Examination of Witness(Questions 600-619)
DR JOE
HOWE
WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2002
600. Because that is the only instrument which
is really going to get over this lack of congruence between local
authority competences, for example.
(Dr Howe) Yes.
Diana Organ
601. We have just heard about the accountability
and who is going to be responsible for one thing and how it is
going to possibly not fit together. We have another problem on
top of this in that basically the responsibility for delivery
of the plan will fall on the River Basin Authority but, of course,
they have got to define and work out the relationship between
this authority and a whole myriad of other bodies and organisations:
land use planners, local authorities, internal drainage boards,
the NFU, farmers, local businesses, the list is endless.
(Dr Howe) Yes.
602. I know from land use planning with the
local authority that when they are meant to consult and involve
other stakeholders, and that is a much smaller group, it becomes
very difficult and almost non-existent. Do you think there is
a particular problem posed because virtually every organisation
within an area of a river basin needs to be consulted and the
stakeholders? How is the River Basin Authority going to define
this relationship and consult with these people? Is there a particular
problem with this or is this just the way of the world?
(Dr Howe) Potentially there is a problem here. I certainly
welcome the Water Framework Directive in as much as it seems to
be encouraging the democratisation of water policy, if you will,
and I welcome that. I also welcome the fact that there are to
be an awfully large number of stakeholder groups who are theoretically
supposed to be consulted over these particular issues. I think
I could argue that planning itself has a long history of undertaking
public participation and negotiating with the different stakeholder
groups, different agencies, different bodies, different organisations,
in the delivery of development plans and in the delivery of management
plans per se. I would tend to argue that the skills are
out there to be able to put these various groups together but
at the moment, however, I feel as though there is a lack of knowledge
about the role that the various bodies will play, the various
partners, the various authorities, the various agencies will play,
in putting together these river basin management plans.
603. Do you not foresee that there will be a
situation where there will be this sort of little bit of consultation,
odd letters being sent to these bodies, "What is your view
about what the River Basin Authority is going to be doing with
this Directive?" and in the end a whole raft of organisations
and bodies will be ignored because it will just be a pro forma
exercise, but there will be one or two, possibly the local planning
authority, that have an overbearing influence on it?
(Dr Howe) Possibly. However, I am sure that large
scale local developers, utility companies, agricultural interests,
will also be wanting to put their stake forward. I also suspect
that the first time there is a legal case with huge legal proceedings
when a development gets challenged through river basin management
plans that all of a sudden people will jump into line.
604. Given that there are these bodies that
will want to have an involvement in this, and you could call it
joined-up thinking if you like, how are we practically going to
achieve this? I just cannot see my water company, Severn Trent,
spending vast amounts of time going to endless meetings with River
Basin Authorities, they just do not have the personnel and they
do not want to be spending their time doing that, their job is
delivering water services to the customers who pay for it. How
are we going to achieve this joined-up thinking that is necessary,
this working together with all these bodies? It is just bureaucratic
nonsense, is it not?
(Dr Howe) I would argue with you that the situation
is already in place. The public participation and the consultation
that already takes place for development plans already requires
a whole series of different bodies to be consulted over those
particular issues. The skills are there, the knowledge is there,
and these bodies do have particular people who are responsible
for participating in public participation. The issue may well
lie with the Environment Agency per se. Does the Environment
Agency have the skills, the personnel, dare I say the planners
in place to be able to facilitate this particular form of public
participation with the stakeholder groups?
605. When you say it is going on already, and
you raised the point that the Environment Agency may not have
the expertise and the resources to facilitate this, my concern
is if you take the situation at the moment and a developer comes
forward wishing to build within the flood plain of a river you
will find that the Environment Agency is consulted about the proposal,
their response is looked at. It is not mandatory, it does not
have to be taken regard of, it is just "What do you think
of the idea of somebody building a super duper hotel on the banks
of the Severn?" and they may reply "This is a nonsense
plan, it is going to flood", but it can be disregarded. Is
that not what is going to happen, we are going to have that sort
of flimflammery going on and people will be consulted but what
they have to say will be just ignored?
(Dr Howe) I think it is almost inevitable that the
well resourced agencies will be the ones who get the most representation
in the river basin management plans. I think you will find that
the developers, the financial institutions, the knowledgeable
interest groups, will be the ones who have the voice and inevitably
that will be at the expense of other interest groups, bodies,
organisations, who do not make representation.
Mrs Shephard
606. Given the implications for local authorities
of what Diana Organ has just said and, indeed, what the Minister
said in terms of the Environment Agency under this Directive eventually
having blocking powers on the democratic process of local authorities,
what advice would you have for local authorities and for the Government?
Should somebody soon not be saying something to someone? The Committee
has had no response from the Local Government Association.
(Dr Howe) It does not surprise me that the Committee
has not had any response.
607. It does not shock you?
(Dr Howe) It does shock me. They should have responded.
Nevertheless, there are not many people out there who have familiarised
themselves with the Water Framework Directive. Very few people
have actually engaged with the Water Framework Directive per
se as yet. I imagine that local authorities are so overrun
with so many other things at the moment that they have not yet
thought about this particular issue. It is a pressing issue, things
need to happen soon. Perhaps one of the outcomes of this Committee
will be to influence local authorities, the Local Government Association,
to become engaged with this very pressing piece of environmental
legislation.
608. Should the Environment Agency and/or the
Government be more proactive in getting a response from local
government as one of their important partners and stakeholders
in all of this?
