Memorandum by Mr John R Buckler (PI 50)
I entered County Planning in 1944 and held senior
planning posts, advised both County and District Councils' Associations,
the House of Commons Advisory Committee, some specialist enquiries
(as led by George Dobry etc) and, in retirement, voluntary bodies
concerned with the urban and rural scene.
As divisional Planner in North West Kent (1957-63)
the bulletins of appeal decisions were welcomed as literate technical
guidance. It is assumed that the people who drafted the T &
C P Act 1947 considered an appeal system to be necessary to help
nationwide consistency and "fair play" as new Councillors
and officers implemented the new Act, whilst in a position to
frustrate national objectives over say housing and employment
by planning refusals.
THE PAST
For some years I felt that the 1947 Act appeal
system needed review, and expressed these thoughts to the Inspectorate
and the R.T.P.I., mainly on the issues of political priorities
and the effect of the process on the public confidence in the
need for a local planning system in town and country. Phrases
on the lines of planning is a farce, and residents lose battle
to conserve their local scene, are not helpful particularly when
stimulated by non local decisions.
The current review is welcome particularly if
political priorities rather than technical competence within the
Inspectorate is the main focus. My perception of weak aspects
in the current appeals system include:-
(a) No built in review procedure for appeal
concept.
(b) No scope for the Inspectorate to stand
back on the lines of the Secretary of State's power (eg on a call
in case) to declare a matter as being of local significance ie
for LPA decision at their unfettered discretion.
(c) The scope, particularly in the early
decades, when a discussion to help the Secretary of State to form
a view, became obscured and overlaid by those lawyers and barristers
who viewed the Inquiry as a quasi Old Bailey opportunity to perform
and impress. This did not help the confidence of the members and
officers of the LPA, already under pressure to take risks, make
quick decisions, give benefit of doubt to developers and in general
expect little support on design cases.
(d) The eight week target period for LPA
decision has lost time from 44 to 40 and in some cases 36 working
days in which to complete the receipt, investigation, policy check,
consultations, committee cycles and decision issued. With all
this leg work made available and, hopefully no significant new
facts, is there a time target for the majority of Inspector decisions?
In some cases are not consultations or report procedures too extended?
I am uneasy about appeals allowed on the basis of opinions.
(e) As from 1 July 1948 members and officers
of the LPA were considered competent to issue most permissions,
difficult and expensive to reverse. Yet these same people were
judged incompetent to issue final refusals without challenge by
or on behalf of the Secretary of State. A refusal can always be
followed by a resubmission in it's original form, or amended to
meet technical defects (eg access, drainage).
(f) The 1947 Act appeal sections could not
anticipate the wide variation in the nature of planning applications
and policy. The Inspectorate has been legally required to bring
to bear the full majesty of the Bristol office involving experienced
Inspectors (though without local knowledge) on many cases where
the decision has little if any national or regional significance.
(g) It is likely, that local, qualified and
experienced officers and their democratically sensitive councillors
should be expected to reach decisions as competent and consistent
as that of the visiting Inspector. Whatever the Inspectors' personal
experience or professional views, it is surely preferable for
many or most appeal decisions to help sustain the local people
at the coal face of continuous development control pressures.
THE FUTURE
The concept of "Fortress Britain"
is dying if not dead. We have the Channel tunnel, Euro routes,
scope to exchange energy to help out peak demands and some major
industries, perhaps helped by modern technology, have gone global
(Japanese cars, British Aerospace, German Banks, information exchanges).
Perhaps the Euro politicians already see British Hill Farmers
as mainly managers of scenery rather than producers of protein.
The next few decades could not only see a much greater integration
of Britain with mainland Europe, but also some strategic planning
decisions having an enforced European dimension on the line of
the Euro route concept. Sound employment is the key to civilised
living and there could be Euro directives aimed to reduce such
extremes as where there are empty homes and no jobs, or vice versa.
The first priority for the Planning Inspectorate
should be to focus on policy issues, to ensure compatibility of
policies from Europe/Britain/Regions/Country/Local, in that order
accepting that some decisions may not be open to further challenge
if made after national debate eg as part of a political manifesto
eg to relocate some employment from south to north.
Second priority would be to lead examination
of schemes (including policy, review or update) that would change
the thrust of the accepted or approved policies.
Third priority could include specific
schemes particularly where public disquiet has been raised (eg
housing on playing fields; conversion of smallholdings to job
opportunities in areas of low unemployment; minerals; and complex
packages involving planning gain).
Fourth priority could be to act as a
professional complement to the administrative role of Ombudsman.
A developer or acceptable person aggrieved by a potential planning
decision, before approval or refusal notice is issued, would be
expected to seek review by the planning authority hopefully to
reach an agreed way forward. The Inspectorate would fill a fall
back position, but act on the general proposition that, if the
Planning Authority had followed all the proper procedures including
public consultation, and the relation to approved planning policies
whatever the origin, and been competently advised, local decisions
would stay local. For example, so called in filling or town cramming
can seriously change the local scene without material benefit
to satisfy regional or even local needs.
I am not convinced that 50 years after the Appointed
day (1 July 1948) the qualifications and experience within a planning
authority operating approved planning policies should continue
to be treated as likely to be inferior to that of the visiting
Inspector with the power to over ride and overturn local preferences.
Continuous review and monitoring of the Approved Planning Policies
would ensure (perhaps via central or regional offices) that there
is no serious interference with national planning objectives.
It must be recognised that these objectives vary with political
priorities and could change many times during the life of new
development—but that could be the topic for another investigation.
March 2000
|
