Memorandum by the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution (PGP 54)
PLANNING GREEN PAPER
I. GENERAL REACTION
TO THE
GREEN PAPER
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
welcomes and endorses the recognition in the Planning Green Paper
that the town and country planning system has an important role.
The Green Paper sees a successful planning system
as having two characteristics: it should "fully [engage]
people in shaping the future of their communities and local economies"
and it should "promote economic prosperity by delivering
land for development in the right place and at the right time".
These are vital objectives, but the role of the planning system
in safeguarding and enhancing the environment is also something
of fundamental importance.
The Green Paper adopts a narrow focus on people's
views about their immediate environment and the effects of new
developments on the surroundings in which they live and work.
There is almost no reference to the wider environment or the value
people attach to it. We are told only that the planning system
"will value the countryside and our heritage while recognising
that times move on". There is no recognition of the severe
economic and social implications of ignoring fundamental constraints
such as those analysed in the Royal Commission's report Energy—the
changing climate (Cm 4749), published in June 2000.
The very few references to sustainable development
do not acknowledge that it is an environmental concept. Where
a decision involves striking a balance, the Green Paper sees it
as lying between "our desire for economic development and
for thriving communities"; environmental sustainability is
not mentioned. Yet a system for planning and regulating land use
has effects on the environment which are at least as direct, and
ultimately as important, as its effects on the economy or the
community.
The Royal Commission shares many of the government's
concerns, but it approaches the planning system from a different
standpoint. We have also concluded that "fundamental change"
is necessary, but we believe it needs to go deeper and wider.
We fear some of the proposals in the Green Paper are unlikely
to succeed because they proffer over-simple solutions to complex
problems. Others may well lead to increased uncertainty, and therefore
slow down the system by increasing the number of legal challenges
to decisions, one of the major cause of delays.
The Royal Commission's Twenty-third Report,
Environmental planning (Cm 5459) sets out in detail our conclusions
and recommendations about the changes we consider necessary, not
only in the town and country planning system, but in the wider
system for environmental planning. The remainder of this submission
is structured in terms of the questions posed in the response
form at the end of the Green Paper and give cross-references to
our report.
II. RESPONSES
TO THE
QUESTIONS LISTED
IN THE
RESPONSE FORM
1. Replacement of local plans and unitary
development plans with a local development framework
[Local plans are discussed in paragraphs 10.64-10.71
of the Twenty-third Report]
The Royal Commission believes the local development
frameworks proposed represent, in general, a sensible approach,
but there are some serious practical issues which require further
consideration, especially in view of some of the other tasks district
and unitary authorities face. These include retaining all their
current development control functions, fulfilling their new responsibility
to prepare a community strategy, and preparing action plans. Rather
than simplifying planning at the local level, the combined effect
of these requirements threatens to create a more complex, less
comprehensible, less effective and slower planning system than
exists at the moment. It also represents a major challenge to
many of the local authorities involved, in terms of their capacity
to undertake this work given current limitations of resources
and skills.
[The relationship between local development
frameworks and spatial plans is discussed on paragraphs 10.75-10.76
of the Twenty-third Report]
Although local development frameworks are an
appropriate way of dealing with local planning issues and providing
a context for local development control decisions, and we endorse
the idea that they should take full account of the land use consequences
of other policies and programmes, we are concerned at the suggestion
that they could also provide spatial strategies (Green Paper,
paragraph 4.12). In addition to limitations on skills and resources,
the areas that will be covered by local development frameworks
are not sufficiently large or self-contained to provide a satisfactory
basis for strategic planning. They certainly could not provide
the basis for the integrated spatial strategies the Twenty-third
Report advocates.
Local development frameworks should give careful
attention to all aspects of the local environment. They should
also incorporate whatever constraints or targets are needed to
contribute to the realisation of environmental policies for wider
areas. It should be a statutory requirement that local development
frameworks must comply with the spatial strategies for wider areas.
