Examination of Witnesses (Questions 600
- 619)
TUESDAY 18 APRIL 2000
MR NICK
RAYNSFORD, MR
JEFF JACOBS
AND MR
CHRIS SHEPLEY
600. Do you think there are enough staff in
the government offices to fulfil all these roles?
(Mr Raynsford) I am sure they would say that there
are not, but there is pressure on staffing at all levels of government,
and I am sure that Mr Jacobs would say that he has not got enough
staff in his central department as well. Our aim is to deliver
the most efficient, cost-effective service that we can, and while
we set, quite rightly, demanding targets for local authorities
to deliver efficiency, it would be quite wrong not to expect our
own offices to do the same.
Mr Olner
601. Can I ask whether you have been giving
any guidance to the government offices with their connection to
the Regional Development Agencies as regards planning issues?
(Mr Raynsford) Yes, indeed, we have encouraged them
to build good and close relationships with the Regional Development
Agencies and that was one of the issues I touched on in my meeting
with them last week.
602. You are happy they are all taking a consistent
approach?
(Mr Raynsford) I think we are in early days. Regional
Development Agencies have been in existence for a year. We have
seen very good examples of Regional Development Agency input into
regional planning guidance in some regions, but in other areas,
perhaps, it is less well-developed. What we are trying to do is
to learn from the lessons of the best and ensure the extension
of good practice. That is what I am encouraging.
Mrs Ellman
603. How do you decide which planning applications
to call in?
(Mr Raynsford) There are some fairly clearly defined
criteria for call-ins, but if I can just set the framework as
to how we try to operate, our presumption is that matters should
generally be left to the local authority; the local authority
is the planning authority for its area and in all normal circumstances
the decision over planning applications should be left to the
local authority. There are certain cases involving planning issues
of more than local importance which may justify the call-in by
the Secretary of State.[1]
For example, if the case, in his opinion, could have significant
effects beyond its immediate locality if it appeared to be conflict
with national planning guidance, if it involved substantial regional
or national controversy, or if it affected the interests of foreign
governments or national security. Those are the kind of circumstances
where we would be prepared to consider a call-in. Only about 150
cases a year are called in out of a total caseload of about half
a million cases. That gives an impression as to what a small proportion
of cases are called in.
604. Are you satisfied those criteria are applied
consistently?
(Mr Raynsford) I am satisfied that they are applied
rigorously and, to the best of our ability, ministers do ensure
that there is consistency. I mentioned the meetings that I have
regularly with my colleague Beverley Hughes to ensure that we
share our understandings and our approach, and that there is,
as far as is humanly possible, consistency between us in decisions.
However, human beings are fallible and I am sure there will be
cases where we might take a decision which might appear to the
outside world to be inconsistent.
605. We have had some evidence which says that
it is not clear on what basis applications are being called in.
What would you say to that?
(Mr Raynsford) I am surprised about that because the
criteria that I have outlined are very much the basis on which
we approach these cases. We would not, for example, support an
application for a call-in, which we get quite often—many
aggrieved parties seek a call-in to oppose a particular development
proposal—simply because there is local controversy about
the matter; it has to be wider, regional or national controversy.
We would not do it simply because there is a strong body of opinion
which does not like the item. If we believe that the local authority
has properly been processing this in accordance with its Plan,
that it is not in breach of national planning guidance and that
there is no more than a local impact, then we would not call it
in. Those are, I think, proper safeguards to ensure the integrity
of the system and to ensure that local authorities continue to
be able to decide the vast majority of cases—all but about
0.03 per cent of the total.
606. How should inspectors establish what government
policy is?
(Mr Raynsford) Inspectors are required to have regard
to all relevant legislation and, in particular, to planning policy
guidance. I look closely at all the cases that come to me and
I am always on the look-out to see that inspectors have both understood
and applied the relevant planning policy guidance. That, of course,
is particularly important at a time when you have got significant
changes in planning policy guidance because there is always a
difficult issue about moving from one regime to another—with
our new PPG3 for example—but it is very important that people
do understand the significance and implications of planning policy
guidance and apply it.
607. What is the status of draft policy guidance?
(Mr Raynsford) It is a draft which can be considered
and it can be a material consideration, but it does not have the
same force as planning guidance that has been decided. So, for
example, I have been talking a lot about PPG3 because it has been
an issue which I know your Committee has been much concerned with
and it has recently been issued. Once we issued the first draft
consultation, then that was a factor that people could take into
account, but it was only when PPG3 was finally issued, just over
a month ago, that we were in a position where authorities had
to have regard to it, in that obligatory sense, in all planning
matters—and, of course, planning inspectors too.
608. Where should the inspector look for guidance
when it is only draft guidance that is available?
(Mr Raynsford) The inspector should consider the existing
planning policy guidance but should also be aware of emerging
planning policy guidance, and, obviously, has to reach a judgment—in
just the same way as where there is an emerging local plan, the
inspector will need to be aware of the issues in the emerging
plan and decide what weight to accord that as against the existing
plan that is already in position.
609. How much notice should an inspector take
of statements by ministers in speeches they make?
(Mr Raynsford) You have asked me one of the classic
questions. I will be damned whatever answer I give. If I say "Yes,
of course they should have regard to the speeches of ministers"
you will highlight one or two, perhaps, less well-considered
and well-thought out speeches of ministers and say "Are you
really suggesting that inspectors should listen to that?"