(Dr Howe) If the Environment Agency is seen as the
competent authority, and currently it appears to be that way,
then, yes, the Environment Agency needs to discuss with the various
local authorities the way forward in terms of putting together
these river basin management plans.
Mrs Shephard: Thank you.
Chairman: In relation to the River Basin Management
Authority, will there be a building with a plaque on the door
where it says "River Basin Management Authority. Chief Executive:
A Bloggs" with x numbers of staff? Will people have to phone
or e-mail him or her? What is your understanding of the architecture
of this?
Diana Organ: We used to have it, it was called
the National Rivers Authority.
Mrs Shephard: Those were the days.
Chairman: Whoever is chief executive of the
Thames River Basin Authority is going to have more power than
the Prime Minister, is he not?
Mr Mitchell
609. He is going to have a wetsuit.
(Dr Howe) Coming from the built environment profession
I have a picture, an architecture, of how it may well appear.
Inevitably it is going to be regionalised, there are going to
be regional sections within the Environment Agency who are going
to have nominated individuals taking responsibility for these
particular issues. Within those particular sections, as a land
use planner I am inevitably going to argue that there is a need
for land use planners to be located within those particular bodies
to get together, to co-ordinate all of the stakeholder interests
within those river basin management plans, to get local authorities
to discuss with one another because at the moment many local authorities
do not actually discuss issues cross-border, cross-boundary, but
they are going to have to do that in the future. There will be
a section within the regional agencies.
610. The plaque will say "Environment Agency
Erwell and Irk Strategic River Basin Management".
Mrs Shephard: Director of flows!
Mr Mitchell: Helpline!
Paddy Tipping
611. We talked a bit about the Skills Council
and you have argued very strongly that there needs to be more
planning work. There is a set of competency issues within the
EA, as well in that the EA is a freestanding quango reporting
to DEFRA—Mrs Shephard was hinting at this. In a sense it
is going to be trying to tell local district councils, who are
elective bodies, who are the voice of the people in their area,
it is going to engage with them on planning issues. What right
does this unelected quango have to tell my own council whether
they can or cannot do this or that?
(Dr Howe) There are potentially huge conflicts between
the river basin management initiatives and local authorities.
612. How are we going to the sort this out,
Dr Howe?
(Dr Howe) The local authorities, if you like, are
the elected officials. As you rightly point out the Environment
Agency is a quango body. The quango body has to be there to assist
in coordinating initiatives across the river basis management
areas. Perhaps that may well imply the need to redraw regions,
for instance. I can foresee existing regional planning guidance
being drawn up by the regional offices, if you will. Perhaps in
the future, post 2016, they could be drawn up round river basins
for instance. That may be a way forward.
Chairman
613. We are going to have river basin regional
assemblies, are we?
(Dr Howe) We could have it. It would certainly make
sense. It is an issue that needs to be considered. I would not
wish to rule it out.
Paddy Tipping
614. That is not going to happen, is it? We
are going to go on the existing regional boundaries. The Severn
Trent region, the East Midlands and West Midlands regional offices
and the South-West regional office are going to have to work together.
Again this is a difficult bit of administration.
(Dr Howe) Absolutely. It is issues of cutting across
boundaries. This Directive is going to lead to bodies having to
work together which have not traditionally done so. That could
be productive, it is certainly going to be challenging.
615. You told Mrs Organ earlier on that powerful
bodies like developers who wanted to build hotels on the banks
of the Severn were going to take a real interest in this. How
are they going to get involved in this process? If I am a big
building company and I want to build houses how do I influence
the planning and directive issues?
(Dr Howe) Perhaps by two ways. Firstly through making
direct lobbying. They are key stake holders and they will make
representation if they feel they are not going to be allowed to
build on a flood plain on the River Severn, they will inevitably
make representation. The second way they will get involved is
to challenge, if this is not incorporated into planning legislation
and into development plans then these issues will become a material
consideration. They will not be legally binding and they will
challenge you through the courts, and they have an awful lot of
money to challenge through the courts.
616. I have been there. Tell me this, this is
where I wanted to get to, how is the regional planning guidance,
the development plan process statutory requirements going to link
with the requirements of producing river basin plans? Clearly
one is going to need to change the law, are you not?
(Dr Howe) I am really pleased you have asked that
question because that is, perhaps, an issue I missed earlier when
you asked the first question. There definitely needs to be an
issue of synchronisation. It is a six year cycle to the river
basin management plans. At the moment the development plan cycle
at the very best are a bit haphazard, it is very important that
they do marry together. There is a six year cycle to the new development
plans and once the Planning Act is introduced later in this Parliamentary
session and also a 6 year cycle to the river basin management
plan they go hand in hand.
617. What is the interconnectiveness between
them? Which is going to be the supreme bit of legislation, is
it going to be the development plan or the water basin management
plan?
(Dr Howe) The development plan. The current legislation
will be the primary piece of guidance.
618. We can go back to Mrs Organ's position
where people in local authorities can, as they say crudely, put
their two fingers up to developers
(Dr Howe) Then developers can appeal it through the
Secretary of State.
619. If we want to deliver this water basin
management plan it has to have more statutory framework than it
has at the moment.
(Dr Howe) Yes is my answer to that. It certainly needs
to have a greater emphasis with legislation than currently appears
to be the case. I was listening to the Minister earlier and he
seemed to think it will be introduced in secondary legislation
and that will possibly be okay but I would like to see it have
a little bit more emphasise.
| 
