Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233 – 245

www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

The role of web-based environmental information in urban

planning—the environmental information system for planners
M.G. Culshaw a,*, C.P. Nathanail b, G.J.L. Leeks c, S. Alker d, D. Bridge a, T. Duffy e,
D. Fowler f, J.C. Packman c, R. Swetnam g, R. Wadsworth g, B. Wyatt g
a
British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GG, UK
b
University of Nottingham, Land Quality Management Group, School of Geography, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
c
CEH Wallingford, Wallingford, Oxon, OX10 8BB, UK
d
Environmental Consultant, 7, Black Hill, Pecket Well, Hebden Bridge, Halifax. HX7 8QS, Formerly: Land Quality Management Group,
University of Nottingham, UK
e
British Geological Survey, Murchison House, Edinburgh, EH9 3LA, UK
f
CEH Bush, Edinburgh, UK
g
CEH Monks Wood, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon, PE28 2LS, UK
Available online 20 October 2005

Abstract

The Environmental Information System for Planners (EISP) is a proof of concept web-based system designed to support
decision making within the UK planning framework by making information on environmental issues more widely accessible. It
incorporates relevant outputs from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Urban Regeneration and the Environment
(URGENT) research programme and from research directly commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). It
supports three principal planning functions carried out by local authorities: pre-planning enquiries, development control decisions
and strategic planning. Eleven environmental science themes are incorporated: Air quality, Shallow undermining, Landslide
susceptibility, Groundwater protection, Flood risk, Drainage, Land contamination, Proximity to landfill, Biodiversity, Natural and
Man-made heritage. Decision flow diagrams represent detailed analysis of workflow in each theme, taking account of best practice,
regulatory responsibilities and planning guidance. Industry-standard web technologies integrate the flows and provide access to the
system via secure web pages. Underpinning the system is an environmental geographical information system (GIS) containing up-
to-date data, information and models relevant to each theme. The modular system design allows new legislation and local priorities
and datasets to be easily incorporated. Web technology delivers information and research data that have hitherto been difficult for
the non-specialist to access and have therefore been under-exploited. The study has demonstrated a successful application of the
principles of e-Governance in an area where informed decisions commonly require specialist information. The system, if rolled out
nationally, offers potential economic benefits and efficiency savings for both planners and developers.
D 2005 NERC Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Environmental information; Decision support; Planning; Contaminated land; Flooding; Landslide; Subsidence; Biodiversity; Cultural
heritage; Air pollution; URGENT

1. Introduction

Over the last decade there has been an increasing

* Corresponding author. effort to demonstrate the relevance of applied research
E-mail address: mgc@bgs.ac.uk (M.G. Culshaw). to real-life situations. The urban regeneration and the
0048-9697/$ - see front matter D 2005 NERC Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.08.037
234 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245
environment research programme (URGENT) funded
by Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) was
designed with this in mind. Forty projects based in four
major conurbations brought together researchers and
key stakeholders to provide targeted research in areas
of common interest. One outcome of the URGENT
programme was a decision support system to assist
local authorities deal systematically and efficiently
with the environmental aspects of planning decisions.
The prototype system is the Environmental Information
System for Planners (EISP), for which additional fund-
ing was received from the UK government department
which oversees local authority planning (the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister, ODPM).
The UK framework for land use planning aims to
secure the most efficient and effective use of land in
the public interest. The planning system also helps to
make sure that development and growth are
dsustainableT, which includes not damaging the envi-
ronment for future generations. The increased empha-
sis on dsustainableT development places a greater
responsibility on local authorities to take a longer-
term view of the likely impacts of decisions involv-
ing the environment. To inform such decisions, the
planning system needs tools that link relevant science
with the practical requirements of implementing plan-
ning policy. The EISP dproof of conceptT system,
developed in collaboration with five local authorities,
Planning
Issues
process
Pre-application e.g. Flood risk
Development
Control
Strategic
planning
Pre-application
constraint report
Process runs semi-
automatically
Minimal user input
Fig. 1. Outline of EISP operation.
is intended to make available to non-specialists,
models, information and understanding covering a
wide range of relevant scientific disciplines. It uses
the worldwide web as the access vehicle, and com-
prises eleven linked modules (Air quality, Shallow
undermining, Landslide susceptibility, Groundwater
protection, Flood risk, Drainage, Land contamination,
Proximity to landfill, Biodiversity, Natural and Man-
made heritage) relating to five environmental themes.
The UK government is promoting a range of e-
government initiatives, which are intended to increase
use of information technology and web-based services
in government administration. In this context, the
EISP is closely aligned with the Planning Portal
(www.planningportal.gov.uk) and the National Project
for Planning Services (www.parsol.gov.uk)—initiatives
designed to make the planning system more transpar-
ent and accessible.
This paper describes the concept and function of
the EISP system, gives details of the individual mod-
ules, and concludes with recommendations for future
work. The prototype EISP has been applied to five
local authorities: Glasgow City, London Borough of
Newham, Swansea City, Borough of Telford and
Wrekin, and Wolverhampton City. However, to limit
disruption to individual planning offices, only a se-
lected subset of the EISP modules have been applied
to each authority.
Decision
flows
Question
GIS
(data/
Yes models)
No
Question
Outcome
Development Strategic planning
control report report
Step-by-step processing Processing based mainly on
leads to recommendation modelled data
Maximum user input Minimal user input
 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245 235

2. Overview of the system design
The EISP was designed to meet the needs of
planners operating within the local government frame-
work. Failure (in the sense of non-adoption) of a
decision support system is likely if organisational
and legislative constraints are not properly accommo-
dated. Therefore, the first and most important step in
the system design was to understand the context in
which the planner operates. The project benefited from
the early coaching from a planning consultant coupled
with structured interviews of planning authority staff.
Understanding departmental requirements within the
collaborating local authorities was essential to the
practical development of the system.
The EISP, outlined in Fig. 1, supports three prin-
cipal planning functions carried out by local authori-
ties: pre-planning enquiries; development control
decisions; and strategic planning. The legislation,
guidance and procedures that planners follow have

