Examination of Witness (Questions 315
- 339)
TUESDAY 21 MARCH 2000
MR CHRIS
SHEPLEY
Chairman
315. Can I welcome you to the final session
this morning. Could I ask you to identify yourself, for the record,
please?
(Mr Shepley) I am Chris Shepley, and I am the Chief
Planning Inspector.
316. Do you want to say anything, by way of
introduction, or are you happy for us to go straight to questions?
(Mr Shepley) I am happy to continue, thank you, Chairman.
Mrs Ellman
317. What experience does the Planning Inspectorate
have of assessing the specific needs of travelling showpeople?
(Mr Shepley) As you know, from the information we
have supplied, there have been about 20 cases in the last three
years, and similar numbers of cases going back in previous years,
where we have had to make some assessment of the needs of travelling
showpeople. The Inspectorate, as a body, relies, of course, on
the Circular and the other advice which is issued, it does its
best to make sure that the individual inspectors who are taking
those cases are aware of all the factors which are involved, and
those inspectors will then go out and seek to apply that advice
to those circumstances. It is a relatively small amount of experience,
20 cases in three years is a small number, we would have had something
like 60,000 cases altogether in those three years, of all kinds,
so our experience is slightly limited, but, nonetheless, I think,
significant.
318. Do you feel that you are fully informed
of the needs of travelling showpeople?
(Mr Shepley) I think so, but I think it has to be
said that, in each case, in each individual case, the evidence
which is put forward on both sides is critical, the needs clearly
vary from one place to another, and the issues in each case are
very different, one from another. And so, whilst inspectors have
the basic knowledge of the Circular and, as I say, the related
issues, they need to be informed by the parties at the inquiry
of the issues that relate to that particular case, and, I think,
generally, they are very well informed at inquiries by both sides.
319. Is there any specific organisation you
would turn to, to get more information, if you felt you needed
it?
(Mr Shepley) No. We would be wary of providing inspectors
with, as it were, private information which we might have sought
from an individual organisation. The inquiry system is a very
open system and the decision will be taken on the basis of the
information which is available publicly at the inquiry, or the
hearing, or whatever. So we do not provide inspectors with, as
it were, privileged information about the needs of travelling
showpeople, or anybody else, we allow that to emerge from the
evidence which is put forward in the case.
320. Is Circular 22/91 failing to meet the needs
of travelling showpeople?
(Mr Shepley) It does seem, from reading the evidence
and from looking at the casework, that the effectiveness of the
Circular has diminished over the years, and it seems almost to
be common ground amongst those who have put evidence to the Committee.
And so I think, at the least, a reminder to local authorities
of the importance of the Circular and what it contains is probably
needed.
321. Why do you think local authorities are
not mindful of the advice in the Circular?
(Mr Shepley) I think, the passage of time, I think,
in some cases, a lack of experience of dealing with the problem,
it may not have arisen in the area before, and ignorance of the
nature of the problem, of the scale of the problem, of the needs
of travelling showpeople. I think those reasons, primarily.
Mr Gray
322. Just a quick supplementary to that; should
there not be more guidance in a PPG, of one sort or another, to
back up and strengthen?
(Mr Shepley) Can I make a point here that I need to
make generally, which I hope you will recall in everything else
I say, and that is that the Planning Inspectorate is not a policy-making
organisation, it is the Department that makes policy and we do
our best to implement it. And my colleagues in the Department
get a bit annoyed when I start talking about what they ought to
be doing and how they should be advising Ministers. So I will
do it, but I would be grateful if you could bear in mind that
it is not—
Chairman
323. Wait a minute, the Department then criticises
you and your colleagues for being very slow; now, surely, that
is circular, is it not? If they made it much clearer in their
Policy Guidance, it would be much easier for you to get on with
them quickly?
