Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

SUMMARY

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers represents professional engineers who work in a wide range of industries. Alongside other Institutions, The Institution of Mechanical Engineers is seeking ways to introduce within its professional development training programme an understanding and knowledge of environmental issues and sustainability. The Engineering Institutions collectively believe that Professional Engineers have a major part to play in ensuring that technical developments take place alongside environmental sustainability.

Sustainability is a national issue and therefore it is for Government to define policy. However the key test will be to define policies that have regional and local relevance and are accepted. Environmental sustainability is generally recognised as a 'good thing' but at the practical level is not readily understood or accepted as relevant to everyday life.

There are a number of statutory bodies involved in the environmental and planning processes. Their roles are generally well understood. Given the wide-ranging responsibilities the Institutions view is that integration would not help the planning process, and at one extreme could dilute the local input, through the local planning authorities, into the decision making process. What is needed, however, is a greater degree of co-ordination.

Overall, the Institutions view is that the planning process is sound. However, planning decisions are judgemental with no absolute 'right' answer; but because for some the decision is 'wrong' does not mean that the planning system is at fault. A key question is whether there has been a history of 'bad' planning decisions where if the planning system had been different an alternative decision would have been made.

The Institution recognises the importance of dialogue between industry and local authorities, statutory environmental bodies and the public to help improve the level of trust in the initial planning decisions to avoid where possible public inquiries. Where inquiries are necessary there is a need to ensure greater public involvement and acceptability of the process.

The Institution is concerned that too much emphasis may be placed on the quality of the environmental assessment rather than on the quality of the decision. The content and scope environmental assessments need to be agreed early in the planning process and should concentrate on potential significant effects. Local planning authorities have a key role to work alongside the developer to achieve that. The Institutions role is to ensure that knowledge of environmental sustainability is brought within the knowledge base of professional engineers.

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers represents professional engineers who work in a wide range of industries. Many of its members will be involved in developing projects which may need to pass the test of planning and environmental acceptability, or developing new technologies which may themselves have effects on or consequences for environmental sustainability.

Whilst its members are largely 'industry based', the Institution is fully aware of its environmental responsibilities and seeks to ensure that Members are fully trained to understand and take account of environmental issues. Alongside other Institutions, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers is seeking ways to introduce within its professional development training an understanding and knowledge of environmental issues and sustainability. The Engineering Institutions collectively believe that Professional Engineers have a major part to play in ensuring that technological developments take place alongside and in recognition of environmental sustainability.

It remains the case, however, that the majority of professional mechanical engineers work in industry. The evidence presented to the Commission therefore represents an industry perspective on the role of environmental planning and the growing influence of the concept of sustainable development.

The UK has a well-developed planning system, and has been refined over many years. That is not to say that it is perfect and cannot be improved upon. However in any assessment of the current environmental system and the search for improvements it is important to answer the question 'has the current system failed in the UK'.

The planning system ultimately requires a decision to be taken. There may be no unanimous view on what is the right decision and inevitably may require a judgement to be made based on often conflicting advice and information. From the industry perspective, where investment decisions also have to be made, decisions on planning matters need to be made in a timely way and with a level of information that is appropriate to the decision being sought.

2.       ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

There would seem to be a general consensus that the integration of sustainable development principles into the planning process is the next major challenge. The major challenge, however, is not to get general agreement on its importance, but agreement as to what it actually means in a practical sense, how it is to be incorporated and who is to take the lead role. Setting standards can regulate many other environmental issues but sustainable development is more abstract and of a long-term nature which can be outside of many peoples time horizon.

Given the global nature of sustainable development it must be for Government to lead in defining policy and setting guidelines, supported as necessary by its environmental advisors and regulators such as the Environment Agency. There must be a consistent approach to this topic throughout the UK.

In the shorter term, environmental imperatives can and are set, for example, through the process of identifying and protecting important habitats through the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designation. Thus, although there may still be a presumption in favour of development in the planning process, the introduction of a plan led process and the statutory designation of SSSI's (and similar designations) have given greater protection to environmentally important areas. Whilst the move towards a plan led process is welcomed, that process itself needs to be more responsive with a greater ability to respond to changing circumstances.

