Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 480 - 499)

WEDNESDAY 13 OCTOBER 2004

MR BOB ROBERTS, MS JOANNA RUSSELL AND MR TERRY ROBINSON

  Q480  Chairman: It is a matter of judgment in the end, I suppose.

  Mr Robinson: I would point you, for real examples, to the two developments the National Trust is sponsoring at Dunham Massey and Cleveland. In those cases they would be able to point you to a lot of people winning, although at the outset the prospect for many National Trust members, being a member of an organisation that then becomes a development agent, was quite strange. However, they have seen that process through, and they have seen it through by applying a tremendous amount of effort to searching for solutions where there are lots of gainers. It is very easy to walk away and think you have got a solution where there is not enough winning going on. A lot of the secret of sustainable development is to go on looking, because there is often a solution that is beyond the one you think you have got, where there are more people winning than there are with the second group solution.

  Q481  Chairman: Do you see Barker's proposals as a threat to the countryside?

  Mr Roberts: They could be. It is like a lot of things; it depends on the extent and how they are taken. We agree that housing needs to become more affordable; it is difficult to disagree with that at the moment. We accept in general terms that part of the solution to affordability is increased supply; although the report does seem to go a long way in terms of treating supply as being the answer when there are a lot of other things, but there is a lot of scepticism about the relationship between supply and affordability. We accept that increasing supply is probably one way of improving affordability. We also accept that in some circumstances some of that new supply will probably have to go on green-field sites. We strongly support the idea of brown-field development. We applaud the successes that have been achieved, but we understand that that will not always be able to provide what is needed and where it is needed. That leads you to a solution that says that every proposal must be strongly tested, but it must be tested locally not in some sort of universal way. We are very opposed to the 20-40% additional land bank idea because that does not fit in with regional and local sensitivities. It very strongly directs you towards an approach that, where you do develop and have gone through all the tests, you have to have high quality, because for sustainability you have to have high quality in terms of resource use and things that fit the place and improve the place and give quality for the community.

  Q482  Chairman: None of that, of course, is in Barker at all. I am not asking you how it may transpire eventually into government policy but I am asking you specifically about Barker's recommendations. Were they to be directly implemented as policy, would that represent a serious threat to the countryside?

  Mr Roberts: The biggest problem is the implication that the planning system would be by-passed. If there is one thing that we would want to emphasise, it is that we think for all of the problems and stresses, the planning system is the answer to a lot of these problems. It is not the problem itself; it is part of the solution. It is rather worrying that in several places Barker quite directly suggests ways of—sometimes it is called "accelerating" but it sounds and looks very much like going past or over the planning system when phrases like "alternative routes to planning permission" are put in. That is quite worrying, and we would be opposed to anything which did not use the planning system to seek solutions.

  Q483  Chairman: The basis for that is your concern, I take it, that to go down that route would lead to urban sprawl.

  Mr Roberts: It could do. There is a flavour in there, which is called "economic benefit", which seems to boil down to employment benefits and monetary benefits largely. There is a danger that they become predominant and override other values. That has always been a danger when dealing with environmental values because it is so difficult to monetarise them.

  Q484  Mrs Clark: You are one of the organisations that are very much thinking that a national housing strategy is not required and that the sustainable development strategy, provided it has enough environmental aspects, should be enough to address the situation in order to establish a stable housing policy. Is this really going to occur? Are you hopeful? What I would like to say about a sustainable development strategy is this. I know what it is; members of this Committee know what it is; there are a small, but dare I say select group of members of parliament of all parties who know what it is; but there is nobody in my constituency who has got any idea what it is, to say nothing about the general public elsewhere. Is this not the strategy that dare not speak its name, that nobody knows anything about; and so why are you putting all your eggs in that rather useless basket?

  Ms Russell: We feel the sustainable development strategy should be the over-arching strategy that embraces all the others. There is a danger of strategy overload. We have got the new planning system which requires a lot more strategic thinking and regional spatial strategies, local development documents which in themselves—

  Q485  Mrs Clark: What does that mean? How are you going to engage local authorities? How do you see it engaging local authorities?

  Ms Russell: The sustainable development strategy?

  Q486  Mrs Clark: Yes.

  Ms Russell: That sets the framework for all the strategies that the regional planning bodies and local planning authorities have to prepare so they know what the principles are and they take it forward into their strategies at regional and local levels, which will engage with the public so that the public will get involved with sustainable development issues at their local level. We do not see the need for yet another stand-alone strategy that might not be embraced by all the decision-makers or by the public.

  Q487  Mrs Clark: I am probably going off the brief here, but I am just going to give you a local example. Peterborough is a growth area. It is not at all apparent to me that the local authority—and I am not talking about officers, you understand but about the administration—has any idea about the sustainable development strategy, or how it might integrate with housing policy. What do you see as your role and government's role in informing them about that—not just my authority but others? They have no idea what it is and how it links in, and so consequently there is a huge protest locally about housing growth.