From page 1

Check new and Check planning

Does change in use result in risks adjacent land uses application for
to new or adjacent property? for change of use proposed land use

No Condition 45 - No development shall take

Advise Informative 18 -
This property lies within
250m of an identified
former landfill site. It may
be necessary to
incorporate remedial
measures to deal with
methane gas emissions
into the detailed design of
the proposal
No change in use
proposed, or new land use
is same as adjacent
property, or change in use
is minor e.g. fence
yes
Change in use proposed or
new land use differs from
adjacent property - Risk
assessment will be required
(Condition 45)
place until an investigation of the site has
been undertaken to ascertain whether the site
has been affected by the presence of landfill
gas. The investigation shall be undertaken in
accordance with a brief which shall be first
agreed in writing with the local planning
authority. The results of the investigation shall
be provided to the Local Planning Authority
and shall include a scheme for precautionary
measures to ensure that no build up or
ingress of gas occurs within the development.
The approved scheme shall be implemented
in full and written evidence to confirm the
completion of work provided to the local
planning authority before the development is
occupied. To ensure that the development is
adequately protected from the migration of
gas.

Check proposed
land use on yes
planning
application If no information
available, assume
site is gassing

If residential
proposed use -
Apply condition No Consult data or
Is the landfill site gassing? model
100

If non-residential
proposed use -
Apply condition 45
yes

To page 3

Fig. 2. Part of logical flow diagram representing the dProximity to landfillT constraint as defined by English planning regulations.
236 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245

been mapped onto a series of decision flow diagrams,
one for each of the modules listed in Section 1. These
break the decision making process down into discrete
steps involving: a question; interrogation of an envi-
ronmental data set or model; or external consultation.
The flow diagrams are consistent with guidance in
specific PPGs (Planning Policy Guidance notes–being
revised as PPSs–Planning Policy Statements), as pub-
lished on the ODPM website (www.odpm.gov.uk), but
also take account of any additional local policies.
Fig. 2 shows the structure of part of a typical decision
flow. Although primary legislation is changed only
rarely, subordinate guidance and practice evolve con-
tinually. The modular structure of the EISP allows
changes to be made to individual flow diagrams and
particular steps without the need to change the com-
plete system.
Industry-standard web technologies are used to in-
tegrate the flows and provide system access via secure
web pages (Fig. 3). Text aids, such as relevant regula-
tions, informatives and conditions, are included as
hyperlinks throughout the flows. Underpinning the
system is an environmental geographical information
system (GIS) that contains up-to-date data, informa-
tion and models relevant to each of the environmental
disciplines.
The planner enters the system either by entering
registration details and digitizing on-screen the outline
of the site, or by uploading a data form containing the
same information as captured by other in-house digital
systems.
The pre-planning function, rapidly and largely auto-
matically, checks the primary environmental con-
straints that affect a planning decision against relevant
GIS data layers. This is intended to help planners advise
prospective applicants, perhaps in real-time over the
telephone, of issues that, for example, may need to be
addressed in a site investigation.
The development control function, run on receipt of
a full planning application, will again identify any
primary constraint that has been triggered, and lead
the user into the relevant decision flow diagram, pro-
viding more detailed advice on, and analysis of, the
environmental concerns. Besides guidance from PPGs,
the system also provides direct access to relevant
datasets, model scenarios and scientific interpretations.
It works through the steps in the decision flow, gen-
erating automatic responses to questions using the
available data, until (1) specific user response, or
consultation with a statutory body, is indicated, (2)
an environmental site report needs to be considered, or
(3) an end point is reached, advising either acceptance
or refusal of the application. All responses are written
to a report which can be retrieved at any stage. This
report details each step, shows the datasets and asso-
ciated metadata, and identifies the relevant legislation

Web browser used by

Local Authority Planning
Officer

WWW access
protected by
password and ArcIMS GIS
service
firewall

Database of
GIS layers

Coldfusion
service

EISP Web Server Access 2000

Databases

Repository of
Coldfusion Custom Tags

Fig. 3. Information technology used to implement EISP.

