Examination of witnesses (Questions 298
- 319)
WEDNESDAY 5 APRIL 2000
MR TONY
BURTON and MR
NEIL SINDEN
Chairman
298. Welcome to the Committee for the final
session this morning. Can you identify yourselves for the record?
(Mr Burton) Thank you, Chairman. I am Tony Burton,
I am the Assistant Director at CPRE and on my right is Neil Sinden
who is CPRE's Head of Planning and Local Government.
299. Do you want to say anything by way of introduction
or are you happy to go straight to questions?
(Mr Burton) We are happy to go straight to questions.
Christine Butler
300. It is interesting that you are suggesting
third party rights of appeal based on an item which is contrary
to the local development plan, in other words a departure. Would
it not be reasonable to expect that the local planning authority
notify the Government office of such departures. How do you see
the link up between that specific suggestion of your's limited
to departures from the local plan and the Human Rights Act? Do
you not foresee any other circumstances which might justify a
third party right of appeal?
(Mr Burton) I think the implications of the Human
Rights Act are still working their way through the system and
the policy debate. I do not think we have seen the end of the
interpretations of that Act, although every day seems to bring
additional insights.
301. I just wonder why you suggest that one
when you know that maybe there is a duty of care on the part of
the local planning authority to so notify? Why are you suggesting
that?
(Mr Burton) The main reason we focused on the third
party right of appeal in relation to departure applications is
because the public interest has been embodied in the local plan
and structure plan. Communities and others have invested time
and effort engaging in preparation of the development plan through
consultation, responding to drafts, and through inquiries. The
confidence they have in the planning system is dramatically diminished
if when, on the first occasion, the plan they have spent the last
three years working on is overridden by the very local authority
with which they have been working. We have time and time again
faced a situation where time and effort and goodwill has gone
into working through the system and getting an agreed, shared
sense of direction and vision for an area and then, in response
to much more short term, much more narrowly drawn considerations,
that plan has been put to one side and local authorities are pushing
ahead with departures.
302. You could be flexible and see other circumstances
where it would be merited? For instance, if thousands of people
are up in arms about something and they felt they had a really
good point to make, that could be heard? You are not sticking
to limiting it to departures?
(Mr Burton) No. Another example which we have highlighted
in the recent past has been where local authorities have given
themselves planning consent and the need for effective safeguards
against the abuse of that system.
303. Some would say, as probably local authorities
would, "We cannot have this. It will just clog up the system
and we will never get our job done." What would you say to
them bearing in mind you have calculated that only 0.5 per cent
of such applications would be potentially subject to third party
right of appeal?
(Mr Burton) I think there is a lot of nonsense talked
about the way in which a third party right of appeal would clog
up the system. I do not think the evidence is there. If we are
talking about applying it to departure applications then we estimate
that is something like half of one per cent of all applications.
304. How do you get that half one per cent?
(Mr Burton) All departure applications have to be
notified to the Secretary of State and it is clear from the information
that has been made available on the number of applications which
have been notified to the Secretary of State, although it varies
from year to year, that that is the broad estimate of the total
number of applications which are coming in.
305. If I were to take you back to your previous
answers that you are still flexible, it is still an evolving situation,
you are concerned about the local development plan not losing
its integrity and not, on the human rights issue, going over the
top and denying the rights of third parties who have helped to
develop it, if you were to go to a wider remit so that you were
to include maybe some other justifiable instances or criteria
that might produce a third party right of appeal, would that still
be okay? Would that still not clog up the system if it was sensibly
formatted?
(Mr Burton) It would depend on the extent to which
the system was extended beyond that which we are suggesting. There
would also be potential mechanisms to filter out essentially obstructive
appeals or appeals without substance. There could be a two-stage
process essentially to filter out unnecessary appeals if you got
into a situation where the potential range of applications for
which this right could be exercised was very significant. But
we are a long way from clogging up the system from the starting
point that we are suggesting.
306. Just moving on a little, there are a lot
of policy guidance notes coming forward and a lot of reviews and
regional planning, which you know all about. There is such a plethora
and they have been coming fairly quickly recently. Do you think
the Inspectorate is up-to-date on all this?
(Mr Burton) I think the Inspectorate needs to demonstrate
that they are helping the system and moving the debate forward
and positively advancing the Government's objectives which are
set out in PPGs. There are too many instances where we find that
the system is still catching up with where national policy has
got to and where government statements are being made. We heard
this morning from the Inspectorate about weekly guidance notes.
It would be interesting to see what they say and for those to
be made available. There is certainly a need for the Inspectorate
to make itself more open to the wider policy debate. There have
been occasions when CPRE has had the opportunity to talk to assembled
members of the Inspectorate but they are few and far between.
