Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

The County Council's Environmental Committee considered the attached report on 31 May. The Committee agreed the recommendations in the report, namely that the comments in paragraphs 4-20 and Annex A be forwarded to you as the County Council's views on the study. Yours sincerely

Chris Cousins
Assistant Director
(Land Use Planning)

Introduction

1.      In July 1999 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) announced it was to review environmental planning. The aim of its study is to assess whether the various regimes for setting and achieving environmental goals provide an effective, accountable and transparent way of protecting the environment. The scope of the study goes much wider than land use planning (although that aspect is central) and encompasses other planning regimes, such as those covering pollution control, air quality, waste, water, agri-environment and biodiversity.

2.      The Commission is now seeking views on the issues listed in Annex A of this report. It stresses that this list is not necessarily exhaustive, and invites comments on other issues which consultees consider relevant. The Commission does not expect those responding to address all of the issues raised. The closing date for responses is 23 June 2000.

Comments of the Director of Environmental Services

3.      The RCEP study raises many issues which need to be addressed, and is welcome. In general, and in response to the RCEP's request, I have attempted to tailor my comments to the specific questions raised. The question numbers are shown in square brackets. The questions themselves and some detailed responses not covered in the body of the report are at Annex A. However, before proceeding to these questions there are some general points to make.

General Points

4.      First, environmental planning on its own can rarely achieve significant environmental goals. It needs to operate within a supportive public policy framework where, for example, fiscal and regulatory regimes pull in the same direction. Too often in the past central government has expressed admirable objectives, but failed to back them up with the necessary financial and other incentives and penalties. One result of this is that the "planning system" is then accused of failure, when the conditions which would have allowed success were never created in the first place.

5.      A good current example of this looks likely to be the government's enthusiasm for an "urban renaissance", with high density housing of quality design. Research commissioned by the government indicates that the key to achieving such quality high density housing is to devote less space to car parking. This in turn would suggest that car ownership levels in urban areas need to fall, yet there is no sign of government seeking to pursue such a policy, which would undoubtedly need to be preceded by massive investment in alternative modes of transport.

6.      Perhaps a less contentious example is the fact that building new houses on greenfield sites does not attract VAT, whereas refurbishment or conversion of existing buildings does. This has worked against the government's wish to see more development on urban brownfield sites. There are now indications that this is likely to change to some extent, although it may take a fairly substantial change in the tax regime to achieve significant change on the ground. The key point is this: that environmental planning can achieve relatively little if it is having to work against the economic grain.

7.      The second general point is that the flouting of environmental rules needs to be viewed by both legislators and society at large as a far more serious offence than it currently is. That in turn means more effective enforcement powers for regulators, and sentencing which provides a more effective deterrent for offenders. At present, for example, a developer may make millions of pounds from unlawfully dumping waste in the countryside, yet face a fine of only a few thousand pounds for failing to comply with an enforcement notice. (In theory, if the matter goes to Crown Court, the fine can be unlimited, but is very seldom significant, tending to reinforce the point that a change in public attitudes is also required.) And even that will not necessarily secure the removal of the waste. While planning authorities have powers to remove the waste themselves and claim the cost back, that is small comfort if the developer goes bankrupt.

Environmental Sustainability [1]

8.      It is perhaps worth highlighting the question [1e] about the extent to which planning regimes have moved from "predict and provide" to "plan, monitor and manage", not least because of its relevance to the debate over regional planning guidance. It remains unclear as to how exactly the "plan, monitor and manage" approach will work in practice. One prerequisite for the approach to work is that planning authorities must be able to adjust their plans in the light of monitoring. At present, it is relatively straightforward for them to increase land supply. The legislative provision also exists for planning authorities to reduce land supply, including the option to revoke planning permissions. However, in practice, the compensation provisions make this prohibitively expensive, and so there is a sort of ratchet effect, whereby land for development can be released but not clawed back. (This also ties in to the issue of betterment discussed at paragraphs 13 and 14).

Boundaries, Integration versus Co-ordination, Subsidiarity & Democracy [2, 3 & 4]

9.      One of the main problems with the current arrangements for environmental planning is the extent to which they give rise to public confusion. This applies both to geographical and functional boundaries.

10.      For example, the recent local government reorganisation has resulted in additional complexities for the public, developers and others. Thus, for example, Oxfordshire retains a two-tier system of county and districts, while Berkshire has unitary authorities which nonetheless still operate a voluntary arrangement for such things as strategic planning at a county level.

11.      Moreover, successive governments have removed numerous functions from direct central or local government control. This often makes "joined up" government more difficult than when these functions were joined up. The fact that the government appears to be unable to insist that recycled materials from the MOD owned site at Upper Heyford are used in the A43 dualling just a couple of miles away appears to be but one illustration of the problems caused by excessive fragmentation.

