmentally sensitive sites and parameters to be identified and potentially scoped out of further consideration at an early stage, reducing the substantial wasted cost of the industry making proposals for non-viable sites. Access to reliable data on the types and quantity of waste produced has been a major logistical problem for the waste management industry, as such data is needed to for reliable planning to be undertaken. The work of the Environment Agency and the Environmental Services Association Research Trust (ESART) on the nature and classification of wastes should materially improve this situation.

2e.       Does the lack of control over certain activities, such as forestry and agriculture prejudice the achievement of environmental goals? If so, what would be the effect of introducing such controls?
Piecemeal development can prejudice achievement of environmental goals. This suggests the importance of strategic approaches set out in the National Waste Strategies.

3.       Integration or co-ordination
Different environmental planning regimes have grown up over time to serve different objectives. The Commission is interested in how well the current arrangements work as a whole.

3a.       Does the current system need "fixing"? What gaps, unnecessary duplication and conflicts exist in present arrangements for environmental planning?
ESA believes that the production of Environmental Impact Assessments could be more closely aligned with the planning process. The assessment should be an integrated part of the process and not a separate exercise. This would help to eliminate duplication associated with the requirement for developers to provide the same information separately for both planning and environmental purposes. See also 1f above.

3b.       Is there in practice a hierarchy in the formulation of different types of environmental plans? Would there be advantages in establishing a clearer hierarchy?
The planning system has a structure for the production of development plans and their status is clearly understood. However the status of environmental plans and their relationship to development plans is frequently unclear. Problems of confusion can arise as to who is the superior authority. ESA suspects that environmental plans can carry substantial weight in decision making even though their production may not have included proper external consultation. Given the stated scope of the Strategic Waste Management Assessments of the Environment Agency to include policy matters, there is also cause for concern in relation to the work on regional waste strategies by the Regional Planning Bodies ostensibly covering the same matters.

3d.       Are present arrangements for environmental planning efficient and cost-effective? Can the wish to speed up the land use planning process be reconciled with effective environmental protection?
Variations in standards occur between the many local authorities involved. Accelerating processes can lead to less objective and transparent decision making but a balance must be struck. It is important to ensure that there are no unnecessary delays. ESA considers that proposals to increase the speed of the land use planning process will not compromise environmental protection. In addition, ESA would like to see a general public statement from the Environment Agency to the effect that there should be no material planning reason why a waste management facility should not be built where:

• a regional need is identified (or implicit) in the National Waste Strategy;

• the type of facility is identified as a component of the BPEO; and

• all regulatory requirements are met, including no adverse contribution to background air quality.

3f.       Has a satisfactory integration of transport planning and land use planning and achieved. If not, what more needs to be done?
3f. No comments.

3g.       To what extent could economic instruments, non-statutory procedures, or informal arrangements complement environmental planning regulation, and how effective would they be at providing environmentally sustainable solutions? Would there be implications for openness, transparency and accountability?
Additional compulsory means to obtain solutions would result in a more interventionist approach to be avoided unless essential. Economic instruments can have an adverse effect on the balance of investment and returns and suspicion arises as to whether the Government is motivated by raising taxes by "stealth" or by achieving environmental solutions. ESA does not believe that the circumstances of the waste management industry are so exceptional as to justify hypothecation of the Landfill Tax. However, ESA does support the private sector and voluntary Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, a wholly distinguishable concept also used in other sectors of the economy.

3h.       One possible economic instrument could be a "betterment tax" aiming to increase public ownership of development gain. Is such a tax feasible and desirable? Might there be some way of linking the rate of tax to environmental impact?
Waste management has rightly turned to privatised operations to bring the necessary investment, innovation and skills-base for effective service delivery. ESA is strongly opposed to the re-introduction of betterment levies (abandoned many years ago: they are a negative instrument and undermine investment and economic improvement) as they would have a negative influence on the provision of Best Value and bring confusion at the time of most profound change in the waste management industry.

3i.       Does the adoption of sustainability as the focus of policy intensify disagreements about the boundary between public and private development rights and obligations? To what extent does the current system enable such issues to be resolved?
Sustainability should be ubiquitous in both public and private operations. Recent contracts for the management of municipal waste have been designed to fulfil the environmental aims of waste local plans and include integrated systems with a range of facilities as well as facilitating investment by operators. It is possible for the current system to accommodate the primary interests of both sectors: each has a role to play if significant improvements in standards of delivery are to be made.

4.      Subsidiarity and democracy
The Commission is interested in the accountability and transparency of environmental planning regimes. There is often an inherent tension between delivering national policy targets and ensuring adequate local accountability in the vicinity of a development. Indeed policy targets themselves may be controversial. National targets may impose local environmental degradation against the wishes of the local population. On the other hand, the sum of local planning decisions across the country may not deliver national environmental protection targets. The Commission is also keen to ensure that decisions are taken at the most appropriate level with an appropriate range of inputs to the decision making process.

4a.       Is the current balance between elected leadership, expert assessment and public participation in environmental planning decisions appropriate?
Planning decisions are increasingly being influenced by public perception. Whilst public involvement in local decision making is healthy, there is an emerging concern that decisions are made in favour of public perception even when it is misinformed. Nimbyism (Not In My BackYard) and Bananaism (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) are prevalent. Vocal and well-organised interest groups can garner local support for a cause but should not be equated with the democratic system and their influence should be viewed with caution. Due weighting should be given to objective and scientific judgement if planning provision for delivery of sustainable waste management is to be achieved.

