Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

INTRODUCTION

1.       In July 1999, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution announced its intention to review environmental planning. The aim of this study is to assess whether the various regimes as different levels for setting and achieving environmental goals provide an effective, accountable and transparent way of protecting the environment. Its scope 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 sought views on the issues to be addressed in the study - the Institute's response of 28 October 1999 is appended for reference. It has indicated that there was broad agreement that such a study would be timely. The Commission in March defined specific issues on which it intends to focus. These issues emerged from an analysis of the responses to the announcement of July 1999, information contained in Commission sponsored consultants' reports and comments made at a Commission seminar on 3 February at which the Institute was represented.

3.       The Commission is now seeking views on these identified issues.

GENERAL COMMENTS

4.       The Institute welcomes the opportunity to answer the very full and wide-ranging questions set by the Royal Commission on environmental planning. The detailed answers to these questions follow this introductory statement.

5.       Whilst recognising the scope for improvement and change in the current planning system, the Institute considers that the system and the profession itself has a crucial role to play in the achievement of sustainability. The Institute maintains that sustainability must include not only environmental issues but also cover social and economic issues. Whilst the environmental capital of an area is important and forms the context for the development plan, there is a need also to look at the economic and social capital of the area in conjunction with the environment to promote sustainable development.

6.       The Government recognises that planning has the ability, through the preparation of robust strategies that go beyond the traditional remit of land use planning, to draw up a coherent and holistic approach for the sustainable development of an area. However, there is still a need for more of a national framework to be developed into which the regional, sub regional and local level strategies will fit into. The production of this national perspective will ensure a more effective style of spatial planning.

7.       The planning system can also act as the catalyst and facilitator of public involvement. This is vital to ensure that there is ownership from the community of the plan and recognition that there is role for each individual to play in the achievement of common goals.

DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE KEY THEMES

1.       Environmental sustainability

a.       Has the pursuit of sustainable development as the broad objective of policy had favourable or unfavourable consequences for protection of the environment? To the extent that consequences have been unfavourable, how could that best be remedied?
8.       The identification of the practice of sustainable development as a priority for public policy has been beneficial in that it has introduced environmental issues and objectives into the development equation alongside economic and social issues and objectives. The principle of this approach has been incorporated into the UK sustainable development strategy. There is now recognition that environmental damage can and should be prevented through the operation of the planning system. However, sustainable development relates to long-term goals and effects, and it is still very early in the process to tell if the policies adopted in recent years really have had the effects sought.

b.       Can environmental objectives always be balanced against other issues or are there environmental imperatives? If so, how are they (or how should they be) determined?
9.       When environmental options are weighed against others there is a need to include some environmental imperatives such as the prevention of irreversible impacts on acknowledged special environmental capital. In general, each case will depend on its uniqueness and environmental, economic and social circumstances. The extent of the impacts on this uniqueness and circumstance should be related to any mitigation that is sought.

10.       The practice of sustainable development is inherently difficult because of three reasons. Firstly, the complexity of the factors involved; secondly, the difficulty of evaluating the weight that should be given to individual factors; but thirdly, more than anything else, the difficulty of deciding between the competing claims of social, economic and environmental needs - the comparison of apples, oranges and pears. Only in quite rare cases will it be possible to achieve a clear consensus that an objective in one area should have clear precedence over the others.

c.       What regulatory approaches are likely to be the most effective and practicable to protect the environment, in both measurable terms eg water, soil and air quality, and less tangible aspects eg landscape and amenity?
11.       There are different regulatory frameworks in place that relate to different facets of the environment. These include measures under not only Environment Acts but also under the Town and Country Planning Act. The former may be more appropriate where absolute standards are being sought and the later where there is a need different types of impact in reaching decisions. The development control system and the plan-led approach have a role to play in the application of these frameworks.