Chairman
610. Give us an example. Can we have one example?
That will do nicely.
(Mr Raynsford) If, however, I say "Well, obviously,
inspectors will exercise their judgment", you will say "Well,
why are you not requiring them to follow government policy?"
In general, of course, they have to listen to ministerial speeches,
but we do deliver an awful lot of speeches, and I think it would
be unreasonable to expect them to be absolutely conversant with
every speech given by ministers. Important ones—speeches
in this House and, obviously, responses to Parliamentary questions—are
matters which we would expect inspectors to be familiar with and
to follow.
Mrs Ellman
611. Are inspectors given this guidance, on
the weight they should attach to ministerial speeches in differing
locations?
(Mr Shepley) The answer to that is yes, they are.
There are speeches and speeches, as the Minister has said.
Chairman
612. How do you tell the difference between
a speech and a speech?
(Mr Shepley) Essentially, when there is a press release
of some kind issued. It is obviously important not just for inspectors
to know what ministers have said in speeches but for all of the
parties to understand, too.
613. What you are telling us is that a press
release interprets what the minister meant to say?
(Mr Shepley) When a minister makes a speech which
is intended to amplify upon or give new guidance in relation to
some existing policy, the department will make that clear not
just to the Inspectorate but to everybody else involved. When
the department does that we will inform inspectors accordingly
and make sure they understand it. There are a lot of speeches
which do not contain new guidance, I think I can say, and which
we do not then need to inform inspectors and parties about.
Mrs Ellman
614. Does that mean that you only take note
if the ministry issue guidance and not simply listen to what the
minister said?
(Mr Shepley) If the department give publicity, essentially.
As I say, one of the things we are concerned about is not giving
advice to inspectors which other people have not had. The danger
which could arise is that inspectors might be aware of a speech
which other people were not aware of. The department is very careful
to try to avoid that.
Mr Brake
615. Minister, do you believe that there is
any need for the Planning Inspectorate to change its corporate
culture and become more sensitive to people's concerns—more
open, perhaps?
(Mr Raynsford) I think there is a general issue, if
I may say this, about the planning profession generally which
could be characterised as being predominantly male, white and
middle-class. Certainly it is one of the issues that we are giving
thought to, as to how we can ensure that we attract more people
from outside those categories into the planning profession generally
and, obviously, in the Planning Inspectorate. However, it is difficult,
as you can imagine, to do that uniquely for PINS without actually
doing the same in respect of planning more widely, because the
Inspectorate draws from planners who have experience in local
government and from members of the professional institutes. We
do take this very seriously; we do discuss with the RCIS, the
RTPI and other bodies the whole question of how we can make the
profession more attractive to women and ethnic minorities.
616. I will come on to that point in a second,
but on this question of more openness and being more sensitive
to people's needs, it is certainly the view of the Rights of Way
Review Committee that this change in corporate culture is needed.
They believe the Inspectorate is insensitive to people's concerns.
The LGA complains that complaints disappear into a black box.
Do you not feel there is a need to respond to that?
(Mr Raynsford) From our earlier discussion about the
last APOS report and the concerns they voiced about matters, you
will be aware that I take very seriously indeed complaints about
failure to give a courteous and efficient service. Certainly,
I would accept that there must be scope for improvement because
any organisation as large as the Planning Inspectorate is bound
to, occasionally, fail. I look to Chris Shepley, and I talk to
him about this, and Jeff Jacobs, I know, talks to him about it,
to ensure that we do identify where there are weaknesses and try
to ensure that action is taken to remedy them. However, I do not
think there is a problem of corporate culture, if I may say so.
I think there is the inevitable problems associated with what
is quite a large and, inevitably, quite a bureaucratic organisation
operating in a very extended way throughout the country.
617. Do you think that the DETR could help in
any respect to create more openness? For instance, could the DETR
web-site be used to publicise the progress of call-in inquiries?
(Mr Raynsford) You raise a very interesting question
because I am conscious that this whole question of timetable and
where things are in the system is one that a lot of people are
uncertain about—and I have to say ministers are sometimes
uncertain about, as we get asked by Members of Parliament about
a particular case that they are concerned in. Very often, that
highlights the fact that in what is a complex process we do not
always know where a case has got to. I have recently been speaking
to Jeff Jacobs and Chris Shepley about a system that might help
to create greater transparency and give us greater certainty as
to where things are in this, inevitably, quite complex chain of
events.
Chairman
618. You have spoken to them about it, but what
is actually going to happen?
(Mr Raynsford) We have been devising a pro-forma system
which is not yet fully operational, so I cannot give you chapter
and verse about it, but the aim is to have it fully operational
and for that to allow us to be quite open—as we are at the
moment in response to any Parliamentary questions that we get—on
a more systematic basis about the progress of cases through the
system.
Mr Brake
619. Will that be web-site-based and accessible
to the public?
(Mr Raynsford) We have not taken a decision, but I
can see no reason why information should not be available in some
form.
1 Note by witness: The current policy on called-in
planning applications is set out in answer to a Parliamentary
Question on 16 June 1999 (Hansard column 138). Back
|