(Mr Shepley) I do not think guidance can ever be clear
enough, but inspectors are well used to operating in, let us say,
a fluid situation. To answer your question, there is a danger,
first of all, in cluttering PPGs with too much guidance. There
has been the suggestion that some reference to travelling showpeople
should be included in virtually every PPG, this morning, and I
think that probably would not be very helpful, and, in general,
I think, there is a feeling, in the Department and beyond the
Department, that PPGs are already very complicated and long and
difficult and contain too much and really ought to be streamlined.
So I think that point perhaps just needs to be put, to counter
some of the points that were made earlier. As far as planning
inspectors are concerned, I have asked those who have taken cases
over the last three years what they thought, and they thought
that, from their point of view, the planning inspector's point
of view, the guidance is actually quite good, better than it is
in some areas, they understood the Circular well, they felt that
the criteria that they needed to take into account were fairly
clear, and they were reasonably happy. There will certainly be
no problem with it being strengthened, in some of the ways that
Mr Baseley just mentioned, from the Inspectorate's point of view,
but I do not feel that we see this as a huge problem at the moment.
Mr Donohoe
324. Why is it that the appeals against refusals
of planning applications are twice as successful with showpeople?
(Mr Shepley) I think there are a number of possible
reasons, I do not think anybody actually knows, and I think, again,
I have to say, it is quite a small sample of cases, so it is dangerous
to draw too many conclusions. But I think, first of all, the fact
that the Circular is not so well known as maybe it should be,
and we have talked about that already. Secondly, the fact that
these are clearly controversial cases. And that there is always
a balance. And, in answer to a question that I think Mr Gray asked,
it is possible to find good reasons, if local authorities seek
to do so, or feel inclined to do so, or are under pressure from
their local residents, or Members of Parliament.
325. But is it not the case that it is one of
these things that is easier to pass on to you than for them, themselves,
to take a positive decision; that surely is the basis of it?
(Mr Shepley) I am always wary about making that accusation,
to be honest, Mr Donohoe. I do not mean to be evasive here, but
I think local authorities do that less often than is generally
thought; because, running an appeal, the cost of running an appeal,
particularly if there is a danger of having costs awarded against
you, the time, and so on, involved, is not a straightforward thing
for a local authority. But, having said that, where there is a
difficult balance to be struck, and where it is not difficult
to find reasons for refusal, I think it may well be the case,
as is obviously,—
326. But do you believe that, because of that
and because of the evidence that is there, the hard facts that
are there, these decisions should be taken on a more regional
basis than perhaps they are at present?
(Mr Shepley) Can I finish answering the previous question,
I am sorry, because I just wanted to say that I think there are
two or three other possible reasons, one of which I think is an
increasingly severe shortage of land, and one of which, a colleague
of mine suggested, one of the inspectors suggested, when I asked
about this point, was that sometimes a better case could be made
by showmen at the earlier stage. Showmen tend to make a very good
case at the appeal stage, but at the stage of dealing with the
local planning authority, this inspector thought, the evidence
which had been brought forward by the showmen was not as good
as it might have been. And so I think the level of liaison between
showmen and local authorities needs to be improved. I have finished
on that, and I will move on to your other question, unless you
have a supplementary.
Mrs Dunwoody
327. But, almost by definition, Mr Shepley,
these people are small business people, at the local level, they
are not going to come with their planning consultant, I must be
careful how I phrase this, but they are not going to have access
to the very highly paid adviser who is going to present their
case in the best possible light. They are going to come with what
they think is a normal, straightforward business case, they are
going to say, "We have a tradition of being in this area,
we know that this is the way we have always operated, there hasn't
been a problem in the past, we now want to do this in the future."
So it is not really surprising if the gap between their initial
evidence and the final evidence is great, because in the interim
they will have been forced to spend a lot of money and come up
with a different case. That must be the same argument that could
be used against, I do not know, a scrap metal dealer, or a motorbike
firm, that it has got a problem with a yard, surely?
(Mr Shepley) Yes, I do not disagree with a word of
that, I think that is absolutely right.