12.       In addition to regulatory control, there are also other tools available such as sustainability appraisals, environmental impact assessments, local agenda 21 initiatives and biodiversity action plans.

d.       In practice, to what extent does land use planning still embody a presumption in favour of development? Has the legislative change to a plan-led system given land-use planning the potential to become a more effective instrument for achieving environmental sustainability? Is any further change necessary, and, if so, what?
13.       Whilst in practice there is still a presumption in favour of development, the plan-led approach has been effective in achieving sustainable development. This should be further enhanced by the carrying out of an environmental appraisal in conjunction with the review of the local plan. In order for this to ensure a fully sustainable planning strategy, the appraisal should also consider economic and social issues.

e.       In practice, how far have planning regimes in general moved from "predict and provide" to "plan, monitor and manage" to avoid environmentally unsustainable outcomes?
14.       It is doubted whether our land use planning system has been one of "predict and provide" for many years, if ever. If anything, the evidence is that the planning system in practice has underestimated development potential and market change rather than making predictions whose delivery it has ensured. That said, there is considerable support for moving to a "plan, monitor and manage" approach. However, there is far from consensus as to what "plan, monitor and manage" means in practice apart from reducing the time horizon of plans. Indeed, it need not necessarily lead to less environmentally unsustainable outcomes if the new approach is so cautious in advocating or delivering change that it reduces the opportunity for environmental improvement that should be provided by new development and by upgrading and replacing less environmentally desirable forms of development. In any event, the "plan, monitor and manage approach" requires not only a preparation of plans as part of a plan-led system but also a greater focus of resources and political will on monitoring and the consequent adjustment of policy through more frequently and regularly reviewed development plans.

f.       Do current arrangements for environmental planning sufficiently take into account the cumulative impacts of developments?
15.       There is considerable doubt that current arrangments are satisfactorily capable of taking cumulative impacts of development into account.

g.       To what extent is effective environmental planning hindered by a lack of resources within central government and local government, statutory agencies and advisory bodies? Have the procedures become too complex for any institution to cope adequately?
16.       Environmental planning is fundamentally hindered by a lack of resources or inappropriate priorities for available resources. This can have a detrimental effect on environmental capital and the standing of the environmental planning system with the public.

17.       This lack of resources is not necessarily a function of numbers of staff, but rather appropriate levels of training of both staff and decision-makers. In general, salary levels are too low to attract and retain specialists into the field (very important in relation to the Environment Agency).

18.       Although there are some complex procedures that could benefit from simplification these are not thought to hinder the process. There is a need to identify the lead bodies for certain situations and there should be more joint and cross working between the different levels of government and between the relevant agencies. The promotion of community liaison groups comprising of both developers and local representatives can offer alternative means of transparent monitoring and protection of environmental value.

h.       What are the implications of long-term risks, such as those posed by climate change or persistent waste, for environmental planning? Can planning systems become drivers for limiting the extent of damage from unavoidable climate change?
19.       The planning system has the potential to deliver solutions but will need to ignore the easy short term wins that do little to address the true long term risk to environmental capital and focus on understanding the real big impact risks and develop long term strategies to mitigate them. In order for this to be realised the political will to meet these long-term goals needs to be in place as well as a clear set of objectives to guide strategies.

20.       This requires that central or national governments should drive the agenda, setting clear targets in national and regional policy frameworks, and the means of evaluating cumulative effects.

i.       To what extent does the achievement of environmental sustainability depend on permitted uses being time limited?
21.       It is a weakness in the existing planning system that once permission has been granted there is no way change can be taken in to account. There is a need to have time limited permission to accommodate technological advances and other changes that can benefit the environment.

2.       Boundaries

a.       To what extent does a mismatch between administrative areas and environmental processes contribute to environmentally unsustainable planning, for instance in river catchments or along coastlines? What should be done about it?
22.       These cross boundary issues should be addressed through the development of regional and sub regional strategies, which will lead to greater co-ordination, co-operation and consistency of approach between local authorities, agencies and developers.

23.       Applications for large-scale development require some form of co-ordinated approach that will consider all the cross boundary and multi-agency factors. The introduction of a requirement on authorising local authorities to establish a one-stop consenting system for major development proposals may provide a more flexible and responsive approach.

b.       What problems arise from different plans being produced and implemented for overlapping geographical areas?
24.       Given the number of plans and strategies being produced for differing geographical areas it is inevitable that there will be some overlapping. Any problems and conflicts that arise should be resolved at the regional scale where there should be co-ordination of regional plans and strategies.

c.      Should the land use planning system be responsible for helping to deliver policy targets in other areas such as transport, energy, water provision, flood protection, climate change and nature conservation?
25.       Yes, and it does so already, in that all these sectoral issues have spatial requirements that need to be identified and addressed in plans at one or more levels. There is an increasing recognition of the need for objectives in urban and rural policy alike to be sought through area-based integrated policies, and this is at the heart of what is more commonly now called "spatial planning".

