Written evidence submitted by the Institution
of Civil Engineers
(LOCO 101)
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) is a UK-based
international organisation with over 75,000 members ranging from
professional civil engineers to students. It is an educational
and qualifying body and has charitable status under UK law. Founded
in 1818, the ICE has become recognised worldwide for its excellence
as a centre of learning, as a qualifying body and as a public
voice for the profession.
1. SUMMARY
(i) This memorandum focuses primarily on the
impact of localism on the development and maintenance of economic
infrastructure.
(ii) There are many positive elements of the
localism agenda. Local engineering professionals with long experience
of local conditions and infrastructure assets are well placed
to work with local communities to meet their needs.
(iii) However, it should be recognised that effective
strategic planning for infrastructure should focus on the right
spatial level which may be neither central or local. As an example,
planning for flood defences needs to take place on a river catchment
area basis.
(iv) Our detailed concerns are in three areas:
¾ Planning
and development control.
¾ Skills.
¾ Accountability
and transparency.
(v) Planning and development control
¾ HM Treasury
has identified that UK needs to invest £40-50B pa in new
and upgraded infrastructure in the period up to 2030.
¾ To attract
investment on this scale requires an environment of certainty.
Government at all levels needs to provide clarity on strategic
needs and the development control process must deliver timely
and reasonably predictable decisions
¾ Infrastructure
operates at various levels and scales including individual assets
and local level networks. However many projects and networks operate
and deliver benefits at the national or sub national level. It
will therefore be important for the system to retain capacity
for planning and decision making at these larger than local levels.
¾ We have
concerns that a gap has been created at the "larger than
local" level which risks investment in water, flood risk
management, waste services, energy and transport. We use the experience
of the waste and flood risk management sectors to illustrate these
concerns.
(vi) Skills
¾ We have
concerns about the staffing levels and intellectual resources
available to the bodies now charged with delivering local infrastructure
and services. Sir Michael Pitt expressed this eloquently in his
review of flood risk management and we echo his concerns as they
very clearly capture the dangers around which localism needs to
navigate.
(vii) Accountability and transparency
¾ While
the principle of accountability for decision making is sound,
and we understand that it implies variations in outcomes across
the UK, the time-scale for infrastructure investment and maintenance
is such that long-term damage could be done to the UK economy
if some local areas make poor investment decisions. As such, a
national overview is needed to address that risk. Laissez-faire
is not the answer.
¾ Looking
to local services, we acknowledge the tension between comparability
and freeing areas from a requirement to provide a uniform service,
but ask that Government agencies show leadership and work with
Local Authorities to help identify good and poor infrastructure
investment.
2. DETAILED COMMENTS
We discuss these areas below and then use the examples
of flood risk management and waste management infrastructure to
explore the opportunities and threats that localism presents for
the UK's infrastructure both at the local and national level.
2.1 Planning and development control
The Inquiry asks about the extent to which decentralisation
leads to more effective public service delivery; and what the
limits are, or should be, of localism.
In ICE's view, the question of centralization versus
decentralization is in many ways a false dichotomy. In practice,
the debate should be about where decisions are made and whether
the decision-makers have sufficient information and understanding
to pursue the best choices available.
In terms of Infrastructure, we see a need for both
"centralized" national-level decisions and local "decentralised"
decisions taken by Local Authorities and their communities. But
we also see that some decisions need to be taken between these
two ends of the spectrum, at the "larger than local"
scale. To put it more concisely, the provision of public services
and infrastructure needs to be organised at the appropriate scale
for the problems concerned.
(i) National level infrastructure
The Institution has argued for some time now that
there needs to be a national infrastructure strategy to meet the
nation's needs in energy, transport, water and waste—and
the planning and investment bodies in place to deliver that strategy.
This is something that localism alone cannot address.
Our immediate concerns relate to changes in the planning
system which could slow investment in nationally important infrastructure.
The need to secure future energy supplies is the most prominent
example.
The Government has confirmed that a new Major Infrastructure
Planning Unit will replace the Infrastructure Planning Commission.
The scale of infrastructure investment required over the next
decade—£40-50 billion pa—demands Government provide
investors with certainty through the provision of an efficient
and democratic planning system.
