Memorandum by the Environment Agency (PGP
53)
PLANNING GREEN PAPER
INTRODUCTION
1. The Environment Agency believes that
the present planning system has served a useful purpose in providing
a democratically-based forum for the resolution of the economic,
environmental and social elements of sustainable development.
Although it undoubtedly has its faults in terms of speed and bureaucracy,
we believe it important that any reform retains the fundamental
benefits of the system. As both a statutory consultee and a developer
of major flood defence and water resources projects, with wide
interests in sustainable development, the Environment Agency has
an important stake in the planning process, and is ready to play
its part in realising the benefits that the Planning Green Paper,
and associated daughter documents, can deliver.
2. In summary, the views of the Agency are:
— Local Plans—We support the
proposals for local development frameworks (LDFs) and we welcome
proposals for better community involvement, provided that there
is a requirement for the Agency to be consulted.
— Waste Planning—Strategic waste
plans should be produced by groups of county and unitary authorities.
Waste plans should identify specific locations for waste sites.
— Major Infrastructure—The Parliamentary
Procedure is NOT the best way to streamline the process. Simplification
of the current plethora of statutory regimes, together with national
policy statements, better quality applications, and reduction
in the time gap between the Inspectors Report and the Secretary
of State's decision, are all better alternatives.
— Planning Obligations—The proposed
tariff system is not suitable for local environmental obligations.
Instead we propose that the current system of site-specific agreements
is strengthened and made more transparent.
— Statutory Consultation—We agree
the need for reform of the role of statutory consultees, and believe
a risk-based approach should be applied, with the provision of
standing advice by statutory consultees to local planning authorities
for low risk development proposals.
THE AGENCY'S
RESPONSE TO
SOME OF
THE ISSUES
RAISED BY
THE COMMITTEE
The effectiveness of the system of local plans
and the Government's proposals to replace them.
3. The Environment Agency supports the basis
of the plan-led system, and actively seeks to input into all local
authority development plans. We do not believe the principle of
the plan-led system should be dropped. We believe that a reformed
plan-led system is the best way to provide business with the certainty
it requires to make future investment decisions. After a decade
of operation, it is apparent that the current system needs modification.
Certainty is not provided when 13 per cent of local planning authorities
have still to produce their first plan, while a further 214 current
plans are out of date. The timescale for the preparation of plans
in many instances is far too long, and the plans when produced
are unwieldy in size and complexity, and often out of date.
4. The Agency therefore sees a clear need
to deliver shorter, better focused plans at the local level, which
can be prepared quickly, and revised frequently, and which are
integrated with other strategies and plans. We therefore support
the move to spatial planning at the local level and the development
of core policy and Action Plans. The continuous updating of the
statement of core policies will ensure it remains relevant and
incorporates the latest policy guidance, as well as changing circumstances
at the local level.
5. The Green Paper proposals for better
community involvement in Local development Frameworks (LDFs) are
very welcome. We support the flexibility and the general lack
of prescription in the new proposals, but we suggest that some
fixed points are necessary in order to provide minimum standards,
which we believe should include a requirement to consult the Environment
Agency. However, while we support the proposed role of community
strategies in establishing a local vision and objectives for the
LDF, we are concerned that many community strategies are not adequate
for this purpose. Many concentrate on immediate local issues such
as litter and dog dirt, rather than wider issues such as flood
risk. In its response on the Planning Green Paper the Agency has
suggested, therefore, that DTLR should join DEFRA and the Agency
to support the LGA in establishing a Sustainability Unit within
its Improvement and Development Agency. The Unit will provide
sustainability advice for community strategy preparation, which,
in our view, should include guidance on the links to land use
planning.
6. Although we support retention of the
County waste planning role, we consider it disgraceful that only
60 per cent of waste local plans have so far been adopted in the
eight years since they were first required. Also, waste is sometimes
given inadequate attention in Unitary Development Plans, when
unitary authorities can let a contract for the export of municipal
waste, and pass the strategic problem on to someone else.
7. We propose that waste local plans should
reflect the reality that waste flows across local authority boundaries,
and disposal needs cannot all be met within urban areas. County
and unitary authorities should co-operate in producing joint waste
local plans on a waste catchment basis. This is already beginning
to happen, and we note with approval the joint plans produced
by Leicester and Leicestershire, and Stoke and Staffordshire.
Public Service Agreements could be used to encourage groups of
waste authorities to produce plans to agreed timescales.
8. We also propose that criteria based development
control policies proposed for Local Development Frameworks should
not apply to Waste Local Plans. Difficulties with criteria led
policies in the Surrey Waste Local Plan in contrast to the specific
locations in the Hampshire Waste Local Plan persuade us that specific
site proposals maps are needed. This will lead to intense debate
during the plan preparation stage, and will add to the burden
and difficulty of preparing waste local plans. But it is the only
way in which planning can deliver strategic certainty for waste
site provision.
