Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

1.       Introduction

1.1      The Association welcomes the opportunity to comment on this important study which aims to investigate whether the various environmental planning regimes provide an effective, accountable and transparent way of protecting the environment. Some of the key points in the LGA's response are set out below:

• Need for more radical action by Government if sustainable development is to be achieved.
  
• Key role of, and need for involvement by, local authorities in the effective delivery of sustainable development, which should be heightened by powers in the present Local Government Bill.
  
• Reorientation of land use planning system required to allow it to fulfil its potential as an agent for delivering sustainable development - a presumption in favour of sustainable development needed.
  
• A sustainability priority should apply to all Government departments, public bodies and agencies.
  
• Reforms proposed in the report, "Reforming Local Planning", and proposals for a greater role for planning obligations.
  
• Need for a 'sustainability test' to be part of the environmental planning process against which development is assessed - the potential role of the environmental capital approach.
  
• Strengthening of enforcement powers where necessary.
  
• Need for a review of present approaches and procedures under different environmental regulatory regimes.
  
• Clarity of regional arrangements and responsibilities needed.
  
• Recognition of the changing role of the Environment Agency, and the need for close working between the Agency and local authorities in the interests of achieving sustainable development.

1.3       The LGA welcomes the recognition that sustainable development has economic and social dimensions. To achieve the "new way forward" which the Government's white paper strategy for sustainable development for the UK, 'A Better Quality of Life' promulgates, an approach which incorporates all three elements is certainly needed (as the new duty and powers in Part 1 of the Local Government Bill presently before Parliament recognise). We believe, therefore, that the environmental issues which the Royal Commission's remit requires it to concentrate on can only be managed effectively together with the economic and social ones, and accordingly urge the Commission to consider them equally.

1.4       In this context, it is perhaps worth repeating what are widely regarded as the key definitions of sustainable development, as follows:

• "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Brundtland Commission, 1987);
  
• "improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems" (the 'Caring for the Earth' definition - World Conservation Union et al, 1991).

1.6       The statement reproduced above then goes on, significantly, in the following terms:

"By the year 1996 land management should be reviewed to take account of a holistic understanding of these relationships to allow allocation and management of land to produce the greatest sustainable level of benefits. Governments should develop policies and regulatory and economic frameworks to achieve this".

2.1       In the context of the above statement from Agenda 21 relating to the need for Government action, the Association considers that there is still a great deal to be done by the Government, and with a greater sense of urgency and purpose, if the various environmental planning systems are to operate in a truly sustainable fashion.

2.2       A number of recent instances, described in subsequent paragraphs, illustrate the need for the adoption of a more radical agenda in order to redress the one-sided emphasis on economic growth at the expense of equally important social and environmental objectives.

2.3       For example, the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development's report 'Indicators of Sustainable Development' (May 2000) highlights the need for far more drastic action if some of the targets implicit in the Government's headline sustainability indicators are to be achieved. In the Round Table's own words: "more of the indicators should be shown as red for danger than the Government has admitted". In this context, the LGA's own position statement on energy, "Energy Services for Sustainable Communities", points out that even the 20% target for greenhouse reductions is only a first step towards much larger reductions needed to halt climate change, and we are pleased that the Government's own greenhouse strategy acknowledges this. A copy of this document is enclosed [A copy is available on request from the Royal Commission Secretariat], and the Commission's attention is dawn in particular to sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5.

2.4       The publication of the report, "Potential UK adaptation strategies for climate change" (May 2000) by ERM on behalf of DETR graphically illustrates the need for a huge programme of planned work over the next 50 years or so to strengthen flood defences, upgrade buildings and on conservation measures, running into many billions of pounds. Further comments on the need to address the risks posed by climate change are made later.

2.5       Thirdly, the long-awaited publication of the national Waste Strategy underlines the huge challenge, both to the government and local authorities, posed by the need to minimise waste and divert very large quantities of waste away from traditional landfill to less environmentally-damaging alternatives.