 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245
or guidance—providing an audit trail for the entire
process.
The strategic planning function is an extension of
the development control function, using modelled
data to provide information at local and regional
scale.
The underpinning data used to deliver each of the
above functions have been assembled from local au-
thority sources, complemented by suitable national ref-
erence material (including environmental data holdings
of the NERC and outputs of the URGENT Programme,
such as those described in Tindall et al. elsewhere in
this volume).
None of the functions is designed to operate as a
dblack-boxT Expert System. One important design
principle was that the EISP should not supplant the
professional judgement of the planning officer. Rather,
the system is intended to be a transparent, self-doc-
umenting tool that will assist the officer to reach a
decision and to make a recommendation for accep-
tance or rejection. It is recognised that this decision
will be influenced by many other factors in addition
to the environmental considerations addressed in the
EISP.
3. Module descriptions
3.1. Introduction
The following descriptions of the eleven modules
cover their thematic scope in relation to the planning
context, the concepts and models used (including links
to the science base), and a summary of the underlying
data sources.
3.2. Air Quality module
The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland
and Northern Ireland (Defra, 2001) sets objectives
on eight different pollutants for protecting human
health. The EISP Air Quality Module focuses on
the pollutant PM10 (particulate matter). Particles
are generated from primary or secondary sources.
Primary sources release carbon particles from the
incomplete combustion of fuel, mining, quarrying,
and from brake and tyre wear in motor vehicles.
Secondary particles are formed in the atmosphere by
chemical reaction or the condensation of gases, and
sulphate and nitrate aerosols. A certain amount of
particulate matter forms naturally, for example wind
blown dust and sea salt, and biological particles
such as pollen and fungal spores. Under the Air
237
Quality Strategy the limits for PM10 have been set
as follows:
! by 2004
24-h mean: 50 Ag/m3 not to be exceeded more than
35 times/year
Annual mean: 40 Ag/m3
! by 2010
24-h mean: 50 Ag/m3 not to be exceeded more than
7 times/year;
(London: 50 Ag/m3 not to be exceeded more
than 10 times/year)
Annual mean: Scotland 18 Ag/m3, rest of UK 20 Ag/m3,
London 23 Ag/m3
These limits have been adopted by the EISP as the
primary constraint triggering the user to work through
the full flow diagram until an appropriate decision is
reached.
In addition to the flow diagram, a model has also
been developed to show the ameliorating effect on
increased PM10 (e.g. from new industrial processes)
of planting trees across the whole of the local authority
area. Trees are effective scavengers of both gaseous and
particulate pollutants from the atmosphere. By calcu-
lating the potential planting locations in the local au-
thority area, and assuming that all become dinstantT
mature woodland (10–15 years), the ambient concen-
tration of PM10 is reduced significantly. Thus new
developments that increase PM10 levels can be miti-
gated, sometimes sufficiently that the PM10 limit can
be achieved.
Air quality issues are modelled using the FRAME
(Fine Resolution Atmospheric Multi-species Exchange)
model. This is a statistical Lagrangian multi-layered
dispersion model of the transport of air parcels over
the landscape, simulating all emission, transformation
and deposition processes. Data requirements include
rainfall, wind speed, emissions and land cover. For
the EISP implementation in Glasgow, it has been ap-
plied over a 60  50 km domain at 1  1 km grid
resolution. Boundary conditions for this fine grid are
provided at the edges of the domain by a UK model
using a spatial resolution of 5  5 km.
3.3. Ground instability module
In the UK, incidents involving ground instability
pose a relatively small risk to life and health. Never-
theless, the damage caused to buildings and structures
as a result of ground movement is substantial, and costs
to the insurance industry are currently running at be-
tween o300–500 million per annum (PPG14, Annex 2).
238 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245
Planning guidance (PPG14) sets out the broad planning
and technical issues that local authorities in England
need to consider in dealing with development proposals
on unstable land. It advises local authorities to identify
areas where subsidence is likely to be a material plan-
ning consideration, and establish policies to minimise
the impact in these areas. It also indicates the additional
information that will be needed in support of a planning
application in these areas.
The EISP incorporates two instability modules cov-
ering the problems of shallow undermining in former
coalfield areas, and ground subsidence as a result of
landsliding. The modules have been developed in col-
laboration with the Borough of Telford and Wrekin in
the West Midlands. The Borough covers parts of the
Coalbrookdale Coalfield and the World Heritage Site of
the Ironbridge Gorge, both of which are affected by
stability issues.
3.3.1. Shallow undermining module (coal)
The subsidence problems presented by coal mine
workings in the UK are fairly well known and are
documented in Annex 2 to PPG14. They are mainly a
legacy of extraction methods that date back several
centuries, and involve shallow workings. Instability is
usually triggered by progressive collapse of under-
ground voids and mine shafts or subsidence of poorly
compacted fill. Some instances are caused by reactiva-
tion of geological faults, disrupting the ground surface
and forming fault scarps. Recent research (Donnelly
and Rees, 2001) has suggested that faults may be
triggered by mine-water rebound. In all cases, collapse
may take place many years after mine abandonment.
To assess shallow undermining hazard, the issues
considered were: location of shallow workings or un-
derground roadways (b 50 m depth), abandoned mine
entries (shafts, adits), workings along a coal seam
outcrop, location of restored opencast sites, position
of faults with a history of (or potential for) reactivation.
The hazard presented by each issue is difficult to quan-
tify as large variations in ground conditions may occur
within a site. Also uncertainty exists over the location
of many older workings and shafts from before mine
abandonment plans became obligatory under the Coal
Mines Regulation Act of 1872.
In areas where there is an established legacy of coal
mining, the Coal Authority defines Coal Consultation
Areas and is a statutory consultee for all planning
applications falling within such areas. The procedures
followed by the Borough of Telford and Wrekin and in
case studies in the South Wales Coalfield (as outlined in
PPG14, Annex 2, Appendix 2) have been adapted to
form the EISP decision flows. The planner is allowed to
impose conditions on any application to ensure safe
development, which for shallow undermining invari-
ably involves site investigation or a scheme of remedial
works before development begins.
Although mining records are lodged with many
public and private organisations, the Coal Authority is
the principal source of mining information and has a
statutory responsibility to maintain and provide public
