Memorandum submitted
by Environment Agency (PB 11)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
PLANNING BILL COMMITTEE
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM
SUMMARY
The
Environment Agency welcomes the Planning Bill and its proposals to improve the
system for handling nationally significant infrastructure projects. There are
areas of the Bill that we believe should be strengthened however, in particular
to secure a central aim to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable
development and to further the objectives of the Climate Change Bill.
On this basis
we consider:
· National
Policy Statements (NPSs) must meet four key tests (detailed below) in line with
the statutory duty in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to
contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development.
· The
Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) which will be responsible for taking
decisions on major infrastructure should be subject to an equivalent duty to
contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. To carry out its
functions effectively the IPC should be equipped to assess alternatives, with
clear operating rules and relevant environmental expertise.
· The
procedure for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) must not
override existing environmental protection mechanisms such as the EU Habitats
Directive. The Infrastructure Planning Commission should determine the merits
of proposals based on both the NPS and the nature of the site under
consideration (detailed below).
· We
welcome the reforms to the existing planning regime, and particularly the
proposed requirement for development plan documents to include policies on
climate change mitigation and adaptation. The same provision should apply to
Regional Spatial Strategies.
· We
have concerns with regard to proposals for Local Member Review Bodies determining minor appeals
and the availability of requisite expertise.
· We
welcome proposals for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and urge that
this includes environmental infrastructure. We would hope to have a role in
advising on the allocation of regional funds.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Environment Agency is the leading public body for
protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales. We have
statutory duties to protect or enhance the environment and to make an
appropriate contribution towards the achievement of sustainable development.
1.2 We play an active role in the spatial planning system at all
levels, as an adviser to local, regional and central Government and in some
cases as a statutory consultee. Our areas of interest include flood risk
management, water resources and water quality, contaminated land, biodiversity
and waste.
1.3 A key priority for us is to see the mitigation of, and especially
adaptation to, climate change incorporated into planning decisions. We are
similarly concerned that natural resources are used efficiently and that all
construction is sustainable.
2.0 NATIONAL
POLICY STATEMENTS
2.1 We
welcome the principle of National Policy Statements. The provision of clear,
unambiguous policy will go a long way to reducing the length of inquiries into national
significant infrastructure proposals.
2.2 We
support the requirement for the Secretary of State
to act with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable
development when designating and reviewing NPSs (cl9). In exercising this duty, the
Secretary of State should ensure that NPSs meet the following 4 tests:
1) NPSs
must be framed within the five principles of sustainable development
established in the Government's 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy.
2) NPSs
must contribute to the achievement of the objectives established in the Climate
Change Bill both in terms of mitigation and adaptation. They should be required
to demonstrate their contribution to carbon reduction targets and ensure that
infrastructure is resilient to the effects of climate change over its lifetime.
This should include pressing for infrastructure to be outside areas at high risk
from flooding and coastal erosion. These requirements should be included in regulations
and guidance on NPSs.
3) NPSs
must be subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). SEA will help to ensure
that the environmental impacts of NPSs are fully understood and contribute to
the achievement of sustainable development. The Bill requires NPSs to be
subject to 'an appraisal of sustainability' (c5(3)). SEA could form a
constituent part of such appraisal. We consider that all NPSs are likely to fall
into the definition of a 'draft plan or programme' under the SEA Directive and
hence must include SEA.
4) NPSs
must be fully integrated with other NPSs prepared by the same or different
government departments. Policy conflict should be avoided, policy convergence
should be maximised and resulting developments should optimise economic, social
and environmental benefits. The Environment Agency should be a statutory
consultee on NPSs and we would wish to be involved in early stages of drafting
of the waste, water, wastewater and energy NPSs, for example.