The industry is currently being frustrated in its efforts to develop innovative and integrated solutions to improve standards and use modern methods to manage wastes in an environmentally prudent manner. The balance may need to be shifted from the purely local dimension towards wider strategy.

4b.      How do we ensure that all levels of decision-making processes are sufficiently open, transparent and accountable to gain public acceptance? What are the best ways to reflect the range of public opinion whist maintaining an appropriate procedural timetable? When should local public opinion be overridden in the interest of a broader common goal?
In order to ensure reasonable progress with decision making it is necessary to balance opportunity for public comment and for views to be taken into consideration with a reasonable timeframe for allowing development to proceed. It is felt public participation is well developed. Proposals intended to serve a wider area should not be decided upon solely by more localised sections of the population. For waste management, the County remains the lowest practicable level of responsibility for determining major proposals.

4c.      What should be the relationship between international, national, regional and local goals? Should environmental planning take place at the lowest level consistent with the common good (the principle of subsidiarity)? How far do current arrangements depart form that principle?
While environmental planning should take place at the lowest level consistent with the common good, there is a need to balance the integrity of a site of international importance (e.g. Ramsar designated wetland area) with sites of a lower order of importance. The emergence of regional planning has given rise to inconsistency of decision making, with regional strategies either delegated to local authorities or implemented by the regional arm of central government.

4d.       Are new regional planning arrangements, or other measures such as strengthening the strategic planning role of local government, needed to ensure greater coherence between national and local planning regimes? If so, what should these be and how should they be made accountable?
Regional/county arrangements help to strike a balance between national objectives and local concerns.

4e.       To what extent do the principles of the environmental planning regimes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland need to differ from each other? What are the specific drivers for these differences?
Environmental planning regimes may vary in different parts of the UK but overall principles should apply consistently across the UK and assumption should be one of consistency. Differences should only reflect differing local circumstances and should be capable of logical explanation.

4f.       Does the present form of planning inquiry offer the best way of resolving disputes? Should it be extended to permit a third party right of appeal? If so, should such rights be restricted to prevent abuse?
ESA believes the current form of enquiry provides the best means of testing the evidence in respect of a proposed development. Unless such rights can be defined to exclude obstructive interest groups, third party rights of appeal should not be introduced into the planning inquiry system. The planning process needs to move at an adequate speed and to be tolerably predictable.

The waste management industry is particularly vulnerable as new proposals nearly always attract widespread opposition regardless of the wider need to provide facilities. There exists already a measure of redress for third parties through the courts and the Human Rights Act will add to their scope for redress.

4g.       Would environmental tribunals or courts enhance public confidence in the land use planning appeals process? If so, would they impose significant extra costs and delays?
Environmental tribunals merit serious consideration. Adequate resources should be made available for their operations and avoidable delay prevented. They would need to be constituted so that there was not an in-built presumption against development as international, European and national policy obligations on waste management would be unlikely to be honoured without such safeguards.

5.      Assessment approaches
There are many different approaches to assessing the impact of plans and developments. The commission wishes to determine the most appropriate approaches to safeguard environmental sustainability while maintaining efficient planning systems.

5a.       What are the most appropriate appraisal methodologies for use in drawing up environmental plans and assessing the environmental impact of plans prepared for other purposes? Do appraisal methodologies applied to individual cases provide sufficient information about their implications for the achievement of wider environmental goals?
The most appropriate method of securing the environmental credibility of plans is to ensure they are written by experienced and adequately trained staff, tested through the consultation and public inquiry system and finally adjudicated by a higher body. Properly undertaken, this will ensure a continual appraisal of policies. Separate studies can only introduce further delay and cost. Environmental appraisal studies for development plans are generally undertaken by bodies with an interest in showing that the document conforms with what is expected of it and the system is therefore somewhat of a pretence.

5b.      Could increased use of such methodologies dovetail effectively with the efficient operation of environmental planning systems? How widely applicable should environmental appraisal be? What level of detail is appropriate for the various plan types? Who should be responsible for: I) undertaking environmental appraisal, and ii) judging its quality?
If environmental appraisal of plans is to continue it should be by bodies with no connection with or interest in the particular authorities and could be a role for a regional body or a function of the public inquiry answerable to the inspector.

5c.       What would be the value of increased use of other assessment tools, e.g. sustainability appraisal, environmental capital, environmental footprint, environmental space, and health impact assessment?
These should all be part of the plan making stage and not need any separate appraisal, other than the stages of public examination.

5d.      Are there good examples of comparison between the actual environmental, social and economic effects predicted when a case was being considered and what the actual effects were? In addition, is there evidence of the effectiveness of pre-development mitigation and compensation agreements at avoiding unsustainable outcomes?

5d.      No comment.

5e.       How adequate is the knowledge base, including the location and availability of expertise, provision of training for practitioners, and the accessibility and quality of data? How far are any of these elements in the knowledge base constrained by the lack of resources or suitable institutions, and if appropriate, how could that be remedied?
The waste management industry as a rapidly evolving and maturing industry sector has a strong base of skills and expertise. Unreliable and inadequate data has been a problem for the sector but as stated above, this is being addressed.

^[1] DETR 2000, Waste Strategy 2000 - England and Wales, part 1

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study