Examination of Witnesses (Questions 556
- 559)
TUESDAY 18 APRIL 2000
MR NICK
RAYNSFORD, MR
JEFF JACOBS
AND MR
CHRIS SHEPLEY
Chairman: Can we now move into our inquiry into
the planning inspectorate and public inquiries?
Mrs Ellman
556. Would you say that there is any scope for
further improvement in the time taken to consider appeals without
jeopardising the quality of the work?
(Mr Raynsford) Yes, and I am pleased to say that we
have seen quite significant improvements in the time taken to
deal with cases in recent years. For example, last year, 1999/2000,
80 per cent of planning appeals were decided within 34 weeks in
the case of inquiries, 22 weeks in the case of hearings and 18
weeks in cases involving written representations. That was a significant
improvement on the previous year and it met in all cases the target
set for 1999/2000. We have set even more demanding targets for
2000/2001 and 2001/2002. We are seeking continuing improvements
in performance.
557. You see improvements continuing?
(Mr Raynsford) Yes.
558. You are not concerned with the problem
of the quality of decisions?
(Mr Raynsford) I do not believe that inherently quality
and timeliness are in conflict. I do believe that if speed becomes
the sole objective, without regard for quality, then there would
be a risk, but that is not our intention. Our intention is to
ensure that there is continuing tight quality control with an
emphasis on proper consideration of all the matters. We do look
at this very closely indeed and we have as well the advisory body,
APOS, that looks at cases to give us the benefit of their advice
and our view is that the quality of decision making is being maintained
while at the same time we are improving the speed of service.
That is the objective and that is something that I want to see
continuing.
559. Are the right priorities established? Are
you still saying that development plans should have top priority
for consideration?
(Mr Raynsford) We are concerned at the number of development
plans that are still not in place, some nine years after the framework
was first announced, and the number of authorities that are coming
towards the point where their development plan is due for review
who have not yet begun to seriously approach the review process.
There are therefore issues in a plan led system where the presence
of a development plan is essential because the presumption is
that planning applications will be considered in the light of
the development plan. If there is not an up to date development
plan in place, clearly that cannot work and therefore it is essential
that we do have up to date development plans in place in all authorities.
| 