access to its database holdings. From its detailed plans,
the Coal Authority has provided the EISP with a GIS of
thirteen component layers based on a 0.5  0.5 km grid
resolution. This is a trial database, and its continued
development will depend on whether it meets the needs
of local authorities and other users.
3.3.2. Landslide susceptibility module
Landslide hazard may be recognised from a previous
history of landslides or from conditions such as adverse
slope angle, geology and groundwater. Most landslides
are ancient and, if suitable precautions are taken, en-
hance the landscape rather than threaten property and
lives. New landslides can be caused by heavy rain,
undercutting by rivers or the sea, or the weathering of
rock, but more often movement is a reactivation of an
existing slide. Landslides may also be triggered artifi-
cially by dumping material on, or excavating at the foot
of slopes, or by saturating slopes with surface water.
Such movements may be difficult and expensive to
stabilise but could usually be avoided by taking expert
advice.
Planning guidance (PPG14, Annex 1) advises local
authorities dealing with the problems caused by land-
slides to: identify areas where landsliding is taking
place or that are susceptible to landsliding; control or
restrict development within these areas; and set a local
policy that identifies the criteria and information
requirements for determining applications in landslide
areas.
Landslide hazard has often been assessed using a
probabilistic approach, assuming that where there have
been many landslides in the past then there will be
many in the future. However, climate change and
human impacts on the environment could change the
hazard. The landslide module in the EISP therefore uses
a deterministic approach to assess factors that increase
the susceptibility to landslide activity such as: slope,
lithology and groundwater (Harrison and Forster,
2003). These factors are combined in a GIS to map
the relative susceptibility to landslide activity across the
area. A high rating does not necessarily mean that
landslides have happened in the past or will do so in
 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245
the future, but that they could be triggered if conditions
change. It indicates the relative importance of obtaining
additional information when changes in land use are
proposed. This information may comprise a site-specif-
ic assessment of the hazard or an investigation of the
surrounding area to assess its impact on the proposed
change or vice versa. Assessment may require a desk
study, a site visit and/or sampling, and geotechnical
testing of the materials beneath the site (and/or its
surroundings).
The output from the module consists of 5 Strategic
Development Control Zones, ranging from zone 1 (sus-
ceptibility to slope movement is unlikely) through to
zone 5 (slope instability problems are almost certainly
present and may be active).
3.4. Hydrogeology and hydrology modules
Both locally and catchment wide, the quality of
groundwater resources, the risk of flooding, and the
capacity of local drainage systems are all affected by
urban development (Lawrence and Chenery, 1996).
Groundwater in the UK is generally of good quality,
and in England contributes about 33% of public supply
(www.defra.gov.uk). In recent years, an increasing de-
terioration has been reported due to a variety of causes,
including badly located waste disposal sites, modern
agricultural practices and overpumping of resources.
One of the major sources of pollutants is from chlori-
nated solvents and hydrocarbons, which are difficult to
remediate using traditional methods. Meanwhile, dam-
age from flooding, on a national scale, is greater than
that from any other natural disaster. Approximately
10,000 km2 (8% of the land area of England) is at
risk from fluvial or tidal river flooding. Flooding can
endanger lives and damage property. Recent insurance
industry figures suggest that approximately half of all
flood damage is caused by local drainage problems
rather than inundation by main rivers. The EISP mod-
ules covering groundwater, flood risk and drainage, are
described below.
3.4.1. Groundwater protection module
Groundwater regulation is governed by national leg-
islation and increasingly by successive Directives is-
sued by the European Community. These are aimed at
maintaining and improving both surface waters and
groundwater by managing river basins in an integrated
manner. Groundwater is regulated in England and
Wales by the Environment Agency (EA) and in Scot-
land by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
(SEPA). However, local authority responsibilities set
239
out in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act
1990 extend to controlled waters. The Environment
Agency (1998) identified six main threats to ground-
water: physical disturbance of aquifers and groundwa-
ter flow, waste disposal, contaminated land, disposal of
liquid effluents and slurries, underground discharges
and diffuse pollution of groundwater.
The Environment Agency (1998) used a two-tier
approach, protecting the overall groundwater resource
by means of Groundwater Vulnerability Maps and in-
dividual groundwater sources by Source Protection
Zones. These give a framework for decision-making
but are not prescriptive and must be qualified by site-
specific considerations. The mapping of Groundwater
Vulnerability in England and Wales is based on the
estimated attenuation characteristics of the soil, the
distribution of major and minor aquifers, and the hydro-
geological characteristics of strata in the unsaturated
zone. The first generation of maps, available digitally,
is at a small scale (1:100 000) that is poorly suited to
site assessment, and does not take account of superficial
deposits. Local studies are addressing these issues to
provide more refined maps for some areas.
Source Protection Zones are designated to protect
public water supply abstractions by defining zones in
which groundwater is at greatest risk from certain
polluting activities:
! Zone 1 (Inner Source Protection Zone) is to protect
against activities that might have immediate effect
on the source. It is defined by a 50-day travel time
from any point below the water table to the source,
subject to 50-m minimum radius.
! Zone 2 (Outer Source Protection Zone) is defined by
a 400-day travel time or 25% of the source catch-
ment area, which ever is larger.
! Zone 3 (Total Catchment) is defined as the total area
needed to support the abstraction or discharge from
the protected groundwater source.
The shape and size of the zones is controlled by hydro-
geological conditions and the way that groundwater
abstraction is operated. Within the EISP, the ground-
water protection module follows these EA guidelines.
A restricted version of the full decision flow has been
implemented for the London Borough of Newham,
using the EA’s Groundwater Vulnerability and Source
Protection Zone data.
3.4.2. Flood risk module
In England, guidance on development and flood risk
is given by ODPM in PPG25. This states that local
240 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245
planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is
properly managed, but that the Environment Agency
has the lead role in advising on flood issues, both at a
strategic level and in relation to planning applications.
The Agency is a statutory consultee for certain classes
of development, and lists other types of development on
