Written evidence submitted by Teresa Sienkiewicz OBE

My reason for submitting evidence is personal experience of dealing with South Somerset District Council (SSDC) and the Environment Agency (EA) in relation to a site in the parish of Lopen where large commercial premises, some of which are speculative, have been and are being constructed on Grade 1 agricultural land on the top of a hill in the middle of the open countryside on a site which also comprises the aquifer from which local water supplies are drawn and is located in a groundwater source protection zone.  This is, in my opinion, a disgraceful abuse of the need to protect scarce natural resources, the landscape and our water supplies.  The site is also in an area where the valley is prone to flooding and the run off from the site can only add to the risk. There is no public transport and much of the building space on the site is used for distribution, so the site is not sustainable in terms of transport, and the vehicular traffic adds to local pollution.  No mitigation measures can undo or deal with the environmental harm and the inadequate conditions imposed on the developers by the EA and local council have not been enforced. 

  1. Lopen provides a microcosm of what is happening around the UK where the public is frustrated by local politicians and developers in attempts to improve their environment in the short and long term.

Executive summary

  1. I summarise my points below.

Factual information from which the committee might draw conclusions – the example of Lopenhead, Somerset

  1. The guidance asks respondents to include any factual information we have to offer from which the committee might be able to draw conclusions, or which could be put to other witnesses for their reactions.  I therefore summarise what has happened at Lopenhead to demonstrate the way in which local councils can allow substantial environmental damage to take place without mitigating measures and what might be done in the future to prevent similar cases.

 

  1. Land at Lopenhead was allocated for employment use in 2004-5 when the last local plan was being prepared.  Despite the opposition of the local plan inspector, the then Government Office for the Southwest, the Council’s own planning policy officer and the residents of Lopen, SSDC’s Councillors persisted in the allocation, stating it was employment land for the village of South Petherton (which they now acknowledge is not the case), attempting to allay local concerns by stating that the conifer screen was to be retained and B8 (distribution) use barred.  Despite this, the Council and its officers completely failed to address the issue of the need to consider an environmental impact assessment, wilfully ignoring the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and bypassing the rules on Schedule 1 development.  It went ahead and
  1. The photos shown at the end of this submission demonstrate the environmental destruction perpetrated at Lopenhead, though these obviously cannot convey the impact of the noise, traffic and ground pollution. 

 

  1. Not only has the development destroyed several acres of prime agricultural land, some of which is now used as a fork lift truck storage area as well as extensive parking, but it has caused the removal of dozens of mature conifers, which acted as a barrier to noise and pollution and which would have hidden the factories from view.  Reversing lorries can now be heard across the valley in the village of Lopen, a conservation area with a number of listed buildings which now have a view of the development.  The owner of most of the site also regularly uses a helicopter, on occasions taking off and landing several times a day, adding to the pollution and noise.

Areas where environmental protection has worsened since 2010

  1. The concept of presumption of sustainable development introduced by the NPPF has in reality not been enforced and the wording of the document is being used to argue for development anywhere. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF states;

‘To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;’

 

This is being used by SSDC to justify encroachment on to unallocated land at Lopenhead.

  1. It is clear in some areas that budget cuts have contributed to the problems we are now facing, including the disastrous flooding experienced here in Somerset.

 

  1. Finally, it seems to me that we do not have any meaningful statistics to capture environmental changes and damage such as the loss of high quality agricultural land, the increases in environmental pollution and the impact of noise, smells and traffic.  There are no standards for monitoring and it is left to the public to complain, usually to little effect unless there is a catastrophic event, because the legislation is weighted against them.  The Local Government and Parliamentary Ombudsman only act when breaches have been committed, have virtually no powers of rectification and cannot undo what has been done.  The penalties meted out to Councils and Government Agencies for breaches are insignificant. 

 

The areas in which the need for improved protection is most urgent, and the nature of the improvements required.

  1. Improved protection is most urgent across the board.

 

This is not only rational from the perspective of the agricultural sector, but from a perspective of food security.  This is a straightforward change and could be implemented immediately.

 

 

 

  1. It is worth noting that in the other employment site in the parish in the valley to the south of Lopenhead, an extension was granted on condition that a substantial number of trees (ie hundreds) should be planted to improve the environment and to shield the site from view.  The site owner persistently refused to comply with a s106 order agreed in 2001 and the Council equally consistently refused to enforce it, despite numerous requests from residents and the Parish Council.  The time limits for enforcement expired without a single tree being planted.

