|
|||
|
|
|
|
| Homepage | Contact RCEP | About RCEP | Reports | Sitemap| Search | |||
|
|||
|
|
||
| Commission's dateline | The Commission's Reports | Current Studies | Recent Studies | News Releases | Members | Meetings | Links | |
|
||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Royal Commission on Environmental PollutionThe Commission's Reports Reports issued by the Royal Commission on Environmental PollutionEnvironmental Planning Index of Evidence Submitted to Environmental Planning Study | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
to the Environmental Planning Study
Part 1 of Submission
Case Study Acknowledgements The Institute of Wastes Management (IWM) is grateful for the opportunity to provide a Submission to the Royal Commission (RCEP) study of Environmental Planning. The Institute will endeavour to provide any additional written or verbal evidence to support this Submission, as the Royal Commission requests. This response is in two Parts, General Comments and Answers to the specific questions posed by the RCEP and then Case Histories of planning appeals and actual practice.
Part 1 of Submission General Comments The IWM recognises that the Government through its May 2000 National Waste Strategy for England and Wales (NWS) has a challenging task in meeting the requirements of the Landfill Directive. However, the policies outlined in Limiting Landfill document (DETR 99 EP 0394) and the NWS for England and Wales Parts 1 and 2 , will be extremely difficult to achieve without the necessary planning procedures in place to deliver the Strategy. The present planning system is likely to be brought into disrepute if it is not in a position to achieve the targets within the Strategy and those required by the 99/31 Landfill Directive within the necessary time-scales of compliance. The IWM finds it difficult to comment fully on Annex A with only Planning Policy Guidance 10 and 23 (PPG10, 23) available in June 2000 as these do not provide a comprehensive set of planning tools. The waste management industry cannot endeavour to make any real investment in new facilities or assess their true capital cost without knowing the future new complex planning processes. The issue of 'producer responsibility' is fundamental to many of the difficulties encountered in waste management planning. Until the public understands that it is they who create the waste and have an inherent responsibility for it, there will always be a problem in persuading the public to agree to the development of adequate new waste management facilities in their neighbourhood. Response to Specific Questions 1. Environmental sustainability a. Has the pursuit of sustainable development as the broad objective of policy had favourable or unfavourable consequences for protection of the environment? To the extent that consequences have been unfavourable, how could that best be remedied?The IWM believes that there have been some unfavourable consequences of the pursuit of sustainable development; the term is inexact and open to political interpretation. For example, because of this subjective interpretation a technically engineered landfill site is considered not a sustainable solution. In some circumstances, it may however, prove to be the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO), if operated properly and have the very economic, social and environmental objectives that 'sustainability' aims to support. IWM believes that the European Commission (EC) have emphasised the protection of the environment rather than pursuing a policy of controlled, defined sustainable development. b. 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?The IWM believes that there needs to be a balance of environmental, social and economic issues, unless any one of these issues becomes a clear priority. What is viewed as a priority, is likely to vary over time. Methane output from landfill is believed to be contributing to global warming; this is an issue that the EC has taken as an environmental imperative. The Institute is aware that the transportation of wastes has a significant environmental impact. This impact can be minimised by a reasoned integrated waste management policy. c. 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?The Institute would like to see a regulatory regime that is monitored for its performance and, so produces the most effective enforcement and practical approach. At present regulation/legislation is implemented, but the waste management industry has little idea of the efficiency of its enforcement. d. 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 general impression is that minerals and waste management and engineering developments have a lower priority in being granted planning permission that heretofore. The case studies that follow in the Second Part of this Submission confirm this impression. These development issues are of potential national importance, such as the delivery of NWS obligations, so that higher priority should be given to these developments. The issue of compensation for those affected by developments which might lead to land value depreciation should be addressed further. The Landfill Tax credits and the proposed Sustainability Fund from the Aggregates Tax are indicative of relief which might be afforded, and, in general, are welcome as an indication of the direction in which the new appraisal of future options should be heading. e. In practice, how far have planning regimes in general moved from "predict and provide" to "plan, monitor and manage" to avoid environmentally unsustainable outcomes?The IWM feels that currently there are no means whereby appropriate sites can be identified and provided, since their acquisition will depend on ownership, commercial and contractual issue rather than on local waste management plans. f. Do current arrangements for environmental planning sufficiently take into account the cumulative impacts of developments?The IWM does not feel that the cumulative impact is presently taken into consideration; decision making can be too local and there is no guidance for regional decisions, although we are aware of:
g. 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?There are unacceptable delays in the planning system as illustrated in the second part of this Submission. This is due in part to a lack of administrative resources. The system has also become too complex and requires streamlining, for example the need for Environmental Impact Assessments for different purposes in the licensing and planning regimes can lead to unnecessary duplication and complication. The IWM recognises that effective planning on a regional basis requires commitment and co-operation. This is time consuming and for most it is not the main job function of the individuals concerned; this is likely to remain so until regional planning becomes a statutory obligation. h. What are the implications of long-term risks, such as those posed by climate change or persistent waste, for environmental planning? Can planning systems become drivers for limiting the extent of damage from unavoidable climate change?The issue of environmental imperatives was raised in 1b). However, their effect on environmental planning is limited to the potential to promote responsible and sustainable development. Planning systems need to be drivers for limiting environmental damage. i. To what extent does the achievement of environmental sustainability depend on permitted uses being time limited?A number of issues are time limited already in waste management; for example Non-Fossil Fuel Obligations and licences for waste management facilities. The Institute recognises that disposal may have long term implications, and whilst collection may be a short term function, the transport of waste is a significant factor in the global impact of waste management services and this may have longer term consequences. Bankability is difficult if there is not long term contract. 2. Boundaries a. 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?The IWM recognises the potential difficulty raised by the question but considers that boundaries presently do not give rise to a significant waste management problem in general. PPG 10 promotes the issue of the proximity principle making regional administrative areas self-sufficient. The proximity principle may, however, be contrary to regionalisation of facilities and the economies of scale of larger waste facilities. b. What problems arise from different plans being produced and implemented for overlapping geographical areas?Please see the reply to 2 a). c. 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?The IWM regards an effect on these functions is an unavoidable result of the land use planning system. d. 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?The IWM considers that GIS can make a useful contribution. It should however be freely accessible and consistent across the country. Any data compiled should be reliable and comprehensive. e. 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?The IWM strongly regards that a lack of control over certain industries does prejudice the achievement of environmental goals. The waste management industry is a highly regulated and controlled function and industries such as agriculture and other industrial sectors should also have similar controls. 3. Integration or coordination a. Does the current system need "fixing"? What gaps, unnecessary duplication and conflicts exist in present arrangements for environmental planning?The IWM is aware of duplication in the different systems impacting on the waste industry through processes such as IPPC, planning ,and some site licensing. Environmental Impact Assessments can also overlap. This overlap does not necessarily yield benefit. The gaps in the system are largely due to the lack of consistent, even-handed enforcement and the monitoring, and bench marking and open publication of that enforcement., or more important, lack of the necessary enforcement. b. Is there in practice a hierarchy in the formulation of different types of environmental plans? Would there be advantages in establishing a clearer hierarchy?There is a hierarchy present, but clarity is required, particularly with regard to regional planning activities and Strategic Waste Management Assessments. Please see the answer to 1f). c. Should the process of environmental planning be further integrated or rationalised, e.g. as in New Zealand? Or would better coordination be sufficient to ensure an efficient and effective system?The IWM is not in a position to comment on this question. d. 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?Because of its nature the planning process is time consuming, however concealment of facts until a later stage of that process, whether deliberate or inadvertent, can lead to planning procedure delays. The IWM policy is to advise its members to disclose all relevant facts or anticipated environmental effects, even if it seems disadvantageous to do so, and involves extra time and effort. e. Are the mandates and procedures of the pollution control bodies appropriate to their environmental planning responsibilities? Are these responsibilities appropriate? Is it practical to have parallel decisions on land use planning and pollution control?The IWM considers that the pollution control bodies should specialise on their statutory duties rather than planning issues but work in parallel with the land use planning authorities. f. Has a satisfactory integration of transport planning and land use planning been achieved? If not, what more needs to be done?There has been insufficient integration of transport and land use planning. The Institute is of course aware of the significant transport element associated with the waste management industry. The Government has released separate transport and waste strategies. This makes integration more difficult. Even more so with separate transport and waste strategies for England and Scotland. g. 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?The IWM considers that there is a role for economic instruments in influencing and balancing the development of environmentally sustainable solutions. They should be used with caution so as to ensure equity and no border issues imbalance results (such as a preferential transport of waste across to or from Scotland, England or Wales). Regards must also be had to the apparent BPEO . h. 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?The IWM is aware of historical problems associated with past 'betterment' taxes and with Community Land Charges. Caution should be adopted with regard to any introduction of these. There is potential to tie in with 3 g) but not necessarily as a tax. i. 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?Without defining sustainability the Institute feels that answers would not help the Commissions deliberation. 