Examination of Witnesses (Questions 226-239)
COUNCILLOR MICHAEL
HAINES AND
MR LEE
SEARLES
18 JANUARY 2006
Q226 Chairman: Gentlemen, I am sorry
you have had to wait rather longer than anticipated but we are
grateful to you for your patience. Can I welcome from the Local
Government Association, Councillor Michael Haines, the Deputy
Chair of the LGA's Environment Board. Which Council, for my interest,
are you on?
Councillor Haines: Teignbridge
District Council in South Devon.
Chairman: I hope it has not been too
arduous a journey for you to come and join us today, and Mr Lee
Searles, who is the Association's Programme Manager. I am going
to ask Sir Peter Soulsby if he would be kind enough to start our
questioning.
Q227 Sir Peter Soulsby: Thank you,
Chairman. We have heard quite a lot of evidence already about
the wide range of functions which the Environment Agency has,
and indeed the increase in the number of those functions. I think
the Local Government Association has suggested to us that the
Agency is struggling to cope with that range of functions. I wonder
if you can give us some general thoughts on that and perhaps some
specific examples?
Councillor Haines: I can give
you a specific example straight away which I think will illustrate
a number of points. In the area I represent I actually chair the
Teign Estuary Partnership Committee and there was a flood defence
scheme being proposed for Teignmouth, which is the seaward end
of that. The Environment Agency was promoting this scheme, but
they ran into difficulties because it did not really have the
ability to carry out the communications and the public relations
as far as that scheme was concerned, and the local public there
were becoming very agitated and in the end the scheme was pulled.
So it has been shelved, to the detriment of, as I see it, the
people of Teignmouth, who really need a flood prevention scheme
in the very near future. So I think as an illustration of something
which I could develop further, that is something which has been
the result of perhaps not having the resources it might have had.
Mr Searles: I think also there
has been a gradual development in the complexity of a policy framework,
largely emanating perhaps from the EU Directives, of more integrated
approaches nationally, which actually starts to create questions
which are for all of us, not just for the Environment Agency to
decide. I suppose that may be an area where there is also a capacity
constraint, in that dealing with the challenges which might be
caused by the Water Framework Directive, as an example, really
demands all of us to actually have that discussion locally and
with our local people and to understand what it means for the
way our areas develop and what we need to do. I think they are
realising that where they have the capacity technically to do
that there is a wider issue about engaging with the wider local
society, i.e. the local bodies, about what needs to be done, and
I think there is an area of capacity constraint there. I think
that is probably what we meant by that.
Q228 Lynne Jones: The example you
gave, Councillor Haines, was a resource issue, a particular function,
that of flood management, but you are saying that they are taking
on additional functions. Have you got examples of additional functions
which perhaps they should not be taking on which are perhaps detrimental
to their core functions?
Councillor Haines: The example
I was trying to put forward there was the fact that it is the
local authority which is better placed to carry out the public
consultation side, the sort of democratic representation, which
clearly, although it is their core function, they are unable to
achieve that already. As an example of where they are overstretched,
they cannot carry out the consultation in the same effective way
as a local authority could because it has got its elected members
locally who can then respond to what the public are saying in
the local area. That is where I was coming from with that example.
Q229 Sir Peter Soulsby: I would just
like to follow that up. I think the words used to us yesterday
were that there was a lack of transparency about the roles the
Environment Agency was performing at any particular time. I think
it was suggested to us that there was merit in seeing some separation
of the roles, whether within the Agency or between the Agency
and others. To what extent is that borne out, in your experience?
Councillor Haines: Yes, certainly
it does have a number of roles and certainly in the eyes of the
public they do find that difficult. I can give another for instance.
Again in the Teign Estuary, there was an area which was being
flooded or there was a risk of flooding to the local people, but
the Environment Agency was able to come up with a stewardship
scheme which enabled a marsh area, a stream there, to be managed
to reduce that risk of flooding. People saw that as the Agency
doing it because they were doing works about flooding, but in
fact they were doing it because of their environment stewardship
side of things. So there is this complete misunderstanding on
the part of the public as to which role they are doing things
for in some instances.
Mr Searles: If I could elaborate
also, following my previous point, the Agency is obviously being
asked and sometimes wants to take on roles and responsibilities
and coastal protection has been mentioned by previous witnesses.