26.       But the question itself highlights a real problem - the focus on the "system", i.e. the operation of the statutory processes. The main focus needs to be on the clarification of policy goals, processes of evaluation and means to develop consensus about specific objectives that inform the system.

d.       How might geographical information systems (GIS) contribute to environmental planning in both the short term and the long term? What problems are associated with data accessibility and quality, and how might they be addressed?
27.       GIS can assist by quantifying environmental risks and tracking cumulative effects and makes information more accessible. There is a danger that limited resources may be consumed without delivering commensurate benefits in order to avoid this there is a need to assess what information should be captured, at what spatial scale and for what purpose.

e.       Does the lack of control over certain activities, such as forestry and agriculture, prejudice the achievement of environmental goals? If so, what would be the effect of introducing such controls?
28.       Lack of control over agriculture does prejudice the achievement of environmental goals and it would be desirable to implement controls. These could cover large scale activities that have detrimental long term and wide ranging effects on the environment for example the ploughing of moorland or the drainage of wetlands, however, there is no need to cover all small scale development.

3.       Integration or co-ordination?

a.       Does the current system need "fixing"? What gaps, unnecessary duplication and conflicts exist in present arrangements for environmental planning?
29.       There is a need for the system to be more predictable to reduce the uncertainty, unnecessary conflicts and duplication that exist at different stages of the process. For example, at what stage should the operator start to carry out the environmental assessment, and the conflict between the IPPC and planning permission in that the developer will not want to pay for the IPPC if then the land use consent is not granted.

b.       Is there in practice a hierarchy in the formulation of different types of environmental plans? Would there be advantages in establishing a clearer hierarchy?
30.       There are many different bodies which each produce different plans and strategies covering different areas and timescales for example each English region will have at least one LEAP, a Regional Economic Strategy, Regional Planning Guidance and several other plans, strategies and guidelines. Whilst there is an established hierarchy between land use plans there is not one between land use planning and environmental plans. Therefore, there is a great deal of vertical integration but not so much horizontal integration of plans. There is a need for greater integration and co-ordination between the different plans and the setting out of a legal basis of plans.

c.       Should the process of environmental planning be further integrated or rationalised, e.g. as in New Zealand? Or would better co-ordination be sufficient to ensure an efficient and effective system?
31.       This is an issue that should be investigated further as the potential is there for both.

d.       Are present arrangements for environmental planning efficient and cost effective? Can the wish to speed up the land use planning process be reconciled with effective environmental planning?
32.       The present arrangements are not efficient as there is too much confusion in the system. It will be difficult to speed up the process and still devote enough time to discuss the detail of the issues without an increase in resources. There is a scheme in California where developers who require a quick decision on an application fund extra staff within the local authority to speed up the processing of the application.

e.       Are the mandates and procedures of the pollution control bodies appropriate to their environmental planning responsibilities? Are these responsibilities appropriate? Is it practical to have parallel decisions on land use planning and pollution control?
33.       Because of the democratic control of the planning system and the technocratic nature of the pollution control system this results in two different codes operating in two different systems. The difference in the systems will create problems in giving parallel decisions. At present some difficulties can occur where the two systems interface, but decisions could become more complementary and co-ordinated. In order for this to be feasible there is a need for decision-makers to be trained to be able to take into account both systems.

f.       Has a satisfactory integration of transport planning and land use planning been achieved? If not, what more needs to be done?
34.       As yet there has not been a satisfactory integration of transport planning and land use planning but polices are being developed and need time to bring about results. The main weakness in the system is that the local transport plan is still a separate item from the development plan and in the main focuses on inappropriate areas. Transport plans need to become more spatially aware and less focused on the minutiae and concentrate on cross boundary issues, as this is where they will have most impact on sustainable development.

g.       To what extent could economic instruments, non-statutory procedures, or informal arrangements complement environmental planning regulation, and how effective would they be at providing environmentally sustainable solutions? Would there be implications for openness, transparency and accountability?
35.       The main concern with the use of non-statutory or informal arrangements is that they will add to the confusion and are not sufficiently transparent. In relation to the use of economic instruments, the major problem is where the revenue raised actually goes ie centrally to the Chancellor or locally to fund local projects, which raises issues of equity. The Institute is preparing a discussion paper for publication this summer that will advocate a quantitative plan-led approach to those planning obligations intended to set out and deliver the authority's development plan and related objectives. This approach seeks to be transparent and open to landowners, developers and the public and also accountable to ensure that "contributions" are applied to the infrastructure or mitigation objective for which they are sought.