12.       The RCEP study asks [3d] about the extent to which speeding up the planning system can be reconciled with effective environmental protection. There is also concern about the extent to which it can be reconciled with the requirements for ever-wider consultation, or with the UK's peculiarly adversarial way of conducting planning inquiries [4f]. These aspects of the UK planning system threaten at times to bring it to a halt.

13.      They also link to another of the RCEP's concerns, "betterment" [3h]. The planning system introduced in 1947 envisaged the increase in land values brought about by the grant of planning permission reverting to the public purse, on the basis that the increase had been brought about by the exercise of public policy. Attempts over the years to introduce and implement such a "betterment tax" have failed. However, an unofficial "tax" already applies in the form of "planning gain". As a tax planning gain is seriously flawed: it is not open or transparent - the rates are not published; it sometimes leads to public suspicion that planning permissions may be being bought and sold; and it is inequitable and regressive, in that the richest parts of the country, with most pressure for development, are those most able to negotiate the contributions justified by the development, while poorer areas often have to forego such necessary contributions to get any development at all.

14.      The sums of money involved are often very large: for example, an acre of agricultural land in central Oxfordshire might fetch £2,000-£3,000; with planning permission for housing it could fetch £800,000. This can encourage developers and landowners to press their case at every stage in the planning process and contribute to the overload on the system. The fact that they frequently employ barristers and numerous consultants presenting information in a complex and inaccessible way (often regardless of whether the information is inherently complex or not) may deter true public involvement in the planning process and make it unnecessarily adversarial.

15.      Taxing betterment openly and fairly and/or requiring a minimum level of contribution from all development would be preferable to the current system of unofficial taxation through planning gain: it should also remove public concerns that planning permissions may be being bought and sold, and free up some of the logjam in the system. It would also help if the automatic right of every objector to appear at local plan inquiries were to be reconsidered. An EIP type process, with the inspector (or panel) charged with ensuring a probing discussion of the issues involved, is one possible alternative, although it can result in lack of precision, leaving issues unresolved.

16.      As for openness, transparency and accountability [4b], there are certain features of local government practice that many would welcome being introduced at national government level. These include: public reports and recommendations from named officers; public timetables for preparing PPGs or RPG similar to the requirement for structure and local plans; a public record of how consultation responses have been handled; and fixed-term elections.

17.      The RCEP asks about the division of responsibilities between the planning and pollution control authorities [3e]. The current arrangements certainly cause confusion at times, and government attempts to clarify the position (e.g. in PPG10 - Planning & Waste Management) have not been particularly successful. As far as waste is concerned, the extent of exemption from waste management licensing raises public worries, as does the general issue of enforcement (see paragraph 7). It might be simpler and clearer for developers if they were to be issued with a single permission covering both planning and pollution control aspects. However, there would still be several bodies involved.

18.      The RCEP asks [3f] whether a satisfactory integration between transport planning and land use planning has been achieved. At the local level, the County Council has tried to direct transport investment in a way that supports its land use strategy, although at times this has proved difficult due to inadequate resources. The Local Transport Plan system also offers the prospect of improved integration of land use and transport planning, although there are still some problems to be ironed out. However, significant problems remain. It can be difficult, if not impossible, for local authorities compulsorily to purchase land for transport infrastructure at existing use values, and they may be held to ransom by landowners. The lack of power for local highway/transport authorities to direct refusal of planning applications on transport grounds causes problems which are likely to increase with the "detrunking" of much of the highway network.

19.      However, decisions on the big investment in transport planning are taken at the national level, and here there is considerable cause for concern. For example, the review of regional planning guidance for the south east (see separate agenda item) provides an opportunity for the government to give a clear lead on how it expects transport investment to support its land use strategy, and vice versa. However, the Secretary of State's proposed changes to the draft RPG fail to do this; instead there is simply a list of already approved road schemes. Such a lack of integration at the national and regional level is likely to undermine many local attempts at better land use/transport integration.

Assessment Approaches [5]

20.      Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the most widely used assessment approach in the land use planning field. EIA is used in assessing the impact of development proposed in individual planning applications and in looking at potential mitigating measures. EIA is paid for and commissioned by the developer, and in my view this is a key weakness of the system: of the many thousands of EIAs undertaken I am not aware of one that has recommended that the proposed development should not proceed. I think that the developer should continue to pay for EIA where it is required, but should have no control over its commissioning or evaluation. This should be overseen by an independent body; the most straightforward might be the local planning authority.

Financial and Staff Implications

21.      None have been identified as arising directly from this report.

Environmental Implications

22.      The report and RCEP study is concerned with protecting the environment.

Implications for People Living in Poverty

23.      In general people living in poverty suffer disproportionately from the effects of environmental damage. Those with more money can, up to a point, choose to buy themselves a better environment. As a broad point, therefore, improved protection of the environment is likely to be of particular benefit to people living in poverty.

RECOMMENDATIONS

24.      It is recommended that the comments in paragraphs 4 to 20 and Annex A of the report be forwarded to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution as the County Council's views on the Commission's study of environmental planning.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study