Examination of Witnesses (Questions 560
- 579)
TUESDAY 18 APRIL 2000
MR NICK
RAYNSFORD, MR
JEFF JACOBS
AND MR
CHRIS SHEPLEY
560. Are other areas falling behind, like enforcement
inquiries?
(Mr Raynsford) I do not believe they are falling behind.
We do look to performance on all areas: development plan preparation,
planning appeals, called in applications and obviously enforcement
as well. We keep a review across the whole field, but for the
reasons that I have outlined if development plans are not in place
it is difficult for the rest of the system to work efficiently
because the local authority does not have the basis to determine
applications and developers do not have the reasonable certainty
of knowing that an application is likely to be successful because
it is in conformity with the development plan.
Chairman
561. Could you give us a black list of those
local authorities who have not produced their development plans?
(Mr Raynsford) We do regularly publish lists but I
am reluctant to single out authorities for two reasons. One, there
can always be special circumstances and I think particularly where
unitary authorities have come into existence they are in quite
different positions to authorities that remain on the same framework
as has existed for many years in the past. Secondly, we discuss
with those authorities who are less forward with their development
plans what needs to be done to catch up and to ensure that they
have them in place. We try to do so in a positive way, both emphasising
the importance of having the plan in place and discussing with
them any obstacles that may be standing between them and completion
of the adoption of the development plan.
Mrs Ellman
562. What is your review of the whole field
telling you at the moment?
(Mr Raynsford) The review of the whole field tells
us that the majority of authorities have development plans in
place; that the plan led system is generally working well, but
that there are too many areas still which do not have plans in
place and where the revision of plans is behind schedule. It is
those that we are focusing on to try and ensure that every area
of the country has an up to date plan in place.
563. When you use that phrase "review of
the whole field", you are talking about other aspects of
work, apart from development plans.
(Mr Raynsford) Yes, because when we look at performance
we are looking not just at getting a development plan in place
but at both the timeliness and the quality of decisions taken
in the light of those plans and obviously other issues, such as
the one you mentioned about enforcement.
564. How do you assess quality?
(Mr Raynsford) There are a number of different ways
of assessing quality. The ones that I would regard as particularly
useful would be, firstly, ensuring that all the relevant issues
have been considered. Secondly, that those issues are considered
properly and appropriately in the light of planning guidance so
that due weight is given to all the relevant considerations. Thirdly,
that the arguments for and against are well set out and can be
easily followed by anyone looking at the necessary report. Fourthly,
that the conclusions flow logically from the analysis and the
decision is therefore one that is fully supported by the evidence.
565. Where would you rank percentages of justified
complaints against the things that you have just spoken about
in terms of assessment?
(Mr Raynsford) We have a real difficulty over complaints
because, almost by definition, people who are unsuccessful through
the planning system, either in failing to get permission for a
development or who have opposed a development which has then been
approved, are unhappy about the outcome. I get to see a considerable
amount of correspondence from people who are, for whatever reason,
unhappy. I also get correspondence from local authorities who
are unhappy because the existence of an appeal procedure means
that in their terms inspectors from outside the area have taken
the decision which ought to have been left to local people. These
are quite strongly held feelings which people express and express
commonly, but it is difficult to see how you can avoid those if
you have a system which is designed to ensure a proper approach
towards planning, that does take account of the wider needs of
the area but also is consistent with national planning policy
and which has a proper appeal framework so that those parties
who are aggrieved do have the opportunity for their concerns to
be heard.
566. How do you assess the quality of what is
being done within the Department? Do you look at different categories
of work?