h.       One possible economic instrument could be a "betterment tax" aiming to increase public ownership of development gain. Is such a tax feasible and desirable? Might there be some way of linking the rate of tax to environmental impact?
36.       The approach to be commended in the Institute's paper is intended to apply to all development and to enable a move away from negotiation of "planning gain" on individual applications. There will still be a limited role for negotiation on individual applications to address what would otherwise be reasons for refusal that can not be satisfactorily remedied by planning conditions. However, the approach is intended to reduce the scope for seeking or offering " planning gain" that is irrelevant to the development plan objectives as the Institute considers that no amount of so- called "planning gain" can turn a 'bad' decision into a 'good' decision.

37.       The theory behind all betterment taxation is that the public should share in the benefits granted through a permission to develop. The theory behind the current practice of "Section 106" agreements is that developers should carry out works to offset or compensate for the effects of their development. What is missing is the recognition of the need to factor in off-site implications, e.g. the sub-regional or even regional effects of some large or cumulative developments, and these could only be captured through some form of taxation.

38.       But a pre-condition for any such scheme would be the need to hypothecate the revenue raised to deal with the environmental issues, and this would be problematic for the Treasury.

i.       Does the adoption of sustainability as the focus of policy intensify disagreements about the boundary between public and private development rights and obligations? To what extent does the current planning system enable such issues to be resolved?
39.       The adoption of sustainability as the focus of public policy has highlighted the need to bring environmental factors into account alongside social and economic factors. But we should be in little doubt that economic factors remain stronger, because they are seen as the ultimate driver behind all other considerations; and we are a long way yet from evolving fully the methodologies that might assist public debate about how these factors should be traded off or optimised.

40.       So sustainability as a policy objective has not intensified disagreements over public-private rights so much as complicated - necessarily - the debates on the issues raised by the exercise of those rights.

4.       Subsidiarity & democracy

a.       Is the current balance between elected leadership, expert assessment and public participation in environmental planning decisions appropriate?
41.       In a democratic society, politicians will have to make the final decision but public participation and expert input is an important factor of this decision making process. The way in which these decisions are reached should always be open, transparent and accountable but can vary in process and depth depending on whether the case is of local or strategic importance.

b.       How do we ensure that all levels of decision-making process are sufficiently open, transparent and accountable to gain public acceptance? What are the best ways to reflect the range of public opinion whilst maintaining an appropriate procedural timetable? When should public opinion be overridden in the interest of a broader common goal?
42.       The process of decision making should be clear and concise to ensure that it is understood by both the public and those operating within it. As far as is possible, the Internet should be used to publish any papers involved in the process. In the case of complaints an adequate procedure should be set up to deal with any that may arise.

c.       What should be the relationship between international, national, regional and local goals? Should environmental planning take place at the lowest level consistent with the common good (the principle of subsidiarity)? How far do current arrangements depart from that principle?
43.       The arrangements for planning generally do follow the principle of subsidiarity. But there is an absence of any spatial strategy at the UK-national level at present, and this is a serious impediment to the interpretation of the principles of the European Spatial Development Strategy in the United Kingdom, and the co-ordination of regional strategies.

d.       Are new regional planning arrangements, or other measures such as strengthening the strategic planning role of local government, needed to ensure greater coherence between national and local planning regimes? If so, what should these be and how should they be made accountable?
44.       At present regional planning provides a level of guidance that bridges the gap between national and local policies. However, (a) the policies are only guidance and there is a need for regional parliaments to be developed to ensure that this level of planning has a statutory status within the process, (b) there is mis-match between the roles of Regional Development Agencies and the regional planning bodies, and (c) the regional strategies do not add up to form a coherent national strategy.

e.       To what extent do the principles of the environmental planning regimes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland need to differ from each other? What are the specific drivers of these differences?
45.       The principles of the environmental planning regimes do not currently differ from one another throughout the UK. There may be differences in the processes but this is viewed as one of the impacts of devolution and is seen to add a beneficial diversity.

f.       Does the present form of planning inquiry offer the best way of resolving disputes? Should it be extended to permit a third party right of appeal? If so, should such rights be restricted to prevent abuse?
46.       The current form of planning inquiry has been very effective at resolving local disputes. It needs some refinement to help speed-up the process of implementing local plans.