In a way it is kind of a good example because you have a pressing
need to address an issue which is only going to grow in scale
if you believe in the effects of climate change and a feeling
that it is so urgent that something must be done about that. If
you are the Agency, you have your primary purposes and clearly
that is protecting people, and people's lives and property is
going to be a core function you are going to carry out, but to
do that job properly and address that issue is actually a bigger
problem and one which will affect the economy, communities, and
is really something which, as I say, we all should be involved
in. It is really something which local government should be more
involved in. So in a way you might also be asking, if the Agency
is hitting buffers which are actually related to the fact that
it has not got the remit or the accountability and transparency
to carry out the kind of debates we will need to have, then what
is local government doing about that? I suppose that is where
we have some things we would like to say about the role of local
government in developing capacity in that area.
Q230 Sir Peter Soulsby: Could I once
more pursue this point? To what extent are these examples you
are giving us ones which illustrate difficulties of communication
in terms of the Environment Agency explaining what it is doing
and why it is doing it as against organisational problems within
the Agency, or perhaps something which is inherent in the range
of responsibilities which have been given to the Environment Agency?
Is it communication, is it organisation, or is it some inherent
problem in the way in which the Agency is established?
Councillor Haines: Obviously there
is a problem in terms of their organisation, as I understand it,
within the country. At the national level, the liaison between
the LGA and the Environment Agency is very good. Certainly in
my area there is very good liaison with the Environment Agency
and I am very pleased with that, but because of its boundaries
not being similar to local authority boundaries clearly there
are sometimes communication difficulties which do show itself
up because where authorities have got two different parts of the
Environment Agency dealing with them then inconsistencies between
those are certainly things which show up, which would tend to
illustrate the communications difficulties. I think areas in Hampshire
would be ones which could be looked at as examples.
Mr Searles: In terms of relationships
between local authorities and the Agency, I think the last set
of points really move it into that kind of arena. There have been
issues resulting from the way the Agency has rolled out certain
things which has had practical implications on local authorities
in either cost terms or in skills and human resource terms. That
is really as a result of a lack of dialogue, a lack of forewarning
and a lack of involvement in certain areas. I do not think that
would be considered as a conscious policy decision of the Environment
Agency, I think it is probably more the effect of the structure
of the organisation and the remits of the people who work in it
and trying to find the right people to have conversations with,
for example local authorities, and to have that dialogue going
I think is probably a function of a number of things about the
organisation. It is just a sort of communications breakdown which
definitely needs to improve.
Q231 Mr Rogerson: I want to ask you
about the shoreline management plans. I understand the LGA has
concerns about the Government's intention and signal to move that
to the Environment Agency. Why do you think Defra has sought to
do that, and do you think it shows a lack of confidence on the
part of Defra in local authorities' abilities in that area?
Councillor Haines: Yes, I think
you might have perhaps answered it in the second point there.
It may be that they are not confident in the local authority's
ability. Perhaps having one organisation which is dealing with
it nationally they might see as an attractive way of achieving
that. I think you have had submissions from the various coastal
groups, people around the country, from the local authorities
where local authorities have split the coast up into groups and
then obviously they liaise. That is the model which the local
authorities are putting forward as being the alternative and what
it does, of course, is it means we retain our engineers in the
local authorities, which I think is a very important thing we
need to do for various reasons which I can elaborate on if you
wish. Clearly, our view is that the local authorities are best
placed to do this. We know the areas already. It may well be that
if consultants were brought in to look at these schemes by the
Agency then they will not have the same local knowledge which
our engineers have. If I take my own local authority as an example,
we have got a number of engineers who have been there certainly,
I can recall, from the late eighties or early nineties, so they
are very knowledgeable of the area. It will not be those people
who would necessarily be drawing up those management plans, and
I feel it should be because they have the knowledge.
Q232 Mr Rogerson: With that in mind,
do you think a model might be that if it moves the responsibility
to the Agency then it should perhaps seek to outsource some of
that work back to the local authorities?
Councillor Haines: I gather there
are potential difficulties with that because if the local authorities
retained the staff then there is the short-term nature of those
agencies, which would be a difficulty, so we cannot guarantee
to keep them thereafter. That is the concern I would have with
that.
Mr Searles: I think in general
this is a kind of a fundamental point. Following on from the first
set of questions where we are talking about the Environment Agency
going into areas which it cannot adequately handle, we are very
keen to try and show some leadership on behalf of local government
and try and encourage local authorities to see the management
of the environment in the round and the delivery against things
like climate change at one end and cleaner, greener, safer neighbourhoods
at the other as a core and important part of their responsibilities.
We feel we are in a bit of a—not a spiral going down, but
a bit of a circle because leadership, funding and performance
frameworks are at the moment not really creating the kind of virtuous
circle, where we can actually show that leadership is then driving
up performance which is being rewarded with resources. So we are
making a start by trying to say to local authorities at leadership
level that we really need to build capacity in local authorities
to manage the environment, to actually build it and have embedded
good practice and have that capacity to handle the things which
cross agendas, not to try and compartmentalise things the way
our regulatory approach managed by central government might do
but actually to see how economy, leisure and community activities
can actually link together with the management of the environment.
