From: J Martin Shaw OBE, Director of Planning and Transportation, Norfolk County Council, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich   NR1 2SG Officer Contact: Judith Cantell 16 May 2000

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET COMMITTEE
15 May 2000

Report by the Director of Planning and Transportation

Summary The Commission are seeking views on a number of issues related to the Environmental Planning system. This report sets out a proposed response which members are invited to discuss.

1.       HEADING
1.1       As part of its study of Environmental Planning, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has invited evidence on five key themes to see whether current processes provide an effective and transparent way of protecting the environment. The themes are:

• Environmental sustainability
• Boundaries
• Integration or co-ordination
• Subsidiarity and democracy
• Assessment approaches

2.2       Boundaries; are problems caused through a miss-match of administrative and natural boundaries?

2.3       Integration or co-ordination; are there gaps, or duplication in the current systems of land-use planning authorities and regulatory bodies?

2.4       Subsidiarity and democracy; is decision making open enough to gain public acceptance? Should national targets be imposed against local wishes?

2.5       Assessment approaches; what is the most appropriate approach to assess the impact of plans and developments?

3.       A SUGGESTED RESPONSE TO ON THE FIVE THEMES IS SET OUT IN THE APPENDIX TO THE REPORT.

ACTION REQUIRED
Members are invited to consider and provide comments on the suggested response to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

