APPENDIX 25
Supplementary memorandum from the Environment
Agency
FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
FOLLOWING THE CANCELLATION OF THE EVIDENCE SESSION OF 3 NOVEMBER
2004
1. The Communities Plan was published before
the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive came into
force and is probably not covered by the requirements anyway.
Would the Environment Agency favour an SEA or some other form
of environmental impact assessment being carried out on the whole
of the Communities Plan?
The Environment Agency believes that strategically
planned growth as proposed in the Sustainable Communities Plan
is preferable to piecemeal development that might otherwise occur.
A planned approach provides an opportunity to address environmental
concerns that accompany development and allows a strategic approach
to addressing issues such as water resources and flood risk.
A Sustainability Appraisal or Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) of the Sustainable Communities Plan would be
of limited benefit because the document does not contain the detail
to undertake the necessary environmental analysis. We look to
Sustainability Appraisals, incorporating SEAs, at a regional level
to play this scrutiny role. Regional Spatial Strategies will be
subject to, and will benefit from a Sustainability Appraisal and
full Strategic Environmental Assessment. The Environment Agency
will engage with and contribute to this process.
2. You state in your memorandum that you expect
the new Sustainable Development Strategy to underpin all Government
policies—including housing—and ensure environmental
aspects are balanced with social and economic goals. The Committee
has seen little evidence of this happening with the current strategy—how
realistic of you is it to expect a significant change under the
revised strategy?
Our memorandum stated that we expect the Sustainable
Development Strategy to ensure that environmental aspects are
balanced with social and economic goals when Government formulates
policy. The proposal for an "overarching national strategy
to ensure environment is at the heart of any building programme,"
can be delivered through the proper implementation of existing
national policies, such as the Code for Sustainable Buildings,
Building Regulations, PPS1, PPG3, and Sustainable Development
duties.
3. The Agency has, like many others, criticised
the language of PPS1 as being too weak. How should it be strengthened?
and is it realistic to expect the Government to do so?
The Environment Agency welcomed the key messages
of draft PPS1 and strongly supports the adoption of a statutory
sustainable development objective for planning. In responding
to the consultation, we were concerned that emphasis was being
given to achieving economic and social aims over environmental
considerations. Such an approach, if adopted, could be used to
justify development that meets the economic needs of the present
generation while causing short-term environmental damage and failing
to satisfy the long-term social and environmental needs of future
generations. We believe that growth and development should be
designed not to impact adversely on social equity and the environment.
The Environment Agency believes that PPS1 should
be accompanied by a Sustainable Development and Planning best
practice guide. This guide should include aspects of sustainable
housing that cannot be directly influenced through Building Regulations
but that can be promoted through the planning system. Examples
include:
— improved water efficiency in development
layout;
— reduction in the use of materials
during the construction process;
— renewable energy generation;
— facilities for sustainable waste
management; and
PPS1 could be strengthened by addressing the
issue of resource efficiency and infrastructure requirements of
development. Government requirement for Sustainability Appraisal
of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks,
together with a duty on plan-making bodies to promote sustainable
development, provide an opportunity to assess resource efficiency.
Merely ensuring that sufficient infrastructure is planned to serve
the development does not encourage the prudent use of resources,
and this should be given priority.
4. You are statutory consultees when it comes
to planning. According to your memorandum you made 1,047 sustained
objections to planning applications on the grounds of flood risk
in 2002-03. Of these, 221 went against the Agency. That is 21%—does
this mean that permission was granted for developments that would
be at flood risk or increase flood risk for others? Is this acceptable?
The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee
for much of the development plan process and for some types of
planning application. We are not a statutory consultee for planning
applications where there is a risk of flooding. However, in Making
Space for Water, the Government's current consultation on
its strategy for flood risk management, the Government indicates
that; "the ODPM intends to consult on extending the Agency's
statutory consultee role to all planning applications in areas
notified by the Environment Agency as at risk of flooding or likely
to add to flood risk" (para 7.11). The Environment Agency
welcomes this intention.
The Environment Agency is concerned about the
level of decisions made against our advice and we are in discussion
with Government to remedy the situation. We believe we should
be made a statutory consultee on flood risk. In response to the
ODPM's review of PPG25 Development and Flood Risk, we believe
that the guidance should be revised as there are specific instances
of Local Planning Authorities not adequately following some of
the advice within it. In particular, Local Planning Authorities
are:
— failing to request flood risk assessments
prior to consulting the Environment Agency—the lack of a
flood risk assessment now accounts for 51% of all Agency sustained
objections despite advice in PPG25; and
— failing to re-consult the Environment
Agency when granting planning permission against the Agency's
advice, as stipulated in PPG25.