It does need to expose itself more to the context within which
it is working over and above the formal statements of policy,
PPGs, parliamentary statements and PQs.
307. You also said it has not been not accountable
enough in its methods and procedures as well as its raison
d'etre, how it is thinking about policy and whether it is
willing to be tested in those ways. You are also suggesting that
there should be a strengthened policy unit within the Inspectorate.
Could you briefly describe how that might operate?
(Mr Burton) It could, on a number of fronts, be both
a mechanism which co-ordinates the communication of guidance to
the Inspectorate and which examines the extent to which the Inspectorate's
decisions are fully addressing the shifts in policy. It could
therefore be in itself an internal auditing mechanism, so taking
the bigger picture and saying whether the Inspectorate is carrying
forward government policy objectives.
Chairman
308. Is there not a problem for the Planning
Inspectorate in that they have to make a decision based on the
state of government guidance at the point at which they close
a inquiry and yet their report is going to be read often two or
three months later, sometimes longer than that if the government
department delays it, when there will have been substantial changes
to government policy but the Inspector is forbidden to take that
into account when preparing his report.
(Mr Burton) That is the case but that is for a relatively
small number of appeals. The majority of appeals are decided by
the Inspectorate and not by the Secretary of State. Yes, we are
in a moveable policy debate and thankfully we are because many
of the things that are coming forward now are moving the debate
forward very positively from the environmental perspective. There
is always the safeguard, and it has been exercised by the Secretary
of State on more than one occasion, to re-open the inquiry to
take on board additional evidence and there have been a number
of high profile cases where that has happened in recent times.
Those safeguards are there although clearly one has to have one
eye on the clock in terms of the time with which you are going
to have to make the decision. There is this need generally for
the Inspectorate to be able to take a strategic perspective about
whether it is really driving the policy change forward in the
way that Ministers are suggesting is necessary.
Christine Butler
309. Could we have examples for the Committee
of anywhere where you think the Inspector has not been up to speed
with policy. If you want to send a note in because of time—
(Mr Sinden) There have been a number of cases recently
relating to housing development where we have seen a degree of
variation in inspectors' decisions which are not justified by
the current state of play with respect to policy.
Chairman: If we could have a note on that it
would be helpful.
Mr Blunt
310. In your evidence to us you say that there
is a particular need to develop measures of quality which embrace
outcomes in terms of quality of development and contribution to
environmental objectives. In practical terms what does that mean?
(Mr Sinden) This is a particularly important area
in our view. It seems to us that the Inspectorate's targets and
its performance measures focus more or less exclusively on time
limits and efficiency. The very limited measures of quality that
exist are in relation to the proportion of decisions subject to
justified complaints and do not currently reflect the role that
the Inspectorate has as an agent in helping deliver government
policy. So, as you have indicated, we are keen to encourage the
Inspectorate and others to think about how broader targets of
quality could be developed in terms of the quality of development,
and in terms of the role the Inspectorate is playing to assist
the delivery of government policy. I think the Inspectorate's
Annual Report could address this issue in relation to key policy
targets, such as targets for the development of previously used
land and buildings. We also feel that a wider survey of the views
of customers and those that engage with the Inspectorate, as part
of an annual review process, could help in developing broader
measures of quality in terms of Inspectorate decisions. Of course
the advisory panel for the Inspectorate has a potential role to
play in this respect.
Mr Blunt: You said there a review of the quality
of development, you talk in your submission about sustainable
development, well, of course, in a sense, those things are all
sort of motherhood and apple pie and the fact is that quite a
lot of Government planning policy works in slightly the opposite
direction. If one thinks about the Government's position on the
South Eastern Regional Planning Guidance and the amount of houses
which are going to be built in the South East, it is very difficult
to see how one is going to get the sort of quality of development
and sustainable development in my opinion and no doubt in your
opinion as well.
Chairman: Let us have a question rather than
a statement.
Mr Blunt
311. So the problem, therefore, is that sustainable
development in the Government's eyes is not what I think sustainable
development is and I suspect it is not what you think sustainable
development is. You go on about saying the role of the planning
Inspectorate is to enforce planning policy, whatever that might
be, or that is what they should be doing, in the end what the
planning Inspectorate has got to do is to enforce Government planning
policy, not what we would like it to be.
(Mr Sinden) Leaving aside the debates about housing
levels in the South East, I think there are some areas of policy
development we can look to for guidance on developing quality
indicators. The Government's sustainable development strategy
is a starting point and there are whole ranges of indicators there
that it would be worth including. There is the previously developed
land and buildings target which could provide a starting point
for the development of quality indicators for the Inspectorate.
