Supplementary Memorandum by the Council
for the Protection of Rural England (PI 16(a))
The Committee asked if we could provide a note
on examples of where Inspectors or Panels have not been up to
speed with policy. We would not pretend to have a comprehensive
overview of this issue. As we indicated in our written submission,
however, a number of decisions have been drawn to our attention
by CPRE local groups over recent months which have led us to conclude
that the Inspectorate and Panels could be more effective and consistent
in applying policy changes.
We briefly referred to the example of housing
in our oral evidence. There are three cases here which we believe
support our view that decisions are not keeping pace with developments
in Government policy. The first, concerns the outcome of the Public
Examination of draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South
East, where the Panel's report flatly contradicted the Government's
approach to sustainable development and proposed changes in policies
for housing provision. Similar criticisms could be levelled in
a milder way at the Panel report following the Public Examination
in East Anglia. The second concerns an appeal in relation to a
proposal for residential development at Bedworth in Warwickshire.
In this case, the Secretary of State found it necessary to intervene
to overturn an Inspector's recommendation on the basis that it
was inconsistent with criteria for sustainable development set
out in PPG13, and policies on housing provision in PPG3. The third
concerns an appeal in relation to another residential development
in Slaughterford, Wiltshire where, despite dismissing the appeal,
the Inspector attached little weight to draft PPG3.
There are three further important policy areas
where there is evidence of a degree of inconsistency in Inspector's
decisions that raises questions about their responsiveness to
policy developments.
The first concerns the inconsistent implementation
of revised Planning Policy Guidance on retail development and,
in particular, the interpretation of the sequential test. Research
commissioned by the National Retail Planning Forum, The Sequential
Approach to Retail Development, reveals that Inspectors have used
different criteria in assessing the availability and suitability
of town centre or edge of centre sites in connection with particular
proposals.
The second concerns the interpretation of policy
in relation to appeals where design was a determining issue. Research
carried out by John Punter, Professor of Urban Design at Cardiff
University, which examined over 360 appeals in 1994-95, reveals
considerable variation, which is not easily justified, in the
emphasis given to national and local policy considerations despite
the introduction of national policies in 1992 which placed greater
weight on design considerations.
Finally, CPRE is aware of similar variation
in the weight given to landscape and visual intrusion in decisions
on appeals relating to telecommunications development, again despite
a stronger emphasis on environmental considerations in a new Circular
issued last year.
I hope this information is useful to the inquiry.
Neil Sinden
Head of Planning and Local Government
April 2000
| 
