Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Introduction:
The National Farmers Union (NFU) welcomes the opportunity to submit views to the Royal Commission's Study. Many of the questions posed by the Commission have both direct and indirect relevance to the farming businesses which we represent. We will therefore be following the progress of this inquiry with some interest.

For ease of analysis, we will respond to questions in the sequence in which they are presented in Annex A. of the Commission's correspondence. Our response will address only those issues that have most relevance to agricultural interests.

1.       Environmental Sustainability
a)      The Commission believes that it has a particular function "to ensure that environmental sustainability is not being prejudiced". While respecting the Commission's perception that the environmental component of sustainable development should be subject to special consideration, we are concerned that such a focus undermines the central focus of sustainable development that seeks to balance social, economic and environmental interests, especially with respect to proposed change.

Our understanding of sustainable development (and one that would appear also to be held by Government) is that it has four characteristics:

• It is a conceptual approach to achieving the better use and management of resources and not a clearly defined end state.
  
• Its achievement involves partnerships between the Government, environmental and other agencies and the private sector.
  
• It must recognise the inter-linkages between the use, provision and consumption of resources across all sectors of society.
  
• Above all, sustainable development must be concerned with more than just environmental sustainability. It must recognise that our ability to implement sustainable development policies also depends on the economic viability of businesses.

Too often the "sustainable" and "development" components become separated thus negating the concept's central economic logic. As a result, a genuine debate about how best to ensure that development takes place with proper regard to longer-term environmental consequences, becomes a more narrowly focused debate about "sustainability" defined as a negative and essentially preventative policy mechanism.

This interpretation of the concept is prejudicial to rural interests in general and farming business interests in particular especially if established patterns of primary resource use and inevitable movements of people and products over longer distances in rural areas are consequently deemed to be inherently "unsustainable".

b)      We believe that environmental objectives can, and should, be balanced against other developmental imperatives. Having said that we accept that there will be occasions when the environmental implications of a decision would be unacceptable because of the degree, permanence or scale of disruption that may be caused, or because there are international obligations which would prevent such change occurring. Our concern is that these environmental issues should play an appropriate role in terms of their relative importance in each decision process. An example would be the consideration of nature conservation in development control decisions. Clearly it will usually be inappropriate for the presence of a locally interesting species or habitat to be used as a reason for refusing a development which may have regional or national social and economic benefits. Thus, just as economic or social components are assessed in terms of their replaceability or relative importance, so too should environmental issues. Appropriate assessment should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis.

c)       The appropriateness of a regulatory approach to delivering sustainable development (of which we regard environmental protection as but one component) is a matter of continuing debate within the farming community.

In principle we regard a regulatory approach as being acceptable provided that it is firmly based on a scientifically robust and costed assessment of environmental risk. Our experience in practice, however, suggests that this is not always the case. As a result, farming businesses are brought within regulatory regimes whose objectives and associated implementation procedures were designed for large-scale industrial processes rather than the micro-business sector which the vast majority of agricultural and horticultural enterprises represent.

We would also seriously question the appropriateness of adopting regulatory approaches in situations where the environmental issue to be addressed is how to encourage better management of the land or resources in question. In our experience, regulations on their own seldom if ever encourage the degree of positive management that is often required for achieving sustainable development objectives. In such circumstances, information, advice and where appropriate, incentives to support environmentally beneficial land management are often more effective mechanisms not only for delivering sustainable development objectives but also for ensuring ownership of those objectives by the farming community.

d)       The extent to which land-use planning as it is interpreted and implemented in rural areas has ever embodied a presumption in favour of development is a debatable point. Although the rhetoric of national policy guidance is sympathetic to economic regeneration and diversification in the countryside, that attitude is not always carried through at the local level. In our experience the prevailing philosophy of land-use planning in rural areas remains protectionist rather than developmental in emphasis.

In that context, we are particularly concerned about how PPG13 (Planning and Transport) is being interpreted and implemented in many rural areas. We have long been concerned that the thrust of the policy guidance contained in PPG13 could undermine that contained in PPG7. We are reinforced in that view by the findings of an earlier research report commissioned by the (then) Rural Development Commission and published in 1998 as "Rural Development Report 38 - Rural Development and Land Use Planning Policies". A key finding of that report is the tendency for sustainable development to be interpreted in a manner which results in a heavy focus on new development within urban areas with, as a result, less attention being given to rural development issues.