TOPIC	PROPOSED RESPONSE
1. Environmental Sustainability
Does sustainable development as a policy objective have favourable or unfavourable consequences on the environment?	The Commission's recognition that sustainable development has economic, social and environmental components is welcomed and generally the consequences have been positive. However there remains a strong tendency to view the process as balancing the three strands. The commonly used model of 3 overlapping circles can lead to a 'trading off' of the aspects of the economy and social inclusion at the expense of the environment in decision making. It is not inevitable that there are, and will continue to be occasions when a balance has to be struck between the three strands, eg should millions of poor people in hot countries be told that they cannot have fridges? A more holistic approach seeks to improve (or at least be neutral to), all 3 aspects of the model at the same time. The model of three concentric circles should be used as this recognises that sustainable growth within the economic and social sectors should be within the carrying capacity of the environment.
	From an economic development viewpoint, however, it can be argued that the overlapping circles is the better model - although the overall finite capacity of the environment is recognised.
Are there environmental imperatives?	The Rio Earth Summit recognises that the environment has a limited carrying capacity, resources and ability to absorb pollution. In this respect it should set the limits to growth and development but in practice, assessments of capacity have rarely been used to constrain development in the UK. Environmental Imperatives include factors that are essential for the maintenance of: the carrying capacity of the planet a safe and healthy society biodiversity The broader aspects of sustainability recognise the importance of links between the 3 strands in delivering a healthy environment. e.g. the links between poverty and environmental degradation is obvious. Sustainable development could be undermined by an undue emphasis on environmental protection e.g. the protection of all greenfield sites from development, but there will be circumstances when a purely environmental stance has to be balanced and judged against social and economic aspects (see above). The difficulty is making residents and businesses adjust their behaviour and expectations.
What regulatory approaches are most effective and practical in protecting the environment.	Regulation may be the most important approach to stop something happening e.g. pollution, but economic incentives and education are also important measures to promote good practice.
	The present hierarchical approach to environmental protection should also be strengthened to (i) prevent the degradation of important habitat through poor management and (ii) promote the enhancement of the undesignated environment.
In practice does the land-use planning system still embody a presumption in favour of development?	The plan-led system is intended to favour development in accordance with the development plan, but the onus is still on the planning authority to justify any refusal of permission. Development Plans will only help to achieve environmental sustainability if this is an over arching aim of the appropriate plan. The Norfolk Structure Plan 1999 is firmly based on the principles of sustainable development. It includes two new policy approaches: an explicit requirement to improve the balance between jobs, services and people in communities; and a requirement for Local Plans to include whole settlement strategies for each of the towns. The contribution of whole settlement strategies to sustainable development would be enhanced if a wider range of issues could be considered in development plans. This would require a legislative change.
In practice how far have planning regimes moved from 'predict and provide' to 'plan monitor and manage'.	The recent housing debate in the south east and recent panel reports might suggest 'not very far'. The Government commitment to 'plan monitor and manage' is welcome, but if monitoring shows the planned housing provision figures are being exceeded it is unclear what 'manage' means until the concept is tested. Land use planning is only just beginning to get to grips with 'plan, monitor and manage'. Great care will be required to ensure that the methodology is not distorted in such a way that it results in less sustainable outcomes, for example: it may encourage the development of brownfield sites over greenfield sites regardless of their contribution to sustainability (for example greenfield sites can be better located with respect to trip generation and brownfield sites can have greater wildlife value) development is more likely to come forward in too small chunks to adequately deliver necessary infrastructure; and there will continue to be significant social costs if housing and economic development need is not provided for adequately. It is also important that the land-use planning system recognises the holistic view of sustainability of which environmental planning is just one, albeit, a very important part.
Does planning sufficiently pay regard to cumulative impacts of developments?	Probably not, particularly when considering examples such as; development which will lead to increased water abstraction and the off-shore abstraction of minerals.
Is environmental planning hindered by a lack of resources.	Yes, the statutory agencies in particular seem under resourced particularly in terms of disseminating information from university research projects to non-specialists.
What are the implications of long-term risks e.g. climate change, can the planning system become drivers for limiting damage?	Decisions do need to be taken now to limit potential damage. Problems relate to understanding the evidence (see above), to the apparent lack of willingness to adopt the precautionary principle in decision making, and to Development Plans not looking sufficiently far ahead.
Should permitted uses be time limited to achieve environmental sustainability?	Yes, this is very important along with the ability to review old permissions, e.g. the difference between old mineral permissions which can be reviewed and waste permissions which cannot is hard to explain.
2. Boundaries
Does the mis-match between 'natural' and administrative area boundaries hinder the pursuit of environmental sustainability?	There is probably not an 'absolute' problem but can lead to difficulties for independent monitoring of development plans and for disseminating information to the public. In Norfolk the EA and NCC recently published an Environmental Overview based on the county boundary which helped to overcome this. The Royal Commission could look to Denmark for comparison whereby the functions of the county council, EA, EN, Co Agency and others are combined in a 'county sized' unit.
What problems arise from different plans being produced for over-lapping geographical areas?	Public confusion and even cynicism
Should land-use planning deliver policy targets in areas such as transport, energy, flood protection etc.	Yes, land use planning has an influence on all these policy areas. However, the nature of that role, its limitations and the timescale over which it operates need to be clearly understood. For example, it can be difficult to set some targets in land-use terms such as energy conservation.