2.6       What these recent examples demonstrate, as part of a broader picture, is the need for an almost seismic shift in fundamental perceptions, led by the Government, in order that the achievement of sustainable development (in a manner which works to achieve the environmental/ social/economic equation) can be realised. A new dynamism, led from the centre of government, and sufficient to impress itself in a significant way upon election manifestos, is required if the good intentions of those within and without Government to achieve a sustainable quality of life are to have a real impact.

2.7       The sort of changes required would, of course, impact more widely than upon the range of environmental planning regimes with which the Commission is, in this instance, directly concerned. However, achieving sustainable development is undoubtedly one of the most cross-cutting areas in the public decision-making domain, and it is considered appropriate to mention briefly some of the key steps which might be taken.

2.8       The Green Ministers Committee might usefully be given a far more powerful role within government. Similarly, the Sustainable Development Commission (very shortly to be set up) needs to have a central role in influencing the direction of Government policies, and should be supported by a considerably expanded, central Sustainable Development Unit (currently a small unit in DETR), which would be capable of supporting the pursuit of sustainable development in a far more dynamic, cross-cutting manner than is presently possible. In this context, the Association welcomes the present review of the extent to which Government departments adequately address cross-cutting themes. A duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development should apply to all Government departments, public bodies and agencies.

2.9       There is a need for the Government to adopt a far more active role in drawing to the public's attention what is meant by sustainable development, and particularly what it involves at different levels, in terms of action. In short, if sustainable development is to be achieved, little short of a new national vision is needed. In this respect, the DETR's 'Are You Doing Your Bit?' campaign, now in its second year, whilst serving a useful purpose, lacks the impact of centre-driven messages, and can only achieve so much in informing and influencing public perceptions and actions. Moreover, perceptions that Government is exhorting citizens to take responsibility for changing their behaviour, while neglecting to provide the policy frameworks and infrastructure necessary to make such behaviour changes convenient and affordable, risk setting back the cause of sustainable development. It is therefore essential that, for example, exhortations to save energy are coordinated with price and tariff signals that make doing this worthwhile; that public transport services and cycling and walking routes are good enough to make sustainable alternatives as safe, reliable and attractive as driving; and that there are markets for recycled materials.

2.10       Without a far better informed and responsible (in terms of sustainable lifestyle decisions) public - 'public' in the broadest sense to embrace industry, employees, car users, etc - local authorities, whether as community leaders or wielding land use planning or waste management powers, can achieve only so much. It is interesting to note in this context that one of the lessons to be learnt from local authorities' Local Agenda 21 work is that an initial relative ignorance of what sustainable development involves on the part of people can, in many cases, quite quickly be transformed into a reasonable grasp of the underlying issues and how these impact at an individual level. This in turn can mean a better grasp of what personal actions can achieve in the locality and, significantly, a more realistic understanding of the difficult decision-making needed on the part of a local authority, for example, where the provision of affordable housing is concerned.

2.11       In terms of how this process of greater prioritisation on the part of Government might relate to the Planning agenda, it might be helpful for a high-level statement which clearly places the achievement of sustainable development at the heart of Planning decision-making - something possibly along the lines of a sister document to 'Modernising Planning' (DETR, April 1999), which predominantly addressed the Government's objectives for economic development, a choice of housing and more integrated transport. This could also usefully clarify, and indeed simplify, the relationship between the numerous statutory and voluntary plans within the broad environmental planning arena. More detailed proposals for changes which would enhance delivery of sustainable development through the environmental planning systems are set out later.

3.       Community Strategies and the New Powers of Well-Being

3.1       The Association is pleased to note the inclusion in the Local Government Bill presently before parliament of powers to promote or improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area, and a duty for every local authority to prepare a community strategy for promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area and contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom. Although the Association lobbied originally for the inclusion of a duty, rather than a power, to promote well-being and sustainable development, nevertheless, the provisions in the Bill are likely to go a considerable way to allow local authorities to implement far more coherently, and with a greater sense of overall direction, strategies in pursuit of sustainable development within their areas.