The plan-led system has further reinforced that protectionist philosophy in rural policy and decision making where it finds support amongst opinion formers and others in rural areas with the time and skills to influence the local policy and decision-making process.

e)       The extent to which planning regimes in general have moved from a "predict and provide" approach to one based on "plan, monitor and manage" is an issue upon which the NFU cannot comment with much authority. In so far as such change has occurred, however, we would counsel caution in ascribing it solely to recognition of the need to avoid environmentally unsustainable outcomes.

f)       From an agricultural perspective, we would suggest that the current arrangements for taking account of the cumulative impacts of development are more than sufficient. Our main concern, however is that such evaluations tend to focus entirely on assessments of the environmental effects with little or no regard paid to the diverse economic and social impacts of development. In addition, we would question whether it is practical to assess or model cumulative impact accurately when regulators may need to take account of many thousands of consented activities, some of which may be in abeyance and others may not be fully in use. Cumulative impact assessment is an imprecise science that, in our experience, relies overwhelmingly on a precautionary approach rather than an approach based on sound science.

g)       The NFU cannot identify major or significant resource problems within Government departments, agencies and advisory bodies, which hinder effective environmental planning. Our major concerns with the environmental planning agenda derive more from the fact that farming businesses are being brought within various environmental regimes which were never designed for them. Consequently, environmental agencies and other competent authorities are imposing implementation and administrative procedures (and associated costs) on businesses that are not big enough or sufficiently well resourced to cope with them.

This problem is exacerbated by the continuing reluctance of many of the competent authorities to improve their knowledge and understanding of the nature and structure of agricultural and horticultural businesses.

Whilst lack of resources is often given as the explanation for this situation, in our view it results more from the relative priority which the competent authorities give to the concerns of farming businesses. As far as the complexity of procedures is concerned, the agricultural industry could respond more positively to the growing complexity of regulations and procedures but only if it is given assistance to do so and the regulations are themselves sensitive to the particularity of agricultural businesses.

2.      Boundaries
a)       We recognise that the boundaries established to define administrative areas can cause problems from an environmental perspective. Cross-boundary impacts, such as those experienced in river catchments are an example of such problems. In our view, however, while there may be attractions in establishing administrative boundaries from an "environmental efficiency" viewpoint, there are other factors that also need to be taken into account. Not least is the sense of place of those subject to regulation, and the general public. For many, a sense of place is most strongly felt with regard to a locality or a county rather than a catchment or coastline.

Therefore we believe that it is more important to establish effective cross-boundary liaison and consistency rather than new administrative boundaries - especially important given the increasing focus on the Government office region in policy implementation.

b)       We are increasingly uneasy about the number of 'environmental' plans now being prepared that often operate over the same area of land. (Examples include local Environment Action Plans, Local Biodiversity Action Plans, and Shoreline Management Plans). Many of these plans pursue a single agenda with little reference to wider sustainable development issues and often with limited consultation land managers. We believe that considerable efficiency gains could be achieved by reducing the number of these single issue plans and encouraging the production of a single integrated local environment, or preferably, sustainable development plan.

c)       Over time, the land use planning system has become an important vehicle for delivering the policy objectives of agencies such as English Nature and The Environment Agency. In so far as the achievement of these objectives relate to land uses that are controlled by the planing system, we regard this as a logical and sensible development.

However, there are issues arising from the relationship between the land use planning system and the wider environmental agenda that need to be addressed.

1. We are becoming increasingly concerned about the ready adoption within Local Plans of the environmental plans and policies of other agencies which have not been subject to the same process of public consultation and deliberation as the Local Plan.
   
2. Given that many of these plans and policies often rely heavily on the precautionary principle, they often translate into local plans as "presumption against" policies with all that that entails for development proposals especially but not exclusively in rural areas.

3. Given the increasingly technical complexity of much of the wider environmental agenda, we have reservations about the level of expertise available to local planning departments and committees for dealing with many aspects of this wider agenda.
   
4. At a time when real concerns are being expressed about the ability of the local planning system to deal with its existing remit, we would be concerned if it were to take on wider and more demanding responsibilities for a burgeoning environmental agenda.

e)      Many commentators perceive that agriculture and forestry are outwith effective environment control. This simplistic statement overlooks the considerable range of environmental controls under which farmers operate. We ascribe this misconception to the historic treatment of agriculture rather than the situation that now pertains. Agriculture is subject to a wide range of environmental controls including IPPC, Climate Change Levy, Hedgerow Regulations, Water Abstraction and Waste Licensing and Pollution Controls. Often these controls are ill-suited to the farming situation - a point we have already made. Even in the context of development control, the steady erosion of permitted development rights has resulted in a farming industry far more closely engaged with local planning authorities than one might anticipate from reading the commentaries of environmental advocates. At a time when the Government has acknowledged the need to review the regulatory burden on farming businesses, we see no merit in adding that burden by bringing all agricultural development within the land use planning regime.

