Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Somerset County Council welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Commission and does so principally in the light of experience as Minerals Planning Authority for an area which contains some of the most significant mineral working in the UK.

Our comments are made under the headings of the key themes and question numbers set out in Annex A of the Invitation to Submit Evidence.

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 ?
Sustainability is seen by this Authority as the vehicle by which those aspects of the environment which are pertinent to human activity may be considered in an integrated way alongside matters which have already gained wider acceptance as environmental issues, such as wildlife conservation, landscape, water quality etc.. It is assumed that the reference to "environmental sustainability" in this question relates to the environmental component of sustainability and whether it is given sufficient weight in the planning context, against the economic and social components.

At current levels of mineral extraction activity in Somerset, the pursuit of sustainable development objectives has not conflicted with overall standards of environmental protection, although when the demand for hard rock aggregates was much higher at the beginning of the 1990s, the County Council had grave doubts about the ability of the environment to sustain those rates. Currently, Government considers (MPG6) that it should be a priority for the planning system to provide the construction industry with the materials it requires. The guidance advises that striking a balance against social, environmental and economic costs is a secondary consideration.

Should demand for aggregates return to higher levels, the obligation on the planning authority to meet need could, without doubt, result in environmental standards in Somerset being compromised. This would occur as a consequence of the weight which would have to be attached to need arguments, which are embodied in the economic component of sustainability, as a result of the MPG6 obligation. Similarly; the premise that the needs of industry should always be met, must result in environmental capacity being exceeded at some stage, as the geological resource dwindles and the reserves in environmentally acceptable areas are exhausted.

Sustainable development objectives should be the principle means by which the acceptability of planning proposals are judged, not the secondary means. The construction industry should only be supplied from a particular area if that can be done with no net disbenefit to environmental sustainability objectives.

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?
It is not practical for planning authorities to make judgements on the precise weight which should be attached to environmental issues when formulating development plan proposals or planning applications but clearly there are environmental imperatives. Planning authorities rely principally upon statutory bodies and other consultees to identify those imperatives, which are normally based upon existing conservation designations. Planning legislation and Planning Guidance Notes are fairly clear about the degree of protection which should be given to designated areas.

The system generally works well but there are two circumstances where the planning system may not provide for adequate weighting of environmental imperatives.

The first may occur when the imperative only emerges as a result of investigative work which is carried out in compliance with a condition before the development goes ahead but after planning permission is granted. The second circumstance could occur when an imperative is only identified during the review of an existing planning permission under the provisions of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, the Environment Act 1995 or the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. Under both of these circumstances, if the only way to protect the environmental interest is to revoke the planning permission, there can be significant financial implications for the Planning Authority by way of compensation. It is difficult for environmental imperatives to be considered by an Authority in a truly balanced way when they know that their actions may give rise to a very substantial financial burden.

If environmental imperatives are identified by Government in the form of statutory conservation designations, Government could at the same time, indemnify decision making bodies against the financial liabilities which might accrue whilst observing and protecting those imperatives.

c.       What regulatory approaches are likely to be the most effective and practicable to protect the environment, in both measurable terms, e.g. water, soil and air quality, and less tangible aspects, e.g. landscape and amenity ?
Many environmental safeguards can be put in place by the use of conditions on planning permissions and further measures can be secured where necessary, through legal agreements.

Somerset County Council uses both these means to secure protection of the ground and surface water environment. In formulating schemes for monitoring and protecting water resources, the Authority works closely with the Environment Agency. We find that the regulatory powers of the two bodies complement one another and have proved to be effective. However, when seeking to protect the groundwater environment, it is sometimes necessary to incorporate a modelling process into the protection scheme and it must be accepted that such techniques involve science which is less than precise. Therefore this Authority has less confidence in the level of environmental protection which is afforded when such systems are employed and is generally forced to adopt a precautionary approach under those circumstances.

The effectiveness of planning conditioning is sometimes limited by the level to which the measurable parameters of an environmental effect gauge the damaging effects. This is true in the case of noise, dust and blast vibration.

In the case of noise, guidance indicates that limits on the noise arising from mineral working should be set in terms of dB(A)Leq 1hour. It is SCC experience that such limits do not protect adequately against some of the most disturbing aspects of noise for humans, e.g. reversing bleepers on quarry vehicles, noise with a particular tonal quality or loud noises of relatively short duration. The ability to offer protection may be compromised by the need to consider how noise effects can be measured in such a way that enforcement action can be taken if necessary.

Dust emissions are regulated by several regulatory authorities and there is undoubtedly confusion as to their respective roles. There are particular problems with the monitoring of dust effects, as the associated environmental issues vary with the physical nature of the dust. In order to protect all interests, it might be necessary to specify different concentration limits, according to particle size and chemical composition. To make such limits enforceable, they would have to be able to be monitored. The equipment to carry out that work tends to be relatively costly and the value of the data which are collected will always be compromised by the variability of dust dispersion characteristics due to meteorological conditions.

Our experience in Somerset is that dust emissions are generally well controlled and there are few complaints. Planning condition control tends to focus on specifying dust suppression measures and requiring that best practice is used. It is difficult to see how the planning system could do more in the event that compliance with such conditions did not give acceptable results.

SCC have put considerable effort into reducing the public concern caused by blast vibration. Our approach to planning conditioning on this subject is to specify a standard to which all blasts should be designed. This takes local monitoring results and varying conditions into account. The specified vibration limits are based upon Government guidance and are well below the levels which are known to cause property damage. Complaints about disturbance from this cause have been greatly reduced. However, it is known that relatively low vibration levels still give rise to concern, even if they do not result in complaints. The other impact of blasting, air overpressure, is not so easily controlled and whilst it has never been known to cause property damage in Somerset, it generally causes more concern than ground vibration. Conditions can be imposed setting an air overpressure limit but that would not prevent the concern and the levels are, effectively, uncontrollable.