3.2       The revision of the clauses in the Bill during its passage through the parliamentary process to include the clause under which every local authority would have a duty to prepare a strategy which, among other objectives, must contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, is significant. In the context of the environmental planning systems, for the first time it provides a statutory basis for the protection of the environment (environment in its widest environmental, social and economic sense).

3.3       In terms of how environmental planning systems may evolve and address better the needs and short, medium and long-term goals of sustainability, the pending new duty to prepare a community strategy may be significant. The duty to prepare an over-arching community strategy (or 'plan of plans') should enable local authorities to take a wider-focused, more integrated and more local community-driven approach. The process of constructing a community strategy allows for cross-cutting, integrated plan-making, which links the spread of local authority services (transport, planning, education, housing etc) and, very importantly, should reflect better than hitherto the views of the local community (whether business, individual, amenity organisations etc) as well as other organisations and partner bodies such as the Environment Agency and English Nature.

3.4       The development of a new strategic planning framework within which local authorities can work, formulated in a new way through a process of participation with local stakeholders and local communities, affords the opportunity to draw upon the reservoir of skills and processes developed in LA 21 work by local authorities, to produce a transparent, useable and comprehensible community strategy which should provide a coherent framework within which other plans and strategies nest. However, there is a need for clear guidance on how the various planning and decision-making processes - each with its own powers, procedures, limits and timescales - should relate to each other. This should include, for example, how the community strategy should connect with the formal procedures of drafting and adopting land use plans.

3.5       Effective, wide-ranging and inclusive consultation which demonstrates the local authority's leadership role (and which is the product of the sort of partnership working on sustainability which many authorities eg Bexley Council, a sustainable development "beacon" authority for dealing with waste, have pioneered to good effect) is likely to play a key role. Developing these partnership skills in the strategy-making process will be important, mobilising energies in the community which may previously not have been tapped into.

3.6       The production of a genuinely consensual community strategy, which most or large parts of the community feel 'signed up to', may be significant in terms of attitude and response to subsequent development proposals. Just as discussions at pre-planning application stage are conducive to streamlining and quickening the approvals process, so getting the community strategy right may engender a clearer grasp of what sustainable development means, and the possibility of a greater sense of community ownership (and even less lengthy wrangling) in the planning process.

4.       Reform of Environmental Planning Systems

The Planning System

4.1       As the terms of the Royal Commission's study acknowledge, land use planning is central to the scope of the Commission's investigation, and this is reflected in the comments which follow. In particular, a number of points raised are key themes in the recent report sponsored by the Association and the Countryside Agency and produced by the Reforming Local Planning Group 'Reforming Local Planning - planning for communities' (eg introduction of spatial development strategies as local plans; review of PPGs; and the capacity to collectivise receipts obtained from planning obligations negotiated under Section 106 and spend them for generalised mitigation or other environmental objectives). Rather than repeat here the key themes in the report, a copy of the document is enclosed [A copy is available on request from the Royal Commission Secretariat] with this submission, and the Royal Commission's attention is drawn in particular to the forward-looking proposals and recommendations contained in pages 17-21.

4.2       Undoubtedly, the planning system needs to play a key role in the delivery of sustainable development. It acts as a fulcrum for economic, environmental and social changes, and is essential to the delivery of policy targets in areas such as transport, energy, water provision, flood protection, climate change, nature conservation etc. However, at present, it does not fulfil its full potential as an agent for delivering a sustainable environment. A new, clearer sense of strategic direction is needed if this is to be achieved. We would like to see the adoption of a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which would then focus attention on sustainability at the earliest possible stage.

4.3       One key element is the extent to which current arrangements are able to take account sufficiently of the cumulative effect of incremental developments, which demonstrates the need for a strategic overview, both at national and regional level. There needs to be clarity of regional arrangements and responsibilities across local government, regional development agencies and other partner organisations, such as the Environment Agency, English Nature etc, to allow the effective cascade of policy down through the different levels of decision-making.