Also, the best value regime, the introduction of the best value
regime and the performance indicators connected with best value
in relation to planning by local authorities are another potential
starting point. CPRE would argue, however, that even the best
value regime does not have indicators which appropriately measure
the environmental delivery potential, if you like, of the planning
system. These are starting points that I think the Inspectorate's
own performance measures could make reference to and would overcome
to some extent your concern about differing interpretations of
what sustainable development is and what the specific environmental
objectives are of Government planning policy.
312. What evidence do you have that there is
a lack of learning culture presently in the Inspectorate?
(Mr Sinden) I think we would recognise that the Inspectorate
has made great strides in terms of improving its internal learning
culture over recent years. The introduction of the Inspectorate
Journal a few years ago was a very welcome development in terms
of providing a forum for a debate and discussion not just for
inspectors but for a wider audience as to how Government policy
changes can be interpreted, and how these changes are reflected
in Inspectorate decisions. However, I think there is still some
way to go in this respect. Inspectors are still very isolated
in many cases in the job that they do. We would urge the Inspectorate,
in this respect, to look again at how its inhouse training programme,
is meeting the current needs in terms of the expectations placed
on the Inspectorate to help, deliver policy changes. We think,
as we have indicated previously, that the policy unit in the Inspectorate
has a particularly important role to play in encouraging the sharing
of information amongst the inspectors about particular controversial
appeals, special kinds of cases which have been dealt with and
so on. Of course, the use of information technology is particularly
important in this respect with so many inspectors out in the field.
We would encourage the Inspectorate to make full use of IT potential
to encourage better learning amongst its staff.
Mr Blunt: Is the Inspectorate's practice of
employing more specialist inspectors and fewer assessors a correct
one?
Chairman
313. A yes or no will do nicely.
(Mr Burton) I do not think we can give a view on that.
Mr Blunt
314. Can Professor Crow's attitudes to development
and the countryside be considered typical of inspectors who are
still working for the Inspectorate?
(Mr Burton) Of course, Stephen Crow is not an inspector.
There is this blurred responsibility within the Inspectorate for
the public examination process and the EIP process. Indeed, we
found it quite difficult to discern the contribution the inspector
makes on those panels as opposed to the chairmen of panels. Certainly
there is a concern that the quality of justification for the recommendations
at EIP and public examinations perhaps is not of the standard
that the Inspectorate requires on planning appeals. We would wish
the rigour of the process to be tightened up. We are in the early
days, particularly at the regional level of public examinations,
and it is too early to reach definitive conclusions. The signs
are that things are slightly better than they were in the South
East and East Anglia in the emerging RPGs elsewhere but it is
very early days yet.
315. Not much comfort to the South East.
(Mr Burton) We will hold judgment on that. We are
watching that process extremely careful and will be drawing our
own conclusions shortly after the next three public examinations
in June and July.
Chairman
316. It is more important that you have a readable
document. Whatever you say about Professor Crow's own personal
point of view, which may have seeped into the document, it was
eminently readable. Now is it better to have a readable document
produced by a human being or a bit of beautifully argued material
produced by a computer which is so boring that no-one reads it?
(Mr Burton) I think readability is a crucial part
of the agenda, particularly at the regional and county level.
I am not suggesting that we repeat the forensic analysis that
we see in appeals. All I am suggesting is that it is clear that
there are some leaps of judgment and a lack of evidence in some
aspects of the RPG and public examination reports that we have
seen so far.
317. They have provoked a fairly good level
of public debate.
(Mr Burton) A bit after the event. Would it not have
been better if we went into other territory about the quality
of the process of drawing up regional planning guidance, the ownership
of that, the extent of consultation, before we get to public examinations.
Let us hope that is one lesson that we take out of the South East
to ensure we do not get into the situation again.
Mr Blunt
318. I will resist the temptation to continue
that. What specific complaints do you have about the Advisory
Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate?
(Mr Sinden) I would not say we have complaints about
them as such but we think the time has come to look at the role
that the Advisory Panel on Standards plays.
319. You say you are particularly concerned
about transparency and representativeness.
(Mr Sinden) Yes. As I say, I think we need to look
at the role that it needs to play in the current age. I think
in that context questions have to be asked about its membership.
We understand currently there are just three members drawn from
a fairly limited background. We think the membership needs to
be reviewed and the role of the panel needs to be reviewed. We
think its capacity to perform an effective overview function of
the Inspectorate needs to be significantly enhanced.
| 
