House of Commons - Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Thirteenth Report

THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE AND PUBLIC INQUIRIES

The Work of the Planning Inspectorate

3. The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) deals with more than 20,000 planning appeals each year and employs nearly 400 Planning Inspectors to undertake this work. Although planning and enforcement appeals make up the lion's share of the Inspectorate's work, its functions include a wide range of other planning related work including:

inquiries into local plans and unitary development plans;
listed building consent appeals;
advertisement appeals;
reporting on planning applications called in for decision by the Secretary of State;
various compulsory purchase orders;
rights of way cases;
cases arising from the Environmental Protection and Water Acts and the Transport and Works Act.

4. There are three ways of dealing with appeals in any of the main categories of the Inspectorate's work: by written representations, by hearing and by public inquiry. The breakdown by types of procedure reveals that 73% of cases were dealt with by written representation, around 19% by hearings and 8% by public inquiry.[9] The work-load and complexity of the process increases as one moves from written representations through informal hearings to public inquiries, the last of these tending to be reserved for the more complex or important cases.

5. It was clear from the evidence submitted to us that the Inspectorate is held in high regard by most who come into contact with it. The Inspectorate is particularly admired for its extensive quality assurance procedures, its commitment to thorough staff training and monitoring, and its esprit de corps. Many memoranda stressed that the Inspectorate had recently improved its performance and was doing a good job.[10] We heard no evidence that this was, in general, not the case, but we did discover a number of areas where the procedures and practices of the Inspectorate were unsatisfactory.

Timetabling and Workload

6. The work of the Planning Inspectorate has increasingly been the subject of timetable targets set by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Separate targets apply for the different forms of appeal. Table 1 shows both the targets for past and future years and the achievement of the Inspectorate. The targets are set such that the Planning Inspectorate must complete 80% of each type of inquiry within the limits given in Table 1. It is apparent that, in previous years, the Planning Inspectorate has failed to meet these targets. However, it expects to meet the current (1999/2000) target and is also confident of achieving future targets. The level of achievement to date is a significant one: the current duration of each type of case marks between a 27% and 43% reduction over a period of two years. The Planning Inspectorate is to be commended for such a dramatic improvement in performance.

Table 1: Timetabling Targets in Weeks (For Determination of 80% of Cases)

Year	Written Representations	Hearings	Inquiries
1996/97	22 (25)	43 (47)	51 (56)
1997/98	20 (21)	33 (40)	44 (52)
1998/99	18 (17)	24 (27)	36 (41)
1999/2000	18	24	36
2000/2001	17	23	33
2001/2002	16	22	30

Note: Figures in brackets show the Inspectorate's actual performance.

7. Witnesses were generally satisfied with the time taken by the Inspectorate to deal with appeals. Indeed, a number considered there to be little further slack to be taken up and expressed concern that continued tightening of timetabling targets could result in unreasonable pressures upon the Inspectors and some reduction in the quality of decision-making.[11] The time taken for the Inspectorate to deal with an appeal can be divided into the time during which the Inspector is dealing with the case and the time taken to deal with procedural aspects of the case before and after the Inspector is involved.[12] Witnesses were united in their belief that there was little scope for reducing the time taken for the event itself but some considered that there remained some room for improvement in procedural aspects.[13]

8. There are also signs that further reductions in the time taken to deal with an appeal may simply shift pressure elsewhere in the system: for example, the number of parties being unable to make the first date offered to them for inquiries has doubled over the last three years to 60% and increased to 35% for hearings.[14] The main complaint about the timeliness of appeals does not really concern the Inspectorate but centres on the delays often experienced when an appeal is 'called in' and the Government Offices are involved: we consider this issue in a later section of this report.[15]

9. The setting of timetabling targets has clearly been an important part of improving the overall performance of the Planning Inspectorate. However, we are concerned that significant further reductions beyond those envisaged for 2001/2002 could jeopardise the quality of decisions: any future tightening must be achieved by improving procedural aspects, not reducing the amount of time for which the Inspector has the case.

MAJOR/MINOR INQUIRIES

10. The Environmental Services Association commented that the current timeliness targets do not distinguish between major decisions (eg for new facilities) and minor decisions on major sites (eg those concerning weighbridges on landfill sites) and they suggest that this may be "masking" different standards of performance.[16] Regardless of whether some aspects of performance are obscuring others, it seems reasonable to expect minor decisions to be dealt with more quickly. Indeed, the Chief Planning Inspector also told us that he would welcome a differentiation of targets between major and minor decisions and that the Inspectorate already operates such a system internally.[17] We note that some categories of development are already distinguished this way for the purpose of monitoring volumes of cases.[18]

11. With the type of work undertaken by the Inspectorate, a balance must be struck between the need for streamlined, simple procedures and the need to collect information for monitoring purposes. However, decisions should be relatively easily to divide into major and minor categories and shorter handling periods for minor decisions is likely to bring greater confidence from developers and the public in the Inspectorate's work. We recommend that separate timetable targets be set by the Inspectorate for dealing with cases relating to major and minor decisions. We return to the issue of the distinction between minor and major decisions in discussing the appropriate role of an Environmental Court within a planning appeal system.

