| TIMETABLING AND WORKLOAD
|
| | |
| (a) | 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 (paragraph 9).
|
| | |
| MAJOR/MINOR INQUIRIES
|
| | |
| (b) | We recommend that separate timetable targets be set by the Inspectorate for dealing with cases relating to major and minor decisions (paragraph 11).
|
| | |
| ENFORCEMENT APPEALS
|
| | |
| (c) | 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 (paragraph 13).
|
| | |
| GREATER USE OF INSTANT DECISIONS
|
| | |
| (d) | 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 (paragraph 14).
|
| | |
| (e) | We consider that early indications of an Inspector's recommendations could be helpful after hearing evidence at development plan inquiries (paragraph 15).
|
| | |
| TRAINING AND EXPERTISE: SPECIALIST KNOWLEDGE
|
| | |
| (f) | 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 (paragraph 21).
|
| | |
| TRAINING AND EXPERTISE: KEEPING UP WITH GOVERNMENT POLICY
|
| | |
| (g) | 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 (paragraph 25).
|
| | |
| CONSISTENCY
|
| | |
| (h) | We received considerable evidence on the inconsistency of Inspectors' decisions. Although we could not determine for certain to what extent there is genuine inconsistency in the decisions being made, we were disappointed at the Inspectorate's reaction to this issue. As with so many aspects of their work, we are less concerned about the level of inconsistency than the Inspectorate's apparently high-handed attitude to people querying their decisions. It is critical that the Inspectorate works both to ensure consistency in Inspectors' decisions and to convince those outside the organisation that Inspectors' decisions are indeed consistent (paragraph 29).
|
| | |
| (i) | We recommend that the Government fulfill its commitment to consult on procedure rules for rights of way inquiries (paragraph 30).
|
| | |
| PROCEDURE AND CONDUCT OF INQUIRIES
|
| | |
| (j) | We recommend that the Inspectorate aims to case manage an increasing proportion of cases with Inspectors being allocated to a case at the earliest possible date. There are clear advantages for the Inspector, the parties to the inquiry and, ultimately, the quality of decision made. We anticipate that, as the Inspectorate's computer-based systems are introduced, it should become easier to do this (paragraph 33).
|
| | |
| (k) | We stress that it remains the responsibility of the Inspector to ensure that parties without legal representation at an inquiry are not disadvantaged (paragraph 36).
|
| | |
| (l) | We recommend that the Government fund a more extensive Planning Aid Scheme so that assistance can be offered to parties without access to representation at the larger inquiries (paragraph 37).
|
| | |
| RECRUITMENT, PAY AND CONDITIONS
|
| | |
| (m) | We urge both sides to seek a swift resolution to the pay dispute (paragraph 40).
|
| | |
| (n) | We expect that the actions proposed by the Inspectorate to increase diversity amongst its staff will be acted upon. Furthermore, we recommend that other bodies involved with planning, including the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, work to ensure that all sections of the community have the opportunity to join the planning profession (paragraph 42).
|
| | |
| TRANSPARENCY AND TECHNOLOGY
|
| | |
| (o) | We found that the Inspectorate's approach to providing information was a reticent one and we are concerned that it retains the attitude of "a very secretive organisation". It is critical that the Inspectorate overcomes this reluctance to embrace openness and transparency of operation if it is to satisfy the public that it is operating in a fair and professional manner (paragraph 45).
|
| | |
| (p) | We have examined the Inspectorate's re-launched web-site and were rather disappointed by the absence of many categories of useful information which could be made available. In particular, we can see no good reason for the following not to be included in the web-site:
|
| COMPLAINTS: OPTIONS TO DEAL WITH JUSTIFIED AND SIGNIFICANT COMPLAINTS
|
| | |
| (q) | It is unacceptable that there is no ready and accessible mechanism to correct errors made by Inspectors in their final decisions, short of Judicial Review in the High Court. We recommend that primary legislation be introduced to allow a planning appeal to be re-opened where a material error is discovered or may have occurred. (Paragraph 55).
|
| | |
| COMPLAINTS: THE WAY THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE DEALS WITH COMPLAINTS
|
| | |
| (r) | We are concerned about the misclassification of complaints as 'unjustified' and recommend that the Advisory Panel on Standards for the Inspectorate return to this issue in their next report (paragraph 56).
|
| | |
| (s) | The attitude of the Inspectorate to complaints and complainants in practice is inappropriate and unjustifiably high-handed. Although the Inspectorate has limited options for dealing with complaints, there can be no excuse for the Inspectorate not admitting where it has been at fault, or not giving a complete response to a complaint. We recommend that the Inspectorate work to establish a better attitude to complainants along with greater transparency and openness in responding to complaints (paragraph 61).
|
| | |
| (t) | We recommend that the Inspectorate be set a target of responding substantively to all complaints within 14 days. It should keep a register of the cases in which it fails to achieve this target along with details of the reasons for failure. The Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate should examine this register as part of their annual reporting procedures (paragraph 62).
|
| | |
| QUALITY CONTROL
|
| | |
| (u) | The primary method of assessing quality in the Inspectorate should be by re-visiting decisions to check for errors. The Inspectorate's own internal checking process represents a rigorous test and the Government should publish targets for the error-rate discovered. It is clear that the target for 99% of the Inspectorate's work to be free of justified complaint gives no measure of the quality of Inspectors' work. Nevertheless, we recommend that the 99% target is applied separately to at least the 12 main types of work undertaken by the Inspectorate and the 3 types of procedure (written representations, hearings and inquiries) for both significant and insignificant justified complaints (paragraph 68).