(Mr Raynsford) It is done at a number of different
levels. The two ministers most directly involved—that is,
Beverley Hughes and myself—meet regularly to review and
to ensure consistency between the approaches that we are adopting,
because as I mentioned earlier we do have a geographic division
between areas to ensure that we each handle approximately the
same number of cases. We discuss this periodically with the Deputy
Prime Minister who of course is involved in the most significant
cases. I obviously talk on a regular basis with my officials and
Jeff Jacobs's team to ensure that the work they do and the work
the Government Office teams do is of a high standard. Only last
Friday I was at a meeting with representatives of all the Government
Offices and with the planning inspectorate and the central department
planning team to address a number of specific issues arising in
particular from PPG3 as to how we ensured a consistent implementation
of the new guidance, because this is quite a complex issue, how
you cascade down national guidance through a large number of local
authorities, through the planning inspectorate, all of whom will
have a very significant impact on the implementation and to ensure
that there is a proper understanding of the issues, that there
is adequate training so that people know how to approach issues
and that there is feedback so that people are aware of the changes
that are taking place.
Mr Brake
567. Could we return to the subject of complaints?
How satisfied are you with the way the planning inspectorate deals
with complaints?
(Mr Raynsford) Numerically, the evidence suggests
that the very large majority of complaints are dealt with satisfactorily.
I have every confidence in Chris Shepley and his team to let me
have, on cases that are brought to my attention, a thorough appraisal
of the background to the case. I do not feel there are serious
grounds for concern, but it would be complacent to say that I
have not any grounds for concern. This is a very complex issue.
It involves very large numbers of cases, often which have highly
emotive elements to them. People feel very strongly about developments
outside their back garden, overlooking their home, developments
that may affect their environment, their town, their countryside.
Inevitably, there is scope for unhappiness about the outcome of
cases for the reasons I gave in response to Mrs Ellman's questions.
568. Are you aware that the advisory panel looked
at 42 apparently unjustified complaints and found that there were
several cases—this is in their sixth report—that should
have been treated as justified because they appeared to involve
very clear errors? Is that a source of concern?
(Mr Raynsford) I discussed this with Michael FitzGerald
and his colleagues at the annual review that I have with them
when I receive their report. They made the point to me very forcibly
that it is always quite difficult to establish what is justified
as against unjustified, because of the strength of feeling people
have on particular issues, but they did highlight concerns and
they have been discussing those with Chris Shepley. I am keen
that those discussions are carried out in a thorough and serious
way to ensure that the planning inspectorate are aware of any
concerns that have been voiced about their performance. I take
it very seriously indeed. Numerically of course it is a relatively
small number, but the APOS team can only, by definition, see a
relatively small number of cases and therefore it is a sample.
I regard that as an important issue and I know that Chris Shepley
and his team do too.
569. Do you know whether any guidelines have
been changed as a result of this admittedly small number of cases
where perhaps serious errors have been made?
(Mr Raynsford) I know Chris Shepley does pay considerable
attention to ensuring that all members of the planning inspectorate
are kept up to date with the requirements of running an efficient
system and doing so in a way that does avoid any mistakes, where
those are avoidable. I cannot say that I know of any revised guidance
having been issued recently as a result of the latest APOS report.
Mrs Dunwoody
570. It is a bit worrying, is it not, because
Mr FitzGerald and his team very clearly do not look at large numbers
of cases. You yourself have said it can really only be a snapshot
of a bit. If they found that number of errors in a tiny snapshot,
the worrying thing is that it might just be that there are quite
large numbers of cases that they have not looked at where there
is the same reflection of problems.
(Mr Raynsford) I did discuss this with them when they
came to see me. They made the point that they felt this was a
matter to be discussed further with the planning inspectorate,
but they did not feel alarmed about the issue. They made the point
also, as I have said in response to Mr Brake's question, that
inevitably there is an element of judgment because people who
are—
571. We heard all about the way that you judge
fine lines and logic. I do not think anybody argues with that
but are you satisfied that that team is capable of carrying out
an inspection process that will throw up any real problems that
exist?
(Mr Raynsford) I am satisfied that that, as a further
safety net in the system of controls, does provide us with an
expert review of a sample of cases—and I accept it is only
a sample—which is likely to help because this is a completely
random sample. There is no prior selection. Chris Shepley cannot
know which cases are going to be reviewed and this does give us
an additional backstop. It is not the only quality control system
that operates. There is already an internal quality control system
which looks at the consistency of decisions and the quality of
inspectors' reports. I believe it is a necessary, additional safeguard.