4.4       However, a more equal relationship between local and central government is needed, with increased input into regional plans from the regions themselves. The Government needs to place greater confidence in the regions to tackle the key problems through Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), based on agreed national guidelines upon which regions have been consulted. The present system needs to be reformed so that the Panel at the regional examination in public reports to the regional planning body rather than to the Secretary of State.

4.5       Local authorities, with their unique democratic mandate and as a pivotal player within their localities, are in the best position to promote the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system, balancing the considerations of sustainability, and taking account of the various relevant considerations such as geographical location, and local needs and priorities. Within this framework, they have a key role to play in the protection of the environment in taking decisions which are informed by environmental imperatives - the overriding imperative being the survival of the planet (and, further down the scale, country or locality) as a suitable place fit for human habitation in the future.

4.6       Beneath this overriding imperative, of course, there are other recognised environmental imperatives such as the preservation of SSSIs. However, the protection of land which does not benefit from statutory or other designation in a manner which sensibly balances environmental, social and economic pressures is also important. With the increasing attention given in recent years to devising suitable techniques for balancing and evaluating pressures on the environment, there now exist the means potentially to deliver sustainable development in the terms addressed by the white paper 'A Better Quality of Life'. One technique capable of wide application which the Association has endorsed in its report 'Environmental Capital, Sustainability and Housing Growth' (1999) is the environmental capital methodology, which is discussed later.

4.7       It should be pointed out, however, that whilst in many respects local planning authorities have the tools to deliver sustainable development (and will have to a greater extent when the powers in the Local Government Bill referred to above are introduced) in some senses they are not fully in control of their destiny where the delivery of sustainable development is concerned. In this respect, the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development in its earlier contribution to the Royal Commission's study ('Planning for Sustainable Development in the 21st Century', February 2000) makes a number of valid points. In particular, it highlights three major constraints on the role of local government: the production of policy planning guidance which fails to have sustainable development at its heart; the management of public investment through processes largely unrelated to the development control process; and the existence of other controls often operated by bodies other than planning authorities. The Round Table's related point regarding the further revision of the building regulations in order to force the pace of change towards truly sustainable building construction is also highly pertinent.

4.9       The Association considers that there is a need to widen the existing material considerations under the planning regime to include sustainability factors, for example, social considerations. The planning system should be capable of responding flexibly to proposals which promote sustainable lifestyles, such as low-impact development in the countryside, and demonstrate a greater capacity to accommodate innovative proposals directed at achieving sustainable ends.

4.10       Following on from this, there is a need for national planning policy guidance to be updated as soon as possible and presented in a more integrated fashion, to reflect the significantly increased emphasis in recent years in government policy on delivering sustainable development. This guidance should focus more on the positive steps which can be taken to promote sustainable development (drawing upon some of the material in 'Planning for Sustainable Development: towards better practice', DETR 1998). It is important that revised guidance adequately reflects the national dimension and implications of delivering sustainable development, whilst allowing the regional bodies and local authorities the flexibility to act within its broad policy guidelines to incorporate local factors. It is unfortunate that neither the new PPG3 (Housing) (May 2000) nor the consultation draft of PPG13 (Transport) include explicit targets or standards for greenhouse emissions from new housing or transport, thus missing powerful opportunities to use the planning system to help deliver the Government's commitments.

4.11       Another reform which we feel would be invaluable in achieving environmental sustainability would be time-limiting permitted uses. The process of application for new consents would allow stock to be taken of changes in thinking, developments and new techniques in the quite rapidly changing field of environmental sustainability and environmental limits. This would allow for stronger environmental controls to be considered, or the cessation of a use where appropriate.

4.12       In addition, there is scope for planning obligations to play a significant role in bringing about good examples of sustainable development. Contributions from developers towards, for example, the provision of public transport can transform developments which previously would need to be dominated by provision of car parking for employees, visitors and customers. However the current government guidelines on planning obligations were conceived at a time when sustainable development was less of a priority and the guidelines need some fundamental updating. It is encouraging that the Government has recognised this and that a consultation draft of a new circular is expected this summer.