It probably can be seen as a tall order to try and convince people
that is where we need to go when you look at the way in which
some local authorities are resourced to deliver this agenda at
the moment, but we really think it is important to make a start
and we would see it as a wrong signal to move away and take capacity
from local authorities when actually they probably are going most
of the way on coastal erosion and coastal management at the moment,
and it would really diminish our resource.
Councillor Haines: Could I just
follow up on the point about the management plans being done by
local authorities instead of the Environment Agency? As I said
earlier on, you have still got the democratic accountability of
the local authority when such plans are being drawn up. If they
are being drawn up by perhaps consultants on behalf of the Agency,
the local people will not feel they have got the same democratic
input and certainly there could be implications for even yourselves
in that respect, those who have got coastal resources, depending
on what the recommendations might be. So there needs to be a democratic
input into this.
Chairman: We will probably return to
that theme before our session is over, but I would like to call
David Lepper next.
Q233 David Lepper: Thank you, Chairman.
I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of your evidence. My
apologies for that. The LGA does say in its evidence that despite
working together with the Environment Agency on protocols to ensure
closer working, the quality of the relationship between your members
and the Agency tends to vary from place to place. Is that a substantial
problem? What do you feel could still be done to improve the relationship
between Agency staff and local authorities?
Mr Searles: It is an historic
problem and I believe it often varies between different elements
of activity also. It has been particularly evident on the planning
side. I believe it is not so evident in some other areas. I can
speak from what I have found on the planning side and I can preface
what I am going to say by actually saying I think the Agency has
put in place quite a lot of things to actually improve that. Historically,
the issues have related to the kinds of issues which any national
organisation with a kind of regional structure and a very large
local presence has, which is whatever you agree in a room in central
London (and the LGA has much the same problem) is not necessarily
what happens when someone interprets that on the ground in dealing
with another party. It is the consistency, therefore, between
regions and often between cases within regions, and often the
interpretations by specific officers in certain areas have been
partly the problem in relation to making the protocols at national
level seem real and credible on the ground. In response to those
issues, the Agency, in tandem with many other statutory consultees,
has put in place a range of standing advice which for all but
the most important cases actually tells local authorities clearly
what to expect from the Agency and what they expect the Agency's
response will be in a variety of circumstances, and that has been
put in place for the flood issues, for example. I think some things
could be considered to improve matters and I think part of the
problem—and this goes back to my first comments again—is
that the Agency obviously has a narrower set of purposes than
the local authorities do. The local authorities consider the economic,
the social and the wider issues in deciding, for example, a planning
application and they have to take all those things into account.
We are not saying the Agency should abandon its views, because
clearly they are important and indeed may have regulatory backing,
but we feel that sometimes Agency staff could have a little more
appreciation of the facts the local authorities are actually considering
and we would probably favour some kind of swapping mechanism,
some secondment mechanism, to give people more experience of the
issues of local authorities. It partly goes back to the points
made on recruitment. I do not think the Agency has a problem recruiting
people, but sometimes they are very junior and very full of zeal
and it is a question of how you not necessarily dampen that down
but make it work in the real world.
Q234 David Lepper: You did say in
your written evidence—and I think you put it a little bit
stronger than you might have done just now—that there is
sometimes limited understanding from Agency staff about the functions
and responsibilities of local authorities. That is a bit worrying,
and maybe it relates back to what you are saying about junior
members of staff?
Mr Searles: I did not write that,
but it sounds like code for what I have just said really.
Q235 David Lepper: All right. I thought
that was a bit stronger than what you have just said. It suggested
they are not just over-zealous sometimes but it sounds like they
are not actually understanding the legal functions and roles of
local authorities when the Agency gives advice?
Mr Searles: There may well be
cases of that, and I am sure with a little prodding I could provide
some examples, but as I say, I think the Agency is recognising
these issues as long-standing ones and realises that if it wants
to be effective and get its voice heard then it needs to be pragmatic
as well as assertive in its advice.
Q236 David Lepper: We have heard
similar things said on behalf of the Planning Officers' Society's
mineral and waste committee, I think, about the relationships
there.[20]
I do not know whether you have any?
Mr Searles: We do and when we
develop these protocols we always try and engage the Planning
Officers' Society and all the local authorities on consultations,
and to be honest it has become increasingly more difficult to
do that, reflecting the authorities' feelings about the worth
of the protocols on the planning side. I think on other areas
it is a lot better.
David Lepper: Thank you.