ENFORCEMENT APPEALS

12. Where a local authority believes that planning controls have been breached, it has the power to issue an enforcement notice. There is a right of appeal against these notices and these form the category of 'Enforcement Appeals' which the Inspectorate handle. The Inspectorate's Statistical Report 1998/99 shows that 80% of enforcement inquiries are now handled in 63 weeks by Inspectors and 102 weeks by the Secretary of State.[19] The corresponding figures for 1995/96 are 50 weeks and 75 weeks. The Inspectorate has an internal target that 80% of inquiry cases should be dealt with in 50 weeks: not only is this markedly less stringent than the targets for other inquiries, it is also currently being missed by some margin.

13. The Royal Town Planning Institute wrote of the "widespread concern that the current Ministerial targets and priorities for the Planning Inspectorate do not include enforcement appeals."[20] Although the Minister told us that the Planning Inspectorate was not "falling behind" on enforcement appeals,[21] the statistics noted above would seem to demonstrate otherwise. We are concerned at the length of time being taken for enforcement appeals and recommend that targets be introduced immediately in line with those for other types of appeal.

GREATER USE OF INSTANT DECISIONS

14. One way of speeding up some of the simpler inquiries may be to make greater use of the existing provision for an Inspector to announce his or her decision at the end of, or very shortly after, the last session of the inquiry, producing the full report some time later. Inspectors considered that there could be some scope for greater use of this option[22] and the Chief Planning Inspector concurred.[23] Certainly, this would also help contribute to meeting tighter timetables. We urge the Department to encourage the Inspectorate to find ways of enabling Inspectors to make greater use of 'instant' decisions at the end of simpler inquiries.

15. Inquiries into development plans pose particular problems of timeliness. There is often a long wait between hearing objections to plan policies and receiving the Inspector's report, by which time the recommendation on a particular site may have been overtaken by events, such as a decision on a planning application. Early indications of recommendations could be helpful and, on the rare occasions this action has been taken by an Inspector, it has been appreciated (e.g. at the Oadby and Wigston Local Plan Inquiry).[24] We consider that early indications of an Inspector's recommendations could be helpful after hearing evidence at development plan inquiries.

FUTURE WORKLOAD

16. The Inspectorate's workload is subject to major fluctuations. Historically, there have been two major 'lumps' in the Inspectorate's work: the first was in the late 1980s when there was a large increase in the number of planning appeals. Subsequently, in 1995-97, there was a large increase in development plan work. The result of both of these periods was delays across the range of appeal types and procedures. Indeed, in 1995-96, the problems became so acute that the Secretary of State was obliged to order the Inspectorate to prioritise work on development plans.

17. We heard that the problems of these periods would not be repeated, partly as a result of better forecasting of the future workload, but also because more Inspectors have now been recruited.[25]Although there is likely to be an increase in the workload from local plans in the next year or so, as they come up for review, the Inspectorate is confident that they are prepared for any upturn in the volume of work and also assert that the reviews tend to be simpler and more straightforward than the original inquiries into those plans.[26]

18. Given the improvements in timetabling which have been achieved in recent years, it is critical that the times taken by the Inspectorate to complete all types of work are insulated from fluctuations in the workload. We hope that the Inspectorate is truly prepared for the variations in workload which will inevitably occur as the plan-led system beds down.

Training and Expertise

19. There were two issues of concern for witnesses with respect to training and expertise: the level of specialist knowledge of Inspectors and ensuring that Inspectors are taking decisions in accordance with current Government policy. In addition, there is also a persistent question-mark by the Inspectorate's transparency: little of the material used to train Inspectors or keep them informed of policy developments is publicly available. Almost inevitably, this situation brings some distrust from those involved in appeals that Inspectors' training materials are adequate. We return to the issue of transparency later in this report.

