The hazardous substances framework governs the siting of
establishments containing hazardous substances in order to
prevent major accidents and limit the impact on life and the
environment when they do take place. It achieves these aims
through setting limits on the amount of dangerous substances that
can be stored on a site and providing the planning framework
required for the use of such materials to be approved.
During its membership of the EU, the UK and its devolved
governments were required to follow a broadly consistent approach
in accordance with EU law. The four UK governments are developing
a common framework to facilitate a co-ordinated approach to
land-use planning policy in relation to hazardous substances.
The inquiry will form the scrutiny part of the process for
establishing the common framework and the processes governing it.
It will also examine how effective it will be in supporting a
combined approach across governments in the UK and provides
mechanisms for resolving any disputes that arise.
Terms of reference
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee wants to
hear your views. It welcomes submissions from anyone with answers
to the questions in the terms of reference. More information
about how to submit evidence is available here.
The Committee invites evidence on the detail of the provisional
framework. In particular, submitters might like to consider the
following questions:
1. Is the government right to conclude that regulatory
consistency across the four nations is not necessary?
2. On the consequences of policy divergence, is the government
right to conclude, as it does in the framework, that "relaxed
hazardous
substances standards would not bring a significant enough benefit
to operators to influence which administration they set up
business in to the point where this would distort the internal
market".
3. In the proposed framework, the UK government commits to
consulting devolved administrations before ratifying amendments
to either
relevant international convention. Is a non-legislative
commitment to consult sufficient?
4. Is the process for dispute resolution satisfactory?