ICE is pleased that the IPC's function in fast-tracking
nationally significant projects will be retained in the new system
and hope that having elected ministers take final decisions will
deliver accountability for decision making and greater public
acceptance. However, it is imperative that these reforms do not
derail any progress we have already made. With a looming energy
generation shortfall and pressing environmental targets we simply
don't have time to go back to square one with vital energy, transport,
water and waste projects.
(ii) The local level
We understand and support the need for local decision
making particularly for roads, waste services and surface water
management. Local professionals with experience of local conditions
and infrastructure assets are well placed to work with local communities
to meet their needs.
Our concern would be whether Local Authorities have
the engineering skills and knowledge in-house either to provide
those services for their communities or to act as intelligent-customers
to buy in those services in a way that delivers value for money.
We expand on this point below.
(iii) Larger than local
Infrastructure often extends across administrative
boundaries and there is rarely, if ever, a perfect fit that meets
all parties' needs. Water supplies will often be best managed
across a river basin area, flood risk management may also need
to consider coastal processes, while transport may follow a motorway
or trunk road corridor (or port or rail link), while waste and
energy provision will fit into yet other geographic areas.
The previous regional government structures faced
this challenge. For example, in South East England, there was
little natural overlap between Milton Keynes and Kent—two
diverse areas which face very different challenges. The South
East England Regional Partnership Board, the regional planning
body until July 2010, were able to manage these sub-regional variations
by recognizing natural economic and environmental areas and working
with towns and cities across the region to create a regional spatial
strategy that reflected those underlying variations. With the
shift in Government focus from regions to local areas, we need
to keep that same flexibility of approach and find solutions to
problems that work across local administrative boundaries.
This point has been raised already. Over the summer,
29 built environment professional bodies, ICE included, wrote
to Eric Pickles, the Communities and Local Government Secretary,
to raise their concerns at the risks to planning and investment
for schemes that lie between the local and the national level.[83]
The organisations which signed that letter understand
planning at the "larger than local level" to mean any
form of planning—statutory or otherwise—which enables
communities and groups of communities to express a vision for
the future of an area wider than their own locality. This approach
to planning sets out priorities for investment and solutions to
problems which must, of necessity, be addressed beyond neighbourhood
or district boundaries. Importantly it can provide certainty to
investors, infrastructure providers, community initiatives, developers
and enterprises and help secure a prosperous and sustainable future
for the country
The approach to this level of planning and investment
is uncertain at present, the bids for Local Economic Partnerships
not withstanding, which presents a threat to economic development
in the years ahead unless properly addressed.
As we have already stated, infrastructure operates
at various levels and scales including individual assets and local
level networks. Many projects and networks operate and deliver
benefits at the national or sub national level. It will therefore
be important for the system to retain capacity for planning and
decision making at these larger than local levels. We are worried
that a gap has been created between the local and national levels
and explain these concerns in more detail in sections 6.0 and
7.0 below.
2.2 Skills
We have concerns about the man-power, skills and
intellectual resources available to the bodies now charged with
delivering local infrastructure and services. Sir Michael Pitt
expressed this eloquently in his review of flood risk management[84]
and we echo his concerns as they very clearly capture the dangers
around which localism needs to navigate.
There are positive steps Local Authorities can take
in terms of training and retraining staff, recruiting in expertise—whether
for service delivery or to be able to act as an intelligent buyer
of external services, and sharing resources across administrative
boundaries. Two examples where this is taking place already are:
¾ York
City Council shows that positive action to address skills shortages
can be taken. When faced with a shortfall in engineering technicians,
they set up an in-house training of candidates to fill the gap.
¾ East
Kent Engineering Services Partnership is an example of engineering
expertise and knowledge being shared across administrative boundaries
in Kent. Their work at Warden Bay to protect over 200 properties
from coastal erosion is a case in point. Canterbury City Council's
specialists in the design of coastal defences worked with Swale
Borough Council to create a solution that was acceptable to the
regulatory authorities, funding agencies and, most importantly,
the local people.
These examples highlight that, as well as investing
in the right engineering skills, Local Authorities can work together
to share resources. It provides a mechanism for reducing overall
costs, uses limited resources more effectively, and fits with
the experience that infrastructure will often require cooperation
across administrative boundaries to be effective. The proposed
Duty to Cooperate being considered for inclusion in the Decentralisation
and Localism Bill could help take us in this direction more quickly.
Localism presents a major change in approach, with
implications beyond the immediate technical skills shortages.