328. So, therefore, it is not a question of
simply the Showmen's Guild preparing things differently, it must
be that, at some point, if the local authority was told, "There
are going to be special concessions which could apply to this
instance, for these reasons," and you yourself said that
guidance can never be too clear, you would do away with a lot
of the appeals?
(Mr Shepley) Perhaps I can try to explain what I was
saying. The issue, usually, in these cases, is to do with `very
special circumstances', and the balance between those special
circumstances and the harm that might be done by the developments,
and so on. Now, when this comes to the appeal level, the inspector
will have, usually, a great deal of information about the special
circumstances, whether the family is related to the area, how
many sites there are in the area, what the shortages are, and
so on. If that information has not been available to the local
authority, probably for the very good reasons which you describe,
then it is less likely that the local authority is going to see
the harm as being outweighed by the special circumstances. That
is what I am trying to say, and I think that is just the facts
of life in the way the system operates, that an inspector said
to me that he thought this had happened, in some cases.
Mr Donohoe
329. If I can draw a parallel between this and
what I knew as an experience in terms of the closure of schools,
in an area; where a local authority has got a small, geographical
area, it is very much more difficult in these circumstances to
close schools, because of the amount of representation that comes
from the local people, so they bring in councillors from other
parts to take the decision. Would it not be better, in that the
emphasis that you are putting on is wrong, in that respect, as
far as this is concerned, that it is down to the fact that the
local authorities are far too small in themselves to be taking
these decisions, and that they then pass it to you, and in order
to safeguard you against having that number of cases that you
do have, that you have to overturn, that it would be better for
there to be a bigger area where the development plans are on a
regional basis and not so much on a local authority basis?
(Mr Shepley) Yes. This brings us back to your previous
question, which I was not trying to avoid at all. I think there
is a case for that. In several of the decision letters there is
a reference, in the Wigan case, I think, in the Thurrock case,
by the local authority to the failure of surrounding local authorities
to provide sites, and that is a difficult issue for the inspector,
he, or she, is unlikely to have very much evidence about that.
How can this be dealt with at a regional level; again, one is
wary, the Department, I am sure, would be wary, of introducing
yet more working parties and processes into the planning system,
which is already very complicated, but there are mechanisms which
I think could be used as models. For example, there are working
parties on aggregates at a regional level, which there have been
for some years, which involve local mineral authorities, mineral
producers, and so on, discussing the needs for aggregates, the
provision of aggregates, where possible sites are, and so on;
this has been a long-established part of the planning system.
Something like that could be, I am not saying should be but could
be, introduced to deal with this issue of travelling showpeople.
The last point is, I think there is a real shortage of information
here, particularly at the regional level, and this has been touched
on already this morning. I think there does need to be a serious
improvement in the statistical information available to local
authorities and inspectors and the showmen.
Mrs Dunwoody
330. With respect, who would gather that; because,
by definition, the small businessman, in my experience, does not
quite understand how their own business relates to what is going
on around them, let alone to a much more complicated system, which
would be a regional planning acceptance of the need for a number
of sites, the definition of its use? Who would gather that information?
(Mr Shepley) I think there are a number of mechanisms,
I suggested one, which would be some sort of regional working
party; but, I think, in the end, the information initially has
to come from the showmen themselves, they are the only people
who have the information.
Chairman
331. So you think a census, really, of the needs
of regions would be very useful?
(Mr Shepley) I think a census is slightly more precise
than I would think necessary, but a sensible assessment.
Mr Donohoe
332. So do you see a role, for instance, in
the Regional Development Agencies in these circumstances?
(Mr Shepley) It is possible, yes. That would be escalating
it to a slightly higher level, and it could be, indeed, as I think
you or Mrs Ellman suggested earlier, part of regional planning
guidance. I think that, again, may be elevating it to a higher
level and complicating a process which is already difficult; but
I think a way can be found through that.
Mr Benn
333. Coming back to this question of `very special
circumstances', in the green belt, what is it, in your experience,
that an applicant has to demonstrate, in order to meet that test?