The Green Paper proposes that local development
frameworks should replace, not only part II of unitary development
plans, but also the strategic element of unitary development plans
(part I) in those areas not covered by structure plans. While
such areas may well be too small themselves to provide a satisfactory
basis for a strategic plan, it is essential that other measures
are taken to provide a proper replacement for this loss of an
existing mechanism for strategic planning.
2. Inclusion of community-based action plans
in local development frameworks
[Engaging the public in planning issues is discussed
in paragraphs 5.7-5.19 of the Twenty-third Report]
Action plans for neighbourhoods and villages
provide a promising mechanism for involving people in the future
of their local environments. But many crucial environmental issues
need to be considered over larger areas and longer timescales.
There also need to be satisfactory procedures for engaging the
public in decisions of that type.
3. New arrangements for community involvement
in preparation of the local development framework and in significant
planning decisions
[The relevant passages of the Twenty-third Report
are paragraphs 5.13-5.14 and 10.70]
The statements of community involvement proposed
in the Green Paper, and some of its other proposals, will be valuable
innovations if they lead to substantive improvements in public
involvement in decisions on planning policies and planning cases.
We are concerned, however, at the proposal not
to allow objections to draft local development frameworks. Irrespective
of any arguments derived from effects on property rights, we consider
there should continue to be rights to object and provision for
a public inquiry to be held into a draft local development framework,
because this kind of public challenge is fundamental to the purpose
of the town and country planning system. As local development
frameworks would be much slimmer documents, handling objections
should be a less onerous and costly process. The costs incurred
for this should in any case be regarded as well justified in a
wider perspective.
4. Simplification of the hierarchy of plans
by strengthening regional planning and abolishing county structure
plans
[The respective roles of regional planning and
structure plans are discussed in paragraphs 10.81-10.91 of the
Twenty-third Report; the much wider set of plans produced by various
public bodies at present are discussed in paragraphs 4.10-4.36]
We have concluded that the unsatisfactory features
of the present hierarchy of documents in town and country planning
are a major obstacle to a coherent approach.
Simplification of plans at local level (see
above) will be a major contribution to resolving that situation.
Regional planning should certainly be strengthened.
The regional spatial strategies proposed in the Green Paper appear
to be similar in content to current guidance on the content of
regional planning guidance, although they would have the advantage
of being a statutory document. We have concluded that regional
planning guidance ought to be converted into integrated spatial
strategies, which take account of all spatially related activities
and all spatially related aspects of environmental capacity. This
would be the most appropriate way of achieving the greater integration
that is highly desirable between the various planning documents
now produced at regional level.
If and when elected regional assemblies are
established in England, they are likely to provide the most satisfactory
basis for spatial planning. It might be a number of years, however,
before that position is reached. Even then, there is likely to
remain a need to prepare spatial plans for some sub-regions, including
some that cut across regional boundaries.
The structure plan process has achieved a good
deal. We do not consider it would be acceptable to abolish structure
plans unless they are replaced by integrated spatial strategies
with statutory force prepared by local authorities for areas no
smaller than those for which structure plans are prepared at present.
We have recommended increasing co-operation between county and
unitary authorities to develop such integrated spatial strategies
for sub-regional levels, where those reflect greater functional
coherence.
We see integrated spatial strategies as the
key instrument for rationalising, not merely the present hierarchy
of plans in the town and country planning system, but the present
plethora of plans produced by a wider set of public bodies which
either deal directly with, or have important implications for,
spatially related aspects of the environment. The concept of an
integrated spatial strategy is explained in paragraphs 10.13-10.21
of the Twenty-third Report. The scope of such a strategy would
not be constrained, as structure plans are constrained at present,
by a statutory limitation to issues capable of being addressed
through the town and country planning system.
At present the preparation of regional planning
guidance is dependent on the skill base at county and unitary
authority level. The Green Paper appears to envisage that local
authorities will continue to make staff effort available for this
purpose even if structure plans are abolished. It also proposes
that in those circumstances county councils would retain responsibility
for minerals planning and waste planning and for deciding planning
applications for those purposes. We are opposed to the latter
proposal, which would lead to even greater fragmentation than
at present. More fundamentally, these features of the government's
proposals are an acknowledgement that simply removing the role
of the authorities responsible for drawing up structure plans
would not be a viable solution. If county councils lose responsibility
for drawing up structure plans, however, it must be questionable
whether they would be willing to maintain the continuing planning
capability the government is apparently expecting them to provide.