Professionals, both as individuals and through their organisations,
need to step forward and use the new freedoms and responsibilities
to best effect. For example, we are clear that for decentralisation
to work well there needs to be the local leadership and commitment
to bring all the relevant parties together. Parochialism and silo
mentalities must be avoided. The testimony of civil engineers
working with the Transport for Tees Valley illustrates what can
be achieved:
CASE STUDY
FROM TEES
VALLEY
"The Local Government Association did a three
year pilot on how transport partnerships can be more joined up
and effective, with the Tees Valley chosen as one of the pilot."
"The experience with Transport for Tees Valley
was that the delivery of transport in a privatised environment
is a very fragmented business. The partnership defined a strategic
transport network for the Tees Valley in 2006, and worked out
that there are 22 different organisations involved in delivering
transport across that network, and as many again that may have
an influence."
"But what the public want is a reliable,
integrated network! So the first thing that we did in setting
up TTV in 2007 was to get all of those involved in delivering
transport (including private sector operators) around a table
and then agree a forward strategy for improving transport to support
economic and housing regeneration. Each partner was then tasked
with using their resources towards that common objective, meaning
that we found efficiencies in operation and common goals. This
is how localism must work—it must be fully inclusive—if
you leave out one element of the delivery chain (eg operators)
it will not work."
Jonathan Spruce, ICE Transport Panel
The transport case study above shows the benefits
of strong leadership pulling together all the local stakeholders.
We would like to see this attitude adopted more widely.
2.3 Accountability and transparency
In seeking the views of civil engineers working across
the UK, we received many comments about the transparency of planning
and infrastructure investment. This goes to the heart of the democratic
process and raises fundamental questions about responsibility
and accountability—and the funding available to back them
up. Government needs to provide a framework that gives clarity
over the balance of local decision making versus central checks
and controls.
(i) Can decentralisation achieve savings?
We believe it is important to take decisions at the
appropriate scale, be that local, "larger than local"
or national.
While some savings should be achieved if local decision
makers prioritise services and investments to meet the needs specific
to their communities, there is a real danger that local delivery
could mean higher costs. Local autonomy can be combined with economy
of scale if authorities are willing to work together on contractual
arrangements such framework agreements covering a number of authorities.
There is a danger that parochialism will lead to
unnecessary over investment in infrastructure as each local area
duplicates services that could be shared (be that facilities,
such as waste processing, or expertise, if shared engineering
teams could serve a wider area more cost effectively). In addition,
nimbyism could halt investment necessary for economic growth.
For example, will smaller towns in the Thames Valley agree to
housing growth that businesses in larger towns and cities in different
Unitary Authority areas need for their employees?
(ii) Avoiding long-term damage to the economy
The principle that people and communities need to
accept accountability for their decisions is sound, and real decentralisation
no doubt will lead to greater variations as some communities benefit
from sound decisions while others fare less well because of theirs.
However, the time-scales for infrastructure investment
and maintenance are such that long-term damage could be done to
the UK economy if there is no national overview. Laissez-faire
is not the answer. We believe that some form of national overview
is needed so that the risk of long-term damage can be reduced.
(iii) How can local communities know if they
are doing well or not?
Some of our members have expressed concern that there
may no longer be any systematic reporting on the quality or performance
of infrastructure in nationally consistent formats. For example,
it appears that there will no longer be, except through voluntary
arrangements, a consistent view of how road condition varies across
the country. They tell us that the KPI requirement was onerous
on Local Authorities but they view the complete removal of the
requirement to provide consistent data to be a retrograde step.[85]
To some extent, clusters of Local Authorities—and
professional bodies in some technical areas—can create their
own networks for assessing performance and sharing good practice.
However, there is a role for Government and its national agencies,
in setting consistent measures and standards to help that process
happen more quickly and effectively. Businesses operate in this
way, for example through standards committees or trade associations,
and Government agencies can provide leadership to help Local Authorities
and communities assess their performance against others.
ICE acknowledges that there is tension between comparability
and freeing areas from a requirement to provide a uniform service,
but a balance needs to be struck.
(iv) Who tests value for money?
It is unclear what will replace the Audit Commission.
While accountancy audits can be carried out by private firms,
it is not obvious whether that will provide sufficient due diligence
to the management of public money. The potential lack of independent
oversight is concerning.
3. THE WASTE
MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE
ICE is currently conducting a major review of waste
management infrastructure in the UK, building on its previous
State of the Nation reports[86]
looking at different aspects of national and local infrastructure.