4.13       In May 1999 the LGA produced a policy note on planning obligations with its priorities for reform (copy enclosed) [A copy is available on request from the Royal Commission Secretariat]. These priorities are aimed at enabling developer contributions obtained through planning obligations to be directed towards improving the sustainability of developments. It calls for the following: the revised circular should allow planning authorities to negotiate obligations to deal with off-site problems, recognising that major schemes serve a wide area and that funding contributions could legitimately be spent in this wider area; a mechanism is needed to allow authorities to raise joint contributions from a number of developers towards one major environmental or transport scheme; finally, current guidelines are geared towards one-off capital schemes for example road or environmental improvements, but increasingly on-going revenue funding is required (for example pump-priming subsidies for new bus services) and this needs to be recognised in new guidelines.

4.14       The existing legislative framework, which has its origins in the immediate post-war period, is the product of a different era, when different priorities and considerations held sway. As many commentators have said, as a tool for responding to the needs of the present in terms of achieving truly sustainable development, it lacks flexibility: the planning system is essentially responsive to development demand, but not designed to set and achieve targets for the preservation or enhancement of the environment. 'Reforming Local Planning', referred to earlier, addresses this theme in more detail, and the Commission's attention is drawn to it.

4.15       There is clearly the potential for a more streamlined, transparent and responsive local planning process which reflects the priorities and aspirations of its locality through the comprehensive and, in some cases, innovative consultation techniques which some authorities have already used (eg Surrey County Council, in developing a broad county-wide vision for a sustainable Surrey.) It is vital that good practice is supported by all elements of the system, including the Planning Inspectorate, so that local authorities who are 'ahead of the guidance' (eg Leicester and Bradford, which have produced authority-wide sustainability strategies in consultation with local communities) are not constrained in what they are able to achieve either by decisions from Planning Inspectors or the justified anticipation of what an Inspector's decision is likely to be.

4.16       In terms of the appeals system, a less adversarial approach is needed, and 'Reforming Local Planning' sets out proposals which would assist in this respect. On a cautionary note, however, that report highlights the implications of the Human Rights Act in terms of the potential for more challenges to decisions, and attendant delays. The LGA considers, on balance, that the rebalancing of rights between developers and objectors should be achieved more through reducing appeal rights for developers than by increasing those of third parties.

4.17       For local authorities to deliver sustainable development more effectively, the overall planning policy guidance framework needs to allow for a more responsive approach, allowing detailed policies to change more rapidly. Development plans need to become simpler, more strategic documents with less detail, and capable of being produced more rapidly. The detail which so often makes them relatively unresponsive and extends considerably their preparation time, can be included better in local supplementary planning documents. In principle, environmental planning should take place, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, at the lowest level consistent with the common good. Care is needed that the achievement of more streamlined development control decision-making - which is clearly a priority in the Government's Planning agenda - is not to the detriment of achieving a sustainable environment.

4.18       Overall, a more joined-up approach on the part of Government is needed which takes more account of how the many different environmental plans and initiatives interact. In particular, the sustainability priority needs to apply to and be adopted by all public bodies and government departments: there is little chance of achieving genuine sustainability if, for example, the Treasury is not approaching issues with sustainability in mind.

5.       Other environmental planning issues

5.1       As part of a modernised regime for effective regulation, enforcement powers need to be strengthened. Whilst greater environmental awareness by the public generally and a greater willingness to act sustainably may yield useful results, there is a compelling case for businesses (which may in some cases be multi-million pound concerns) to face enforcement penalties which act as a real deterrent. The present regulatory approach based on integrated pollution control has a bias towards action after the event. In order for the 'polluter pays' principle to be translated into more effective outcomes, more rigorous preventative action has a greater role to play, although clearly this may have resource implications for the regulatory bodies concerned. The Association therefore supports the recommendations in the House of Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report, "The Environment Agency" (May 2000), for serious financial penalties for significant breaches of environmental law. It also supports the Sentencing Advisory Panel's recommendations to Ministers for a review into the sentencing of companies for environmental and other offences.