SPECIALIST KNOWLEDGE

20. Although the Inspectorate operates panels of Inspectors with particular specialisms, several witnesses called for improvements in the quality of Inspectors' specialist knowledge: the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds wanted a panel of expert wildlife Inspectors; English Heritage wanted more specialist architectplanners on the panel of heritage Inspectors; the British Council for Shopping Centres argued for more retailing specialists; Beazer Group plc wanted Inspectors with more expertise in design; and many comments were received on the inadequacies of Inspectors on rights of way issues.[27]

21. The Inspectorate is pursuing a policy of employing fewer specialist assessors whilst training Inspectors to have greater specialist knowledge. This policy is intended to reduce costs at the same time as increasing the overall knowledge base of the Inspectorate. If successful, this would seem to be an effective long-term option[28] but we are concerned that, until this policy has been fully implemented, that there may be some areas of inadequate knowledge. The Inspectors' union, IPMS, noted that there are some problems in that "low starting salaries mean that some disciplines have been in short supply: currently, this applies particularly to some specialist environmental, architectural, and highways work."[29] We were surprised at the number of witnesses who wrote of their dissatisfaction with the level of specialist knowledge shown by Inspectors. The Inspectorate must address any deficiencies or shortages as soon as they become apparent: proper training is an essential investment if the Inspectorate is to keep up with the very rapid changes taking place in environment and planning policy. Further, we urge the Inspectorate to establish regular links with those groups representing specialist interests and, where appropriate, make direct use of these groups in its training programme. As a check on the adequacy of arrangements, the Inspectorate should publish details of its specialist panels, including the membership of each and the level of expertise of each member.

KEEPING UP WITH GOVERNMENT POLICY.

22. As Government policy changes, it is vital that Inspectors are kept fully informed and take their decisions in accordance with current policy. Help is provided by the Policy Unit of the Inspectorate, which aims to keep Inspectors up-to-date on Government policy. Many witnesses noted the problems posed by the way policy is often announced or amended in speeches at conferences[30] and one Inspector commented that, in some instances, Government policy is "not entirely clear in the first place".[31] Similarly, the Local Government Association (LGA) suggested that the problems of inconsistency in Inspectors' decisions "highlight the need for clearer Government policies and for clearer guidelines for Inspectors."[32] The Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) place rather more responsibility on the Inspectors themselves, and note a number of decisions "where it appears the views of the Inspectors are out of step with the latest developments in Government policy" and also write of what they see as a "disturbing degree of inertia"[33] in the Inspectorate's translation of policy into its Inspectors' decisions. The CPRE went on to call for a strengthened Policy Unit to help the Inspectors keep abreast with policy.[34]

23. A further problem with the interpretation of Government policy is how Inspectors should treat draft policy guidance documents. The Local Government Association wrote that "authorities do not feel that the Inspectorate gives sufficient weight to draft Government guidance." This can be particularly important where a major change of policy is being defined, for example in the recent PPG3 on Housing. There was a period of nearly one year between the publication of the draft PPG3 and the final version, during which Government policy was clearly going to change although the precise details of change were yet to be decided. Indeed, the Minister commented that, in publishing the draft PPG, "it was clear there was a wish to shift policy in that particular direction."[35] and also that "it was sensible there should be that move in that direction prior to the finalisation of guidance."

24. However, all the other evidence we received suggested that Inspectors gave very little weight to draft guidance. For example, the LGA told us that, during a planning appeal, the local authority had "argued draft PPG3 logic and the Inspector said that it was only draft so he would ignore it."[36] This statement was effectively confirmed by the Chief Planning Inspector who told us that draft documents would be "given relatively little weight" by Inspectors.[37]

25. We believe that the Government must work to ensure that all aspects of planning policy are clear and unambiguous. When policy is in flux, it is doubly important that the Inspectorate are given guidance as to how to interpret policy. We recommend that the Government issue a guidance note alongside any draft planning policy guidance which makes clear what weight is to be attached to the document and the various policies within it in decisions prior to the issue of final guidance. Any changes in Government policy must be communicated to all Inspectors as a matter of urgency, not some time after the event. The Inspectorate should consider whether a strengthened policy unit is required to ensure that Inspectors are kept fully informed and are taking decisions in accordance with current policy.

9 Planning Inspectorate, Statistical Report, 1998/99 Back

10 See, for example, Q58 Back

11 Ev p23, 38, 51, 63 (HC364-II); Q558, Q227 Back

12 Q175 Back

13 Q176 Back

14 Ev p48 (HC364-II) Back

15 See paragraph 70 onwards Back

16 Ev p55 (HC364-II) Back

17 Q456 Back

18 Planning Inspectorate, Statistical Report 1998/99, p7 Back

19 Planning Inspectorate, Statistical Report 1998/99, p14 Back

20 Ev p94 (HC364-II) Back