However the setting of environmental imperatives does not remove the need to balance environmental objectives against other issues. And situations will vary, depending on circumstances. For example, the building a new water reservoir in the UK has to be balanced against our ability to conserve water; in a developing country the imperatives of life may out-way the environmental consequences of the proposal. Thus 'imperatives' should not become 'absolute rules'. In some cases there will be need to balance one set of environmental objectives against other environmental issues, for example given the need for a particular development or project, is it best to discharge 'pollutants' to air, land or water. It is here that professional engineers seek and expect advice from the experts in the regulatory bodies.

In a de-centralised market led economy such as the UK it is difficult if not impossible for a developer to predict with any degree of confidence the cumulative effect of its proposal, given the uncertainties of the marketplace. For example, if building a new coal fired power station would it be a requirement to consider the effects of coal mining when the sourcing of coal, transport arrangements etc would be a commercial decision to be taken at some future stage of the project and where through the life of the plant alternative arrangements may be made. Realistically, a boundary has to be drawn around a development or project and accepted as the boundary of the environmental assessment. Of course, supporting developments (in the case above, the coal mine) may themselves require environmental planning approvals and be subject to the rigours of environmental assessment and need to be judged on their own merits. It is for developers to consider the commercial risks of proceeding with developments prior to having in place all the approvals for the necessary supporting infrastructure.

3.      BOUNDARIES

Pollution does not respect administrative boundaries. However clearly there is a need to delegate down the administration of environmental planning, within a policy framework, to ensure local accountability and local participation. This issue is discussed further in the section 'Integration or co-ordination'.

4.      INTEGRATION OR CO-ORDINATION?

Within the UK the planning regime can be considered as a three-tiered hierarchy.

At the national level, Government is responsible in broad terms for setting environmental policy, including a policy on environmental sustainability, and for ensuring that international policies and standards are integrated into the UK. It (or perhaps more correctly, a Secretary of State) also acts as the 'final arbiter' in planning decisions that cannot be resolved at a local level.

At the Regional level, there are the newly formed Regional Development Agencies and the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency, although operating throughout England and Wales, does in practice tend to operate at a regional level through its network of Regional Officers. The Environment Agency is normally consulted on planning issues by local authorities. The Environment Agency has the responsibility for licensing and monitoring 'prescribed processes' in accordance with the Environment Protection Act.

At the local level, planning authorities have responsibilities for determining planning matters. Elected members, advised by their officers but also taking account of the views of their constituents, take decisions. Planning authorities are also responsible for preparing and seeking approval to local structure plans, essentially the guidance for industry.

Also at the national level are statutory bodies such as English Nature and the Countryside Commission (similar bodies are established in Wales and Scotland) who advise Government and at the local level are consulted on planning matters.

Clearly, the aims and responsibilities of the differing levels of the hierarchy are significantly different from each other. On one hand, decisions taken by local planning authorities are likely to be swayed by local opinion, whereas at the Government level decisions may be taken in what they see as the national interest. The Environment Agency has no direct accountability to the public, and is likely to take decisions or offer advice based on a technical of scientific assessment of the facts as presented.

Each level in the hierarchy has an important but differing role to play in environmental planning. But because of the differing roles (and to arrive at sound decisions, opinions from organisations with differing roles are important) integration of the differing functions and processes is not recommended.

From the Institutions perspective, however, what is sought is better co-ordination between the various agencies. In parallel with the consideration of environmental planning issues, industry may also have investment issues to consider. Industry will be reluctant to make major investment decisions if there are significant unresolved environmental planning issues. However, industry does recognise that there is no 'immediate' decision making process in environmental planning, and neither should there be; decisions within environmental planning, like investment decisions, need to be properly considered with the appropriate level of information to allow a sound decision to be taken. Industry would expect, however, that environmental planning policy guidance at the national and regional levels is sufficiently clear that at least initial investment decisions can be made with a degree of confidence. This would help industry to formulate their plans and initial investment decisions based on a correct knowledge and interpretation of the requirements of environmental planning and sustainability.

Taken as a whole the view of the Institution is that the present system is robust and whilst there are issues of co-ordination between the various bodies with responsibilities in environmental planning, the system does not need major fixing. Inevitably, with planning where the decision may be judgemental, there may not be one universally accepted 'right' decision. However, because for some the decision is 'wrong' does not mean that the system is at fault. The key question, perhaps, is whether there has been a history of bad planning decisions where if the planning system had been different an alternative decision would have been made.