5.2       The Association is supportive of the Government's willingness to consider the contribution that the use of the taxation system to address environmental problems can make to achieving sustainable development. It recognises the case in favour of adapting environmental taxes and other instruments to suit local circumstances, thereby allowing local authorities greater opportunities to tackle the causes of unsustainable resource use, waste and pollution, and to identify ways of linking the reduction of environmental problems with the funding of local environmental initiatives. However, it is important that taxes are developed as part of a coherent package of measures which balances social, economic and environmental benefits. This area is developed more fully in an LGA discussion paper, "Environmental Taxation" (prepared for the LGA by Professor Peter Roberts et al, University of Dundee, July 1999), and a copy is enclosed [A copy is available on request from the Royal Commission Secretariat] for the Commission's attention.

5.3       The new contaminated land regime (effective from April 2000) which places local authorities under a duty to identify contaminated land in their area and, where appropriate, to require the remediation of land (by the polluter, landowner or occupier) has potential to work positively for the improvement of brownfield land, bringing it back into productive use and thereby helping to achieve the Government's target of 60% of all new housing being on previously developed brownfield land. However, for the new regime to function to its potential, changes to the planning process will be needed in order to maximise the use of contaminated land and to assist remediation of fragmented or difficult sites through strategic redevelopment. In order to address these and related issues, a member-level task group within the LGA is being set up. However, the Association has major reservations that the level of financial assistance presently available from government (through increased supplementary credit approvals in the current financial year) is inadequate for the huge task facing local authorities in this area.

5.4       Many commentators have voiced concerns about the number of bodies which now operate at regional level and at the resulting potential for overlapping responsibilities and actions, and the difficulties this may engender. It is important that RDAs' Regional Economic Strategies (RESs) support the thrust of Regional Planning Guidance and Regional Sustainable Development Frameworks (the latter which should be in place by the end of 2000). In particular, it will be crucial for action plans prepared under RESs to embrace sustainable development. Government needs to keep this area under review in order to ensure that the achievement of sustainable development is not prejudiced.

5.5       As already touched upon above in Section 3, the duty to prepare a community strategy which delivers on sustainable development and the translation of that broader vision into the development planning process will be critical. As 'Modernising Planning - a progress report' (DETR, 1999) points out, it is crucial that there is ". full community and private sector involvement with local Councils in looking at the options and addressing the issues at the earliest stages of planning to achieve the most sustainable outcomes. That is the essence of planning for the future". Draft DETR guidance for local authorities on preparing community strategies has been issued recently for consultation purposes. To reiterate a point made earlier, it is crucial that the final version of the guidance makes sufficiently clear the linkages between the community strategy and the development planning process.

5.6       It is becoming increasingly clear that, along with definable national sustainability targets, what is needed at all levels in the environmental planning process is some form of transparent and robust 'sustainability test'. It should become standard practice for every development application to be assessed against a 'sustainability checklist'. Recent years have seen a number of methodologies emerge, based broadly around the principle of identifying the various disbenefits of a proposed development and quantifying them in terms of their overall importance and whether benefits displaced are replaceable.

5.7       It is considered that the environmental capital approach (which originally developed from a brief from the Countryside Commission (now Agency), English Heritage, English Nature and the Environment Agency in 1997 and which was piloted by local authorities and other bodies in 1999) has much to commend it as a tool to evaluate all aspects of the environment in a coherent way, and as a means to prevent the incremental erosion of environmental assets and qualities. In setting out an approach which is based on services or benefits that an environmental area or feature provides, and seeking to ensure that any change, as a result of development, maintains or enhances these services, the technique is capable of being deployed effectively at regional strategic planning, and land use planning levels by counties or districts, and where development briefs and individual sites are concerned.