which it wishes to be consulted. PPG25 also states that
developers are responsible for (a) providing an assess-
ment (by a suitably qualified competent person) of the
flood risk caused by their development and (b) satisfy-
ing the local authority that the site can be developed
and occupied safely. PPG25 lists the issues to be cov-
ered by a Flood Risk Assessment. Local planning
authorities may rely on the developer’s assessment,
subject to any views expressed by consultees.
In Wales, the responsibilities are similar, with guid-
ance on development and flood risk given by the Na-
tional Assembly of Wales, Technical Advice Note 15
(TAN15)—which includes some differences from
PPG25. In Scotland the 32 Local Authorities retain
the lead role on flooding, while guidance on Planning
and Flooding is given by the Scottish Executive in
Scottish Planning Policy 7 (SPP7). Again this contains
some differences from PPG25. The current EISP flood
risk module implements just the PPG25 guidance.
Flood Risk Assessment must address the risk to the
development itself, as a consequence of its location, and
also the impact on flooding at local or broader catch-
ment scales, such as (1) loss of capacity for flood
storage on floodplains due to diversions or embank-
ments, or (2) increased downstream flood flows due to
increased impermeable surfaces coupled with hydrauli-
cally efficient drainage systems. The flood module
addresses (1) by covering risk to the site from its
location with respect to existing floodplain areas. Issues
of local drainage (2) are covered by a separate flow
(drainage).
PPG25 presents a dsequential approachT to the types
of development that can be allowed in different flood
risk zones. This comprises, in simplified terms:
! Zone 1, where flooding is extremely unlikely (rarer
than once every 1000 years): any type of develop-
ment may be considered.
! Zone 2, where flooding is likely to occur between
once in 100 and once in 1000 years: most types of
development may be considered, but flood resistant
construction may be appropriate, and infrastructure
such as hospitals and depots should include emer-
gency access arrangements.
! Zone 3, where flooding is likely more than once in
100 years, is partitioned into:
(a) Existing developed areas: development may be
considered if adequate flood defences are pro-
vided (with warnings and evacuation). Areas
already defended should be preferred; areas suit-
able for future flood defences should be avoided.
(b) Un- or sparsely developed areas: development is
not usually suitable unless lower risk areas are
not available. Development must have flood
defences, should not impede flood flows, and
should provide compensatory flood storage area.
(c) Functional flood plains: only suitable for recre-
ational use or (exceptionally) essential infrastruc-
ture (with flood defences and compensation
storage).
Note that the Functional flood plain is defined in
PPG25 as where water regularly flows in times of
flood; it may be taken as the area that floods more
than once every 10 years.
The sequential approach has been incorporated into
the EISP flood risk module, together with spatial data
sets to define: the three main flood zones; the existing
developed areas; and the extent of existing flood
defences. Initially, the flood zone maps were still
being developed (by the Centre for Ecology and Hy-
drology [CEH] and others), and the prototype EISP
used test versions. Final maps have now been supplied
to all English and Welsh local authorities, and can also
be seen in the dmy backyardT zone of the EA website
(http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk).
3.4.3. Drainage module
All but the simplest of planning applications will
have to provide outline details of how the drainage of
both foul (domestic wastewater) and surface (rainwater)
water will be achieved. Subject to standard charges,
developers have the right to connect to existing public
foul and surface water sewers (owned by local sewer-
age authorities). Otherwise, in remote areas, foul drain-
age may be to an on-site septic tank (providing basic
treatment with effluent disposal by soakage into the
soil), and surface runoff may be to soakaway or a
local watercourse. In both cases, discharge permissions
may be required from the Environment Agency. While
connection to public sewers is preferred for foul drain-
age, greater use of soakaways and other on-site proce-
dures (e.g. porous pavements and ponds) is being
encouraged to reduce the volume and rate of runoff to
downstream pipes and watercourses. The aim is to limit
both the increase in flood risk and the washoff of
pollutants caused by the development, providing Sus-
tainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) that minimise dam-
 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245
age to the downstream environment (PPG25, CIRIA,
2001; EA, 2003).
Local planning authorities are responsible for ensur-
ing that drainage is provided properly, but this often
requires a partnership approach with developers, sew-
erage undertakers and the EA (SEPA in Scotland). The
EA’s role is crucial, providing advice at a strategic level
and for planning applications. For large developments
(typically a hectare or more) it will set allowable dis-
charge rates to the downstream environment, and will
audit discharge calculations. The sewerage undertaker’s
role is also crucial. In large developments they may
specify a maximum discharge, and will usually agree to
adopt new collector sewers as public sewers, provided
they are designed and built to a required standard. Local
planning authorities thus coordinate the approach to
drainage, rather than review the developers’ designs.
The EISP drainage module does not therefore generate
automatic answers to questions, but gives layered hy-
pertext-based guidance on the issues involved.
The flow logic follows current recommendations
(PPG25, TAN15, SSP7) by ensuring the use of SuDS
based surface drainage whenever dpracticably possibleT.
However, the SuDS approach is still being developed:
design criteria and procedures are uncertain, and issues
of ownership and maintenance need to be addressed.
The drainage flow provides a simple question and
answer format, backed up by summaries from relevant
codes and guides.
While the drainage module is mainly concerned with
surface water, foul drainage is also included for com-
pleteness and to clarify some of the issues involved.
Given the planners coordinating role, the module does
not currently include modelling. However a simple
method to estimate pre-development runoff rates is
discussed and is described in one of the summary
documents. This method together with a simple drain-
age design model and the necessary spatial databases of
rainfall, soil type, and drainage layout could be devel-
oped for future inclusion in the flow.
3.5. Land contamination
The industrial heritage of the British Isles has left a
legacy in many areas of dereliction and pollution. Over
150 years of resource extraction and industrial produc-
tion have generated a cocktail of waste products that
has leached into the ground. Legislation to control
industrial processes, pollution and waste disposal has
only really been introduced in the last 20 years. There-
fore, new build and re-development projects must con-
sider the historical use of the land to assess the risk
241
from any land contamination that could present a threat