The mandates of the pollution control bodies and those of planning authorities would appear to be appropriate, but as suggested above, the Institution would like to see better co-ordination between the two groups of bodies. At the local level, where the key issues are essentially of a local nature (what is the effect on the local community of a particular proposal, what will it look like, will it be noisy) it would seem appropriate that decisions are taken by elected members of the Local Planning Authority. They may be less concerned about 'pollution' in an adjoining region; that is the responsibility of the Environment Agency taking a regional or national view.

Industry needs to plan ahead, so knowledge of the speed of the land use planning system and the pollution control systems is important. It is the uncertainty of the speed of planning systems that can cause problems for industry rather than the processes themselves. That speed of the planning and pollution control processes are of course dependant on a number of factors, some within the control of industry, others not.

Industry is clearly responsible for assembling data for projects and industrial developments, as part of the land use and pollution control processes. It is responsible for complying with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Regulations, and for providing data such as Best Available Techniques (BAT) assessments for the Environment Agency. Failure to provide the required information in a timely fashion may have consequences for the overall timing of the planning and pollution control processes.

However industry needs clear guidance on the information, and degree of detail, required for these processes. Some progress is being made. The Environmental Assessment Regulations now require formal 'scoping studies' to be carried out with the land use planning authority to identify at an early stage the information expected from industry to support its proposal. Scoping studies could form a useful part of the pollution control processes.

The advantage for industry is that it removes a degree of uncertainty in the planning and pollution control processes, allows for better programming by industry and has the potential of reducing the overall timescales of the processes by making sure that the right information is presented at the right time.

However, industry also wants to ensure that the regulating authorities seek the correct level of information and detail commensurate with decision to be taken. Industry wants to avoid situations where detailed information is required which can be costly to provide, affects the timescale for the regulatory processes, yet adds little value to the overall decision making process.

5.       SUBSIDIARY AND DEMOCRACY

Both the land use and pollution control processes are more transparent than they used to be. Planning Committee meetings have traditionally been held in public; the Environment Agency puts details of applications and decisions on the public register. The public now have a greater opportunity to become involved with land use and pollution control decisions, if they wish to do so.

However, greater public involvement should not be interpreted as always expecting a decision to go the way of group that seeks the greatest involvement.

Inevitably there will be conflicts between national (or even international policies) and local expectations. Some land use and pollution control decisions may need to be taken for the benefit of the population as a whole, but cause a local dis-benefit. Whilst it is true to say that 'national policies' do come under greater public scrutiny than before, inevitably the impact of a 'national policy' only really becomes a public issue when it becomes of local importance to one community.

Thus although the public have become (rightly so) more involved in local proposals and policies they are less so in national or regional policy proposals and so there is little sense of local ownership or acceptance. Targets for environmental sustainability may be a necessary part of the overall process, but success in achieving environmental sustainability can only be judged by the degree of local acceptance.

Taking an overall view of the planning process, it would seem that in the UK there is broadly a correct balance of expert opinion and local participation. It is the view of the Institution that any changes should be evolutionary, with no major shortcomings that require more major action. However there does seem to be at the local level distrust or lack of understanding of national policies (including those on sustainable developments). This may stem from a number of factors: firstly, that there is seen to be a lack of relevance of national policies to local issues and, secondly, policies and specifically targets for sustainable developments may be set on a time frame which for the majority of the population are too far in the future to be of real day to day relevance.

If there is a better understanding and acceptance of national (and regional) policies that in itself may help to reduce the level of conflict sometimes heard planning inquiries. Planning inquiries could then focus more on seeking evidence on local issues. However, planning inquiries are not a forum for resolving disputes; they are a means of gathering information and evidence to be presented to the decision maker. Inevitably after a planning decision is made (whether after a public inquiry or not) there may be a 'winner' and a 'loser' without necessarily agreement between the parties that the right decision has been made. But that is the nature of planning decisions, given that they are judgemental and without necessarily a clear right or wrong answer. Given that position, it is unlikely that other forms of inquiries will be better. The key question is whether the present form of inquiries allows for all relevant and significant information to be examined and then précised in a form that when presented to the decision maker there is confidence that a sound decision can be made.