|
| | |
| (v) | We recommend that three additional steps be taken to aid quality control: Inspectors should be required to make site visits to a sample of developments one year after their completion. This should enable Inspectors to gain a clear idea of the implications of their decisions and any possible improvements in the wording of decisions. We also recommend that a comments form be distributed to all participants at the start of each inquiry, to encourage greater feedback on both procedural and substantive matters. Finally, we recommend that customer surveys are undertaken in relation to rights of way cases (paragraph 69).
|
| | |
| THE ROLE OF OTHER BODIES: THE GOVERNMENT OFFICES
|
| | |
| (w) | We recommend that the Government publish timetabling targets for the Government Offices' handling of call-in decisions. To meet these targets, it may be necessary for the Government to assist the Offices with resources and expertise. We welcome the Government's commitment to including full details of called-in applications and their status on the DETR website as this will assist in checking adherence to these targets (paragraph 73).
|
| | |
| (x) | We do not consider that the use of strict criteria for call-in decisions is either desirable or necessary. However, we recommend that the Government provide clearer information about call-in decisions and, whenever a case is considered for call-in, that a statement is issued making clear the reasons for the decision, whether or not a call in takes place. The criteria for calling in an appeal should be set out clearly as part of the next revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 (paragraph 75).
|
| | |
| (y) | We recommend that the Government's Regional Offices provide a consistent approach to the level of detail offered in response to local plans (paragraph 76).
|
| | |
| THE ROLE OF OTHER BODIES: LOCAL AUTHORITIES
|
| | |
| (z) | We recommend that there be placed upon local planning authorities a statutory requirement to provide the same level of publicity for appeals as is already required for planning applications (paragraph 77).
|
| | |
| (aa) | We recommend that local authorities should usually provide free photocopying of documents for public inquiries. Charges should never exceed five pence per sheet (paragraph 78).
|
| | |
| THE ROLE OF OTHER BODIES: THE ADVISORY PANEL ON STANDARDS FOR THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE
|
| | |
| (bb) | We do not believe that the Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate is providing adequate scrutiny of the work of the Planning Inspectorate. The members of the panel should be paid for their work and encouraged to devote more time to the role. Most importantly, APOS should be expanded to include at least two other members drawn from outside of the planning profession. The expansion of the panel should be accompanied by increased resources and the panel should examine at least 10% of all complaints made to the Inspectorate every year (paragraph 83).
|
| | |
| THE FUTURE OF THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE: THE THIRD PARTY RIGHT OF APPEAL
|
| | |
| (cc) | We find the arguments for a third party right of appeal convincing. Regardless of the direct consequences of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Aarhus Convention, the absence of such a right goes against the spirit of greater public involvement in planning. We were worried and disappointed that the Government do not appear to be giving active consideration to introducing a third party right of appeal, apparently because of the risk of introducing delays into the planning appeals system. This principle is an important one and we recommend that the Government consult as soon as possible on the details of introducing a limited third party right of appeal, possibly restricted to those applications contrary to the development plan or are on land in which the local planning authority has an interest. Restrictions on the six month period allowed for appeals to be lodged should also be consulted upon. After consultation, the Government should act to introduce a third party right of appeal as soon as practicable (paragraph 93).
|
| | |
| THE FUTURE OF THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE: ENVIRONMENTAL COURT
|
| | |
| (dd) | If an Environmental Court is introduced, we recommend that the Planning Inspectorate be established as the first tier of that court. Any new system must be designed so as to retain the many strengths of the existing system of dealing with planning appeals. For the immediate future, it is important that any changes to the operation of the Inspectorate would not obstruct its subsequent integration into an Environmental Court system (paragraph 99).
|
| | |
| THE FUTURE OF THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE: INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS SYSTEM
|
| | |
| (ee) | We recommend that an independent board be established to deal with complaints to the Planning Inspectorate. This body should handle all complaints and be able to instruct the Inspectorate on how to deal with each complaint. The options available to the board would include the amendment of a decision (with the Inspectorate's agreement) and the re-opening of an appeal (paragraph 103).
|
| | |
| (ff) | Once an independent complaints board has been established, the role of the Advisory Panel on Standards for the Planning Inspectorate will need to be reviewed. We recommend that the Panel be retained to provide continued monitoring of the overall performance of the Inspectorate (paragraph 104).
|
| | |
| THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE NEED FOR CHANGE
|
| | |
| (gg) | With the Home Secretary calling upon those outside Government to "wise up" to the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government's attitude as far as it affects the planning appeals system seems unhelpful. It is the Government's role to provide leadership and it must take active steps towards ensuring that the planning system is fully compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Aarhus Convention, rather than simply waiting to be told by a court that it is not (paragraph 107).
|
| | |
| CONCLUSIONS
|
| | |
| (hh) | The Planning Inspectorate performs an extremely important task and we conclude that, in most aspects of its work, it is doing an excellent job. Nevertheless, there are some aspects of its work, particularly the handling of complaints, which now appear curiously outmoded and inappropriate. The Inspectorate must continue to work harder to change its culture: its recruitment practices must be overhauled and a fundamental shift of attitude is required to make the organisation a more open and transparent one. We have made a number of recommendations which we hope will go a long way towards correcting these problems (paragraph 108).
|
| | |
| (ii) | On the longer-term debate over the future format of planning appeals and the Inspectorate's role, we were made aware that there are many pressures for change, some of which may shortly require a radical overhaul of the planning appeal system. Government appear to be ducking this challenge: this report is a challenge to them to provide leadership and direction on how to anticipate and manage the necessary changes (paragraph 109).
|
