Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

General

The thrust of the questions presume that 'organisational reorganisation' is the primary solution to acknowledged deficiences. An alternative approach would be one where effective instruments are developed within a context of consensus-building among relevant stakeholders, within a framework of popular engagement, accompanied by a considered expression of political will through the allocation of adequate resources. A hyperactive UK political culture has been too often characterised by target-setting and strategising without effective new instruments, and/or a rush from one initiative to another regardless of success (e.g. urban regeneration schemes). Continental experience shows that effective new policies can be developed within existing institutional frameworks - most European countries which have over the last 3 or 4 decades radically overtaken the UK in economic, social and environmental achievement have not been obsessed by the sort of institutional reform implied by this study.

1.       Environmental sustainability

a)       Sustainable development must be pursued as a package - embracing economic, social and environmental aspirations. There is a danger of some groups focussing too narrowly on the environmental aspects of sustainability. We need both low tech 'simple lifestyle' and high tech 'dematerialised growth' options. One remedy for the unfavourable consequences of sustainable development is the vigorous exposure of 'greenwash', e.g. through more rigorous use of existing 'misleading claims' legislation.

b)       There is a clear case for environmental imperatives - in terms of sustaining the planet's life support systems (air quality, water, soil, biodiversity). Recent studies have attempted to set sustainability targets to achieve such goals (e.g. Friend's of the Earth's 'environmental space' project). There is also on overriding case for selecting climate change as the central focus of environmental policy as the bedrock imperative underlying all others.

c)       There is a need for a more holistic approach to regulation and planning. Various bodies are responsible for regulating impacts on resources such as water, air and biodiversity, and each is constrained under statute as to the boundaries of its activities. There needs to be better integration of (for example) pollution control agencies and planning authorities. One approach to improve regulatory protection of the environment would be to bring decisions regarding environmental risk into the realm of accountable public policy (make it a social concept - quality of life) rather than merely a scientific or technical judgement. This would give more weight to planning authorities when dealing with potentially harmful developments.

d)       The plan-led system offers greater opportunity for environmental protection. The use of sustainability appraisals for regional planning guidance should help further in working towards environmental sustainability. Sustainable development appraisals/frameworks/objective setting need to run smoothly with the forward planning process - plans need to be up-to-date to be effective. Sustainable development objectives need to be developed at the earliest possible stage of the planning process in order to evaluate development options. Sustainability appraisals should be made mandatory for all strategies, policies and programmes - across all appropriate sectors.

However, despite these improvements, a plan-led system is still reactive. UK town planning needs to become more like continental spatial planning at the strategic level, and more proactive in environmental management at the local scale, with access to budgets.

e)       Management in the new mantra requires more instruments. In particular, public participation in planning needs to move from stakeholder consultation to mass popular engagement using the media in which many people move (e.g. entertainment and games exploring different lifestyle choices).

f)       No. Cumulative impact is difficult to assess at the level of individual planning applications. One solution would be to crib a technique from noise control - where 'creeping ambient' is identified as a recognised risk (each dB increment may be below threshold of perception, but cumulatively, change can be noticed. One decision principle to adopt would be to discount precedent and 'slippery slope' arguments (whether for or against development). Town and country planning needs to take account not just of cumulative impact of development, but the scope for change without development - e.g. trip lengthening with retail specialisation and school differentiation without any physical works. This reinforces the need for fiscal and other instruments intervening at the individual lifestyle choice level.

g)       Local authorities have been given increasing responsibilities in terms of environmental planning without the necessary resources to go with them. Environmental staff (in general) are poorly paid and often not highly valued within local authorities (e.g. the low priority given to LA21 work by Members and Chief Officers).

On a specific point, DETR should hold a budget to allow rapid response to requests for technical studies in circumstances where there may not be a potential polluter to pay for impact assessment.

h)       Climate change must be the core environmental issue. The implications of major climatic 'flips' (e.g. catastrophic falls in food production and/or potable water availability) are potentially more far reaching than land inundation. Planning is necessary but far from sufficient to address climate change - e.g. mixed use high density can enable people to walk to work, but, in current labour markets, people will travel to an extent they consider acceptable to get the best job (e.g. 60 minute threshold in the London region and 30 minutes elsewhere). Again, instruments which affect individual lifestyle choices are essential.

i)       'Time limited use', as a planning tool, is probably not that crucial one way or the other for environmental sustainability. However, as a general sustainability principle, uses should be long-term where they involve structures. Short-life structures like the Dome set bad examples in comparison with long life, loose fit, adaptable structures like Georgian terraced houses. The granting of temporary planning permission will probably always be a necessary tool, delivering both benefits and disbenefits to environmental sustainability.

2.       Boundaries

a)       Systems are characterised by multiple overlapping catchments. There is no universal best fit. Effective practice in most other parts of the world accepts that administrative boundaries are inappropriate for many purposes. It is better to establish partnerships and special bodies, rather than periodically to paralyse the system by root and branch institutional reorganisations which can themselves be soon overtaken by changes in circumstance.

b)       GIS systems should help to reduce any problems. Technical problems should not be used as an excuse for poor planning.

c)       The land use planning system already delivers policy targets for some of these issues. In terms of nature conservation, local planning authorities have a key role in protecting habitats and species and thus delivering on biodiversity action plan targets. The use of targets as part of a sustainability appraisal is crucial in monitoring the impact of the land use planning system on these issues (the move to a more sustainable living). Again, there is a need for a more holistic integration of planning and other regulatory control.