However, Industry would prefer to avoid public inquiries. Whilst some proposals are inevitably controversial, industry, local authorities and other bodies should seek to improve the level of trust and understanding of proposals so that sound decisions can be made at the local level. Through professional development training, the Institution is seeking to ensure that its Members have a better understanding of environmental issues which will encourage professional engineers to be fully aware that as well as new projects and technologies being technically 'right' they also have to demonstrate environmental acceptability.

It is the Institutions view that the present arrangements for public inquiries are generally satisfactory. One area of concern however is that for members of the public, inquiries can be daunting and may feel frustrated that they cannot adequately put forward their case. This in itself may lead to a view that local opinion has not been heard and therefore a lack of credibility and acceptance of the final decision.

Of course, industry prefers certainty, and public inquiries are uncertain both in the timetable of the decision making process and the ultimate decision. Thus industry generally will seek to resolve differences and where necessary modify proposals at the local level before planning decisions get escalated to public inquiries.

6.       ASSESSMENT APPROACHES

There are many techniques for assessing impacts. However the Environmental Assessment Regulations set the legislative framework.

Within the framework of the Environmental Assessment Regulations it will be for the developer in conjunction with the local planning authority to determine scope of an environmental assessment. That is now a formal requirement of the Environmental Assessment Regulations. The scope of an assessment and appropriate assessment tools can only be judged on a case-by-case basis. The view of the Institution is that it is the expertise within the relevant local planning authority that is best able to judge the scope of an environmental assessment, with their knowledge of local environmental and planning issues and with a 'finger on the pulse' of local public concerns.

The Institution is also concerned that too much emphasis is being placed on the quality of the environmental assessment rather than on the quality of the planning decision. An environmental assessment is only a means to an end; the end point is the planning decision. It is always easy to criticise an environmental assessment and seek further information. It is important to recognise however that the Environmental Assessment Regulations require an assessment to be made of 'significant' possible environmental effects and not all effects. A definition of 'significant' effects should emerge from scoping studies conducted with the local planning authority. Essentially, environmental assessments should be sufficient in content and detail for a sound planning decision to be made.

It should also be recognised that the objections raised to planning proposals may not be the real cause for concern. As an example, is the public concern about the health effects of waste incinerators the real issue, or is it concerns about traffic, what it may look like, or the possible effect on the value of local properties?. If that is the case then seeking further health studies from the waste industry developers is not resolving objections and will not remove conflicts.

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers is not directly involved in planning or environmental assessments. It is aware that many of its members are in Industry where developments or projects are planned and where they may be involved in providing an input into planning and environmental assessments. Through its professional development training the Institution is seeking to ensure that issues such as environmental sustainability are brought within the knowledge base of Engineers. In this way the engineering input to environmental planning can be improved, adding to the overall knowledge base and therefore the quality of environmental planning techniques.

7.       CONCLUSIONS

1. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers is seeking to promote further awareness of environmental planning and sustainability through the development of professional development training. It will seek to ensure that new technical developments meet environmental criteria as well as high technical standards.
2. Environmental sustainability is essentially a national issue and national policies need to be developed. To ensure credibility and acceptance at the local planning level there needs to be greater focus to ensure local acceptability of national policies.
3. The Institutions view is that the responsibilities of the various statutory environmental and planning bodies are broadly correct, having evolved over time. What is needed, however, is greater co-ordination between the various bodies.
4. The planning process is not in need of a major fix. However industry needs to be more aware of environmental and planning issues and to build up the level of trust with local authorities, statutory environmental agencies and the public.
5. There has to be an acceptance that there may not be a universally accepted no right or wrong planning decision; such decisions are judgemental. It is important, however, to ensure that relevant information is considered when making decisions. Planning inquiries are a means of gathering information if decisions cannot be made at a local level, and whilst the inquiry process is generally considered satisfactory, means of encouraging greater public involvement should be explored.
6. The assessment approach needs to be fit for the proposal. This can be achieved by early discussions on the scope of an assessment. The emphasis should be less on the quality of the environmental assessment taken in isolation, but more on whether or not sufficient information was provided to allow a sound planning decision to be taken and the openness of that decision.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study