  Ms Russell: I think you are right. Government and local authorities have a very important role to play in raising awareness of the public, and the issues and the context within which very difficult decisions locally have to be made. There is a lot of general interest in environmental issues like climate change, and the public are becoming more and more interested and more engaged. It is the job of the professionals in the field to try and do what they can to engage people with those issues in a way the public can understand, so they get on board and can accept the need for necessary development and can have a say in how that development should take place at local level. The new planning system is predicated on far greater community involvement in the system, and we embrace those objectives. We think that is vitally important that everyone should have a say in the future planning of their areas and should engage with the issues; and that is what is going to help achieve more sustainable communities in the long run.

  Q488  Mrs Clark: I am not normally an advocate for my neighbouring Member of Parliament Sir Brian Mawhinney, but he has fought a long-standing campaign in terms of his concern about planning committees and the planning process; and he is concerned, as am I, about the fact that planning committees and planning concerns do not seem to be at all tuned in to government policies or whatever. How are you going to see your role as actually informing them about this? Furthermore, how would you look at a housing strategy with specific environmental guidance, actually targeted at all those involved in housing? Do you think that is a role for you? Is it a role for voluntary organisations; is it a role for the Government or ministers—what?

  Ms Russell: It is a role for all stakeholders. The Countryside Agency has a role because we are a statutory consultee.

  Q489  Mrs Clark: Is there discussion between any of these?

  Ms Russell: All the stakeholders get together at the regional and local level, and the new planning system encourages that. It is a much more all-embracing system. Spatial planning is going to embrace all relevant participants at the local level to work together to achieve better quality development and sustainable development.

  Mr Roberts: I have some sympathy with what you say, which is that it is not easy.

  Q490  Mrs Clark: It is not transparent.

  Mr Roberts: No, well it is not transparent enough. It is a bit unreasonable, I think, to write off the existing planning system—it is a damn sight better than an awful lot of other planning systems that are around, or non-planning systems. It is a relative issue. The latest changes are attempting to introduce higher standards and more transparency. I think there are two ways of looking at this. One is the question you have asked, which is to what extent is government going to make known to local authorities the new rules, and help them to implement them—and there are measures going through to do that. The other is to what extent planning authorities are going to be influenced from the bottom up. A great deal of our own work and a great deal of what we have produced and encouraged over the last 10 years or more has been about community involvement. Our theory is that the more you can involve the community, the more you can engage the community; and the more you can give the community benefit from proposed developments, very tangible benefits—and that is something that is very interesting in Barker and what comes out of that—the more likely you are to come out with happier communities, rather than them feeling things are just being landed on them all the while.

  Q491  Mrs Clark: You are saying it is about sharing and discussion and working together for solutions, rather than top-down imposed.

  Mr Roberts: Yes.

  Mr Robinson: I want to go back to your observation that not many people understand sustainable development.

  Q492  Mrs Clark: They do not.

  Mr Robinson: Which is very easy to agree on that. What they do understand is better places to live; a more thriving local economy which is based on the   local opportunities and builds on local opportunities; services and infrastructure which feed and help build proper community cohesions, so that their quality of life—which is what I quickly find when we talk about sustainable development, that we come to talk about quality of life much more quickly than the rather technical areas of sustainable development; and, on top of that, more prudent use of natural resources, better use of techniques where we are less wasteful and do more recycling. All of that seems to me to be being picked up quite rapidly, both at the political level by local politicians and in a lot of the stakeholders. What the new planning system delivers for those local authorities which can gear up to take advantage of it—and I am tempted to say, "woe betide those that do not"—is the opportunity to use the planning system to broker the   sort of improvements people want where development acts as a vehicle to deliver those improvements, rather than the current situation which is a perpetual stand-off between those that want to develop and the rest who see development as some threat that we should all be frightened of.

  Q493  Mrs Clark: That is very helpful. Speaking from a previous incarnation, as an ex English teacher, and someone involved with the Plain English organisation, the phrase "quality of life issues" or "quality of life commission" would seem to be much more readily understandable to people in constituencies up and down the country, rather than "sustainable development", which we have even had problems within this Committee in defining—so that is a very valuable comment to make. You have said in your submission that you would like to see the wording of the draft PPS1 to be beefed up. How would you see that exactly?

  Ms Russell: In the wording on sustainable development it talks about integrating economic and social and environmental objectives, which we welcome, but it is the point the Chairman made earlier about economic objectives perhaps overriding environmental ones. To reiterate the point we made, we think it should be strong. The PPS1 is the over-arching planning statement that all other planning statements are in conformity with, and regional and local plans are in conformity with; so it is really important that we get this one right. I would think the wording should be strong on integration, aiming for the win/win solutions—

  Q494  Mrs Clark: Can you take me back? Can you explain "integration" a bit more, please—integration in what way?