47.       Third-party rights of appeal need to be considered seriously and carefully. There is an obvious case for them in circumstances such as a manifest departure from a local plan, or where a local authority gives itself permission for development. Whether they should go further than that is more problematic.

g.       Would environmental tribunals or courts enhance public confidence in the land use planning appeals process. If so, would they impose significant extra costs and delays?
48.       The problem that environmental courts or tribunals always raises is the concern that the planning process will become through their adoption much more legalistic than at present, and in consequence less accessible and more expensive.

49.       The key issue in the practice of sustainable development is to how to take account of more factors, evaluate them more equitably and create stronger public consensus around objectives. Changing the processes will help if and only if new procedures strengthen that complex multi-faceted debate. It is not self-evident that they would.

5.       Assessment approaches

a.       What are the most appropriate appraisal methodologies for use in drawing up environmental plans and assessing the environmental impact of plans prepared for other purposes? Do appraisal methodologies applied to individual cases provide sufficient information about their implications for the achievement of wider environmental goals?
50.       Impact assessments are only as strong as the strategic planning framework within which they operate and therefore the focus should be on ensuring that this is as effective as possible.

51.       The Government has recently produced numerous guidance documents on appraisal techniques from a variety of departments. Whilst this is welcomed by the Institute but it considers that there could be greater linkages made between the various techniques.

52.       There is a need for inclusive regional appraisals to be undertaken which cover all aspects of sustainability (environmental, social and economic).

c.       Could increased use of such methodologies dovetail effectively with the efficient operation of environmental planning systems? How widely applicable should environmental appraisal be? What level of detail is appropriate for the various plan types? Who should be responsible for: (i) undertaking environmental appraisal, and (ii) judging its quality?
53.       The environmental appraisal should: apply to all types of plan; apply to all policies and proposals; be part of the plan preparation process; and be a process of identifying, quantifying (where appropriate), weighing up and reporting on environmental effects of those policies and proposals.

54.       The environmental appraisal should be undertaken by the local authorities that prepared the plan as part of a wider strategic appraisal. Whilst the local authority should take the lead and the responsibility there should also be extensive consultation and involvement from the earliest stages.

55.       The quality of the appraisal should be judged internally by a scrutiny committee and informally by groups such as Local Agenda 21 or focus groups and community-based fora.

c.       What would be the value of increased use of other assessment tools eg sustainability appraisal, environmental capital, environmental footprint, environmental space and health impact assessment?
56.       Health effects are often given inadequate importance. Noise and air quality issues and associated health impacts affect environmental quality directly. They are also high in the public perception of issues eg incinerator concerns ignoring the benefits of waste heat and reduced landfill. Developing a variety of assessment tools and involving communities through access to information and involvement in setting priorities will be key to improving public confidence in the systems of environmental planning. The rapid changes in how information is exchanged within companies through internal information systems will increasingly be reflected in the degree of public connectivity with environmental planning systems through the Internet. There is a general potential for environmental decisions to be better informed and assessment tools to become participatory. The challenge is to build a more responsive system, which can both provide and react to the demand for more information and receive feedback on policy and proposed developments.

d.       Are there good examples of comparisons between the actual environment social and economic effects predicted when a case was being considered and what the actual effects were? In addition, is there evidence of the effectiveness of pre-development mitigation and compensation agreements at avoiding unsustainable outcomes?
57.       Some approaches have worked (eg Toyota in East Midland took into consideration a wide range of aspects) and others do not (eg West Sussex County Council - used as an anti-development tool).

e.       How adequate is the knowledge base, including the location and availability of expertise, provision of training for practitioners, and the accessibility and quality of data? How far are any of these elements in the knowledge base constrained by the lack of resources or suitable institutions, and , if appropriate, how could that be remedied?
58.       Training is an important factor in expanding the knowledge base this includes initial professional training and ongoing specialist training (including elected members). The Institute expects its members know about Environmental Impact Assessment and to understand what the role of specialist skills in preparing them. These matters have been addressed in its Practice Advice Note (PAN) 13 on Environmental Assessment. The should be a greater emphasis on the diffusion of good practice and knowledge. The role of the Internet should be explored.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study