Here we highlight some advance findings that have particular relevance
to localism.
A perception that the development control process
was lengthy, costly and had capricious outcomes was a recurring
theme of the ICE inquiry. Also, evidence was taken in the period
immediately before and after the recent General Election, revealing
widespread uncertainty about the impact of the Coalition Government's
proposed reforms to planning and the wider localism agenda.
This section therefore examines:
(i) Uncertainty around future governance and
decision making procedures for waste infrastructure.
(ii) Waste planning at the "larger than
local" level.
(iii) Timescales for decision making and compensation
procedures for local communities.
(i) Uncertainty around future governance and
decision making procedures
The abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS)
and the proposed incorporation of the Infrastructure Planning
Commission (IPC) into a Major Infrastructure Planning Unit (MIPU)
within the Planning Inspectorate have led to uncertainty around
the future shape of land use planning decision-making for waste
facilities. This has contributed to a highly uncertain environment
for the development of waste facilities.
ICE's inquiry found wide support for the incoming
Government's commitment to retain a fast track planning system
for nationally significant infrastructure projects, which it was
felt would help facilitate the development of the small number
of larger energy from waste facilities likely to be required in
the coming decade. However there was concern that in the absence
of clarity below the IPC/MIPU level, a perverse incentive was
being created to bring forward larger projects with one respondent
noting: "the size of the facility becomes the debate—which
it shouldn't".
Government needs to act quickly to provide greater
clarity on decision making procedures,and the forthcoming Decentralisation
and Localism Bill is a key opportunity.
(ii) Waste planning at the "Larger than
local" level
A Chartered Institution of Wastes Management's (CIWM)
study on "Lessons Learned from Europe"[87]
identified that a common factor in counties that have successfully
delivered new waste infrastructure was effective regional-tier
governance. This was particularly pronounced in relation to forward
capacity planning. The coalition has made it clear that as part
of its policy of devolving power to localities, formal tiers of
regional Government will be dismantled. This does not however
preclude Local Authorities and other local parties voluntarily
coming together to tackle issues at the "larger than local"
level, as demonstrated by the creation of Local Economic Partnerships.
The regional function identified as important by
CIWM came in several guises:
¾ In Denmark
the regions were in charge of locating and permitting facilities
with a systematic recording system for all waste arriving at a
facility. Once the necessary infrastructure was identified, the
locating and permitting of facilities was locally devolved. This
was cemented by a locally developed twelve year plan amended every
four years if necessary.
¾ In Italy
the process was more bottom-up with the involvement of an aggregation
of Local Authorities into a regional body. This body then determined
the volumes of waste needed to trigger the creation of new facilities
along with the necessary plan, with decisions reached by consensus.
¾ In the
Netherlands the delivery, implementation and development of infrastructure
was a local responsibility. However their actions were directed
by a waste management council. This Council was comprised of a
cross section of representatives from local, regional and national
Government with decisions as to the make-up of the waste infrastructure
plan reached by consensus.
Across urban England there are of course examples
of pre-existing waste authorities covering several Local Authority
areas. Of these, the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority
(GMWDA) was seen by many respondents to the ICE survey as a beacon
for joined-up waste infrastructure planning. The GMWDA's 21 members
are councillors from the individual authorities in Manchester
and represent a cross section of political parties. The authority
members are appointed on a yearly basis and are responsible for
policy, strategy and corporate management.
All of the above suggests that with political leadership
it is possible for groups of local representatives to facilitate
joined-up working between localities whilst aligning with national
policy priorities. This has the advantage of maintaining direct
links to local populations as Local Authorities will remain accountable
and responsible for securing buy-in from their communities on
waste infrastructure development. We understand that the forthcoming
Devolution and Localism Bill will include a Duty to Co-operate,
which may be useful in driving this kind of joint working.
(iii) Timescale and compensation mechanisms
Respondents to ICE's waste inquiry expressed concern
over the lengthy gestation period for waste and resource management
infrastructure, of which the process for securing of planning
consent was a major and highly uncertain component. Respondents
spoke of a "typical 3-4 year lead time to build and commission"
with a total "5-7 years for a project cycle (concept to
delivery)".
In the case of existing facilities, many respondents
suggested that owners could be given development rights to make
non-significant changes to site infrastructure without going through
the planning process.