Therefore, land use planning has a vital and necessary role to play in these environmental areas, but it is not sufficient on its own. Other instruments, especially fiscal, are needed (e.g. introduce a fairer parking place tax rather than rely on parking standards).

d)       GIS has myriad uses, typically more than predicted at the outset. Protocols for information exchange between institutions can reduce the problems of overlapping areas. The key hurdle is initial investment in system-building and training, which could be overcome by e-Government grant. Privatisation and commercialisation has degraded some datasets, and rendered them either expensive, or unavailable due to over-cautious approaches to commercial confidentiality.

e)       Lack of planning control over agricultural and forestry activities does have a deleterious impact upon the environment. In the field of biodiversity, lack of such control weakens the Government's intention to protect nature conservation interests outside of designated sites (PPG9) and for careful stewardship of the natural environment by all concerned. One example concerns non-statutory sites (i.e. those below SSSI status, but identified for conservation in local plans or by wildlife trusts). Each county and district has a series of such sites and those in private ownership are particularly at risk from a change of management/agricultural practice outside of planning control. The conservation of these non-statutory sites was the recent subject of a DETR review. We need to develop sustainable agriculture and forestry strategies that embrace a balance of incentives and control: financial support should be switched from subsidy to environmental schemes.

The effect of increased planning controls over agriculture and forestry would be a greater need for ecologists working with planners.

3.       Integration or co-ordination

e)       Better integration is needed, but full integration would require significant institutional reform and retraining. It may be better to focus on improved co-ordination, accepting that generalist planning needs to be supplemented by a range of different regimes and specialist inputs.

f)       No. There is a need for major investment in better land use transport modeling and more instruments. Greater public transport investment coupled with demand restraint will help to deliver environmental objectives and more sustainable land use/transport patterns. Environmental objectives are still not being afforded due weight when considering transport options and decisions.

g)       Effective economic instruments are vital. There are problems with existing non-statutory procedures and informal arrangements within the environmental field. For instance the non-statutory nature conservation sites referred to above and the way in which these sites are protected and managed. The recent DETR review suggests a way forward for these sites, but the perception of potential infringement of individual property rights still appears to hold back necessary changes. Species and habitats of importance on a variety of levels - from local up to national - continue to be sacrificed. This does not correlate with the Government's intention of sound stewardship of the countryside and its natural resources.

h)       Betterment does need to be revisited in a comprehensive study. Land Value Taxation (the Henry George arguments) justifies detailed consideration. 'Polluter pays' taxation is a separate issue which is better kept separate - especially if political support for either is to be maximised.

4.       Subsidiarity and democracy

a)       The balance is weighted heavily in favour of elected leadership and expert assessment. There is limited public involvement in the preparation of development plans (usually restricted to a few prominent groups) resulting in the public being relatively powerless to contest an unpopular development control decision where it conforms to the adopted plan. The public inquiry process is a misnomer - the main weight is given to the evidence of the local authority and developer's 'experts', with those local people who manage to attend (where they can take time off work) tagged on at the end in most cases as a token gesture. Although the whole UK planning process is generally democratic - its laborious, complex and bureaucratic nature make it an alien and difficult concept for most of the public who are left outside of the process.

b)       Greater efforts for participation and engagement of the public early in the planning process, more routine use of sustainability appraisals/strategic environmental assessments with full public consultation. A more accessible planning aid function, administered by local authorities would be beneficial Local versus broader interests - we need a clearer approach to environmental mitigation, with adequate individual compensation for residual losses. Two ways in which this can be achieved are: prior notification of neighbours by developers agreeing individual compensation/mitigation before an application is submitted (as in New Zealand); the production of neighbourhood or community 'planning gain' plans - shopping lists of local benefits that could be supplied to the local community should particular developments go ahead (as in New South Wales).

f)       See 'a' above. Changes should be considered to the current system which promote greater participation of local people. There needs to be a greater and more open discussion of the environmental effects of a proposal before it goes to planning committee. There should be more open access to the public to planning committee encouraging people to speak - also taking committees 'on the road' into local communities (and in the evening!). The dual role of the local planning authority as 'economic promoter' and planning regulator still causes unease in many authorities: environmental courts or the introduction of independent tribunal representatives on committees could improve the situation. Any introduction of third party rights of appeal needs careful consideration of effects (e.g. resource implications, neighbour disputes) and may require tight regulation. The current situation is biased towards applicants having a right of appeal, with objectors left with only recourse to a judicial review or the ombudsman. Why not replace the applicant's right of appeal with something fairer and more open?

g)       See 'f' above.

5.       Assessment approaches

a)       Appraisal methodologies need to reflect local context as well as seeking to address wider goals.

c)       We would support increased, mandatory use of sustainability appraisals, although further work is needed on appropriate methodologies. Concepts of 'environmental capital' (e.g. those under consideration by English Nature) need further thought in terms of social value, people's use/enjoyment of nature and how these concepts are applied in urban areas.

e)       UK practitioners are generally under-educated in comparison with countries where real environmental progress is being achieved (e.g. Germany, Netherlands). An example of UK under-investment is the continued lack of monitoring of EMR by the National Radiological Protection Board (who plead lack of resources), despite the huge sums secured by Government from licenses for next generation mobile communications, and evident public concern - unanswered by the recent report of the EGMP, chaired by Sir William Stewart.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study