Q237 Lynne Jones: Would you say that
the Environment Agency is an organisation which listens to concerns
and does its best to act on them? That is the impression I have
got from what you have been saying, that they have moved to improve
things, or could they do more?
Mr Searles: From my own personal
experience, they do listen to concerns. I think often it is the
case for them, of trying to find the right people in local authorities
to have the right conversation with and how that is embedded throughout
the organisation. As I say, sometimes you can agree things at
national level with the EA, but trying to get that actually delivered
through every interaction on the ground when you are not involved
is obviously quite difficult and authorities so far have found
that is not the case.
Councillor Haines: In my own local
authority we have had a good experience with them for a long time
now, so I have not got any examples. You have got the wrong person
here to give you examples, I am afraid, where there has not been
harmonious working. Following on from what Lee said to the earlier
question, I feel that obviously sharing best practice across the
country would be a good way forward because clearly I feel that
in my authority we would be quite happy to have people coming
in from the Environment Agency and from other authorities where
there are no conflicts to learn how we were getting on.
Q238 Mr Rogerson: There are perhaps
feelings, certainly in my constituency following the Boscastle
event—not from the point of view of the local authority
or from the Environment Agency but from the point of view of those
people trying to get their businesses up and running again—that
there were tensions in terms of what the planning process wanted
them to do in terms of replacing their buildings, in terms of
what the Environment Agency wanted them to do to decrease the
flood risk. Do you think there could be more in terms of protocols
to make sure—excuse me going on at length, but the example
of disability access issues which the council wanted to see and
the complete opposite in terms of location because of the flood
risk. We had people sort of running between the two trying to
find the solution which would satisfy both sets of requirements.
So could there be protocols agreed, do you think, which would
help ensure that that did not happen again?
Councillor Haines: I do not know
much of the exact detail about the buildings in Boscastle in terms
of the status, but I think as you have explained it, it is always
thus. I am Chairman of a development control committee, I have
chaired planning since the nineties on and off, and inevitably
you are going to get conflicting requirements from different groups
and it will be the job of the planning committee or development
control committee at the end of the day to weigh up those different
requirements, including what its own officers might be saying
to it if we are talking about things which would have to go before
a committee, but at the same time there is a time constraint on
that example because people want to get on with their lives. So
I think it would have been pretty difficult to have had protocols
in place before seeing such a situation. That would be my reaction.
It is always going to be difficult and we just have to be thankful
that those sorts of things happen very rarely.
Mr Searles: The new Planning Policy
Statement 25, up for consultation now, and the associated Good
Practice Guide which should come out with it, will hopefully clear
up some of the issues around the smaller scale development and
what is required in terms of flood risk assessment or specific
measures, and maybe clear up some of the issues about the Agency's
views when development is occurring on top of something which
is already there, which has actually been the nub of many of the
issues between local authorities. It is that sense of realism
about the guidance, and hopefully the review PPS25 is acknowledged
by all sides, the Government, communities, local authorities and
the Environment Agency, as an opportunity to clear up a lot of
the confusion which has existed throughout the existence of PPG25
and led to many of the small-scale local conflicts between the
Agency and local authorities. So I am hoping, also, the situation
in Boscastle could be covered in that process.
Q239 Chairman: Could I just ask you,
because in terms of the planning side there are some people outside
the local authority, members of the public, who might actually
rather like somebody outside to be a whistleblower and say, "You
shouldn't be developing there because technically speaking we
think there are dangers," I noticed in your evidence under
the Waste Planning section you have a little punt at the Environment
Agency where you say, "There is a body of evidence that the
[Environment Agency] is not investing appropriate in the Planning
Liaison business of responding to consultations from Minerals
and Waste Planning Authorities."[21]
So you have a pop at them there. Then you have another go at them
over this question of flooding here. You sort of imply almost
that the Environment Agency ought to be getting off your turf
because you comment, "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'."[22]
Are you just saying, "Get off our turf"?
Councillor Haines: The issue does
not actually personally relate to me, as I have already said.
We have not approved something where the Environment Agency has
said they are against it, so on my authority I can speak for them.
I am just saying there is a preface, but coming on to the LGA
as a whole, clearly it comes back to the issue of trying to extend
better practice across the country between the Agency and some
local authorities, which if that is achieved then that is the
only nut you have to crack. That is it. So if you get there without
having to have the sort of call-in issue then you retain local
democratic accountability in a much more straightforward way.
I think that is what it is trying to say, but I will hand you
over to someone nearer to the author.
Mr Searles: Yes, I did actually
realise that -
20 Ev 102, Annex A Back
21
Ev 102, para G(2) Back
22
Ev 100, para A Back
|