4. Subsidiarity and democracy A general comment on this heading is that until householders are made aware of the true cost of municipal waste collection and disposal, and they realise that they are the originators of many waste problems and the waste management industry in broad terms, provides the solution, then subsidiarity and democracy are not going to be achieved. Strategies and policies are easier to adopt, if there is more understanding of the general information, which is easily accessible. a. Is the current balance between elected leadership, expert assessment and public participation in environmental planning decisions appropriate?The current balance is tilted towards the elected leadership and public participation . Decisions are often made as a result of political response to public unacceptance of a particular facility or development. The consequences of such a decision are not communicated to the public. The Institute would not wish to deny the right of the public to express their opinion either directly or through their elected representatives, however they should recognise the consequences of their objection. Additionally planning committees Councillors who have made the original decision rarely attend the planning enquiry and "follow the issue through". b. 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 whilst maintaining an appropriate procedural timetable? When should local public opinion be overridden in the interest of a broader common goal?A statutory national waste management policy with clear concise protocols and time frames for each relevant aspect of planned developments would assure transparency, access and efficiency (cost and time). Types of development could be allocated national priority ratings. c. 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 from that principle?The principle of subsidiarity should determine many more European Union management decisions. What is the right solution for Edinburgh may not be that for Exeter. Nor that for Newcastle the same as Naples. d. 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?The IWM generally supports the principle of regional planning and considers that a greater coherence between national and local planning regimes is essential to the effective granting of permission for the necessary waste management facilities. It is impossible to give an opinion at this inchoate development stage whether the new regional planning structure will deliver balanced, reasoned judgements. e. 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 differ to the extent that they need to address national/regional economic and environmental circumstances. However these differences should not undermine the potential for the UK to deliver environmental objectives set at a European level. f. 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?The present format is an adversarial process and not the best way to resolve disputes. An initial search for common ground through an informal hearing would be a better format. The size of the development could affect the composition of this forum. For a large development allowing points to be put forward by all parties would take a lot of time - Heathrow Terminal Five is a good example. The IWM considers the Inquiry format to be an adequate method for dealing with disputes as long as the adversarial aspect is not paramount. But there will always be testing questions to emphatic expert witnesses. Third parties can be involved at the environmental statement of the development of the plan. The Institute feels that the major issues should be considered at the earliest possible opportunity. g. 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?The IWM recognises the potential value that an environmental court might yield, particularly concerning regulation difficulties and enforcement and prosecution issues but not necessarily for appeals. In terms of land use planning however the IWM remains to be persuaded as to the value of an environmental court. 5. Assessment approaches a. 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?Environmental Statements arising from the 1988 Regulations and recent Regulations, when scrutinised by able and unbiased Local Authority officers, do provide the Councillors, the public and the media with a fair view of the development project. b. 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?The IWM feels that until appraisal methodologies are more widely understood their application to an environmental planning system should be treated cautiously. The scope of using such methodologies needs to be agreed between the planning regime/officers and the developers, thus ensuring that the key issues are identified and addressed in an unbiased manner. c. 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?The IWM feels that these type of tools should be used to provide guidance and inform on decision making processes, and not become the sole criteria upon which decisions are based. d. Are there good examples of comparisons 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?The waste management experience is that the dire affects forecast, almost always fail to live up to expectations. With regard to the second part of the question, the IWM regrets it has no such direct knowledge. e. 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 IWM is not in a position to comment on this question.
Part 2 of Submission Case Study Waste Management Regulations 1994, Schedule 3, Regulation 17 (19) permits the use of suitable wastes for recreational provision. In SE England in particular this has come to mean golf courses. Golf courses normally require a planning consent and most follow a standard format using cut and fill techniques to achieve the contours and landscaping. However, in reality this rarely happens. Normally in-filling starts immediately and can exceed 100 000 tonnes in a short space of time. The responsibility for control of this activity is primarily that of the Local Planning Authority (LPA). This is enshrined in the deregulation and contracting out legislation and the Enforcement Protocol. It is not however, unusual to find that these applications are deferred several times at committee whilst work on in-filling continues unabated. Then at a later date once work is almost complete, including new profiles to accommodate tipped material, permission is granted retrospectively. Examples of such developments are available in Wokingham District, Mole Valley, and one in Oxfordshire [1] [2] [3] is enclosed. [These are available on request from the Royal Commission Secretariat] A major problem with this type of development is that, due to the lack of proper inspection, waste other than that permitted may be being used for "engineering work". SOURCE: Personal comment of IWM Member. Acknowledgements IWM is grateful to its Members for their contribution in helping prepare this submission.
[1] Waste Planning 32, September 1999, P.32-33.
Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Page last modified:
22 March, 2007
Page created: 2 January, 2004 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Back to top | Comments | Contact us | Help | Copyright | RCEP Homepage |