However a far larger issue was the length and unpredictability
of the planning process for new facilities. Here, the greatest
single challenge identified was securing community buy-in. In
addressing this problem respondents felt that a significant onus
was on developers and Local Authorities to improve their communication
and community engagement processes. However, there was also considerable
support for improving compensation available to local residents
affected by facilities. Measures suggested by respondents included:
¾ The
transfer of a proportion of the revenue derived from the development
into an un-hypothecated community fund.
¾ Energy
from Waste operators providing discounted electricity and heat
to local residents.
¾ The
construction of social infrastructure (improvements to schools
and hospitals) in conjunction with waste projects, noted as an
effective tool in Italy and Spain.
4. THE FLOOD
RISK MANAGEMENT
EXPERIENCE
We draw the Committee's attention to the Pitt Review:
"Learning lessons from the 2007 floods"[88]
because it captures many of the concerns about the impact of localism
on the provision of flood risk management measures.
In particular we highlight extracts from the Pitt
Review which illustrate the need to think at the "larger
than local" scale and to ensure that skills are in the right
place (whether local or larger than local).
Recommendation 75 of the Pitt Review states that
"For emergencies spanning more than a single Local Authority
area, Government Offices should ensure coherence and coordination,
if necessary, between recovery operations." We simply
note that the body with responsibility for establishing coherence
and coordination across Local Authority boundaries will not exist
for much longer. Clearly, Local Authorities can, in principle,
organise themselves to this end but the introduction of the localism
policy, for all its potential benefits, has created a gap in terms
of structures and skill sets that needs to be addressed.
To reinforce the need for "larger than local"
action, we quote the example of North-East Yorkshire's Strategic
Flood Risk Assessment used in the Pitt Review report: "Ryedale
District Council, Scarborough Borough Council and the North York
Moors National Park Authority formed a partnership to enable a
single SFRA [Strategic Flood Risk Assessment] to be prepared
for the entire Upper Derwent catchment. This approach ensured
that the policy recommendations and guidance within the SFRA reflected
hydrological boundaries and was consistent across Local Authority
areas. It also simplified the consultation process."
The Pitt Review was eloquent on the problems of shortages
in Local Authority engineering departments. Section 6.25 of the
report states: "The Review is aware of the challenge
that we have set in the face of dwindling engineering departments
in many Local Authorities. Many submissions welcomed the Review's
focus on the Local Authorities' role in managing flood risk, while
raising real concerns about the current engineering capacity at
this level. They noted the decline in numbers of drainage engineers
in Local Authorities—and across the profession more generally..."
Section 6.28 then goes on to say: "Without
the appropriate technical renaissance of Local Authorities, there
is a danger that many of our recommendations will not be delivered
effectively. … In recent times the technical departments
of Local Authorities have significantly diminished and, in some
places, merged. Much of the engineering specialism in Local Authorities
is now limited to highway engineering."
We hope the lessons of the 2008 floods will not be
viewed narrowly and that the clear implications for localism will
be recognized and action taken to mitigate those risks.
5. CONCLUSION
In this submission we have highlighted the value
of professionals making informed decisions with and on behalf
of their communities. But we have also made a plea for the risks
created in moving to a new approach to be properly managed and
mitigated.
In particular, we have highlighted risks created
by uncertainty in planning and development control and the gaps
that now emerge at the "larger than local level". We
have noted that there is already a shortage of professional engineers
working within Local Authorities and that asking them to take
on more responsibility and leadership will increase these pressures
even further. We also note the concerns raised by our members
over accountability and transparency in the new environment.
However, as engineers, our motive is to make things
work. We have pointed to a number of examples where good practice
exists—in Manchester, Teeside, Yorkshire and Kent as well
as highlighting examples from abroad. We could have offered many
more. Our hope is that government at all levels can take on board
our concerns and use the knowledge and experience that already
exists to find solutions that will make a real difference for
the good.
October 2010
83 http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/3937/23/5/3
Back
84
Pitt Review: "Learning lessons from the 2007 floods".
See comments in Section 7.0 below. Back
85
Feedback from ICE East Midlands region, August 2010. Back
86
http://www.ice.org.uk/Information-resources/Infrastructure-policy-and-reports/State-of-the-nation Back
87
http://www.iwm.co.uk/mediastore/FILES/12134.pdf Back
88
http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/pittreview/thepittreview.html Back
| 