How could GIS systems contribute?	The ability to transfer data between users and to overlay and combine data would be very useful. Potential administrative problems of copyright, resources to update etc. Also confidentiality problems e.g. locations of rare species.
Does lack of control over activities such as forestry and agriculture prejudice achievement of environmental goals	Yes but this should be a case for enhanced economic incentives to achieve objectives. Projects such as the Norfolk Arable Land Management project could provide a way forward.
3. Integration or co-ordination
Does the current system need 'fixing'?	If starting from scratch it should be possible to have a more streamlined system which would deliver environmental objectives more effectively. Given the existing state of affairs, the disruption required could be counter-productive.
Would a clear hierarchy in environmental plans be advantageous?	Currently some issues are dealt with through statutory controls and some e.g. land management are not. Giving plans an appropriate status and requisite 'teeth' is more important that establishing a hierarchy of control.
Should environmental planning be further integrated or rationalised? Are present arrangements cost effective? Is it practical to have parallel decisions on land use and pollution control?	Joined up policy development should be pursued. The existing process can cause problems e.g. West Lexham Landfill planning inquiry when the licensing control of pollution issues (responsibility of the Environment Agency) were not able to be considered at the planning application stage by the County Council.
Has satisfactory integration of transport and land use planning been achieved?	The integration of land use and transport planning has come a long way with particular impetus from PPG6 and PPG13, but the commitment from Central and Local Government has yet to be translated into practice. It is important that Structure Plans are able to develop overall land use strategies looking as far ahead as possible and with an appropriate level of detail to ensure that new development can be better planned and provided for. It is particularly difficult to integrate land use and transport planning when looking forward in 5 year increments and consequently only making small housing allocations. Location is the main determinant of successful land use and transport integration. Allocations are still being made, and permissions granted, for development in relatively inaccessible locations. Sustainable transport considerations are often out-weighed by other considerations and may be addressed by relatively ineffective cosmetic "add ons" such as bus stops and cycle routes. There is a need for consistency from decision makers in giving significant weight to the transport implications of retail development and other major trip attracting development (PPG6 paragraphs 4.6-4.8) with refusal on these grounds alone when appropriate.
To what extent could economic instruments and non-statuary procedures complement environmental planning regulation?	They already do significantly in the waste planning process. Incentives can also be very useful in the agri-environment sector. Taxes and credits can also be effective but these may not always tackle resource issues if they purely create commodity markets.
Is a 'betterment tax' feasible or desirable?	It is certainly desirable in the interests of equity alone (why should an increase in land values created by the community not accrue to the community rather than a private individual?). But when this was used before it just inflated land prices. This could work against the environmental interests through the need to maximise the economic return of a development project. The idea of a modest levy on new development is, however, still worth pursuing.
Does sustainability as a policy focus blur the boundary between public and private development rights and obligations?	It should not be any different from the existing system.
4. Subsidiarity and democracy
Is the current balance between elected leadership, expert advice and public participation appropriate in planning decisions.? What is the best way to make decisions more acceptable? Should local needs be overwritten for national goals?	'Planning for Real' type exercises can bring together all parties and help gain acceptance for difficult decisions. They are expensive and time consuming, however, if done properly. They could be used more widely for setting policy objectives.
Should environmental planning take place at the lowest level consistent with the common good?	Difficult to take a global view at a local level. Ultimately global issues must have sufficient importance assigned to them to prevent widespread deterioration of the world's resources. Social/political issues such as poverty and the movement of refugees also have long term implications on the world's resources and it is difficult to take account of these issues purely at a local level.
Should new regional planning arrangements have an increasing strategic role? How can this be made accountable?	Yes, but accountability requires elected assemblies in England.
What are the differences between the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland planning systems?	No comment
Should the planning system permit third party appeals? Would the use of environmental courts aid the process?	May be a requirement of new Human Rights legislation. May be more appropriate to confine it to decisions which are taken contrary to the development plan. Otherwise would have enormous resource implications unless bogus appeals carry a heavy cost penalty. Likely to increase costs and delays may also encourage adversarial approach at the expense of consensus.
5. Assessment approaches
What are the most appropriate methodologies to assess the environmental impacts of plans prepared for other purposes? What level of detail is appropriate for what plan type?	The current method of approach favoured by DETR appears to be a tick box approach for use once policies are formulated. Appraisals should be done before policies are finalised. The use of 'sustainability appraisals', see below, could also provide a more holistic view than the current system. There may also be value in independent appraisal. Currently the authority writing the development plan does the appraisal.
What is the value of increased use of other assessment tools e.g.. sustainability appraisals, environmental capital etc.	These are potential approaches but guidance is required to use the tools effectively.
Are there good examples of 'actual outcomes' as opposed to 'predicted outcomes' formulated as a result of appraisal? How adequate is the knowledge base to guide assessment	There is a problem in the knowledge base particularly in making predictions. There is a lot of research data available but it is not always easy to access it. For example preparing an Emissions Inventory for Norfolk was fraught with difficulties relating to compiling data on small processes. Lack of this type of information makes prediction very difficult.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study

Page last updated 11 March 2002