The procedures for scrutinising major development
projects
9. The Environment Agency has been directly
involved in the appraisal of major infrastructure projects both
as a promoter of major flood defence and reservoir projects, and
as a statutory consultee, and we have suffered from the delays
and uncertainties that bedevil the present system. We would welcome
measures that improve strategic direction, clarity and certainty,
whilst reducing costs and simplifying the planning process, provided
that they take proper account of relevant environmental issues,
which can be complex. However, in its response to the Government's
consultation paper Proposed New Parliamentary Procedures for Major
Infrastructure Projects, the Agency's view is that a Parliamentary
Procedure is not the best way to make decisions on major infrastructure
projects.
10. The Agency does not believe there is
any evidence that the proposed Parliamentary Procedure would be
faster than a well managed public inquiry. We have analysed time
spent at some recent public inquiries for major infrastructure
projects and this has shown that only about 15 per cent of time
is spent on the topic of "need", while 30 per cent of
time is spent on report preparation/recesses, and about 50 per
cent on detail and local issues including environmental topics.
11. The Environmental Impact Assessment
Directive requires that the proper assessment of environmental
impacts must include the null (do not develop) option. If Parliament
was to include Environmental Impact Assessment as an integral
part of its role of considering the principle of the development,
very extended parliamentary timescales would be needed.
12. The Agency considers that simplification
of the current plethora of statutory regimes, together with national
policy statements, better quality applications, and reduction
in the time gap between the Inspectors Report and the Secretary
of State's decision, are all better alternatives to the Parliamentary
procedure.
Proposed changes to planning obligations
13. The Agency supports the refocusing of
the planning obligation system around the principle of sustainable
development, and the objectives of minimisation of any unavoidable
adverse external impacts of development, and environmental enhancement,
wherever possible. We support the proposal the greater speed and
economy could be introduced by the production of standard forms
of contract. However the Agency has concerns about the proposed
tariff system.
14. Many of the external impacts of development
depend on local environmental capacity, and the capacity of local
infrastructure such as drainage, flood defence and water supply
systems. We believe that a District specific tariff would rarely
have the fine grained local flexibility needed to reflect local
environmental conditions.
15. Tariffs may also come to be seen as
an alternative to negotiations with developers, and there is no
guarantee that the money would be used for environmental protection
or enhancement. Once a developer pays a tariff, the opportunity
for further negotiations about environmental issues may have been
lost. In addition, the tariff could simply be seen as a betterment
levy in another guise, especially if the income from tariffs is
not spent on addressing the externalities of the development.
16. The Agency considers that site-specific
agreements remain the best option for securing environmental and
related infrastructure contributions, and could be streamlined
and made more transparent, by standard terms of contract and by
agreeing with local communities the criteria for planning obligations
to be set out in Local Action Plans. We generally prefer planning
agreements to specify provision in kind rather than relying on
cash contributions as this enables more environmental benefits
to be provided. Contributions in kind are also more likely to
ensure that the externalities of a development are addressed.
Statutory consultation
17. Although the Committee did not raise
this as a particular issue on which it required evidence, the
Agency would like to raise the issue of Statutory Consultation.
The Agency agrees the need for reform of the role of statutory
consultation.
18. Article 10 of the General Development
Procedure Order 1995 (GDPO) at present requires local planning
authorities to consult the Agency on a range of planning applications.
In addition, Planning Policy Guidance Notes (eg PPG25) also advise
local planning authorities to consult the Agency on specific types
of development. The advice we provide is sought by local planning
authorities because it is of a highly technical nature, and cannot
readily be provided by other means.
19. We believe that Government should apply
a risk-based approach to statutory consultation. In cases where
the level of risk is perceived to be high, and where a site specific
technical response is required, we agree that local planning authorities
should continue to be under a duty to ensure that the Agency,
or other relevant consultee, is consulted, and that the Agency
should be under a duty to provide advice. We believe that the
GDPO should be reviewed to establish a new list of high risk applications
for which the Agency should be a statutory consultee. This list
must include applications in river and tidal flood plains.
20. However, our own estimates suggest that
about one third of the applications on which we are at present
consulted should be considered as high risk. We support therefore
the principle of providing generic standing advice to local planning
authorities on applications where the development type or location
is of lower environmental risk. Such standing advice, which should
be regularly updated, would enable local planning authorities
to use our advice without consulting us on a site by site basis.
We believe this in itself would help speed up the local authority
decision making process as well as providing for greater transparency
and greater certainty to developers.
21. We are about to test the standing advice
approach with approximately 20 local planning authorities in relation
to development proposals where the risk of flood is considered
to be low. If the pilot is successful, we propose to agree a national
protocol with the LGA to promote the use of standing advice with
all local authorities. However, it is likely that some may still
wish to consult the Agency on a case by case basis, even for low
risk applications, and there should be statutory provision for
standing advice in order to achieve consistency.
22. The Agency also supports proposals for
developers to pay a fee to cover our costs as a statutory consultee.
The Agency's services should be paid for by developers at the
pre-consultation stage, or at the application stage if developers
decide not to consult the Agency in advance, or if the proposals
received by the local planning authority are significantly different
from those on which our advice is sought.
March 2000
| 