5.8       In short, it has the potential to allow a far more informed decision-making process which identifies what compensations must be made if development is to proceed. Moreover, if guidance on planning obligations was changed to allow planning authorities to require developers to substitute for any loss or damage to important environmental benefits and services, the new environmental capital approach could make a very significant contribution to ensuring that development proceeded only where it provided benefits for both private interests and the public realm, and not the former at the expense of the latter. It could also help correct the current perverse incentive whereby developers can generally maximise their profit by developing on the best quality land, where development causes the greatest loss of public amenity. We hope the Government will give serious consideration to this opportunity in its forthcoming review of planning obligations.

5.9       One of the environmental capital pilots (the future of Winchester study) suggested that the environmental capital approach could be expanded into a broader tool for articulating the full range of benefits and services (not only environment) that people enjoy and seek from their localities. This could be a valuable tool for community strategies, and it is to be hoped that the Government will explore it further.

5.10       Sustainability appraisal techniques have been developing rapidly in recent years (eg Baker Associates, 1999 which, although specifically designed for appraisal of regional planning guidance, could easily be applied to other planning processes). In some respects, the fact that tools such as sustainability appraisals and environmental capital exist and are being used in some quarters serves to illustrate the need for a new national sense of direction which supplies a much-needed impetus to engage in the delivering of sustainable development, rather than the invention of a whole new range of techniques.

5.11       The implementation (probably in around in 3-4 years' time) of proposals presently being considered in Europe for local authorities and other service providers to appraise the environmental consequences of their strategies and programmes is likely to have significant implications. The forthcoming European directive on strategic environmental assessment (SEA) would require authorities to explore the environmental consequences of their proposed strategies, including any alternatives considered, at the stage of development plan preparation.

5.12       The LGA welcomes the call in the PIU report on rural economies for a broader and more environmentally and socially responsive framework for protecting the land resource than the current ' best and most versatile agricultural land' system. The Association supports the report's recommendation that agricultural permitted development rights should be ended and agricultural buildings treated like other business within the planning system. However, we are supportive of Government moves to ensure that the planning system is sympathetic to the needs of diversification and strictly limited development in the countryside, and believe that a quality of life based on sustainable means of production and respect for environmental limits is achievable. The extension of planning controls would, of course, have resource implications for local authorities. It is considered that the environmental capital approach referred to earlier has the potential to offer the basis for assessing the food production, economic, ecological, landscape and recreational value of potential development sites on a consistent basis, and provide a consistent and transparent basis for making decisions about how best the country's limited land resources can be managed to satisfy multiple demands.

5.13       The Association considers that the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process (set out in the Government's integrated transport white paper which recognises local government's key role in evolving vibrant and healthy communities and now formalised in the Transport Bill currently before parliament) should give impetus to the integration of transport policy with a range of wider local policies, including land use planning. The key partnership, consensus-building and monitoring principles set out in LTP guidance should help keep these wider policy implications in clear focus. However, the LTP process is in its infancy, with the first full five-year LTPs being submitted in July 2000, and the LGA will wish to monitor progress closely, in the light of local authority experiences.

5.14       The need to address the risks posed by climate change represents a major challenge to all concerned. The Association considers that there should be a separate section in the final version of the UK Climate Change programme to explain the role of planning in climate change mitigation and adaptation. This should outline mechanisms for achieving climate change obligations and targets. Planning policy guidance needs to be comprehensively reviewed to enable a full response in planning activities at regional, structure planning and local planning levels. Firmer powers for planning bodies to ensure that developments take account of climate change are needed, for instance, through influencing location, transport and access arrangements, the quality and energy efficiency of developments, links to combined heat and power (CHP) schemes, use of renewable energy, waste and recycling issues, and flood risks. At present, most local authorities lack basic tools and checklists to assess climate change issues. This needs to be prioritised as an essential part of the modernising of the planning system to take account of the UK Climate Change programme.

6.0       Relationships with Other Bodies; resources

6.1       Threats to the environment such as water or airborne pollution respect no administrative boundaries, whether national, regional or local. It is essential, therefore, for there to be clarity of responsibilities and boundaries on the part of the various organisations which have a role in environmental planning and stewardship. Agreement on respective roles and contributions is crucial.