5. Review of national planning guidance to
reduce its volume and complexity
[The need for improved policy guidance is discussed
in paragraphs 8.38-8.42 of the Twenty-third Report]
We strongly support the rationalisation of national
planning guidance. In fact, we think there should be a more radical
rationalisation to produce a single document updated at frequent
intervals.
An illustration of the failings of the present
approach of piecemeal updating is the Planning Policy Guidance
Note on renewable energy (PPG 22), which is now nearly nine years
old (paragraphs 8.71-8.72 of the Twenty-third Report); this has
been one reason for the difficulty in finding acceptable sites
for wind turbines in England.
National planning guidance should give clear
guidance about the contribution local planning authorities ought
to make to the protection and enhancement of the environment.
In this respect, it should be based on the national statement
of priority environmental objectives, with quantified targets,
which we have recommended (paragraphs 8.5-8.11 of the Twenty-third
Report) and should be an essential component in the programmes
drawn up for achieving those objectives (paragraphs 8.12-8.18).
6. Further comments on proposals for reforming
plans
The comments above cover related proposals in
the Green Paper as well as those specifically mentioned in the
headings.
7. Speeding up the planning system by setting
new targets for local authorities and central government for dealing
with applications and appeals
We support the general objective of a faster
planning system, provided this does not prejudice its effectiveness,
or public confidence. We did not, in the course of preparing our
report, examine these specific proposals. We consider it most
important that measures to speed up procedures do not prejudice
the proper consideration of applications, and in particular their
environmental implications.
8. Imposing new performance standards for
statutory consultees and allowing them to charge fees for consultation
[Statutory consultation is discussed in paragraphs
5.26-5.29 of the Twenty-third Report]
Establishing stronger links between local planning
authorities and the specialist environmental; agencies is an issue
of crucial importance. Requirements for consultation with those
agencies are a basic mechanism for co-ordinating the regulation
of land use with other environmental factors and ensuring that
development control takes sufficient account of environmental
issues.
That mechanism is not working satisfactorily
at present, because the agencies have had difficulty in allocating
sufficient priority and resources to this work. We consider that,
subject to practical difficulties being resolved, the measures
proposed in the Green Paper will be an effective way of rectifying
the situation, but only if new expectations and responsibilities
are matched with appropriate resources.
We are opposed in principle to the separate
proposal in the Green Paper that in future the only statutory
consultees in development control should be bodies providing advice
which has health and safety implications or which operate a parallel
consent regime. We consider that there should be no reduction
in the obligations on planning authorities to consult the agencies
responsible for pollution control, flood defence, conservation
of species and habitats, countryside and the built heritage. Indeed,
we believe the views of these agencies need greater weight in
some circumstances, such as vulnerability to flooding: we have
recommended that the Environment Agency should become a statutory
consultee in that context (paragraph 9.70 of the Twenty-third
Report). In cases where a parallel consent regime does not operate,
and sole reliance must therefore be placed on development control
to safeguard the environment, statutory consultation is, if anything,
an even more important mechanism.
The administrative burden of consultation can
be reduced if the relevant specialist agency can provide planning
authorities with standing advice in advance, so dispensing with
the need for consultation on individual cases. We have recommended
that more effort be devoted to identifying categories of cases
which are suitable for this approach.
9. Other proposals
We did not, in the course of preparing our report,
examine the specific proposals listed under this heading in the
response form at the end of the Green Paper.
However, we are strongly of the view that local
planning authorities must be properly resourced for their tasks.
10. Further comments
RIGHT OF
APPEAL FOR
THIRD PARTIES
We have recommended that in certain circumstances
third parties should have a right of appeal against decisions
on planning applications (Twenty-third Report, paragraphs 5.40-5.47).