3.0 THE
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING COMMISSION
3.1 The primary purpose of the Nationally
Significant Infrastructure Projects system should be to help achieve
sustainable development, in line with the statutory duty on planning in the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
3.2 The Bill includes a duty on the
Secretaries of State that in exercising functions relating to NPSs, they must
'do so with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable
development' (c9). An equivalent duty must apply to the IPC as it has powers of
discretion to take into account factors other than National Policy Statements
in certain circumstances. The IPC should also be able to demonstrate how it has
taken account of the climate change targets in reaching its decisions on NSIPs.
3.3 To function effectively the IPC needs
clear operating rules, including the ability to assess alternatives and should
have the necessary relevant environmental expertise. The Bill contains only
general operating and proprietary rules for the IPC and does not go into detail
on its membership. This could leave environmental issues without proper
safeguards so it is essential these are covered in secondary legislation and/or
guidance to the IPC.
3.4 We would welcome re-considertaion as to
whether the IPC should be given responsibility for developments in the marine
environment. This may be best left to
the specialist Marine Management Organisation to be established in the
forthcoming Marine Bill.
4.0 NATIONALLY
SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
4.1 We support measures to improve the
planning system however this should not be at the expense of existing
safeguards for the environment. A major concern for us is that the proposed
procedure for NSIPs could override important environmental interests such as
internationally important habitats and species designated under the EU Habitats
Directive.
4.2 We suggest that the IPC should be
ultimately responsible for considering proposals that might adversely affect
internationally important wildlife sites.
The IPC will generally need to test the merits of sites, satisfy itself
that the development proposer has shown there are 'no alternative solutions'
and that the proposal is supported by relevant NPSs. NPSs should be used only
as part of the evidence base for a claim of 'overriding public interest' by a
project proponent. In cases where the
NPS is site specific then the relevant Government department will need to have
clearly demonstrated that there are 'no alternative solutions'.
4.3 The Environment Agency should be a statutory
consultee (a 'prescribed person') for NSIPs and NPSs. NSIPs should also be
subject to Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
5.0 CHANGES TO EXISITING PLANNING RGEIMES
5.1 We welcome the inclusion of clauses that
streamline the development plan system - subject to safeguards to ensure the
requirements of the SEA Directive are complied with. The Bill includes a number of provisions to make plan-making
simpler and more flexible. These will
be supported by a revision of PPS12 (Local Development Frameworks)(2004). However,
the draft PPS12 says very little relating to environmental protection and
enhancement, climate change or achieving the statutory purpose of spatial
planning - contributing to achieving sustainable development.
5.2 We particularly support the inclusion of
requirements for Development Plan Documents to include policies designed to
secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority's
area contributes to the mitigation of and adaptation to, climate change
(c147). This duty will be underpinned
by the new PPS on Climate Change. The
same provision should apply to Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and
subsequently Single Regional Strategies when they subsume RSSs as part of the
proposals in the Treasury 'Review of Sub National Economic Development and
Regeneration'.
5.3 The Bill also includes provisions to
reduce the number of planning applications and speed up appeals, including
provisions to enable Local Member Review Bodies to determine minor appeals. We are concerned that with
only very limited training elected members may not
have the requisite expertise to be given the role of making impartial decisions
on appeals. Unlike some planning committee decisions these require decisions entirely
based on the planning merits of the appeal and not the concerns of the local
electorate or political issues.
6.0 COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
6.1 We welcome the inclusion of enabling
clauses that will introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). We would
expect the CIL to enable provision of environmental infrastructure as well as other
infrastructure such as transport, schools and affordable housing.
6.2 The CIL should work in combination with planning policy to
send clear signals to developers to, in particular, support remediation of
contaminated land, to avoid development in high flood risk areas, reduce flood
risk overall, etc. Environmental
Infrastructure should be a key item of expenditure for funds raised by the CIL
and not an add on. In particular, it should include strategic flood risk
management, innovative solutions to land contamination, waste water treatment
and waste management.
6.3 Some of the CIL will need to be spent at the sub-regional or
even regional level, for example in growth areas, and such regional funds
should be allocated on the basis of clear and agreed infrastructure plans. The
Environment Agency should have a role in this.
JANUARY 2008