Annex A
COMMENTS BY THE PLANNING OFFICERS SOCIETY
(MINERALS AND WASTE COMMITTEE)
INTRODUCTION
1. This submission is on behalf of the Planning
Officers Society's Mineral and Waste Committee to the Parliamentary
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee's Inquiry into the
Environment Agency. It relates to the Term of Reference concerning
the Agency's role in the planning system with particular regard
to the work of Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities.
2. Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities
include County Councils; Unitary Authorities (including Metropolitan
and London Boroughs) in England and the Unitary Authorities within
Wales. The Authorities are responsible for the forward planning
of waste facilities and the extraction of mineral resources and
the control of development of the same ie the administration of
planning applications and enforcement. These Authorities also
act as planning authorities for the development arising from the
other services eg education, of their respective Councils.
3. Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities
consider that the Environment Agency is a key partner in planning
for sustainable development outcomes. In particular the Agency
has a vital role in providing advice and regulating matters relating
to water, including flooding, pollution control waste permitting
so that Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities can facilitate
the right forms of development at the right place and time. Currently,
the focus for Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities is ensuring
that appropriate mineral resources are available to underpin infrastructure
investment and housing development in the next 15 years. There
is also a focus on developing new waste facilities to facilitate
increased recycling, more resource recovery and reduced landfill
to meet Government objectives and avoid infraction proceedings
from the EU. Altogether this chimes well with the Agency's goals.
4. However, there is a concern that the
Environment Agency in its dealings with Mineral and Waste Planning
Authorities are not investing sufficiently in a "customer
focus culture" and the following paragraphs are intended
to illustrate this point.
WASTE INFORMATION
AND DATA
5. The Agency collects and holds considerable
amount of information relating to waste and Mineral and Waste
Planning Authorities in planning for new facilities are very dependant
on this information. It is understood that the Waste Data Strategy
proposed by DEFRA is intended to address this situation. However,
the delay hitherto has been damaging and some interim solutions
are urgently required. Since the Spring Mineral and Waste Planning
Authorities have been expecting the Strategic Waste Management
Assessments and it would be helpful if these could be released
without delay.
6. The important point here is that if the
waste planning process is to have a successful outcome there can
not be any further delays in the implementation of the Waste Data
Strategy. The Agency 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.
PLANNING CONSULTATIONS
7. There is a body of evidence that the
Environment Agency is not investing appropriately in the Planning
Liaison business of responding to consultations from Mineral and
Waste Planning Authorities. It is recognised that the Agency is
consulted on a variety of applications and in considerable number,
which makes the point that this work load has to be properly managed.
8. First it would help if the Agency invested
further in ICT to help facilitate the interchange of planning
documentation. Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities under e-government
requirements are now in a position to use electronic communication
to consult with other public bodies, but it is understood the
Agency does not have the capacity to so. This is a matter which
should be remedied.
8. Second, the Planning Authorities are
becoming increasingly frustrated with the limited response from
the Agency on consultations over major waste infrastructure. It
is recognised that the Agency does not wish to "fetter"
its position when such developments maybe the subject its own
waste permitting processes. However, the Planning Authorities
do need the assistance of the Agency to advice on the pollution
control issues. The public understandably want answers to certain
fundamental planning issues on major waste planning applications
and the Agency has the capability to provide them. It is felt
that the Agency should devise procedures to do this or else there
will be blockages to urgent decision making on much needed waste
facilities.
9. Third, there is a concern that the response
from the Agency lack appropriate focus and not address the issues
that Mineral and Waste Planning Authorities expect help on. Often
there are detailed comments from the Agency relating to "nature
conservation" and an absence of advise on the flooding and
pollution issues. Indeed it appears at times the Agency is covering
the role of English Nature! This is not to say that these matters
may not be important, but the impression is that the Agency is
not proactively managing planning consultations with respect to
customer priorities. It is possible that the Planning Liaison
function in the Agency is not given sufficient priority and status
to ensure the correct level of service is delivered.
10. Finally, there is a concern that the
Agency in response to planning consultations is not proportionate
in its advice. There is a time pressure—21 days—in
which to make a substantive comment, but the incidence of an objection
form the Agency is increasing when a more measured response would
be more helpful. Very often the concern that the Agency may have
on a development could be dealt better by the request of a "planning
condition" than an objection, which can initiate unnecessary
activity and problems.
ENFORCEMENT
11. There is a concern that the Agency and
Mineral and Waste Planning Authority enforcement staff do not
liaise in the most effective ways. Although both bodies have different
enforcement priorities and procedures, much can be gained by regular
liaison. This can facilitate more effective control, but it is
understood that this is not universal practice. Of course the
management of such a way of working is not helped by the lack
of congruity between Agency Areas and Planning Authority boundaries.
This often means multiple liaison arrangements have to be managed.
AREA OFFICE
AND PLANNING
AUTHORITY INTERFACE
12. As mentioned in the previous paragraph
the administrative area of Planning Authorities and the Environment
Agency seldom agree. It is felt that is an issue that should be
addressed. It is frustrating for planning staff to deal with different
Agency staff in their council area. Often similar problems and
developments are subject to different priorities and procedures.
It is understood that Agency Areas are for policy purposes based
around river basins, but it is a different issue when delivering
services that are based on liaison with the public and local authorities.
13. It is not being suggested that the Agency
should geographically reorganise. However, for services relating
to day to day liaison with Mineral and Waste Planning—and
District Planning Authorities—and the public 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. It is suggested that the
Agency could consider this as an option for becoming more customer
friendly.
Planning Officers Society (Minerals and Waste Committee)
December 2005
| 