Despite the arguments advanced in the Green Paper (paragraphs
6.19-6.23), we consider it is possible to devise a satisfactory
set of clear criteria to differentiate the categories of cases
in which that right would be available. These might include the
size of a development and whether the applicant has been required
to provide an environmental impact assessment. A clear candidate
(assuming a more satisfactory system of development plans can
be maintained) would be cases in which a local planning authority
has taken a decision, which is not in accordance with the development
plan.
We also consider there should be a specific
right of appeal for a statutory consultee if a local planning
authority has taken a decision which is not in accordance with
views expressed by the consultee. That would be an important further
mechanism to secure greater integration between town and country
planning and environmental regulation; even if the agencies exercised
their right of appeal only on rare occasions, its existence would
add weight to their views. This type of case is not mentioned
in the Green Paper.
Introducing a right of appeal for third parties
in the circumstances described above should increase public confidence
in the planning system and improve the quality of decision making.
Strict time-limits for lodging appeals, and provision for costs
to be awarded for wholly unmerited appeals, would reduce uncertainties.
The availability of a right of appeal may also reduce the number
of judicial review applications, which are more in the way of
merits appeals disguised as challenges on grounds of legality;
such applications also involve uncertainties and delay, as well
as heavy costs in judicial time. In the Green Paper, the government
concludes that a third party right of appeal could add to the
costs and uncertainties of planning, a prospect "we cannot
accept". Our view is that any costs imposed by introducing
a third party right of appeal in the form we have recommended,
and any resulting increases in the time taken by procedures, would
be a price worth paying to ensure that environmental considerations
are given their proper weight. In time, the possibility that there
might be an appeal by a third party is likely to have a positive
influence on the quality of applications for development.
SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL
We have strong reservations about the rigour
and validity of sustainability appraisals in the form in which
they are usually undertaken at present. We have concluded that,
if the government wishes to retain sustainability appraisal as
a tool, the environmental component will have to be strengthened
in order to satisfy the legal requirements of the European Directive
on strategic environmental assessment (Twenty-third Report, paragraphs
7.43-7.48).
A STATUTORY PURPOSE
We have concluded that the town and country
planning system ought to be given a statutory purpose, and that
an appropriate purpose would be "to facilitate the achievement
of legitimate economic and social goals whilst ensuring that the
quality of the environment is safeguarded and wherever appropriate
enhanced" (Twenty-third Report, paragraphs 8.22-8.34). To
complement that statement of statutory purpose, the legislation
should stipulate key aspects of the environment and natural resources
as material considerations that should be taken into account in
considering all planning applications (Twenty-third Report, paragraphs
8.36-8.37).
A SIMPLER SYSTEM
The Green Paper (paragraph 5.16) proposes a
review of the case for integrating the present array of statutory
regimes which can apply in a particular case. We support the consolidation
of the legislation on development control, conservation areas,
scheduled monuments, listed buildings and control of advertisements
so that a single consent procedure can be introduced, provided
that can be achieved without any weakening of the present safeguards
(Twenty-third Report, paragraph 5.21).
The Green Paper (paragraph 5.17) favours simultaneous
application for pollution control authorisation and planning permission
in cases where both are required. We agree, and have recommended
that there should be a common environmental statement (Twenty-third
Report, paragraphs 7.27-7.28) and, where appropriate, a joint
public inquiry (Twenty-third Report, paragraphs 5.22-5.24).
SCOPE OF
THE TOWN
AND COUNTRY
PLANNING SYSTEM
We have recommended that planning protection
should be extended below high water mark and to the sea-bed (Twenty-third
Report, paragraph 9.62).
We have also recommended that the use of land
for agriculture, forestry and countryside recreation should be
issues covered in all spatial planning in future (Twenty-third
Report, paragraph 10.16).
We have recommended that the government review
the respective roles of the town and country planning system and
the building regulations in order to design and implement an effective
system for achieving substantially better environmental performance
in new or refurbished buildings (Twenty-third Report, paragraph
9.21).
21 March 2002
| 
