Planning and the Environment Seminar

STATS seminar entitled 'Planning and the Environment - Managing Risks and Maximising Potential' emphasised importance of expert involvement at an early stage.

The most recent STATS seminar entitled 'Planning and the Environment - Managing Risks and Maximising Potential' was one of the most popular ever, with almost all speakers emphasising the importance of expert involvement at an early stage.

STATS chairman Adrian Marsh welcomed delegates to the packed Conference room in Hertfordshire University's Fielder Centre, commenting that environmental resources have become an essential component of any planning team, adding "The path to planning permission is littered with pitfalls, many of which are environmental issues that have become more significant in recent times".

"As such, they can become show stopping issues unless they are addressed at an early stage of the process." .

Environmental Impact Assessment.

The first speaker, Mark Brumwell from Dundas and Wilson LLP, emphasised the importance of good quality Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) particularly in light of the 'cottage industry' that has evolved, specialising in legal challenges to development proposals on the grounds of inadequate environmental statements.

Brumwell described the main features of a good EIA and discussed the need to incorporate an Appropriate Assessment for proposals that might have an effect on a European Site as detailed by the Habitats Directive.

He also urged delegates to err on the side of caution if they suspect that a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) might be necessary for proposals which are likely to have a significant effect on the environment; "An SEA would normally be worthwhile under such circumstances, however it may provide another opportunity for the aforementioned cottage industry." .

Archaeology and Historic Landscapes.

Mills Whipp Projects is a consultancy that provides planners and developers with advice on archaeological issues and their Mike Hutchinson gave a presentation on the management of archaeological issues from a development perspective.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 16, Archaeology and Planning (PPG16), sets out the Government's policy on archaeological remains on land and provides recommendations that are incorporated into local development plans.

The guidance indicates that there should be a presumption in favour of physical preservation.

However, a recently published European Code of Good Practice indicates that 'a balance must be struck between the desire to conserve the past and the need to renew for the future.' Archaeological investigation can be costly to undertake (GBP5k to >GBP1M) and may incur very significant delays, so Hutchinson urged developers to consider archaeology at an early stage; an initial desktop study will establish the archaeological and historical significance of a site.

A field evaluation may be required to gain further information on the archaeological resource involving non-intrusive and/or intrusive fieldwork and may lead to the formulation of a strategy for the management of remains or possibly for excavation.

Under PPG16 'preservation by record' is permissible so that remains can be removed by excavation.

Looking forward, Hutchinson referred delegates to a Government White Paper which is intended to produce a faster, more open system.

It can be viewed at www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10515 and implementation is due to take place in 2010.

Flood Risk.

Flooding intensity/frequency is increasing and the next speaker, Peter Bide from the Planning Directorate, Dept.

of Communities and Local Government, gave a presentation on the implications of the new Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) Development and Flood Risk.

Around 10 % of England is within a higher flood risk area and Bide said that Planning is the primary means of reducing flood risk to and from new development.

PPS25 aims to steer development to lower risk sites where possible, without blocking development needed to retain the sustainability of existing communities.

PPS25 will increase the strategic importance of flood risk.

For example, the Environment Agency is now a statutory consultee for planning applications in flood risk areas.

Types of development should be matched with degrees of flood risk and a new exception test has been created where continuing development is needed in extensive flood risk areas.

Lower risk sites must:.

1.

meet sustainability objectives (need for development outweighs flood risk).

2.

be on previously developed ground if possible.

3.

have a Flood Risk Assessment demonstrating that development will be safe and may even reduce flood risk.

A draft Practice Guide companion to PPS25 is out for consultation (www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1506265 ) and closes in August 2007 with publication due in autumn 2007.

Bide emphasised the importance of sustainable urban drainage systems involving techniques such as such as permeable paving, infiltration trenches, lined soakaways, green roofs, rainwater harvesting, swales, detention basins, ponds and wetlands.