During 2003-04 we were consulted on 52,379 planning
applications. Of these 22,067 required consideration on flood
risk grounds and the Environment Agency objected to 5,077. Local
Planning authorities are under no duty to inform us of the outcome
of our objections, and as a result we only know the outcome of
2,811 (55%). Nearly 1,000 of these objections were resolved through
negotiation before the Local Planning Authority made a formal
decision, and over 400 were withdrawn by the applicant before
a decision was made. Of the remaining 1,437 sustained objections
where we know the result, 323 (22.5%) were permitted by Local
Planning Authorities contrary to our advice.
We believe all planning application forms should
promote the submission of a flood risk assessment before the application
is submitted. We are concerned that the reconsultation procedure
outlined in PPG25 is not generally being followed. In 2003-04
only 11.9% of permissions granted against Agency advice were the
subject of reconsultation. This means that the Environment Agency
cannot have the opportunity to influence planning conditions to
mitigate flood risk. The Agency consider that there is a persistent
core of decisions being approved contrary to our advice, including
a small but significant number of major developments. Of the 5,077
objections we made 214 of these were on major cases (119 were
for housing). We know the decision for 2,811 cases of which 21
were major cases granted permission contrary to Agency advice.
We believe that the Government should put in place a standing
planning Direction to call in applications which would have significant
environmental impact where a Local Planning Authority proposes
to grant permission contrary to the Environment Agency's advice.
5. You have called for the energy and water
efficiency of developments to become material planning considerations.
How likely is this to happen, particularly in the South East,
given the pressures for increasing house building rates over the
next 15 years?
The Environment Agency believes that Regional
Planning Bodies and Local Planning Authorities should consider
the environmental capacity of an area when developing their plan
policies and making development control decisions. We believe
that the review of PPS1 should specify that the environmental
capacity of an area is a legitimate planning concern and a reason
to refuse development. We are aware that planning decisions are
based on social and economic grounds as well as on environmental
considerations, but it is important that the environment is given
equal weight in decision making.
6. What are the implications of the increase
in housing in the South East for waste management? Will we have
the capacity to deal with the waste generated by the new households?
Levels of municipal waste have increased 2-4%
a year since 1995-96. It is estimated that the expected number
of new homes in the next 20 years would increase municipal waste
by almost a third.
The Environment Agency is conducting research
to assess better the regional impacts on waste management in the
South East, and will use this information to inform future policy
development. Current estimates are that if the trend continues,
quantities in the South East could grow by 67% to 2031 (from 4.1
million tonnes/yr to 7 million tonnes/yr). The anticipated 800,000
new homes would generate an estimated further 1.7 million tonnes
of municipal waste per year.
Existing waste handling facilities have a limited
life expectancy. Developing significant new waste facilities will
be necessary. The Environment Agency believes that new development
should be designed to promote and maximise recycling levels. It
should also include new waste management facilities. Spatial strategies
at county or regional level should include sites and facilities
for the modern management of waste.
7. We have had the issue of the environmental
implications of housing growth on the South East highlighted recently.
You yourselves have called the plan to build 800,000 houses in
the South East an "environmental time-bomb"; EERA (East
of England Regional Assembly) published the environmental assessment
(SEA) of its Regional Spatial Strategy, which concluded the strategy
was "intrinsically damaging to many aspects of the environment
and quality of life". Is there really the capacity to absorb
all this new build in the South East?
Development on the proposed scale will bring
environmental pressures unless the environment is fully considered
as early as possible in the planning process. Our recent statement
said "action [was] needed now" to avoid the environmental
pressures of 800,000 new homes in the South East. It continued:
"growing development, climate change and the limited availability
of water, waste disposal capacity and other environmental resources
means that the quality of our future environment cannot be taken
for granted".
The ability of the South East to absorb this
new build will depend on early consideration of environmental
issues and the adoption of measures such as the Code for Sustainable
Buildings which will reduce the demand on natural resources. A
further factor will be the location of new houses. Issues such
as flood defence, water resources and water quality are locationally
specific and impacts cannot be estimated until further detail
is available.
The SEA also stated that though it was not within
the remit of the report to consider the option they "suspect
that growth would be far less environmentally damaging in many
other parts of the UK, especially the North of England".
Is this a view you might support?
We have not taken a view on whether growth should
be directed to the North or South of England. A North versus South
argument will not necessarily deliver the best for the environment.
Our view is that all new housing should be located towards areas
where environmental risk is reduced, have high standards of environmental
performance and make better use of limited resources such as energy
and water.
8. The Agency has been quoted as stating that
in your view we are close to reaching our environmental limits
in the South East. Have you expressed these concerns direct to
the Government? What has been their response?
We have not stated the view that we are close
to reaching our environmental limits in the South East. The Environment
Agency has stated "action [is] needed now" to avoid
the environmental pressures of 800,000 new homes in the South
East. Nationally, we are in discussion with Government as to the
standards and action that needs to be taken in advance of new
development taking place. Our regional offices are fully engaged
in the regional planning process to ensure environmental issues
are addressed in Regional Spatial Strategies.
SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS
TASK FORCE
These following questions are addressed to Sir
John Harman in view of his role as co-chair of the Sustainable
Buildings Task Force
9. The Committee has seen little evidence
so far that the house building industry, on the whole, is particularly
receptive to improving its environmental performance unless it
is forced to. Have you come to a different conclusion?
The Building Regulations play a very important
role in setting minimum standards for the house building industry.
They must be designed and enforced to deliver the most practicable
contribution to environmental performance possible. The Sustainable
Buildings Task Group (SBTG) recognised the importance of the Sustainable
and Secure Buildings Bill. Its subsequent enactment has allowed
sustainable development considerations to be included in Building
Regulations. The SBTG called for these enabling powers to be activated
as soon as possible and for the Government to set out promptly
how it intends to ensure this process is completed.
Encouraging the house building industry beyond
this base level of regulation was the principal challenge for
the SBTG. The SBTG reported that the construction, development
and house building industries have not yet subscribed to much
of the sustainability agenda, and have not been persuaded of its
long-term benefits. That said, the Task Group was confident that
the industry is capable of rising to the challenge of delivering
buildings which will be socially, environmentally and economically
sustainable, and saw the Code for Sustainable Buildings as the
principal vehicle to initiate this shift.
The SBTG acknowledged that some public sector
clients are already building well above minimum standards, and
recommended that the practice should be standardised across the
public sector through the Code for Sustainable Buildings. By leading
in this way Government would demonstrate that building to higher
standards is not only economically possible, but can bring cost-savings
to themselves, clients and the public whilst also sending a clear
signal to industry of the future direction of regulation.
Therefore, while I agree that the sector may
not be "receptive" as a whole, I believe that, with
the right leadership, it is capable of delivering much higher
environmental performance.
10. In its response to the Task Force's Recommendations
the Government did state that the cost of implementation of the
Code, and its flexibility, would be major considerations. When
we do see the Code published, do you think it will be as stringent
as you would hope?
Cost will certainly be a factor in the widespread
adoption of the Code. It was the view of the SBTG that costs need
to be considered in the context of the improved quality that will
also be delivered through higher standards. Indeed, the Code should
develop as a proxy for quality and high standards generally. Initial
costs of adopting higher standards will decrease sharply from
current estimates as volume increases. And on a whole life basis,
the additional cost is far outweighed by benefit.
Where additional costs are involved, they need
to be seen as an investment in the future—they mean lower
running costs for occupiers of buildings, and a reduced need for
expensive corrective measures such as those required to improve
thermal efficiency or flood resistance.
The SBTG stated that they expected public clients
to adopt a minimum Code level comparable to Eco-homes "Very
Good". Steps both below and above this level were envisaged,
at least in the first instance.
11. Are skills an issue in your view? Does
the housebuilding industry have the skills to meet the targets
you would like to see set through a Code for Sustainable Buildings?
The SBTG recognised that the skills base of
the construction sector could be a challenge to delivering improved
standards. The Task Group welcomed Sir John Egan's proposal for
the National Skills Centre for Sustainable Communities. The fact
that public sector clients, such as the Housing Corporation and
English Partnerships, regularly attract tenders for projects which
demand high environmental standards suggests that if there is
an issue it is more to do with design capacity than the basic
ability to build to higher standards.
12. Sir John Egan told us in evidence that
in his view it would be possible for the construction industry
to achieve sustainability, particularly in the sourcing of materials,
within eight years. Would you agree with this?
In view of this is the 10% target for reclaimed,
re-used and recycled materials set by the task force for 2005
unambitious?
It depends on how stringently you wish to define
sustainability in construction. I do not have any evidence on
which to evaluate Sir John Egan's estimate but I have no doubt
that the industry can make huge improvements in the environmental
efficiency of buildings within that timescale. There is a balance
between early ambition and industry buy-in. The 10% target was
reached through agreement of the wide membership of the SBTG.
The figure was considered a suitable starting point through which
to engage with the industry and initiate progress while providing
some "stretch". It was to be a new requirement made
of the industry through Building Regulations. A higher level would
be represented in the various levels of the Code, and both levels
would be raised over time with advance notification to industry
to allow them time to prepare and respond.
13. The Government is strongly promoting the
use of Modern Methods of Construction. How do you see this working
within the Code for Sustainable Buildings?
Do you have any reservations about the environmental
implications of a significant shift to using MMC for housing?
There are reported economic and waste management
benefits of Modern Methods of Construction. There needs to be
more comprehensive research on the full range of environmental
impacts, so that environmental sustainability is properly incorporated
in the process. The Environment Agency is commissioning some research
in this area and will report its findings in 2005.
November 2004
| 