to organisms, waters or new structures associated with
the development.
Other planning concerns on land contamination re-
late to landfill and the emission of hazardous gases
(mainly methane and carbon dioxide) from bio-degra-
dation of waste disposal products. The planning re-
quirement is to identify situations where there is the
possibility of risk and to ensure that specialist assess-
ment and mitigation is carried out.
3.5.1. Land contamination module
Land Contamination is regulated by a number of
statutory instruments, including the Environmental Pro-
tection Act 1990, Water Regulations 1991 and the
Environment Act 1995. The primary objectives are to
protect humans, controlled waters, ecosystems and
property from the effects of pollution that has contam-
inated the ground, subsurface or surface/ground waters.
A key concept is that of a dsignificant pollutant
linkageT—a source-pathway-receptor linkage that pre-
sents an unacceptable risk to a specified receptor. Risk
is evaluated using generic assessment criteria, such as
the Soil Guideline Values and/or site-specific assess-
ment criteria.
Development controls dealing with land contamina-
tion can be found in every local plan, but are usually the
responsibility of the Contaminated Land Officer. How-
ever, the planner has a duty to ensure that any remedi-
ation proposed for identified contaminants is sufficient
to protect possible receptors. Therefore, it must be
possible to check any conceptual model or report pre-
sented with the development proposal for possible pol-
lutant linkages.
PPG23 and PPG26 (currently available in draft for
consultation) and equivalent planning policy documents
in Scotland (Pan 33) and Wales (Planning Policy
Wales), form the basis for the Land Contamination
module within the EISP. This module identifies the
presence of any potential pollutant linkages within or
adjacent to a proposed development site. As pathways
are likely to be site-specific, the planner must determine
if sources and receptors actually coincide. If they do, a
risk assessment of any potential significant pollutant
linkages should be requested. This should identify the
main sources and receptors and form a basis against
which to assess reports submitted by developers.
The EISP does not seek to characterise specific
contaminants present on a site (this requires a site
investigation), but from key references (Defra and
EA, 2002) it suggests which contaminants might be
present given the previous land use (DoE, 1996).
242 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245
Neither does it attempt to assess the risk presented by
such linkages (this requires specialist environmental
consultants), but it advises on issues that may be
relevant and where risk assessment is required. Si-
milarly, it does not address pathways (site specific) or
evaluate proposed monitoring techniques (omitted
from the proof-of-concept version).
The pre-planning function focuses on identifying
contamination sources. In this case the primary con-
straint has several parts: is the land (or adjacent land)
classified as (or likely from previous land use to be)
subject to man made (or natural) contamination. If any
part is triggered, processing the full development pro-
posal will diagnose the circumstances.
The development control function uses the complete
module, with sub-modules that determine Sources and
Receptors, and separate sub-modules for the different
receptors—humans, buildings, ecosystems, agriculture,
surface water and groundwater. The location and type
of contamination is identified first; then each of the
receptor modules is processed in turn, using a look-up
table to identify the potential pollutant linkages. For
practical purposes the system assumes that people will
always need to be considered.
The Source Determination Module combines digital
information on historical land use, known contamina-
tion, contaminated sites under Part IIA and natural
contamination, with the Industry Profiles list (DoE,
1996), and Tables 2.3 and 2.4 from Defra and Environ-
ment Agency (2002). The system reports a list of
possible contaminants for each source; in this context,
a dsourceT is an area of land, delimited by the operator
as a polygon overlay on a topographic map. The resul-
tant list is indicative only. Once receptors have been
identified, the list of contaminants is refined by refer-
ence to Tables 2.1 and 2.2 in the Defra/Environment
Agency document. The system reports those contami-
nants related to specific receptors that must be checked
to determine whether a risk assessment is necessary.
Note that this list is not exhaustive, as it has been
derived from a single set of guidelines. Nevertheless,
it demonstrates the potential for a fuller set of contami-
nants to be incorporated in an operational version of the
system.
3.5.2. Proximity to landfill module
Development near landfill sites in the UK is subject
to strict legislative controls. The Environment Agency
is currently developing policy for development on or
near gassing landfill sites. There have been past inci-
dents, where buildings have exploded due to the build-
up of methane within foundations and where personnel
in service conduits have been at risk of asphyxiation
due to high levels of carbon dioxide (HMSO, 1991).
Where development is proposed within 250 m of
the boundary of a landfill site, specialist advice should
be sought. The 250 m limit is used as a primary
constraint to inform pre-planning enquiries of potential
problems. Where a site encroaches within this limit, the
full flow diagram is triggered. The EISP module also
considers whether the landfill site is gassing, the type
of development (residential, commercial, industrial,
retail, open space and gardens) and whether it is a
new development or an extension to an existing devel-
opment. The module accesses two GIS datasets: (1) a
250 m buffer around gassing landfills (compiled from
local authority, Environment Agency and BGS sources
showing areas of landfill and their status (open/closed,
licensed/unlicensed, gassing/non-gassing)) and (2) land
use (compiled from several GIS layers supplied by the
local authority—the Borough of Telford and Wrekin, in
the case of the demonstrator).
3.6. Urban ecology and landscape
Conservation of the UK’s natural capita1 is an im-
portant policy goal, bound up with a large and complex
array of international, European and national legisla-
tion. Planners have a critical role to play in this process,
either by constraining inappropriate or damaging devel-
opment or actively promoting renewal of degraded
habitat. Specific planning guidance on environmental
issues is given in PPG7 (Countryside) and PPG9 (Na-
ture Conservation). However, these tend to be indica-
tive rather than prescriptive. The guidance with respect
to biodiversity and nature conservation is sometimes
unclear, with numerous gaps especially relating to non-
designated habitat and species. Within the EISP two
separate decision flows are used to cover the key envi-
ronmental issues of biodiversity and Natural Heritage
Designations.
3.6.1. Biodiversity module
Biodiversity covers a range of nature conservation
issues relating to both species and habitat. Key pieces
of UK legislation include: (1) The Countryside and
Rights of Way Bill 2000; (2) Environment Act 1995;
(3) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1968; (4) National
Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; (5)
Hedgerow Regulations 1997; (6) European Birds Di-