Of the less tangible aspects mentioned, the Somerset experience is that the planning system is generally effective in addressing visual impact/landscaping issues. Where there are examples of unacceptable landscape impact, it is associated with "old" permissions and there is little that can be done to ameliorate existing impacts through any review process. Amenity can be affected by any of the issues which are mentioned in this section, and to that extent it is difficult to see how amenity fits into a "less tangible" category. As has been previously explained, planning conditions and legal agreements are effective in mitigating against impacts which might cause derogation of amenity. However, the planning system is not as effective in protecting against some of the impacts on amenity which occur off-site, the most notable of which is lorry traffic.

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 ?
Land use planning still embodies a presumption in favour of development which is in accordance with the Development Plan. This is of fundamental importance to Planning Authorities in their quest to move development on to a more sustainable footing. It gives considerable weight to any strategic approach which an authority may wish to adopt, including those which are specifically aimed at achieving sustainability. Without a plan-led system, there would be far less scope for a sustainability strategy to have effect and planning authorities would find themselves in a much more reactive role, with sustainability initiatives coming forward from applicants in a less coordinated way.

The plan-led system could do more in the interests of environmental sustainability if Planning Authorities were allowed greater freedom by Government to include policies within their Development Plans which embrace all of the elements of sustainable development. In particular, consideration should be given allowing greater power to Planning Authorities to adopt policies to ensure prudent use of the resources within their area. An example of this would be a development plan policy which would allow proposals for mineral extraction to be refused planning permission, if there were other more environmentally sustainable ways of fulfilling the need for the mineral.

e.       In practice, how far have planning regimes in general moved from the "predict and provide" to "plan, monitor and manage" to avoid environmentally unsustainable outcomes?
In relation to mineral working, Planning Authorities which opt to identify "Areas of Search" in their development plans have, to a degree, adopted a plan, monitor and manage approach. As set out in MPG1, AnnexA , permissions can be given within Areas of Search to meet any shortfall in supply if need cannot be met from other areas which have been identified in the Plan.

However, in the case of primary aggregates, Minerals Local Plans normally must show that they have made provision for a specific amount of material to be supplied, in accordance with forecast figures in MPG6. Therefore it is, at this time, a "predict and provide" planning regime for construction materials. The burden is on Mineral Planning Authorities to prove that they cannot meet the apportionment figure in an environmentally sustainable way. The work required to prove such a case is considerable and if authorities do not make the case for a lower provision during the plan process, the requirement defaults to the apportionment figure. An inappropriate provision could result, not because it is proved to be sustainable but because the planning authority failed to make a strong case that it was not. Put simply; in the case where it is difficult to define a sustainable limit on extraction, the planning regime defaults to "predict and provide" basis rather than the more precautionary "plan monitor and manage" approach.

f.       Do current arrangements for environmental planning sufficiently take into account the cumulative impacts of developments ?
It is difficult for information on any cumulative impact to be taken into account in the context of a single planning application but it is precisely the type of issue which can be addressed when producing a Development Plan. This is particularly true if a Strategic Environmental Appraisal (SEA) of the Plan is carried out. SEA is encouraged by planning guidance and the results of such appraisals can carry considerable weight in the plan process. Some of the work which is involved in the SEA may be very costly and therefore beyond the resources of some authorities. Where potentially damaging cumulative impacts are known to be an issue, it could well be in the interests of environmental sustainability if funding could be made available from Government to finance such work.

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?
In response to environmental concern, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) have been given greatly increased powers to review existing mineral permissions, to review development which could affect designated conservation sites and to require comprehensive environmental information before making planning decisions. In many cases applicants/operators can be asked to provide such information but the sanctions which can be used in the event that it is not forthcoming, are weak. Under those circumstances, the LPAs are left with little option other than to carry out the work themselves, perhaps with the assistance of consultees or specialist consultants. There can be considerable financial implications to this action.

European legislation has impacted upon this situation, and case law has highlighted disparities with UK planning law and guidance. The need to analyse the results of such cases and for planning authorities to deal with the legal challenges which result from such a rapidly changing regulatory system, often make it difficult to cope.

h.       What are the implications of long-term risks, such as those imposed by climate change or persistent waste, for environmental planning ? Can planning systems become drivers for limiting the extent of damage from unavoidable climate change ?
The planning system does not generally lead planning authorities to look much beyond the term of their development plans but Somerset County Council is of the view that long term risks to the environment of the County should be identified and addressed by the planning system. By virtue of the ability of the planning system to have effect through the plan-led system, it has an important part to play in controlling the effects of long-term environmental change.

i.       To what extent does the achievement of environmental sustainability depend on permitted uses being time limited ?
The nature of the complex issues associated with environmental sustainability is still evolving and this is likely to be the situation for some time. If the powers of the planning system to contribute to achieving environmental sustainability are to be optimised, it needs to be able to react within a reasonable timescale. Planning permissions need to be time limited or regular review powers able to deal effectively with sustainability issues, if planning authorities are to act in this way.

2.       BOUNDARIES

Somerset County Council rarely have a problem which results from the manner in which boundaries are defined. We understand that the statistical information on waste arisings which will be available from the Environment Agency will be produced on a river catchment basis, which will not be helpful to the development plan process.

3.   INTEGRATION or COORDINATION, 4.   SUBSIDIARTY and DEMOCRACY, and 5.   ASSESSMENT APPROACHES.

Our comments on these subjects, where appropriate, are contained within our responses in the Environmental Sustainability section.

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study