Recommendations for Government

  1. It is clear that some councils and developers are ignoring environmental legislation with impunity and to the detriment of the general public and the environment in which we live.  Enforcement is impossible since it is at the discretion of councils who have no interest in ensuring that conditions intended to make a development acceptable to local people who are going to be affected by it.  Where inappropriate planning decisions are made, it is immensely difficult and expensive for individuals to challenge breaches, as I have personally found to my cost.

 

  1. If the Government is serious about improving the quality of the environment, it has to take a much more robust approach to local authorities and government agencies in terms of guidance and enforcement of existing regulations and the introduction of new legislation to close loopholes.

 

  1. Furthermore, a number of professions need to enhance their own guidance and supervision of members as it is apparent that there are weaknesses in both practical and ethical guidance on environmental matters.  I include landscape architecture, planning, architecture, and the various branches of engineering.  These professions could and should play a greater part in improving our environmental record.

 

  1. In my opinion, the environmental impact assessment and other rules need to be tightened and a strict regime of penalties needs to be introduced.  It should be a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment, fines and the imposition of costs in relation to:-

 

  1. It should also similarly be an offence to:-

 

  1. It is ironic that there are criminal penalties for failing to comply with environmental permitting regulations but absolutely no penalties for failing to comply with breaches of EIA and similar regulations and other forms of environmental damage.

Policy levers

  1. As noted above, legislation and regulation needs to be heightened.  The public is already aware of the rules but impotent in the face of councils and government agencies who fail to enforce them.

 

  1. Community engagement and partnerships sound as though they are potential solutions but in Lopen, our attempts at engagement have met with stonewalling tactics from the local council and the developers.  The reality is that developers are not interested in local views, but only how much they can extract from local authorities.  A review of the s106 regime and the ease with which such contracts are overturned would make this readily apparent.

 

  1. It seems to me that a regime which includes criminal sanctions and heavy fiscal penalties, as exists for river pollution incidents, is the only way forward.  After all, the accumulated effect of inappropriate development is just as damaging.

 

  1. I have no experience of nudge techniques but do not believe that developers and businesses are in any way susceptible to them.  One only has to see the way in which planning conditions are ignored to realise that anything other than the potential for prosecution will have any impact. I also do not believe that benchmarking or league tables will make any difference.

 

  1. I do think that, with certain exceptions, there is adequate capacity for Government Agencies, local authorities and non-governmental bodies to ensure that environmentally protective measures are carried out.  If a penalty regime required costs and fines to be paid in respect of prosecution and rectification, then supervision overheads could be met from fiscal penalties.

 

  1. Alas, I do not have time to examine the European dimension, though I did use the Aarhuis Convention procedure to cap my costs when seeking judicial review to quash the decision to extend the Lopenhead site.  However, having read the document at the link below, it seems to me that in denying the public the right to seek enforcement of planning conditions, the UK is actually not complying with the EU environmental requirements.

 

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf,

  1. Finally, I attach below photographs demonstrating the extent of landscape damage and use of grade 1 agricultural land for basically distribution activities in the parish of Lopen.

 

  1. Photographic evidence             

The Google Earth aerial view dating from 2006 shows the nursery site, with a dense conifer screen and agricultural land with some greenhouses, prior to its development. 

Lopenhead in 2006 – Google Earth photo

 

 

 

 


 

The roadside view 2013

It should be noted that a further building is under construction between the two on the left of the picture and plans have been submitted for an enormous new building in the area on the right. This building is twice the size and of greater height than those on the site and the proposal is to remove the last of the conifers shown on the right of the photograph.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Lopenhead from the north in late June 2014

This shows the buildings on the skyline including one currently under construction.  The A303 is behind the trees and the buildings are fully visible in the open countryside from that road.  The proposed new building will be in the space on the left where soil has been dumped from clearing the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lopenhead viewed from the south summer 2013 –

The buildings are clearly visible on the skyline in the left of the photo.  As noted in the descriptions of the photos above, the current planning application would result in the removal of the conifers and with an even higher building on the skyline in the open countryside.

 

 

1 July 2014