rective (79/409/EEC); (7) European Habitats Directive
(92/43/EEC); (8) PPG2 (Greenbelts); (9) PPG7 (Coun-
tryside); (10) PPG9 (Nature Conservation); (11) PPG20
(Coastal Planning); (12) Planning Policy for Wales and
 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245
associated Technical Advice Notes. In addition, a key
role has been played by the UK Biodiversity Action
Plan (UK BAP).
The scope of the Biodiversity flow is limited at
present to legislation covering England and Wales.
Specific reference has not yet been made to any addi-
tional requirements imposed by legislation from the
Scottish Parliament.
All of the core nature conservation issues are dealt
with within the Biodiversity flow. Due to the complex-
ity of this topic, the flow covers two key areas, namely
habitat and species. The species component has two
other subsections covering trees and hedgerows. These
four sections are all worked through in turn but to the
user the flow is seamless. Within these four themes the
key issues addressed are as follows:
! Habitat: Semi-natural habitat, Priority habitats in-
cluding Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priorities
and the Local BAP, Green wedges/belt, Landscape
protection areas, Green corridors, Pocket ecological
sites (small areas of local nature conservation inter-
est), Brownfield sites.
! Species: Key species protected by legislation under
the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (this includes
species such as badgers, hares, bats, birds of prey,
etc.) UK BAP species of conservation concern.
! Trees: Any trees on site, Tree Preservation Orders.
! Hedgerows: Any hedgerow present, Hedgerows in
open countryside, covered by the Hedgerow Regula-
tions, UKBAP species in hedgerows.
The habitat part of the system is better underpinned
by supporting datasets than the species part. Many local
authorities have their own land use and habitat data,
available in GIS format. In terms of species protection
and the UK BAP, protection of habitat does help to
protect many species. However, not all species are
confined to land, which is likely to be protected through
designation. Some (such as bats for example) can make
their homes in the unlikeliest places (derelict buildings
on brownfield sites, for example) and so their particular
cases are dealt with separately under species.
The species part starts by identifying dkey speciesT
which need consideration outside of their associated
habitats and clarifying their legal protection.
The tree part of the flow deals with Tree Preser-
vation Orders for which there are well-established
procedures within local authorities. However, they
can be reactive in nature and valued trees can be
lost with the development process. This part of the
flow encourages the user to consider all the trees on
243
the site and to encourage protection of native trees
where possible.
Hedgerows are dealt with in the final part of the
biodiversity flowchart. The hedgerow regulations have
defined dimportant hedgerowsT within the open coun-
tryside and these criteria are used directly within the
system. The same approach is applied to all hedgerows,
urban or rural to encourage consideration of the role of
urban hedgerows in biodiversity within towns. The UK
Biodiversity Action Plan forms a key part of this flow
and makes specific reference to the Local Biodiversity
Action Plan.
Datasets for Swansea City Council were used within
the prototype system. These datasets were relatively
complete and many habitat layers were available as
up-to-date GIS layers. The only dataset which was
used to supplement these local datasets was the CEH
Land Cover Map 2000 which was used to extract
information about the location of priority habitats with-
in the local authority area. Notable gaps in data relate to
species datasets. Local authorities generally do not hold
information about the distribution of priority animal
and plant species, which currently resides in many
different places. It is therefore frequently necessary to
acquire suitable data, often in an ad hoc fashion, from
external sources, such as Wildlife Trusts, Local Record
Centres, National Record Centres or specially commis-
sioned surveys.
The Swansea area of South Wales does not as yet
have a Local Record Centre and so there is no one
repository of species data. Lack of basic information of
this sort affects the ability of the local authority to make
quick decisions about development. The flowchart fre-
quently requires the user to seek information about
species distributions and directs the user to possible
sources including the Local Wildlife Trusts, the Coun-
tryside Council for Wales and non-governmental orga-
nisations such as the RSPB. For this component of the
EISP to work more efficiently would require the Local
Authority to have digital access to species data. This is
already achievable in areas where Local Records Cen-
tres exist with appropriate levels of IT. Ultimately, the
National Biodiversity Network (www.nbn.org.uk) will
deliver much of the necessary functionality nationally
across the internet.
No formal models were used within the biodiversity
designation flowcharts. There were a number of reasons
for this, but the main one was a lack of maturity and
development of ecological models for urban areas.
Many of the species/habitat type models are relatively
noisy (in that explanatory factors often only account for
small amounts of variance in the model). None of the
244 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245
ecological work funded through URGENT fitted clearly
into the framework of the EISP. The final results of the
urban tree planting project (Owen et al., 2003) could be
linked in as information about which species to consid-
er when planting trees in urban areas, but the other
projects were too far from practical application at the
development control end of the planning process.
3.6.2. Natural heritage designation
The natural heritage designation flow (so named to
distinguish it from built heritage) covers many key
aspects of nature conservation. The following desig-
nations are implemented within this flow: RAM-
SARs, SACs and SPAs, National Parks and AONBs
National Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI), Ancient Woodlands, Local Nature
Reserves (LNRs), Historic Parks, Country Parks,
Green wedges/belts.
All of the designated land issues are dealt with
within the Natural Heritage Designations flow. This
covers international, national and local designations in
order of legislative importance and has been tailored to
incorporate Swansea’s own local designations (such as
green wedges, local nature reserves, etc). Environmen-
tal Impact Assessments are dealt with briefly at the start
of this flow. The decision flow works by identifying all
areas of designation present on the site of interest.
Many of the decisions within this part of the system
can be made automatically, based on spatial searches
using the underlying GIS. Each designated area has a
bzone of influenceQ around its border. The size of this
zone varies depending on the site but tends to be bigger
for internationally important sites (such as RAMSAR
wetlands) than local sites and currently ranges from 100
m to 1 km. International and national designations have
statutory protection under law, whilst local designations
are part of the local authority planning policy guide-
lines. As with the biodiversity module, natural heritage
