Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

1.       Thank you for consulting the Federation regarding this study. The House Builders Federation is the principal trade federation for private sector housebuilders in England and Wales. Its members range from very large, international companies through medium sized to small, local companies. These members account for approximately 80% of all new houses built in England and Wales in any one year.

2.       The Federation, both directly and through it's members, is involved at most levels of the planning system and considers itself well qualified to comment on a number of the issues raised by the commission.

3.       It is, of course, easy to get carried away with any individual element of a wide topic such as planning. It should be remembered that the planning system removes an individuals right to do what they will with their own property in the interest of the public at large. There is, therefore, always a balance (not always a compromise) to be made when deciding where and how development will be allowed. We are, after all, seeking sustainable development rather than no development at all.

4.       Many of the proposals by the UK round table on sustainable development would require comprehensive amendment of the land use planning system. Clearly such wholesale changes should be widely debated as a package since many of the changes will have knock on effects not necessarily apparent when seeking to meet one criteria for change such as "greater protection for the environment".

5.       In order to assist your consideration of the points discussed this response attempts to address the questions posed under each of their headings. However, this paper does not directly answer each and every question independently since, many of the issues are inextricably linked with others.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

6.       The pursuit of sustainable development has, in many instances, been focused primarily on environmental preservation rather than development itself. There is a widely held perception that all development is bad for the environment and, therefore, that all development will result in an environmental loss. This can be summarised as a "no change" policy stance justified by many as meeting the Bruntland Commission definition of sustainable development, i.e. that of "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

7.       Unfortunately such interpretation focuses on the latter part of the equation. In effect it is an attitude of "if we change nothing future generations will be able to make the same choices as we face". However, this ignores the requirement to meet our own needs; the need for shelter, food and employment and merely avoids making decisions at all.

8.       The planning system, therefore, must accommodate the needs of the present in the most sustainable way. This is achieved, relatively successfully, through the existing land use planning system. By directing development to the most sustainable locations and away from the least sustainable areas (however they may be defined) the planning system determines the development patterns of the future.

9.       The Federation sees little difference between a predict and provide approach to planning and a plan monitor and manage regime. It is debatable as to whether we have ever had the former since there has always been a policy element to planning since the first Act in 1947. Thus the only real "predict and provide" occurred prior to land use planning. Since successive Acts have been introduced the effects of more and more policy have been monitored and then managed differently if they are subsequently deemed to be "unsuitable". There are any number of policy changes throughout the last 50-60 years of modern planning which have been "planned, monitored and managed", ranging from the building of high rise blocks through to culveting of rivers and streams. All of these policies were considered "sustainable" in their time yet are not current practice.

10.       The plan led system sets out the policy of the day and, since it should be an evolving, continuous process, should be able to adapt and change quickly to accommodate new and changing policy objectives. The failure to date has been that many local authorities see the plan making system as a static process with adoption of a plan as a goal in its own right. The purpose of development plans is to guide development in order to achieve that which is most sustainable, not merely to have a glossy document full of out of date policies and ideas.

11.       Thus it is the development plan that can address the cumulative impact of development. By identifying where development would be best placed, long term plans for infrastructure provision can be made. Policy initiatives such as seeking to reduce the need to travel can be implemented through, for example, guiding development to areas of high accessibility and away from areas of low accessibility.

BOUNDARIES

12.       Wherever a system relies on boundaries of responsibility there will always be problems associated with areas lying close to or crossing those boundaries. Such problems can, to some extent, be ameliorated through cross boundary working between authorities to ensure consistency and compatibility. There should, therefore, be little problem with different plans being produced for overlapping geographic areas. Indeed, the production of such plans assists, to some extent, this need for compatibility of policy.

13.       The development plan system already helps deliver policy targets in other areas such as transport and pollution control. The lack of control over some activities such as forestry and agriculture is primarily one of flexibility and/or timescales. Many of the areas not covered by the land use planning system are long term projects requiring long term commitment. Unfortunately, many local planning authorities have difficulty sustaining a policy stance for a full electoral term of just 5 years! Conversely, agricultural change can be as rapid as the change in seasons and the land use planning system is either too slow to react to such requirements or would be little more than a cursory rubber stamping exercise.

INTEGRATION OR COORDINATION

14.       The current planning system is robust, transparent and, for the most part, well understood. While there is always "fixing" to be done to any system the principle of balance between economic, social and environmental factors is well established and respected. It is important not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" when examining any proposal for change. While there are different process elsewhere in the world these must be assessed in the round rather than seeking to "bolt on" the best elements from lots of disparate systems. Such an approach would inevitably lead to inconsistencies and internal conflicts.

15.       The concept of a betterment tax has been debated at length in a number of forums. The issues are considered by the Federation to be complex rather than simple and would require significant consultation in their own right. It is understood that the DETR are currently preparing a discussion paper on this subject and, while such debate is to be welcomed, the lessons learned from previous attempts at betterment should not be lightly dismissed.

SUBSIDIARITY AND DEMOCRACY

16.       As previously discussed the development plan process must be one of constant assessment rather than a stop/start process. Plans should be produced within a framework of policy from a national level, through regional planning, structure plans and local plans. This cascade approach is believed to be the only way that the sum of the parts will ever add up to the national whole. So often we see local areas produce plans that do little more than fall to the lowest common denominator rather than addressing what are, of course, sometimes difficult decisions and choices.

17.      If we continue to deny people the right to do what they like with their own property there must be a system of appeal against the decision makers. The current system is again, well established, well respected and widely understood. The current debate over third party appeals appears to be only applicable to cases where the local planning authority grants planning permission to itself. In all other cases the third parties are, to all intents and purposes, represented by their elected representative i.e. the local planning authority.

ASSESSMENT APPROACHES

18.       Most of the existing appraisal methodologies for assessing the environmental impact of development plans are too simplistic in their assessment of what is good and what is bad. They tend to look at policies in isolation rather than overall strategies where the benefits may well outweigh the negative impact. It should, therefore, be the objectives and strategies that should be appraised not the policies themselves per se.

19.      One of the problems with introducing a more complicated appraisal system is the lack of understanding that might arise, particularly where unfamiliar concepts or new jargon is introduced. This is of great concern if the system is to remain transparent to all.

20.       The Federation does not believe that development in this country has, generally, been unsustainable for the last 50 years. It therefore follows that not everything that is currently being done as best practice is resulting in unsustainable development.

21.       It is clearly not possible to assess what would have happened to a local environment if a particular development did not take place, other than by assuming that there would have been no change at all. If we are to continue to pursue a growth and development strategy, in the words of John Gummer, previously Secretary of State for the Environment, "doing nothing is not an option". Thus any comparison of proposed development with doing nothing is unrealistic and meaningless. The correct comparisons should be between the development as proposed and alternative ways of achieving the same development. This will ensure that the most sustainable option for development is achieved.

22.       In conclusion it is worth reiterating the remarks make at the beginning of this submission. Sustainable development must take account of the environmental, economic and social factors associated with the proposed development. In order to have a truly sustainable strategy these elements must be given equal consideration. The example of a three-legged stool is, perhaps, the best analogy. In order to have a useful piece of furniture the legs must be of the same length. Too much emphasis placed on one leg means that the stool becomes unstable and useless. If planning policy concentrates too much on environmental impact or protection it is inevitable that the economic and social objectives of sustainable development will be lost. The role of the planning system is to keep the legs at the same height! Despite a few wobbles the Federation believes that, overall, the current system performs the task well.

23.      I hope that these comments are useful to the Commission and would, of course, be happy to discuss any of the points raised in greater detail in the future.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study