He also said that urban drainage should be integrated so that individual parties are unable to appoint blame to any others.

Ecology and Biodiversity.

Planning Authorities are required to take account of the impact of any development on protected species or habitats and Dr Clifford Stuckey, Principal Ecologist at STATS, provided an overview of ecological and biodiversity issues within the planning process.

Dr Stuckey highlighted the need to find effective and economic solutions to ecological constraints at an early stage of the process, particularly if survey work is to be conducted during a specific season - reptiles, for example, should be surveyed during the summer.

Proposed developments can be affected by the presence of specific wildlife, however, ecological issues should also be considered for plans that impact upon designated sites such as nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest (SSSI).

Dr Stuckey outlined the legislation that can impact upon planning applications, making specific reference to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which established SSSIs, protected species and invasive weeds.

He also drew attention to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which introduced the term 'reckless' into this field.

This is important because anyone guilty of acting recklessly under the legislation can be prosecuted and fined up to GBP500/animal, which can amount to a considerable sum for a colony of, say, bats or newts.

In many cases it will be necessary for development work to be timed so as to avoid wildlife, to be moved to a location that avoids wildlife or to employ an appropriate method that avoids wildlife disturbance.

Development Licenses are required for plans that unavoidably disturb protected species and this is currently issued to an individual, however, from August 2007 the licence will be given to a developer rather than the consultant and as such it will be the developer that will be liable.

Protected species include some amphibians, badgers, bats, breeding birds, dormice, freshwater pearl mussels, otters, some reptiles, water voles (partially) and white-clawed crayfish (partially).

Environmental Noise.

Continuing a theme from several of the earlier speakers, Peter Henson, a partner at Bickerdike Allen Partners, reminded delegates that failure to employ experts at an early stage can result in much higher costs.

Specialising in the field of environmental noise, Henson described the need for an acoustic study within development proposals.

A broad range of legislation requires consideration of acoustics and PPG24 - Planning and Noise, provides guidance for Local Authorities and introduces Noise Exposure Categories (NEC A to D) which can have a major impact on planning decisions.

Broadly speaking, noise surveys are required for new dwelling applications, commercial applications and for new road, rail or airport schemes.

In summarising his advice, Henson warned delegates to avoid potential pitfalls; local authorities should employ the guidance provided by PPG 24, developers should investigate the local authority's requirements and determine the Noise Exposure Category zoning for the proposed site, and architects should contact an acoustic consultant over space planning and consider the acoustic implications of building fabric and ventilation.

Discussion.

Seminar Chairman Peter Frampton, senior partner of Frampton Town Planning consultancy, oversaw a lively debate during a question and answer session in which several delegates voiced frustration with the inability of planning authorities to handle the volume of applications.

It was suggested that the lack of resources in this area has lead to a risk-averse culture amongst planning officers.

One delegate asked the panel of speakers who would be liable if a contractor were to "dig up a badger and the remains of a Roman Legion?" The response came from a solicitor in the audience who commented "If someone chops a branch from a tree with a TPO, the axeman is guilty, his boss is guilty and the developer is also guilty!" Flooding also featured heavily in this session with delegates raising concern with the growing trend to pave front gardens for parking space.

Peter Bide agreed that this is a serious problem but that a requirement for permeable surfaces within the Building Regulations would create an unacceptably heavy administrative burden.

The solution, he believes lies with increased public awareness.

Concern was also raised that developers in low-lying coastal areas such as Boston do not have responsibility for flood defence.

Peter Bide shared the concern but expressed a hope that the situation would improve if the Environment Agency is involved with applications from an early stage.

Conclusions.

In drawing the meeting to a close, Peter Frampton said "Overall, emphasis lies with the quality of every planning application and we should all take appropriate measures to ensure success at the first time of asking".

"We therefore need competent specialist consultants involved at an early stage because it is difficult to retrofit the elements we have discussed today at a later stage.".

Back to top