  Ms Russell: Economic, social and environmental issues together to achieve improvement in quality of life. That is sustainable development, and that should be strongly stated in the guidance.

  Q495  Mrs Clark: Again, we have got to put that into plain English, have we not, in terms of people within their constituencies and their daily lives?

  Ms Russell: The second point I would like to make on PPS1 is that it talks very much about improving the quality of the planning service, and we recognise that that is important; but we would like to see greater emphasis on improved planning outcomes, the quality of development on the ground. That should be in there strongly.

  Q496  Mrs Clark: What do you mean by "future planning outcomes"?

  Ms Russell: The development that is delivered. The development itself should be high quality; it is not just the process of getting there, in terms of dealing with the planning application efficiently, it is to do with the quality of the outcome that is delivered on the ground.

  Q497  Mrs Clark: Finally, do you think that PPS1 will have the effect the Government wants it to have, of putting sustainable development right in the centre of the planning process? Is it going to have that outcome; and, if not, why, and how would you amend it? It is a difficult question.

  Mr Roberts: We do not have our crystal ball with us today!

  Ms Russell: It is certainly the starting point, if that is backed up by appropriate guidance and support and training for local authorities to help deliver that, with awareness campaigns and the publication we talked about earlier is all part of a mix that should help ensure sustainability is at the centre of decision-making.

  Mrs Clark: Thank you very much. I love your phrase "quality of life".

  Q498  Mr Thomas: When we are talking about PPS1 or any other government definition of sustainable development—you have already made it clear to the Committee that you are afraid that the economic bottom line is the one that wins over. You said quite rightly that you are looking for integration and win/win situations, but when we cannot achieve that, when we are faced with a choice in which there is a conflict, do you as the Countryside Agency take the view that it is the environmental consideration with sustainable development that should in those cases—not all cases perhaps—be uppermost? If you do not take that view, where does that leave the countryside and the environment?

  Mr Roberts: We do take that view where the environmental values are very high and very clear. For instance, in designated areas there are some very   clearly-stated objectives, very important environmental qualities to protect and preferably enhance. We do not think that they should be diminished, reduced or got rid of for economic gain. In other areas, the environmental features and qualities might be relatively few—back to the cabbage field I mentioned at the beginning. In those circumstances, the environmental reduction might be relatively modest. There would be a loss of productive capacity, for example, in some ways; but actually it would not be huge relative to some potential local economic and social gains. It is horses for courses. It is not an easy answer, but we must of course protect environmental quality and preferably improve it. The key concept is to use development to make places better. I think we are in a mindset because probably the lifetime experience of most of the people in this room is predominantly that development is bad news; so we have a knee-jerk reaction and when somebody turns up and says they want to change the place in some way we think it is going to be worse. However, if you think about it over a longer period, development has created some of the places that we value most, some very beautiful and attractive places. It sounds very idealistic, but the trick is to use development to begin to recreate places that we think are beautiful and attractive and that we want to live in for the 21st century, rather than preserve some sort of mythical 18th century idyll.

  Q499  Mr Thomas: I can see how that approach works quite well in the context of a local environment or specific location, so you can take a monoculture agricultural field and say that in terms of biodiversity it is rubbish anyway, and 20 houses with nice gardens would be better. I can see how it works in context but what about the wider question, for example the effect of flooding in relation to development in a particular area; or the wider question about transport and the additional emissions that might be caused by the fact that a development is here, but the jobs are there, or the village or the markets are there? How can you take that view and apply it on a wider basis? It may work for the particular cabbage field, but how can you make sure it works in the wider context?

  Mr Roberts: That is precisely the job of the local planning authority, to receive information on those things from the Environment Agency or wherever the expertise lies, to properly take them into account and come to a decision in the light of that information. That is precisely what the planning authority is there for. When you ask how you do it, the answer is, "with difficulty". Sometimes there are conflicts. We know what the consequences of building on flood plains are now. We are not the Environment Agency, but I guess I know what they will say about it. What you have described is the planning process; it is receiving the multiplicity of information and attempting to resolve it with the maximum possible gain.

  Mr Robinson: The communities that fare better at this are those which are—and we hope in increasing numbers—using the planning system to prepare for this. You are very poorly equipped to get these sorts of solutions if you sit there waiting for something to be sprung on you. The planning system has to be steered round to—we advocate a visioning process whereby at community level the community comes together and gives the planning authority the information it needs to say, "this place is not going to be the same in 10 years' time as it is now; what sort of change do we want; what sort of community do we want to become; and therefore what is on our shopping list, and what of that can we achieve through a development process?" I want to refer to a lot of success we have had in terms of quality, although it has not been adopted in a large number of places yet, with the technique we developed jointly with the Environment Agency and English Heritage and English Nature, called a quality of life assessment, which is a consultative process where basically, because you cannot put economic costs on—

  Chairman: We are coming on to this. I am anxious to make progress.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 31 January 2005