Memorandum submitted by Local Government
Association (including Planning Officers Society submission as
an annex)
1. The Local Government Association, which
represents local authorities throughout England and Wales, is
grateful for the opportunity to comment on this important issue.
The evidence submitted here focuses on the main issues affecting
local authorities.
SUMMARY
(A) Flooding and planning authorities—revision
of PPS25 and development on flood plains
The LGA feels it is in appropriate for the EA
to call for a "power of call-in" (including referral
to the Secretary of State), where planning authorities permit
schemes against their advice. Resources would be better used trying
to improve relationships at a local level in these cases, rather
than opting for removing the local democratic aspect and indeed
"using a sledgehammer to crack a nut".
(B) Making Space for Water
Defra has recently given the EA responsibility
for approving all flood defence and coast protection works and
is considering giving EA further responsibilities in this area.
This would cut democratically elected councils out of the process,
remove the framework where coast protection is integrated with
other council functions and may lead to loss of local knowledge/experience.
(C) Working through Local Strategic
Partnerships (LSPs)—improving effectiveness
Management of the environment in a geographical
locality is fragmented between many different organisations. The
LGA believes the EA could achieve their objectives more effectively
through joining LSPs convened by councils, establishing a set
of objectives for the year based on local needs.
(D) "Working better together"
Relationships with the Agency vary at the local
level. The LGA and EA have established "working better together"
protocols. Defra and EA need to ensure this type of liaison is
valued and properly resourced.
(E) Waste management
EA decisions on waste management issues often
have an impact on councils. Officers feel EA do not always thoroughly
investigate the likely impacts (often financial) on councils.
(F) Capacity in the Environment Agency
There is evidence to suggest that the delivery
capacity of the Agency is struggling to cope with the growing
amount of functions that are being taken on.
(G) Waste planning
(1) Waste Planners believe the EA needs
to ensure that the appropriate resources and management priority
is given to waste data issues so that the Mineral and Waste Planning
Authorities can plan on a secure information base. (2) There is
a body of evidence that the EA is not investing appropriate in
the Planning Liaison business of responding to consultations from
Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities. (3) There is concern
that the Agency and Mineral and Waste Planning Authority enforcement
staff do not liaise in the most effective ways. (4) It is frustrating
for planning staff to deal with different Agency staff in their
council area because of the different geographical boundaries
which the EA and councils have.
LGA EVIDENCE
(A) Flooding and planning authorities—revision
of PPS25 and development on flood plains
2. The Environment Agency (EA) has been
concerned that a number of local authorities are granting planning
permission against the EA's advice. The LGA is very concerned
to ensure that development on flood plains only happens in appropriate
conditions. There are two key points:
— often disagreements relate to differing
advice on whether proposed defences are adequate;
— the number of instances where the
local authority and the EA disagree has reduced to very small
numbers. The numbers of such instances are statistically small
and are decreasing, with a handful of authorities being responsible
for the majority of these cases.
3. Given these issues—the LGA feels
it is in appropriate for the EA to call for a "power of call-in"
including referral to the Secretary of State, where planning authorities
permit schemes against their advice. Resources would be better
used trying to improve relationships at a local level in these
cases, rather than opting for removing the local democratic aspect
and indeed "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut".
4. (The LGA supports the majority of the
PPS 25 revision.)
(B) Making Space for Water
5. Defra has recently given the EA responsibility
for approving (and administering the funding system for) all flood
defence and coast protection works (a responsibility which used
to be held by Defra). Under the Making Space for Water
review, Defra is also considering giving the EA responsibility
for producing Shoreline Management Plans, as well as promoting
and building flood defences inland and on the coast.
6. This is worrying for a number of reasons:
— Effectively, this will cut democratically
elected local authorities out of the process, leaving important
decisions in the hands of unelected and unaccountable officials.
The proposal does not sit easily the 1998 Agriculture Select Committee
report which was concerned about the possible transfer of coast
protection to another body and stated that "were this [transfer]
to come about, there would be considerable disadvantages in terms
of political accountability, especially at a regional and local
level".
— It will break-up a framework where
the coast protection function is integrated with a range of other
local authority functions such as strategic planning and development
control, amenities and tourism, environmental health and economic
regeneration.
— Local knowledge and experience may
be lost and there are realistic fears (based on the lack of capacity
in local EA offices) that the EA will not be able to provide as
good a service as local authorities do presently.
(C) Working through Local Strategic
Partnerships—improving effectiveness
7. Management of the environment in a geographical
locality is fragmented between many different organisations. The
LGA believes organisations like the EA could achieve their own
objectives more effectively through joining Local Strategic Partnerships
convened by local authorities. One small example: the EA is currently
concerned that SMEs are not complying with environmental regulation.
The solution to this is likely to lie in local-authority led Business
Partnerships which forge a joined-up approach to supporting local
SMEs.
8. Local EA offices could work with the
Local Authority and other local environmental bodies to establish
a set of objectives for the year based on local needs.
9. This could be facilitated by EA geographical
boundaries being aligned with local authority boundaries (this
issue is also raised in the context of Waste Planning below).
(D) "Working better together"
10. Relationships with the Agency vary at
the local level. The LGA and EA have worked together to establish
"working better together" protocols which aim to address
this issue. Where relationships are not effective, there is often
a feeling that there is limited understanding from Agency staff
about the functions and responsibility of local authorities. The
LGA and EA are therefore currently working to do more along these
lines.
11. This needs to be backed up by an approach
nationally which sees the EA consulting local authorities more
closely on issues which will have an impact on their work. LGA
believes both Defra and EA need to ensure this type of liaison
is valued and properly resourced.
(E) Waste management and Environment
Agency policy: EA policy has an operational and financial impact
on local authorities—not always recognised by the EA or
Government
12. Agency decisions on waste management
issues often have a financial or operational impact on councils.
Council officers sometimes feel EA policy has "come out of
the blue" and feel they have not been consulted or that consultation
did not investigate or make explicit the likely impacts on local
government. There are many examples, which are often rather complex.
One relates to the decision on how to measure "MBT residuals
going to landfill"—which has had financial and operational
impacts not spelled out in the consultation. Further details can
be submitted on request.
(F) Capacity in the Environment Agency
13. There is evidence to suggest that the
delivery capacity of the Agency is struggling to cope with the
growing amount of functions that are being taken on.
14. Corporately the EA are keen to take
on larger roles in issues such as coast protection, however discussions
with regional EA staff suggest they may not be able to deliver
such new roles. Local authority networks point to examples such
as the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database where the inability
of the EA to deliver on projects cis causing organisational and
financial difficulties to authorities.
(G) Waste planning
15. The Minerals and Waste Committee of
the Planning Officers Society have submitted some more detailed
comments—submitted alongside this LGA submission (see Annex
A). In summary, Waste Planners have the following comments:
— The EA needs to ensure that the appropriate
resources and management priority is given to waste data issues
so that the Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities can plan on
a secure information base.
— There is a body of evidence that
the EA is not investing appropriate in the Planning Liaison business
of responding to consultations from Minerals and Waste Planning
Authorities. (four key points are made in detail in the POS Annex
B paras 8 to 10.)
— There is concern that the Agency
and Mineral and Waste Planning Authority enforcement staff do
not liaise in the most effective ways.
— It is frustrating for planning staff
to deal with different Agency staff in their council area because
of the different geographical boundaries which the EA and councils
have. It is not being suggested that the EA reorganise, but that
the Agency teams may be more effective if they coordinated functions
on a "county area" basis. This approach is being considered
with Primary Care Trusts as it is thought there are efficiencies
and service benefits to be realised.
Local Government Association
December 2005
| 