(Mr Shepley) I think there are two broad areas. The
first is need, which includes the relationship of the particular
showmen to that area, the fact that traditionally they have lived
in or resorted to that area, and so on; and the second is a lack
of alternative sites. And I think inspectors expect both of those
things, and clearly the second one, to be assessed in a very thorough
way.
334. And across how wide an area does that net
have to be cast, in order to demonstrate that there is not an
alternative site; and we heard evidence earlier about one case
being unsuccessful because Greater London had not been looked
at, for instance?
(Mr Shepley) I think it is quite difficult to generalise
about that. I am not aware of the case in Kent, but in the Bromsgrove
case, I think, from memory, it is something like 14 local authority
areas were surveyed, which seems to me to be quite generous, but
the sort of level that you might expect.
Chairman
335. You mentioned that your inspectors do not
have a lot of examples of these or a lot of experience; is there
a case for trying to get sort of a group of one or two inspectors
who specialise in these sorts of cases?
(Mr Shepley) We had a session last week for 14 inspectors,
which was organised, I must stress, before we knew that I was
going to be here today, as part of a series of courses which we
are organising, to try to discuss these issues. I heard what Mr
Baseley said about lack of consistency, and that is something
that, of course, concerns us and something that we strive to deal
with all the time, not just about travelling showpeople but on
all issues. It is a very easy accusation to make. I think the
difficulty with it is that every case is very different, and when
you read, as I have sought to do, the 20 decision letters you
can see that in each case there is a very different set of circumstances.
I think we would try to keep a reasonable number of planning inspectors,
something like 12 or 14 inspectors, involved in these cases, rather
than spreading it around the whole of the 300. I think there are
dangers in having two or three, on any issue not just on this
issue again, because they can become too close to the subject
and there could be accusations that they are bringing with them,
to a case in Scunthorpe, information which they actually discovered
in Leeds, or whatever. So we try to find a balance between spreading
the thing around, to ensure that there is no accusation of bias,
or carrying of baggage, on the one hand, and, on the other hand,
ensuring that there is some consistency between inspectors who
have got some specialist knowledge.
336. Now, looking at the cases that you have
done, is it really true that this is a problem in the South East
of England and gets less the further you move away from the South
East?
(Mr Shepley) I think I would need to count up to see
how many cases were in the South East, you may have done that.
I would guess the majority are in the South East, but there have
been difficult cases in the North West, too, for example, and
in the Midlands; and so I think it might be unwise to draw that
conclusion. But most planning problems are more serious in the
South East than they are in the rest of the country.
337. Finally, the award of costs. How do we
judge that; is the award of costs clearly an indication that you
do not think the local authority has done a very good job?
(Mr Shepley) No, it is not quite so simple as that.
The award of costs really is to do with the local authority, procedurally,
having made a mess of things, if you like. In the Warrington case,
which you are aware of, I am not sure whether you have seen the
costs decisions in the Warrington and Bromsgrove cases, I know
you have seen the decision letters, but in the Warrington case
there had been a failure, I am trying to remember which is which,
Chairman, forgive me for a moment. In one of the cases there had
been a failure to consult with the travelling showpeople community
when there had been a change of direction in the local authority,
and the inspector felt that had there been that consultation the
appeal might have been avoided, I think that was the Bromsgrove
one.
338. Yes; that is what we think.
(Mr Shepley) In the other case, in the Warrington
case, the local authority members had not gone with the officers'
recommendation, and the inspector felt that really there had not
been sufficient reason adduced by the local authority to refuse
that planning application, in other words, that their case was
very weak. So, in effect, those are procedural reasons, you could
describe it as the authority messing things up, if you like. In
the other cases where costs were sought, the inspectors all thought
that the local authority really had quite a good case and was
perfectly reasonable.
Mrs Dunwoody
339. What is the collective noun for a group
of planning inspectors: a mat?
(Mr Shepley) If you have any ideas, I would be pleased
to hear them.
Chairman: On that note, can I thank you very
much for your evidence; it was very helpful. Thank you.
|