It has highlighted concerns, as I have mentioned. Those are being
taken up and discussed and I believe that that is the right way
it should be handled.
Mr Brake
572. The advisory panel and the planning inspectorate
have suggested that a power to reopen an inquiry would be a very
welcome one. Is that your view, when a clear mistake has been
made?
(Mr Raynsford) In certain cases, it may be appropriate
for the case to be revisited and there are cases which have to
be reopened for other reasons as well, as you will understand.
I am not sure that it is possible to give general guidelines across
the board as against all eventualities because a lot will depend
on the scale of the mistake in proportion to the nature of the
development itself. A small mistake might be regarded as unfortunate
but not justifying a complete reopening of what could be a hugely
important development which would have wide implications for the
community. A serious error that undermined the entire case for
a development is a different matter.
573. Can I ask you to be more specific? Are
there any serious errors or inquiries that you think should have
been reopened in the past? Can you name names or do you prefer
to remain silent?
(Mr Raynsford) I cannot name names other than to say
that there clearly have at certain times been decisions that have
been overturned in the courts through the exercise of judicial
review. Where that happens, we look very closely indeed at why
that happened and whether in fact there are lessons that are to
be learned. I must be guarded in what I say on that because there
are certain cases that are currently under consideration where
it would be inappropriate for me to mention them. I can assure
you that I am looking quite closely at some of those.
Mr Brake: On a different subject, the Human
Rights Act, you will no doubt be aware that at a conference on
30 March Jack Straw said, "Wise up before implementation
on 2 October. ... you do need to know which Convention rights
are relevant to your particular work and how the general law about
the Convention says you should tackle them."
Mrs Dunwoody: Did he really say "wise up"?
Mr Brake
574. Apparently. Have you wised up before implementation?
What action have you taken?
(Mr Raynsford) Without repeating the Home Secretary's
language which might not appeal to everyone, we have taken action.
Human rights are very much part of the current training programme
that is taking place so that all those involved in the planning
inspectorate are aware of the implications of the new legislation.
We do regard it as important and we are taking steps to ensure
that those in a position to reflect it in their decisions are
aware.
575. Are you expecting any changes to the structure
of the inspectorate as a result of the human rights legislation?
(Mr Raynsford) Not to the structure of the inspectorate,
no.
576. Or the way it operates?
(Mr Raynsford) No, because as you will know the European
Court has considered the issue in the Bryan case and has
concluded that the provisions of Article 6 are met by the existence
of a judicial review framework.
577. You do not think that there will need to
be a third party right of appeal, for instance?
(Mr Raynsford) I know that a number of people are
very keen on this particular proposition but equally there are
quite strong counter views. Perhaps the most telling is the evidence
of Ireland, where there is a third party right of review, but
I understand that legislation is currently being introduced in
Ireland to restrict that because of the very large proportion
of planning casework that is now taken up by third party appeals,
some of which are believed to be motivated by not entirely altruistic
motives.
Mrs Dunwoody: Surely not.
Chairman
578. Do you not think it is reasonable for one
supermarket to object to another supermarket coming onto its patch?
(Mr Raynsford) That is exactly the framework that
exists within the current planning system. The question is whether
it is right that decisions should be delayed for quite long periods
of time as a result of additional appeal options which are used
purely for commercial advantage. That is a very different issue,
I think.
579. Are you really confident that there is
not going to be a challenge, because if there is a successful
challenge in the courts it could throw the whole planning process
into chaos for anything up to two or three years. No intention
of coming forward with government legislation next year?
(Mr Raynsford) No. I hope that in the response I gave
to Mr Brake's question I made it clear that there are different
opinions, both held strongly, on the issue and we clearly are
having regard to those.
| 