6.2       Present arrangements, however, have the potential for unnecessary overlap and the repetition of work directed at achieving environmental ends, which is wasteful of resources for all concerned. In the areas of flood prevention, pollution control and land contamination, for example, local authorities and the Environment Agency exercise roles which are increasingly interdependent in terms of achieving successful service delivery.

6.3       The LGA therefore welcomes the Environment Agency's emphasis on the production of a new environmental strategy as the focus of a clear vision by the Agency of its role and how its various functions contribute to that role. We hope that this will form part of a process of the Agency, as a key advisory body to government, engaging far more vigorously on matters relating to the protection and enhancement of the environment, and at the forefront of the movement to mainstream sustainable development.

6.4       Difficulties certainly arise where overlapping boundaries are concerned, with the Agency's work being based on boundaries based on the river catchment areas used by its predecessor, the National Rivers Authority, whilst local authorities are tied to boundaries determined by political considerations. One local authority may at worst have to deal with as many as a dozen Agency regions on matters such as waste regulation or planning. And one of the Agency's Local Environment Agency Plans (LEAPs) covers as many as eight different local authority areas. It is of paramount importance, therefore, for the Agency's approach in this area, and the administrative systems it deploys, are to be sufficiently flexible to allow local authorities to work effectively in partnership with them.

6.5       Closer liaison between the Agency and local authorities is axiomatic (the shared responsibilities under the new contaminated land regime serves as a recent example of an area where close working is critical). We look forward to the Agency's 'new vision' translating into improved working together at local level. In this context, it is vitally important that the Agency has an adequate opportunity to input into local authorities' community strategies, and that an equally close consultative relationship exists where the preparation of LEAPs is concerned. The Association is pleased to note that the Agency is undertaking a review of LEAPs, in consultation with local authorities and other bodies, which it aims to complete by the end of March 2001.

6.6       The agreement, "Working Better Together" between the LGA and the Agency (a plan for enhanced performance from better cooperation between local authorities and the Agency, December 1999) has an important role to play. Developed from a previous agreement between the former Local Authority Associations and the Agency in 1996, "Working Better Together" establishes ten commitments, mostly set against timescales, which are to be monitored and kept under review. As part of this agreement, new or revised protocols are being implemented in the following areas: flood defence, town and country planning, IPPC, emergency planning, scrap yards, Local Agenda 21, biodiversity, and cultural strategies. These provide a basis for technical cooperation between the Agency and local authorities, and help to benchmark good practice. The LGA has agreed to use its best endeavours to promote the implementation of protocols by local authorities, and there is scope for local agreement between the Agency and individual authorities within the overall framework.

6.7       The LGA recognises that present legislation, and resulting procedures which have to be applied under different regulatory regimes, has become too complex. It therefore supports the call for a review of the different approaches and philosophies of existing environmental legislation, with a view to the establishment of a more efficient and effective regulatory regime.

6.8       One of the big challenges for local authorities and bodies such as the Environment Agency is to achieve the effective management of information and information transfer in the field of environmental planning and assessment. Standardisation of databases and systems for information transfer is needed to allow compatibility of data collection, exchange and use, in order to achieve a less complex and more integrated overview than is presently possible. In this context, the use of geographical information systems (GIS) has a major role to play as a tool for more effective environmental planning in the future, making possible accurate and rapid mapping and data analysis. However, setting up and maintaining GIS is resource-intensive, and this needs to be recognised by the Government and reflected in the spending requirements of local authorities.

6.9       A number of examples above (the new contaminated land regime, more proactive pollution control enforcement, the abolition of agricultural permitted development rights, and the introduction and use of GIS) demonstrate the need for additional resources if local authorities are to perform to their potential in the field of environmental planning and help achieve more fully the objectives of sustainable development. Financial settlements over many years have meant increasing pressure on essential service delivery within local authorities and a growing emphasis on meeting statutory requirements, with other areas of service delivery - among which environmental planning is certainly one - not receiving the attention they deserve.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study