mainly uses GIS datasets created by the collaborating
local authority. However, many of the designated sites
are available in GIS form from English Nature and the
Countryside Council for Wales.
3.6.3. Man-made heritage
The historic built environment is protected by a
number of statutory instruments in order to preserve
historical buildings of architectural and industrial im-
portance. Where such sites are well managed and ac-
cessible they are an educational, cultural and tourism
resource, as well as a source of local revenue, particu-
larly in declining industrial areas. Development con-
trols can be found in every local plan to preserve
ancient artefacts and historically significant sites.
PPG15 and PPG16, applied in the Telford and Wrekin
council area, were used as the basis for the Man-Made
Heritage decision flow, although we recognise that they
are currently under review by the ODPM.
The flexibility of the system is demonstrated by a
sub-module that deals specifically with local planning
and management of the Ironbridge Gorge World Heri-
tage Site (Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Strategy
Group, 2001). Although targeted at the particular local
conditions here, the module is written in a way that
would allow it to be similarly tailored to other World
Heritage sites, of which there are currently 22 in the
UK. The module also demonstrates other wider heritage
issues, including conservation, listed buildings and
landscape.
4. Conclusions and future development
The Environmental Information System for Planners
has been developed to demonstrate the value to urban
planning of making environmental information more
widely accessible through the World Wide Web. The
system is designed for use within the UK planning
framework, and is configured to support three planning
functions: pre-application advice, development control
and strategic planning.
Scientifically, the system has achieved several im-
portant objectives: It is the first web-based decision
support tool that specifically addresses the environ-
mental planning needs of the local authority sector;
the environmental topic logic is not available from
any other system. The decision flow charts, which
underpin individual environmental modules, represent
the most detailed analysis of workflow yet carried out
in the selected areas of the science, taking into ac-
count best practice, regulatory responsibilities and
planning guidance. The system is using state-of-the-
art web technology.
Feedback from the five local authorities who have
collaborated in the project is very positive, and there is
recognition that the system represents an important step
towards faster and improved decision-making. Local
authorities have acknowledged that it can provide
added value in a number of key areas: efficiency sav-
ings through early recognition of environmental issues;
consistent reporting that follows statutory procedures
and best practice (as set out in planning guidance); and
improved awareness amongst non-specialists of the
extent, significance and implications of environmental
issues. The EISP has been developed in recognition of
the importance of emerging national e-government
 M.G. Culshaw et al. / Science of the Total Environment 360 (2006) 233–245
initiatives. However, there are indications that the sys-
tem may have wider European uses. Discussions during
the development of the EU thematic strategy on the
urban environment have considered the active encour-
agement for planning and management of the larger
urban areas. Such management would benefit from the
EISP being available to the relevant authorities and
would speed up the development of urban environmen-
tal management plans. The EISP has been developed
for use within the UK planning frameworks, but the
general principles, architecture and user interface are
convertible for use in other legal domains. EC initia-
tives such as PEGASUS (http://www.eurocities.org/
pegasus), www.CABERNET.org.uk, PLUS (http://
www.plus-eura.org/) and http://www.NORISC.com
have identified the need for municipality based tools
for environmental management. The EISP is uniquely
placed to provide multi-stakeholder understanding of
the environmental aspects of urban management es-
poused by CABERNET, to integrate site investigation
data valued by NORISC and to inform municipal lea-
ders informed by PEGASUS and PLUS. It may also,
even in its UK format, contribute to the rest of Europe
as a training aid and demonstrator of how to integrate
environmental understanding and information. This has
been recognized as an urgent need for Central and
Eastern Europe (Pletnicka et al., 2005).
Acknowledgments
The research would not have been possible without
the support of the NERC URGENT programme and the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which jointly
funded the research.
The advice of the project steering group is warmly
acknowledged: Brian Marker (ODPM), Peter Annett
(ODPM), Graham Fairhurst (Borough of Telford and
Wrekin), George Fordyce (National House-Building
Council), Paul Harrison (MRC Institute for Environ-
ment and Health), Steve Spode (Welsh development
Agency), Neil Veitch (Environment Agency), and Detlef
Grimski (German Federal Environment Agency).
245
The patient help of Andy Arrick of Roger Tym and
Partners in developing the team’s understanding of the
British planning system is also gratefully acknowledged.
This paper is published with the permission of the
Executive Director of the British Geological Survey
(NERC).
References
CIRIA. Sustainable urban drainage systems. Design Manual for Eng-
land and Wales. ISBN 0 86017 522 7, 2001.
Defra. The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/
strategy/index.htm. 2001.
Defra and Environment Agency. Potential Contaminants for the As-
sessment of Land R and D publication. CLR 8 www.defra.gov.uk/
environment/landliability/pdf/CLR8.pdf, 2002.
DoE. Industry profiles. (various) [www.defra.gov.uk/environment/
landliability/intro.htm], 1996.
Donnelly LJ, Rees JG. Tectonic and mining induced fault reactivation
around Barlaston on the Midlands Microcraton, North Stafford-
shire. Q J Eng Geol 2001;34(2):195 – 214.
Environment Agency. Policy and practice for the protection of
groundwater. London7 Stationery Office; 1998.
Environment Agency. Framework for Sustainable Drainage Systems
(SuDS) in England and Wales. Consultation document. National
SuDS Working Group, May, 2003. www.environment-agency.
gov.uk/commondata/105385/suds_book.pdf. October, 2003.
Harrison M, Forster A. The application of GIS modelling to the
assessment of geohazard potential at a national scale. Proceedings
of the Annual Conference of the International Association for
Mathematical Geology. Sept. 7-13, Portsmouth, 2003.
HMSO. Waste management paper 27: landfill gas. London7 Stationery
Office; 1991.
Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Strategy Group. Ironbridge Gorge
World Heritage site management plan. Telford and Wrekin
Council; 2001.
Lawrence AR, Chenery C. Urban groundwater. In: McCall GJJ, De
Mulder EFJ, Marker BR, editors. Urban geoscience. Rotterdam7
AA Balkema; 1996.
Owen SM, MacKenzie AR, Stewart H, Donovan R, Hewitt CN.
Biogenic volatile organic compound flux from an urban tree
canopy. Ecol Appl 2003;13:927 – 38.
Pletnicka J, Jackson J, Nathanail CP, LEPOB: Lifelong Educational
Project on Brownfields. Proceedings of International Conference
on Urban Land Management, Belfast, April 2005. www.cabernet.
org.uk/cabernet2005.