3.      Integration or Co-ordination
a)       We do not perceive a wide ranging need for creating a new system of environmental planning because of the deficiencies of the current situation. Instead the emphasis should be one of co-ordinating disparate threads rather than creating a new system. Most importantly, we believe that co-ordination must bring a renewed emphasis on the contribution of environmental planning to social and economic regeneration rather than simply environmental protection per se. In this respect revisiting the relationship of environmental planning with sustainable development should be a priority.

b)      We are aware of little apparent hierarchy or co-ordination between environmental planning exercises. Having said that we recognise that there is often a broad spatial hierarchy of plans in the same field (an example would be national, regional and local biodiversity action plans). We would support a system that encouraged co-ordination between plans at the same spatial scale.

c)      We cannot comment on the New Zealand model of environmental planning having had no practical experience of it. However we would support the principle of integration and rationalisation with closer co-ordination being a starting point in this process.

d)      We fully support the principle of speeding up the land use planning process (which includes both the process of preparing the development plan and making development decisions). We expect that more easily available environmental information would be one means by which more efficient (and effective) development control decisions could be made.

e)       At a time when many activities are coming within the scope of new environmental regulations and permit systems, there is a need to ensure a greater degree of coordination between the regulatory bodies both to minimise the administrative costs of environmental policy and also to ensure speedy and efficient authorisations.

f)      Given that the revised PPG13 will introduce new arrangements for achieving a better integration of transport planning and land use planning we feel that these arrangements need to be given a chance to prove themselves before any further changes are introduced. In that context, we hope that the Government will introduce clear advice to local authorities about the need for the scale and content of Transport Assessments to be proportionate to the scale of development being proposed.

g)      We welcome the Commission's recognition that public policy can be applied by using a range of mechanisms including economic instruments, non-statutory procedures (we would highlight advice, information, training and incentives) and other informal arrangements. A benefit of a more integrated system of environmental planning could be the rational and co-ordinated use of these instruments. We do not believe that there would be any reduction in the transparency of the planning process, rather Government may find that the benefit of a co-ordinated approach would be that the process would more closely associate targets for protection with the most effective means of achieving that protection.

h)       Although a tidy theoretical concept the procedural administrative and political difficulties of introducing a betterment tax system that is fair and equitable are such as to render the concept neither feasible nor desirable. In our opinion any system that would seek to link the rate of any such tax to environmental impact (however defined) would only increase those difficulties.

i)      We are concerned that the adoption of the concept of 'sustainability' is likely to intensify dispute on the boundary between public and private interests precisely bacause it is so imprecise. We continue to advocate an approach focused on sustainable development, which more fairly reflects the need to balance all three interests of the development process: economic, social and environmental. The current system is deficient in the sense that too many decision processes place the predominant emphasis on the environmental sustainability of the proposal to the detriment of the other two components of sustainable development.

4.      Subsidiary and Democracy
We endorse the Commission's concern that in principle environmental planning regimes should be transparent and accountable. However, as the Commission correctly recognises, national and local priorities do not always converge. In some situations difficult decisions have to be reached that will result in one set of priorities overriding another. This does not imply that national priorities should always override local interests, nor that the summation of local decision will result in sustainable development at a national scale. We believe that decisions driven by clear and consistent national policy guidance will be central to ensuring effective decision making. It is important to note that effective decisions will not always result in the environment being conserved but they should result in a clear explanation of how decisions are made.

5.      Assessment Approaches
In contrast to the Commission's preference for a 'sustainability' assessment of plans and projects, we would advocate that assessments should be based on their contribution to sustainable development. Having said that, we are concerned that introducing new tests for plans and projects is likely to further delay the development process and add to administrative costs. In principle, assessment should be a continuous process and internalised to development planning. In addition, it is more efficient for plans to be subject to regular consultation before and during their preparation at an appropriate scale and involving those likely to be affected by their recommendations.

To support this process, those preparing the plans should be given clear, consistent and practical guidance on their preparation especially with regard to the integration of sustainable development concerns. Where controversial proposals are made, a clear audit trail should be established which indicates how alternative approaches were considered and why they were rejected. We believe that progress could be assisted if Government highlighted environmental planning processes and plans which demonstrate best practice in this regard.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study